jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (101 posts)

The Democratic Party has been overun by atheists and secularists

  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
    A.Villarasaposted 5 years ago

    Nowhere is the fact or truth of this assertion more evident than in the just concluded Democratic National Convention, when the convention chairman LA Mayor Villaraigosa decided to put to a general vote on the convention floor to re-instate the word God and Jerusalem( as the capital of Israel), that were removed by the platform committee. The nays were obviously louder than the ayes, but Villaraigosa overuled them. He was booed by a majority of the delegates.

    1. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh yes I did a hub about this. I was hoping t alert my Jewish and Christian friends in the Party that they are no longer welcome. I was told I was partisan.

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      God and religion does not belong in a political gathering.
      However, there was lots of God there at the opening of the convention and at the ending.

      If some did not want to mention a foreign nation in their platform, that does not mean they are anti-semitic.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image71
        A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I did not say totally and irretrievably overun by atheists and secularists. I could imagine that there are Democrats who still subscribe to the idea that Judeo-Christian ideals and primciples are what undergird the United States as a constitutional democracy.The word God has always been part of both party's platform and for it to be removed from the Democratic platform indicated a retreat from those Christian ideas and principles.

        1. JSChams profile image61
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes there are...and those are exactly whom I was referring to when I said they would be required to renounce their faith or their political party.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No one is asked to renounce their faith or religion to a political party.

            1. JSChams profile image61
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yet....

            2. JSChams profile image61
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It was going to be removed from the party platform without their being asked.

              1. psycheskinner profile image85
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Religion *isn't* a party platform and shouldn't be.  You can be a Christian Democrat but a Hindu, Sikh or atheist can be just as much a Democrat, and that's how it should be. They should not be made feel less welcome.

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  AMEN to that!

                  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image93
                    Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You can also be just plain STUPID and be either a Democrat or a Republican. I hear both parties take ZOOMBIES, too.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image64
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          My recollection is that the word "God" was included in the Dem platform on instructions from that African, Muslim, Socialist, President Obama.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image71
            A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Obama ordered the words when the media started to criticize the Docrats for removing the word God which has always been in both party's platform over the yerars in recognition of the fact that the USA is indeed a Christian nation.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I meant  to say....Obama ordered that the word God be re-instated after the general public criticized the platform committee for deciding to remove it from the document...

      2. drspaniel profile image89
        drspanielposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I must agree here, as politics are supposed to be in the best interests of everyone and not just a handful! However, I must admit that religion does play an important role in maintaining the peace between groups, yet it can also bring up question as to whether people are voting for leaders, because of their religious beliefs or because they are good candidates.

      3. Healthy Pursuits profile image93
        Healthy Pursuitsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        +1 for uninvited writer. The country's founders were very careful to keep a separation of church and state. Recent actions by some politicos have shown that there is a movement in the U.S. to claim the government for Christians. That would be totally against the intent of the founders of this country.  Most Christians agree with the separation of church and state and honor it, but not the extreme minority.

    3. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The evidence of this has been out there a looooooong time. The lefts love affair with the ACLU and its constant assault on anything pertaining to religion should have been a clue long before the whine fest aka the democrat convention.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Then why don't you cite it for the benefit of those who have not seen this evidence?

    4. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      All I can say is, I WISH!

    5. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If only!

  2. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Since both issues were addressed in one motion, not separately, we don't know which issue delegates were booing.
    One could argue that it was reinserting Jerusalem as Israel's capital that drew the rancor.
    The camera panned on Arab-American delegates.

    With or without the word "God" in the party platform, the DNC did close with a benediction by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York.
    Same guy who spoke at the RNC.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent


      Good point....however, my impression was the delegates booed because Villaraigosa, in his rather high handed way, decided to go against the obvious wishes of the majority of the delegates.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Cardinal's prayer and invocation I'm sure rubbed a lot of the delegates the wrong way especially those who are ardent pro-choice.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Why are you so sure? The premise of this thread is pure baloney.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No it isn't, denying that progressives for the great majority are atheists is typical of a progressive. If they were honest about their agenda they would be defeated. Too bad for Obama he let his progressive side show and will pay the price at the polls, the entire party almost screwed the pooch.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image88
            Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hi there, Repairguy.

            It appears your post starts out with a false premise, “that progressives for the great majority are atheists.” Boy! Would I love to know who told you that lie. Have a source?

            While you claim to know a lot about progressives, Gallup polling reveals there is widespread public uncertainty about what the "progressive" political label actually means. A majority of 54% of American adults said they were unsure if the label described them, 31% said it did not, and only 12% claimed it did. Gallup also examined the 12% who identified themselves with the progressive label and, guess what, Repairguy, they found 32% of them to be moderates and 22% to be conservatives. So much for progressive = liberal = Democrat!

            The confusion does not end there, my friend. Among independent voters, 10% identified themselves as progressive and 61% said they were unsure. {1} Maybe Americans should be asking you if they are progressives since you seem to know more about progressives then they do.

            Now before anyone can determine “the great majority [of progressives] are atheists,” they would have to know how many progressives are in the USA. I can not find a single source. The data reveal progressives are spread among conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Do you know how many progressives are in this country, RG? If you do not, then how can you claim “the great majority are atheists?”

            Once you tell us how many progressives are in the US, we might be able to determine how many of the 1.6% of American adults who professes to be atheists are among them. How shall know how many atheists are progressives?

            It would have been more your style to say liberal or Democrat in your claim “denying that progressives for the great majority are atheists is typical of a progressive.” If that were your intention, you would be wrong again! Polls indicate registered Democrats and Democrat leaning independents are about 47% of the population. {2} For a majority, we need 24% or more of the population to be atheists when, in fact, only 1.6% claim they are so.

            While I respect your right to your opinions, your post, taken as a whole, lacks any degree of intellectual integrity. Your post contains blatantly false and ridiculous assumptions, as do the opinions expressed.

            Just the same, RG, I still like you. I would never let your disregard for the facts change how I feel. I hope you have a great night.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.gallup.com/poll/141218/ameri … label.aspx
            {2} http://www.webcitation.org/690ibz8mi

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The statistics that you mentioned in your post are unassailable when viewed through the prism of mathematical probabilities; however the cold facts remain...over the years the Democratic party have become the cauldron through which people with progressive onclinations have found  loud commonality of expressions.

              1. psycheskinner profile image85
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                This is hardly surprising given that it is the more liberal/progressive of the two parties.

                Still, compared to most other 1st world countries it dwells on the moderate to far right of the spectrum.

                1. livelonger profile image95
                  livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Far right?

                  And on the topic of immigration, not really. Most other countries' left is to the right of the Democrats when it comes to immigration.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image85
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Immigration is an unholy mess everywhere.  But it has more to do with how accessible and desirable the country is to illegals and refugees than anything else.  I've looked seriously at emigrating to four different countries and the US was on the easier side of impossible relative to the others.  I won't know for sure until everything is processed.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image64
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                What does that mean?

                1. JSChams profile image61
                  JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The progressives are trying to out-shout anyone else in the Party.
                  He is right.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You mean like the Tea Tards in the GOP?

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image93
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      10 million Latino Democrats would care to differ with you about God not being a part of the Party, esp. the mayor of San Antonio, who gave the keynote address.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image87
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Not to mention the "Nuns on the Bus" contingent.
        I don't remember any nuns speaking at the RNC.
        But they were there at the DNC.
        Very powerful.

        Waiting for someone to denounce them as atheist nuns.
        lol

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, and she got one of the best welcomes at the convention smile

        2. A.Villarasa profile image71
          A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          An atheist nun....is an oxymoron, but I was just wondering what or how that particular nun who addressed the DNC about the rathet rabid pro-abortion plank og the platform.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            She talked about women's health and the rights to make their own decisions. I didn't see a rabid pro-abortion plank; now banning all abortions regardless of circumstances, that is rabid.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              A nun who is also pro-choice....hhhmmmm  now that is problematic, unless of course she is actually little red riding hood in a nun's clothing.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Abortion by definition is a rabid procedure because it involves the termination of a potential human being...terminating it during the second and third trimester unless for the purpose of saving the mother's life is to say the least abhorrent to most medical providers. Adoption is always an option in cases of rape and iincest.

  3. psycheskinner profile image85
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Not making things about God is not "atheist", it is inclusive.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Except for those who believe in God. But they don't count. Democrats, ya gotta love em.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Why does it surprise everyone that the political party that fights strongest to uphold the separation of church and state wouldn't want God involved in politics?

    1. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Works for me.
      Now if we can get those Christians and Jews in The Party to understand that means they don't have to vote for them that will work out just great.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Have you told secular Jews about this, too?

        1. JSChams profile image61
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Gladly would....

        2. A.Villarasa profile image71
          A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @Hollie:

          I have always wondered how Jews could have become secularists at such a short time..... I mean after what happened to them during Hitler's reign in Germany, you would think that their theistic belief would color their everyday experience, including  its importance to all  forms of human interaction, including  the political and governmental.

          1. livelonger profile image95
            livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            An even cursory read of Jewish history suggests church-state fusions have usually worked against Jews, not for Jews. That includes Nazi Germany.

            Secular does not mean atheist.

            Even though about 90% of American Jews are not atheist, most (71%) say the government is too involved in moral issues, the highest of any religious group [Pew US Religious Landscape Survey]. 84% also say that abortion should be legal, again the highest percentage.

            The latter could be due to the fact that nothing is more sacred than human life in Judaism, and since a prohibition against abortion could jeopardize a mother's life (when there's a complicated pregnancy or childbirth), it should not be made illegal.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              @livelonger:

              Church-State fusions are not what I meant by the need for people,  informing or viewing human interactions through the prism of their theistic beliefs. I am also not saying that once people are in positions of govermental or institutional authority, that they should impose their religious beliefs on other people but that their decisions or actions be informed by those beliefs.. this does not mean that he or she should decide or act in favor of  those personal religious beliefs, in the detriment to the ideals of others.
              I agree that abortion is indicated but for the sole puropose of saving the life of the mother. Now we could argue about whether it is also an indcated in case of incest or rape...i have always believed that adoption is a better option.

              1. psycheskinner profile image85
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I would not judge what is 'the better option' for a traumatized child who would be the one who would have to carry the baby for 9 months.  i would not want anyone else, including the law, making that decision for me if I was in that situation.

                Forcing another person to do with their body what your church would want done is the very essence of "Church-State fusion".  It is forcing her to become a mother because the church dictates that is moral, regardless of what she, her family or community feel reflects *their* values and faith.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                  A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  @psyche:

                  The Catholic and other Christian Churches have neither the physical nor legal authority to force anyone to go against their wishes to do whatever it is they want to do with their bodies. To say otherwise is a fundamental misreading of reality.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image85
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I was reacting to the statement of what "should" be.  And saying why it shouldn't, and did represent a church-state fusion.

                2. livelonger profile image95
                  livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree. A fetus can not survive outside its mother until the very latest stages of pregnancy, so nature seems to indicate that pregnancy is a matter for the mother, regardless of your religious views. Someone who says a fetus's right trumps that of its mother says something very depressing about their concept of personal liberty.

              2. livelonger profile image95
                livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                It's very hard to draw that line. Who decides if an abortion could jeopardize the mother's health? The doctor? What if the doctor's wrong? What if the doctor subscribes to religious beliefs that say a fetus's life is considered more valuable than an adult woman's? It happens and women end up dead. These are reasons abortion should not have restrictions.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                  A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  @livelong:

                  If not the doctor,who do you go to for medical advice? Your local grocery clerk?

                  1. livelonger profile image95
                    livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Doctors disagree. That's why it's common to get a second opinion. That's the case with medical matters; for theological ones, there is even a wider range.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            @ A.Villarasa.

            "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life. "

            Adolf Hitler speaking in Munich, shortly before his ascension to power. February 1, 1933.

            Perhaps Jews know better than anyone that the fusion of state and church can have dire consequences.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              @Hollie:

              Hitler wanted to assume power and if it meant lulling or convincing the German people with sweet words about being a Christian democrat, he would, and he did. Do you think he would become the Fuhrer if he started ranting against the Jews ? Do you think people would  immediately follow him if he told them offhand that he planned to exterminate the Jews?4

              1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                @Hollie:

                If you believe that Hitler's crime against humanity were perpetuated because he was just acting as a good Christian democrat and he was just the conduit for what you termed as state-Church fusion..then I would say that you are not only naive but also delusional.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  A.Villarasa, why do feel the need to label me both naive and delusional when we have never previously interacted, and before asking me to qualify my comments? Why do you feel the need for personal attacks?

                  My point, is that when any leader is appointed because he represents the majority religious group, a lot of people are excluded. They may be minorities, but cumulatively they represent quite a broad base in society.

                  Just think, Hitler's sadism was not exclusive to Jews, but to women, the disabled, travellers and gay men and women. How did Christians feel about and treat such groups at the time?

                  Hitler tapped into a stream of conscious bias which was rooted in religious dogma, nothing more.. During a time of economic hardship he gave the country someone to blame for their personal and economic woes.

                  Take a good look around you, the Christian right are already blaming the poor, the single mother, the Muslims and the gay community for all the economic woes. I see history repeating itself, can you? And, if you truly believe that Hitler's rather convoluted, twisted views regarding the Jewish faith, gays, women and the disabled were kept under wraps until he had secured power, than perhaps it is you who is delusional.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                    A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    @Hollie:

                    I would be more than happy to admit that I am the one who is naive and delusional in this conversation, if you could prove to me, via  sources( books, documents, videos etc) that prove the validity and veracity of your assertion that Hitler"s rampage through Europe was motivated purely by his Christian bias against Jews, and as you added to the list, gays, women and the disabled.

                    Unless I am reading the wrong history book, my impression was that Hitler's anti-semitism was based on his belief that the Jews were inordinately controlling or dominating the economic lifeline of Germany in particular and Europe in general. His rise to power was aided and secured  by the need for Germany to avenge its  humiliating  loss in WWI . Hitler tapped into the rising  nationalism of the German people after what they perceived as the humiliating way they were treated by the victors.

                    History repeating itself?  Now, now don't get too carried away....unless of course if what you are saying is that we, as human beings, have not learned the lessons of  the Holocaust, and are entirely willing to go through it again  because of "religious bias"? I can sense from that thesis, the talking points  propounded by atheistic polemicists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Hardly the people I would trust to inform me of historical validity and veracity.

              2. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                HE absolutely did, not only did he tell them but he wrote a book outlining exactly what he was goig to do well before he became Chancellor.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                  A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  @josak:

                  And the title of the book?

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't surprise me at all, what does surprise me is how fast they tried to cover it up. They held fast to their beliefs right until it hit the news...Cowards.

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        See I keep trying to tell these folks that the day is coming when they will be told face to face that they will have to choose their faith or their party.
        These characters don't believe me. That's in the Bible too.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image87
          Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Where specifically in the Bible does it mention Democrats?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I remember reading something in the bible about liars, thieves, and hypocrites!

            wink

            1. Mighty Mom profile image87
              Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Ha!
              And moneychangers, too!
              Yup, they must have been talking about American political parties.
              lol

          2. JSChams profile image61
            JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It doesn't and you know that. It doesn't specifically have to be about Democrats. At the time they happen to be the best public example.

  5. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    "The Democratic Party has been overrun by atheists and secularists"

    It isn't true, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is.  What would be the problem?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it is true....now I did not say that the domination ny atheists and secularist is complete or irrevocable.

      The problem occurs when, after years and years of acknowledging that the basic underpinning of the U.S. as a constitutional democracy is derived primarily from Judeo-Christian ideals and principles.Thus the decision by the platform committee to remove the word God from the document was clearly a signaask tjat most democrats no longet subscribe to those ideals and principles.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image71
        A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I meant to say ...signal that most democrats ..

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Massive portions of the Democrat contingent are still Christian for example most Catholics voted fro Obama last election but yes Christianity is numerically failing in the US and in particular amongst educated people and since liberals are almost twice as likely to have a college education it's rather unsurprising that the religious numbers are falling there.

        Religion should have nothing to do with politics anyway, faith is a personal choice and has no place being enforced by government or affecting the lives of those who choose not to have faith.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image71
          A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @Josak:

          So are you saying that the more educated a person is, the more liberal he becomes, and the less he would subscribe to the Christian faith?

          Most people would find that argument  a bit fatuous, and self-serving if one is a liberal, suggesting that perhaps liberals are more intelligent than others. Getting a university education may  translate to being able to get a better-paying job, but becoming more intelligent, and less Christian?..hhmmm I don't think so.

          1. psycheskinner profile image85
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It is an empirical claim, so i guess there is some data out their on it.  Demographics and beliefs do interact.  For example people tend to become more conservative as they age,

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    That nasty ACLU and their attack on religion...

    http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religi … expression

    The ACLU of Michigan (2007) filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court against Old Redford Academy, a public charter school in Detroit, for violating a ninth grade student's right to wear his hair long in accordance with a verse in Leviticus. Despite the religious basis for his long hair, the school suspended him and referred him for expulsion for violating its “closely cropped” hair policy. The judge issued an injunction ordering the Academy to let the student return to school. 
    http://www.aclumich.org/issues/religiou … 07-10/1232

    The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) came to the defense of a second-grade student who, in response to a class assignment to write a story, submitted a story about Easter and redemption. After the teacher rejected the submission because of its religious content, the ACLU wrote a letter to the school on the student's behalf. The principal and teacher subsequently apologized, and the principal agreed to instruct his teachers on the law.

    The ACLU of Michigan (2004) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry, a Bible verse, was deleted because of its religious content. A settlement was reached under which the school placed a sticker with Moler's original entry in the yearbooks and agreed not to censor students' yearbook entries based on their religious or political viewpoints in the future.
    http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expr … 40511.html


    http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I must be wrong huh? Jeeeeeeeeesus

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It wouldn't be the first time!

  7. SimeyC profile image98
    SimeyCposted 5 years ago

    Isn't Church and State supposed to be separate?

    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

  8. kathleenkat profile image82
    kathleenkatposted 5 years ago

    Not wanting "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't equate to being an Athiest.

    It means you are opposed to forcing a word, inaccurate to the multitude of beliefs in this country, on its citizens. There are many Democrats that are Christian. Many.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image64
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    My impression is that there was much more diversity of all kinds at the Dem convention than at the GOP convention--religious, racial, age, sexes and political viewpoints.

  10. profile image42
    Rajjpodgeposted 5 years ago

    smile

  11. peeples profile image92
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    What don't some of you get about the fact it is freedom of religion, not just freedom of religion as long as you're Christian. What makes our country great is not Christians alone. What makes our country great is people can believe in whatever stupid belief they choose! There are tons of Gods that are believed in. So should I request they put Apollo on those documents? Should the word God be generalized or appear like this *God* with "Any and all God's that you may or may not believe in" at the bottom? When writing God on something it does not make it Christian. The word God does not always equal Christian. It seems those who believe in a God would welcome not generalizing their "God's" name in such a way and requiring the word be put on everything.

  12. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    The question is that, is there really a separation of state and religion whatever you call it? How can a politician separate his/her belief and values derive from religion when they vote in congress or make laws. It should be remove in the constitution the statement about - separation of state and religion. State is composed of people making the laws and perusing it. It should not be an issue. There is no tolerance, that is the problem. The right are stricter and are not tolerant unlike the liberals.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @pretty:

      You could only stretch tolerance to a certain point and then it snaps....liberals tolerating, and therefore encouraging  abortion  is an example of how tolerance have gone too far.  I would suggest that liberals be shown photos of fetuses aborted (during the  second and third trimester), and if they still don't find the practice abhorrent, as most medical providers do, then the the world that they populate is irretrievably lost.

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image64
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    And the Republican Party has been over-run by ignorant, redneck TeaTards who are being manipulated against their own interests by the Koch brothers, big oil, Wall Street, Karl Rove, religious fanatics, et al.

    1. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This message brought to you by the Democrat Committee of Talking Points.

      1. psycheskinner profile image85
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What's good for the goose?

        1. JSChams profile image61
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          A little more kool aid apparently.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @Ralph:

      Name calling is just not my idea of a lucid luminous and levitating debate.

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It's all he has.

 
working