the Democrats should be praising God that Trump is president...
It seems to me, Trump being president is the best thing that happened for Democrats.
He has given in on so many issues that they want and like.
For example, raising the debt ceiling, keeping Obamacare and support for DACA...
As president, Trump has done more to help democrats than even Democrats...
Why do they still complain so much?So even if he does what you agee with, you still reject him? WOW???
In the same way that he does a bunch of crazy sh!t and you accept him?
See, it works both ways.
I fully support him working with the Dems. Happy? That doesn't mean I've changed my assessment that he's an insane clown not fit to take care of my dog much less my country.So when will your opinion change if ever?
Are you so blinded that you would want our country go down in flames so you can claim that you were right about Trump...
Definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome.- Einstein.
HahaRead carefully, Jack. If Trump does one thing I agree with, I will agree with that one thing. If Trump does, say, three big things I agree with, AND stops his stupid tweeting AND stops saying stupid things AND regains the respect of our rallies AND puts forth a sane, cohesive foreign policy, AND is cleared of any wrongdoiing by the Mueller investigation, I will change my tune.
Just curious, what did you think of President Obama's foreign policy?
I thought it was imperfect but smart and rational. At least I knew he was knowledgeable and thoughtful, even if I disagreed with some of his policies. I trusted him to represent us with grace, intelligence, and quiet strength in his dealings around the world.
I have no such trust for the insane clown.He presented with grace, intelligence and quiet strength...but who did he represent? Truly, it seemed that America was the world's doormat in his world.
Obama had to be the biggest apologist in history, for whatever the US has done, whatever actions it has ever taken. No one else even comes close.
I didn't mind that so much...except the world is made less save in the past 8 years.
We have rogue nations of N. Korea, and Iran with nuclear capability. We has a growing ISIS causing terror in Europe and the US... we have a growing power house of China both economic and military...
Yet, we dissed our closeest ally in the middle-east, Israel. That is all Obama's watch. The policy of leading from behind was never thought out properly. We are all less save because we took a back seat.Really? Were his apologies completely unfounded, or is it your position that one should never apologize for being wrong or committing acts that harm others?
A president that does nothing but apologize for actions, real or imagined, is not a president the country needs. A little chest beating, a little show of strength, and little pride in the country rather than a perpetual apology is a good thing.
I saw all of those things. How did you miss them during those eight years??
Pretty easy when they are thoroughly buried in a mountain of apologies. It is the overall impression, not the cherry picked specifics, the counted.
Casually mentioning that the US did something nice for someone, while talking at length of the greatness of liberal Europe, the needs of the great peoples of Nigeria or Syria or the fantastic progressive attitudes of Scandinavian countries does not represent the US in a favorable light. IMO, of course - you may disagree. And when every diplomatic trip or meeting consists of apologies for our crassness and selfishness, well, it doesn't do much for the country, either. No matter how statesmanlike he appeared as he spoke.
Obama cut a fine figure, appearing every inch the statesman we would be proud to have represent us. Until he opened his mouth, whereupon he damned the US at every opportunity. I cannot recall a single instance where he indicated pride in us, just that we had done wrong by the rest of the world.
Where did I say I wanted our country to go down in flames? I want no such thing. How in the world did you get that from what I said?
You miss understood what I was saying. I was commenting on the fact that you Trump haters would never admit that he did something good...
You rather see our country fail than see Trump succeed...
Does not make any sense?
Its the difference between having LOW standards and decent ones, Jack. Trump could suddenly start touting Universal Healthcare and I would STILL not want him NEAR my precious country's potus office. Then again, I'm not a Dem.
I'm guessing you're mad at Trump now. I was wondering how long it was going to take his supporters to start turning on him since this pro-dem stuff started up. I think he's taking up Dem issues because 1) he used to be a Dem and actually supported most of their stuff to begin with; and 2) his own party isn't giving him the time of day - and he might get some cooperation from Dems to accomplish something.
Its a conundrum. It would be incredibly funny if he manages to alienate the people who voted him into office to the extent that they turn on him - a virtual impossiblity right now. I would thoroughly-enjoy saying, "I told you so." LoL!
No, anti-Trumpsters don't want him on our side, either - because he's far too caustic and NOT GOOD ENOUGH for us.It is an ebb and flow... with Trump. I never voted for him but when he is attacked unfairly, I defend him. When he goes back on his promise, I will criticize him. That is called being consistent.
I hope all of you that commented realize that my topic title was in jest...
For most progressive democrats, they are atheists and would not thank God for they don't believe he exists... But then when Harvey happens, some of them will claim in cartoons that it is the wrath of God on people that voted for Trump...Which is it? Is that consistent thinking or logic?What makes you think that progressive democrats are all atheists? This does not smack as being 'open minded' to me, Jack.
I go by what they say and do. Progressives believe that religion was made up by people of old to cntrol the masses... like Karl Marx - "religion is the opium for the masses"
Many of the progressive positions on social issues are anti-God... such as abortion, no fault devorces, gay marriage, legalize recreation drug use... do you feny that?
Show me a prominent progressive that is religious... if you can name oneHe is the exception. Where is he in the Democratic Party today? He is AWOL.
The current leaders are mostly progressive. Where is Joe Liberman?
The party has ben taken over by left leaning progressives, headed by Barack Obama.
This president talks about God but doesn't attend church services and attacks the Pope and Israel and cuddles the Moslem Brotherhood. He is a mystery to me. How did a junior senator with no executive experience got elected President twice?Thank you! You have saved me a keystroke or two.
"Many of the progressive positions on social issues are anti-God... such as abortion, no fault devorces, gay marriage, legalize recreation drug use... do you feny that?"
Are you sure that you don't actually mean that progressive positions don't agree with what you think your god wants everyone to do? That anyone believing in a different god than you do, or that thinks your common god wants something different, might was well be atheist as their belief is different than yours?
Obama, for instance, didn't worship as you think should be done, so he was more atheist than believer?Again you are not understanding what I am saying.
I have no problem with any religion, acquiring the membership and living in a community and putting people in office that agree with their teachings. It is called democracy. If I live in that community, I may not like it but as a Christian, I believe in live and let live.
The problem with the separation of church and state as interpreted by the Supreme court is that it is too broad. Almost anything can be interpreted as "establishment" where as the Constitution is clear. The establishment clause was such that a government cannot force a Religious institution to be adopted by the people. It is the first amendment.
Again, I would ask you to do a little reseach into our founding fathers and read what they wrote about this topic. How they prayed when drafting this document... how they understood that this new experiment in governmemt can only succeed with a populace based on religious principles...That was Washington in one of his address to the Country.
For some to deny the influence of our Judeo Christian roots are just trying to re-write history.Yet, the primary reason freedom of religion as a philosophy was inserted into the basis of our country was because individual states and communities didn't want a majority from other states deciding how they should worship.
But having roots to our legal system in Christianity (as well as other philosophies) does not mean that it was good, that it is good today or that it should be continued. Church tenets and requirements are much, much different today than they were 500 years ago, the the primary reason is that the old ways of the church (absolute control and complete assumption that everything they say is absolutely true) have been found to be false. The methodology and philosophy of Christianity from 1000 years ago has been drug into the future, kicking, screaming and changing as it came. It is no longer what it was even a handful of centuries ago. To suppose that we should retain links to those failed philosophies is shaky indeed.I disagree they were failures. What would you propose to replace them?
I am mot claiming the church is perfect, after all, they were designed by man...
What is and was needed is a structure for society. Our success as a species is testament to that.
Why did the indians and eskimos and a slew of other tribes did not survive?
Christianity was important to our development and is still in my opinion. There is some decline in religious belief among the young today but it is not permanent. Religion and faith will always be part of the human experience.
If you had your way, what would you replace it with? Think hard before you answer."Why did the indians and eskimos and a slew of other tribes did not survive?"
Because a massive number of technologically advanced, amoral violent Christians wiped them from the face of the earth. Using, as an excuse, the very morality and philosophy that you indicate was important to our development and still is.
"There is some decline in religious belief among the young today but it is not permanent."
Yes, there is. It has been going on for hundreds of years now, and continues to this day with fewer strong theists every year. Not sure how that indicates it is not permanent, though.
What would I replace the demands of Christianity with? We could start with tolerance; unless an action is actually harmful to others it is alright to engage in. Same for race, sexual orientation, sexual mores and most everything else we write laws about; unless actively harmful to others, let it go. This is something the Christians mostly ignore even though it is repeated in their scripture, but it is something quite important to me. And, I think, to a lot of people.
Jack, many people in gay partnerships are strongly Christian. Why? you ask. Because there is no where in their bible it says they can't be. Your church clouds your vision of the world, I suggest.
I never claim gays are not religious or not Christian. There are many christian denominations. It was always a personal choice of faith in God. In Catholicism, we are taught to love the sinner...
No judging for you be judged...paraphrase.
Look, can you understand, for some of us, it was not about hating gays or denying them stuff. It was about preserving the sanctity of marriage which is one of the 5 sacraments.
I have nothing against people being born gay.
I was born left handed...I had no choice in the matter.
Where I grew up in Taiwan, people were forced to use their right hand to write and eat...
It was a long tradition and in fact it was based on how the Chinese characters were formed. Caligraphy is only possible using the right hand...
I am not trying to compare left handedness to being gay. However, there are some parallels
What is wrong with civil unions instead of calling it a marriage? Isn't that what civil union is and why they exist? What am I missing?If there is nothing wrong with civil unions, let the churches produce them instead of marriages. They are the ones demanding a difference; let them produce their own difference.
Civil union is a legal matter and has nothing to do with the church. The word "civil" should give you a clue.
I was married by a JP. My brother was married by me. That should give you a clue just how necessary, or desirable, a church is to the concept of marriage.
Should the church wish to have a private ceremony, not something approved by the state and with state regulations attached, they are free to do so. They can call it civil union, church union, god's union or whatever they wish.
So I repeat; if the church is unhappy with gay couples sharing in the greatest invention man has ever devised they they can come up with something of their own and quit pretending that such people as my brother and I are somehow tied to a church ceremony because they want to take possession of something that has nothing to do with a church and hasn't for a long, long time.
Personally, I do not support the use of that word "marriage," first because it's not necessary. As you say, Civil Union would be adequate for me. But for those individuals/couples who have religious beliefs, they might see it as much more than just Civil. They want to live according to their religion and should be respected for that. But the churches, especially your own, are not justified in regarding marriage as their sole domain, nor are they entitled to speak for people outside of their churches. Secondly, because marriage, and the vows people make to each other in heterosexual partnerships, has become a joke in many cases. So why would gay people want to adopt a word with such a bad reputation?
Now, concerning children with same-gender parents or partners, they can be the happiest, luckiest and most cared-for kids in the world, proportionately the same as for children with heterosexual parents.
By the way, that notion we are all sinners.....a man-made concept to control the lives and thinking of others. Nothing to do with an actual God. God is simply another human concept for the purpose of giving authority to any human judgement. You see this happening in their attitude to gay marriage: full of hypocrisy and the desire to control.
So lets take this one step further. What would be the objection to one man marrying his brother or a women marrying their sister?
Would that be allowed in your ideal world?What could be a reason to forbid it? Because the church forbids sibling marriages (although it's scriptures permits it) because of the genetic defects that arise?
"Red herring". In argument, something designed to divert an opponent's attention from the central issue....."
I cannot see the logic of bringing in a theoretical situation of siblings proposing marriage. However, natural instincts (probably biological, hormones, pheromones, or some other factor) normally deter siblings having sexual union, not just in our own species. If they did decide to have fun together, why would you be worried? It's no one else' business, unless coertion or cruelty was involved.
But, I see your twisting the discussion as a red herring. Totally irrelevant when discussing two guys or two gals having a loving relationship.Why is is off topic? I used it as just one example.
In fact, there are many others. Once you change the definition of marriage, it opens the door to many other combinations.
What about marrying a pet, a computer, polygamy... it is endless.
The same argument can apply, once it is presented as a civil rights.
Again, I have nothing against gays. I believe one is born with it. No one choose to be gay, just like my being left handed. I had no choice.
However, that does not mean I should demand everyone accommodate my left handedness. Since 90 percent of the population are right handed, I am a minority. Do I get to be a protected class? What about discrimination? In some parts of the world, the culture is that the left hand is considered dirty. For example you can't eat food using the left hand...
That is why I believe civil union is the best solution. They will get all the rights in a court of law, and treated fairly but not change 5000 years of history.
Here is another thing to consider. Almost every where you go, any form you fill out, it is one of the first things asked... name, age, gender and marital status. In some legal applications such as passport or immigration...the next question is your parents information, mother and father...
Why do I bring this up?
This is how our civilization has worked down through the centuries. Courts rely on this information when deciding custody and probate and many other legal matters...
Our family tree and other documentation also has similar attributes.
All of this and many others (historical documents) are now changed because of this one supreme court decision.
Last year, I needed to apply for a VISA to take a vacation to China. They ask for my documents since I was born in Taiwan and naturalized to be US citizen. The Chinese consulate wanted some documentation... Luckily, I was able to find in some old papers of my father, a birth certificate.
It was a printed form filled out with, name of my father and mother and my date of birth in chinese of course.
I made a photocopy and send it in and my VISA was granted.
I brought this up to illustrate, in many countries and cultures. It was the norm for generations.
It has nothing to do with religion. In fact, in China at the time 1950s, it was shortly after the communist took over of mainland and my family had to escape to the island of Taiwan. The religion of the people was mostly Buddhist. Yet, no one doubt that a marriage was between a man and a women and the a birth of a child had two parents a mom and a dad.
So, what will be the norm going forward?
What about the family tree software?
Will we have to track possibly two sets of parenthood now going forward...our biologicsl parents and now legal parents according to the Supreme court?
I'm a progressive Democrat and I'm not an atheist. Neither is my husband, my sister-in-law, my daughters, my son-in-law---and I could go on and on. Maybe you should try to get to know some progressives.
That's funny.
Would you God as sitting up there "On High," and Trump as sitting down there "on low?"
I know many. I have some in my family and some are my friends. Perhaps you and your family are the exception. Most progressives, in public life, are RINO, religious in name only...
The beliefs and principles of progressives are incompatible with most religion. They are humanists. They belief man is in control of his destiny. They put their faith in large government. The State is the answer to all our problems and needs...
Name one progressive ideal that puts God as central theme? You can't...Since that god only exists in the human mind, surely it's a Mental State.
Why do you assume things you don't understand. Are you so possitive that a super natural world does not co-exist with the physical world? Many scientists agree with me and have faith in a higher power and also have faith in science. The two are not mutually exclusive.
How do you explain the miracle of the sun...?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
You can't because it is not within the physical laws of our world.
It is "super natural" event that defies logic. It happened in modern times, not just recorded in the Bible...
Miracles happen everyday if you know where to look.Science is aimed at understanding the physical laws which account for the sun. Science is never 100% adamant about it; always something new to discover.
Yet that sun is not a miracle ascribed to a supernatural god.
I do understand that the perception of a god is a function of the human mind. Either you cannot understand that or you choose not to.
Please let me know when you are not joking. And if you wish to talk about logic, forget about miracles.You are in denial. I am not talking about logic in this case because it was a supernatural event witnessed by 10 of thousands of people. If you insist that only physical laws exist and no chance of any spiritual world, then of couse, you would reach your narrow conclusion.
Yet, you have no answers to explain Fatima. Was it a mass delusion? Was it an UFO event?
Or was it a true miracle, message from God...?
Don't forget the three prophacies that came true...
Was that just a lucky guess?
Gimme a break.
It seems to me, Trump being president is the best thing that happened for Democrats.
He has given in on so many issues that they want and like.
For example, raising the debt ceiling, keeping Obamacare and support for DACA...
As president, Trump has done more to help democrats than even Democrats...
Why do they still complain so much?
Lets get real, Jack, shall we?
Even Trump realizes that any more shenanigans like not raising the debt ceiling and shutting down the Government can only adversely affect the GOP who are in charge of both houses of Congress. Isn't he in enough trouble with leading Congressional Republicans already?
Wasn't Trump the one that gutted DACA? Just because after he exploded the bombshell and now says that they are now, nice folks, did not change his original intent in the beginning....
Trump wanted to dump Obamacare just because he failed to do that because of GOP infighting. That does not mean he wanted to keep it and do Democrats a favor.You put a pistol to someone's head they will do anything, it has nothing to do with his being moderate of considerate of Democrats. He is just as troublesome for us now as he was in the first day of his Presidency. I am only relieved that his machinations had failed so far, not that see has seen things in a new light.
So let me understand... regardless of the outcome of all these policies, immigration, healthcare, debt..., you won't accept Trump even if he goes along with what democrats wanted?
WOW, that is an eye opener...From his stated position on things, if these things go as the Democrats want it, it will be in spite of Trump and not because of him.
Credence,
Here is my prediction.
Our country will continue on this path to insolvency and destruction...with the help of both Democrats and Republican RINO, and we conservatives can only sit by and watch...and possibly say "I told you so"... sad
He is not keeping Obamacare. He is sabotaging it by refusing to commit to paying for the subsidies, which is why many health insurance companies are adding a Trump premium. It's also why Virginia just lost all insurers in the majority of counties in the state.
He does not support DACA. He just killed it, which is not a sign of support.
Trump doesn't control the debt ceiling. Congress does. Both parties have voted repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling in recent years. So his involvement doesn't mean anything.The health exchanges were failing long before Trump was elected president.
With regard to DACA, he is trying to make it right. Obama instituted a temporary solution knowing full well it was unConstitutional.
The debt ceiling is a joke. There was never a ceiling. We are spending like a drunker sailor until the whole thing crashes down...which it will. Mark my words. Economic laws are not to be broken.Fox News has been saying that ACA is failing since the day the law passed. Yet it's still alive 8 years later, even under a Republican president and Congress. And doctors, hospitals and insurance companies want to keep it as well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapse … 2f7eb26ece
Regardless, I was addressing your comment that Trump is "keeping" Obamacare, which he is not.Trump had no choice. It was Congress that did not pass the repeal, in specific a few Senator like John McCain.
All the people I know does not like ACA. In my personal case, I am paying more premiums, a higher deductible and less coverage. How is that good for 90% of Americans like me?
I understand some who didn't qualify before or couldn't afford insurance are now covered with subsidies. Couldn't that be achieved some other way? For example, expand medicaid...?
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump are donating $1 million to 12 charities involved in Harvey relief efforts. The White House says the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse and Reachout America will share $800,000 of the donation. The Trumps are giving $25,000 each to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Catholic Charities, Direct Relief, Habitat for Humanity, Houston Humane Society, Operation Blessing, Portlight Inclusive Disaster Strategies and Team Rubicon.
That's all? How does that compare to the Bill and Melinda Gates donations? And you do know these donations are tax deductible, eh Jack?
It's been all over the Internet, and I'm sure it's on TV too, that Trump has backed out of his donation to Harvey victims/charities like he has always backed out of promised donations before. The man is a liar and has a reputation to uphold. He is painfully careful never to tell the truth, except when he says he's going to cut spending. That he follows through on, especially if it involves the elderly, children, poor people, veterans, or a combination thereof.
Further, your list of accomplishments suggests you live on Uranus. He and Mitch have been feuding for a long time over ObamaCare and in Trump's so-called mind, for lack of a more accurate word, it still isn't settled, and so he continues to heap demeaning names on McConnell.
This is my last word on this subject so don't waste your time trying to call me names, etc. Just do some research for yourself beyond Breitbart, Fox, and Info Wars and you may just learn some truth -- if you have that ability.
"So even if he does what you agee with, you still reject him? WOW???" It's called principles, standards, character. Any of these ring a bell? Even in politics? Conservatives, the American Christian Right, is supposed to be about these things. Remember?
Sure, that is my position and why I am against these latest changes in Trump. What baffles me is why the democrat opposition is still angry at him? They should be overjoyed...
PrettyPanther: These folks see just another politician in the White House. You can't help them see anything differently. They put Trump in the same category as every other president. You can't get them to see the difference because they are responsible for this debacle and don't want to see it.
Btw, I forgot to mention the most important piece. Progressives does not believe our nation was founded based on a Christian philosophy...that is why they perverted the interpretation of the Constitution of the separation of church and state to mean removing any reference to God from the public square. Do you even know what is meant by the true meaning of separation? Please look it up...
Got to go with SCOTUS here - using public monies and space to exhibit icons from one religion, while prohibiting those of any or all other religions, seems far too much like "establishing a religion". Something the constitution specifically denies that the federal government can do.
No it doesn't and the same goes with playing Christmas tunes on radio or in Christmas shows in public schools. It is "popular" among the people in the community. It is not establishing anything of the sort.
A state religion is like they have in Germany and the UK which is what our founders were trying to avoid. They prayed at every meeting...don't tell me about separation of church and and state as interpreted by the Supreme court. They get somethings wrong in the past and they got this one wrong.Wilderness, by the way, I just returned from a trip to Annapolis, the naval military academy in Maryland. They have a beatifil Chapel on Campus with a cross on top. Is that establishing a religion? Guess what, they have services there of every major denomination including Christians, Moslems and Jews.
Do you think a building like that would be build any where in a public space today? I don't think so. So what changed?The issue, Jack, is "establishment", people are free to believe and worship as they want or not want. There is a difference in that and having teachers indoctrinate my children in their religious dogma in public schools.
I wrote a hub about that, maybe you might do me the honor and have a look and see if I am reasonable in my interpretation?Sure, what is the title of your hub?
My hub explain the basics of our Constitution - American Civics 101https://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progr … rican-Life
Mentioning God in a commencement address is not proselytizing or indoctrination. I think that Wilderness makes the distinction in his comment quite well
By the way, teachers are not there to indoctrinate. They are there to teach.
Praying on a football field is not indoctrinating. It is an optional and free exercise. No one is compelled to pray. An atheists would not know how to pray...
The same goes with giving a speech at a graduation. Why is a person not allowed to mention God which he believes to have influence in his live...?
These are all decrees made up by unelected judges who are liberal and atheists and are members of the ACLU, a communist organization. Did you know that?.in·doc·tri·nate
[inˈdäktrəˌnāt]
VERB
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically:
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash · propagandize · proselytize · reeducate · persuade · convince · condition · program · mold · discipline · instruct · teach · train · school · drill · instill · inculcate
When a teacher assumes the existence of their personal definition of a god, and passes that assumption to a classroom of children that look to that teacher as a fount of knowledge and wisdom it is indoctrination. When the classroom (or school) puts religious icons up, prays every day, accepts religious literature as true in every respect and either refuses to discuss or demeans any knowledge contrary to that assumption, it is indoctrination.
While it won't work nearly so well with adults, children looking to a teacher as always providing truth WILL be indoctrinated.
When you are OK with having your children attend a school teaching Wicca beliefs, Wiccan spells and activities and plastering the walls with Wiccan symbols and tenets you have the right to say religion in schools is fine. Not until.I guess you don't have any idea of how people gain faith. They don't get it from school. It is taught starting in the family from birth and then in the churches and synagogues or mosques...or temples...every religion has certain practices or rituals passed on from one generation to the next. When a person reaches adulthood, in the Catholic faith, he or she is asked to participate in a Confirmation sacrament. This is where the individual choose to belief and accept Christ as savior. No amount of school or pray or speeches can do this...get it?
The problem you described was put out falsely by the ACLU through the courts without any people voting in this. That is why we are in such turmoil today.
The Communist knew the only way to defeat us is by removing religion from the masses. Ever since the 1950s, we have seen steady decline in civility, and personal responsibility and rule of law...why? Because we told the people, man knows what is best and there is no higher authority. They don't want to be judged by a moral code. Whatever feels good is OK...is it working out? You andwer that.Whose higher authority is applied, your Catholic God or that of Allah for Islam or is it Buddha under Hinduism? I don't care about what the founding fathers were influenced by, there can be no establishment religion to rule over all of us. If more true Christians let there good example move people rather than resolving to twisting arms, people may pay more attention.
From my standpoint, I don't have a lot of positive things to say about the 1950's.
In case you don't know your history, Judaism and Christianity and Muslims all share the believe in the same God Yahweh...
The 10 commandment is the bases of all our laws - that is why it is displayed on the outside of the Supreme Court building...
Your interpretation of our founding is very different than most.
You seem to believe our founding was nothing special...anyone could have done it? Did the eskimos or the indians or the tibet people or the africans come up with a similar document? No. Why not?
If you read my hub, you would understand how the state, the church and the family are interconnected to form a strong bond. This is unique to our country. Before us, there were only Kings and dictators and war lords and Pharaohs...
I wish I could teach you American Civics...
How is it that a first generation immigrant knows more about our country than one that is born here?
Haha, such is life...I have a BA in History, trust me, I know all about it. Your positions are ideologically based and not necessary the truth. I read your article and it was pretty neutral and the points that were not, I made note of...
And Yes, given the appropriate circumstances, any group of men could have founded this republic.Really? Where did you get that idea? Where is any evidence? I am curious... can you imagine another scenario where a group of highly educated individuals, came together and debated and toiled over the words to come up with the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well if they fail, they will probably loose their life and fortune?
I can't to be honest. Also, it was George Washington, who believed that our country was founded with divine guidance. You do know he was a Mason of the highest order. There are paintings of Washington dressed up in full regalia...
For a doument like our Constitution, being only 8000 words or so, lasting over 200 years with very little revision is also pretty amazing. They had the insight to put in an amendement process by which our guiding principles can change with time...
As a history major, I am curious how much did you learn about our founding fathers? Have you read their personal letters? How they felt at the time? All this stuff is readily available.
We have plenty of museums that preserved our history. They did so mainly for our benefit. It was Benjamin Franklin that established the first library and the post office...
How many civilizations in the history of the earth, in a short 150 years rose from obscurity to the most powerful nation on earth? How many civilizations, created wealth that is unsurpassed? And produced the most wealthy middle class? Where did that come from? Not from socialism or fuedalism or any of th other forms of economics. It was Adam Smith and the adoption of capitalism that allowed people to create wealth. I can go on and on...
"No amount of school or pray or speeches can do this...get it?"
You might have a case...did the Catholic church not teach religious beliefs in their schools. Did the Mormon church not provide places of religious thought and teaching next door to high schools so their children could be taught "correctly". Were there not constant attempts to teach religious (primarily Christian) dogma in schools. Given that these thing occur, I'd have to think that religious leaders find schools a fine way to indoctrinate children into their belief system.
"Because we told the people, man knows what is best and there is no higher authority. "
And you might have a case here if the vast majority of people in the US were not theists. If Christian history were not filled with blood, pain and anguish. As it is, it would seem that man's authority and morals have drug the church, kicking and screaming, into a future they did not want but are gradually being forced to accept as "right".My point is you can do all kinds of indoctrination and still end up with a non believer. The same goes the other way. Under 80 years of communist rule in Russia, where religion was banned, guess what, some people still believe and since the fall of the soviet empire, the Russian Orthodox church is making a come bsck in Russia....how come?
Like I said, faith comes from within. It cannot be coerced.Of course you can. But that doesn't change that indoctrinating school age children, children of parents that don't want their children taught myth as fact, works. And is illegal in this country.
Yes, and by removing God from our schools... are society better off today? Be honest...we have an illiterate population, with increased teen pregnancies, 800,000 abortions performed annually, many cannot read or write... all because of secular policies which control the public schools and teachers unions...
Convince me we are better off?
Well I considered this believe in man caused climate change to be a religion. Doesn't Al Gore preaches this in our schools with his documentary? I guess you are OK with that...
It is science, Jack cmon, do all you right wing types still believe that the moon is made of green cheese because Jesus told you so?
What science would that be? I thought you said you want to use your own brain to decide and not be indoctrinated by teachers and clergy?
You have been sold a bill of goods with regard to climate change. I wrote about it in my hub and debated doc_snow here on hubpages. Check out my hub and you tell me if the science is really settled...
"Climate change predictions how accurate are they?"
Do you view climate change as a belief in a god? If not, it has exactly zero to do with government promotion of religion or religious beliefs.
re·li·gion
[rəˈlijən]
NOUN
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
While it is a popular tactic to call anything we don't like or agree with "religion" it is not true and does not come even close to the meaning assigned to the term in the constitution.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZakA_al0c
It is not me...many in the scientific community believe that global warming is a form of religion.Right. By definition, then, they think global warming is a god - some new form of theology. Don't be silly.
It is not that they belief in a higher power... it is their behaivior is very similar to people of faith... they accept some things as gospel... for example increased CO2 lead to warming... "greenhouse effect" even though data does not correlated with increasing CO2 concentration... the eco system is very complex. In some historical records, it definitely show the CO2 lagging warming. Which leads some to believe that CO2 concentration depends on temperature, not the other way around. Which came first?
Playing christmas carols on the radio has zero to do with government. And you're assuming that christmas plays in schools have a religious overtone, and they do...to the believers that assign that meaning to Christmas. As a non-believer I assure you that such a meaning is singularly lacking to those that don't - it is a time of good cheer, giving and love, without the religious overtones that others give.
But that cannot be said of a plaque saying we shall worship the Christian god, or of a white, bearded man nailed to a cross. These are very plainly religious tokens and government has no business promoting them.
Places of worship on government land - the military does right in providing chapels for it's members as many have nowhere else to go, they are multi-denominational and religion is very important to some members of the military. It works for hospitals for the same reason, and even such places as airports where some people need the comfort of a spiritual counselling when flying.
On the other hand, dedicated foot washing stations in airports for Muslim cabbies is out of line, just as the ten commandments or religious statues are. Requiring government officials to sit through a prayer is similarly out of line - the members that want a prayer can do so in private before attending.
In such cases the SCOTUS is 100% correct - promoting one religion, Christian or otherwise, or even theism in general, is NOT the business of our government.You are missing the point. No one is promoting the religion. You cannot force anyone to believe. That is why I brought up the example of the christmas songs on radio. It is something that the majority of the listener enjoy and tune in to listen. The same goes with Christmas shows in schools. The majority of the people in the school are Christians. In nyc, most of the teachers are Jewish. That is why they close the school during high holy days. There is not enough teachers to be at school to keep the doors open... The Chapel in Annapolis was built at a time when the majority of the people were Christian and the Supreme Court did not weigh in on this until the 1950s when the ACLU and the American Humanists got involved with the courts. They forced the interpretation of separation of Church and state to mean completely opposite what the founders intent. They wanted the government to stay out of religion not the other eay around. Please read your history and the writing of some of our founders in their own words. God and religion was central to their lives. They believed in divine guidance that created our nation...where is the secular nature that people today are forcing down our throat. They are rewriting history...
Also, the 10 commandments appeared on the building of the Supreme Court. Why is that?
Because Christianity had a much strong hold on this country in the past. A past where women couldn't vote, gays couldn't marry and blacks were slaves.
The church was also instrumental in prohibition, in passage of blue laws and in teaching religion in schools. Doesn't make any of it ethical or legal, though.I get that but that is our history like it or not. Our founders found a clever way to allow for change. Why did slaves get abolished?
Why did women allowed to vote?
We live in an imperfect world. we try to make the best of it given the circumstance.
Hopefully, with time, we learn from our past and grow as a people.
We cannot judge people from past generations using our current guidelines.
Yes, Washinton and Jefferson own slaves. Thst does not make them bad people. They found a new nation that became extremely successful. They put in measures for the possibility of change and evolution and allowed the abolution of slaves 80 years later.
What, then, do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means? Do you think it means going through the back door to push Christianity on the population, as long as laws are not passed to force it legally? Does it mean as long as there are no laws requiring it, mandatory schooling can include religious teachings? Does it mean that laws can be written to follow scripture, and for no more reason than it is scriptural, just as long as God is not mentioned?
Or does it mean that govt. may not "respect" (have an official) religion, and that each and every one may worship and believe (including atheism for parent AND child) as they wish?You are confusing religion with policy. I read the Constitution literally just what it means. Words have meaning...Establishing to me means creating a State Religion like the Church of England which we faught a war to escape from. No one in the religion community wants the Government to create a state church. That is freedom of religion... got it?
Now with respect to policy, such as abortion and gay rights...the churches all have some rules in this matter. However, that is not what the government should follow. It should be debated and voted on by the Congress and laws enacted... It was never intended for 9 apointed justices to rule in this crucial issues that affect all Americans.
I hope you see the difference. The Catholic church is against abortion on religious grounds. Abortion as a legal matter depends on many factors and some are based on medical considerations. When does life begin? And when does our rights begin? Does a fetus in a mother's womb have basic rights just like any individual person?
These are the questions that science and medial profession can provide guidance. We are now considering giving rights to AI robots... the Constitution and the church have no guidance on this...robots did not exist in our history.
These are ethical questions to be debated, not interpreted..."That is freedom of religion... got it?"
I got it, but I don't think you do. It also means Catholicism. It means Christianity cannot be required by government. It means no laws created solely because of Christianity. It means no govt. Islam, no govt. satanism, no govt. required Buddhism. It means govt. cannot uphold ANY religion over any other.
"It should be debated and voted on by the Congress and laws enacted... It was never intended for 9 apointed justices to rule in this crucial issues that affect all Americans."
Except the the small matter that it was decided 200 years ago, with the constitution. Catholics may be against gay marriage as a matter of God's instructions, and that's fine. For Catholics, but govt. is not Catholic. And for others, well, Catholics don't have the right to force their god's rules on anyone but themselves.
When human life begins is not an ethical question. It is a definition question, and Catholics may not, once more, decide for everyone else what the definition is. Only for themselves, as they think their god wants them to. You, in fact, say it yourself: "The Catholic church is against abortion on religious grounds." But in this country "religious grounds" do not make law no matter how badly Catholics might wish it did.
For the life of me, I cannot understand what is so hard to understand about freedom of religion. You yourself would hate to see, say, Islam providing the laws of the nation. But you don't seem to understand how the Catholic church is just as abhorred by those not of that religion and refuse to acknowledge any reason your church cannot make law to match it's interpretation of it's holy scripture. I don't get that. As far as the rest of us are concerned the laws of Catholicism are no better than those of Islam; either one is based on myth that is known to be false. Just as Islam is for you.You are still not getting it. Am I not speaking in English?
No one is supporting enforcing a religion on the populace.
It is decided by we the people...as it should.
On the question of gay rights, it should have been a decision by the majority of the people.
If the majority of the voting citizens, regardless of their religion, decided it is a good thing, so be it.
It should not be decided by the Supreme court. Their job is to decide if a law is Constitutional or not?
The way it suppose to work is this...
1. people votes for representatives and senators that agree with their positions on various issues...
2. They go to Washingon and pass laws that reflects what their constituents want...
3. The Supreme court may weigh in and decide whether a particular law is Constitutional or not.
4. If not, the Congress may choose to rewrite the law...
On some bigger issue, some may want to initiate an Amendment to the Constitution. This will require 2/3 votes and 3/4 of the States... a much higher bar to cross...by design. We don't want a popular vote to change the Constitution willy nilly...
I would put the abortion issue on the same level as gay marriage. It is a question of when does life begin. If you think it begins at conception, it may mean one way. If you think it begins at birth it is totally different. Because, a life would be protected by the Constitution, under equal justice and the bill of rights would apply to the fetus in the womb...depending how we see it...It is decided by we the people...as it should.
On the question of gay rights, it should have been a decision by the majority of the people.
If the majority of the voting citizens, regardless of their religion, decided it is a good thing,
So, I should of waited for the majority of the Southern Legislature and southerners to decide the question of Jim Crow? If we waited for them, we would still be in chains. I don't want the rights of the minority to be subject to the vote of the minority, that is why the Bill of Rights was created.
----------------------------------------------------
It should not be decided by the Supreme court. Their job is to decide if a law is Constitutional or not?
The way it suppose to work is this...
There is the issue of 14th amendment equal protection of the law that rises to the level of Court involvement, even for gays.
It is called the right of Judicial Review...
--------------------------------------
On some bigger issue, some may want to initiate an Amendment to the Constitution. This will require 2/3 votes and 3/4 of the States... a much higher bar to cross...by design. We don't want a popular vote to change the Constitution willy nilly...
I support the concept of the Amending to the Constitution as it stands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would put the abortion issue on the same level as gay marriage. It is a question of when does life begin. If you think it begins at conception, it may mean one way. If you think it begins at birth it is totally different. Because, a life would be protected by the Constitution, under equal justice and the bill of rights would apply to the fetus in the womb...depending how we see it...
And if by popular vote, it was determined that life began at birth, could you accept that or would you revert to more 'willy nilly'?I said I would accept it even if I disagree with it on a personal level. I never claim I could get everything I wanted. I do want the issue debated and voted on. 9 Appointed justices can get many issues wrong. They are human after all. Only God is perfect.
"Am I not speaking in English?"
No. No, you're not. You're speaking "religiousspeak", wherein everything in your religion is assumed true, everything else is assumed false, and you have a mandate from God to force others into the lifestyle you choose for yourself.
"On the question of gay rights, it should have been a decision by the majority of the people."
Why? Because the majority agree with you? Because your religion says so? Why should you, or anyone else, decide whether being gay is sinful and, if so, should be curtailed wherever possible? What gives you that right? Because your religion says to spread the word? Certainly being part of a majority doesn't, any more than it did for the inquisition, witch hunts, crusades or even the forced spread of Christianity to American Indians.
"If the majority of the voting citizens, regardless of their religion, decided it is a good thing, so be it. "
And this idea - that might makes right, that the majority gets whatever it wants - is part and parcel of our difference. A good deal of our laws, and our philosophy, from constitution to modern discrimination laws, are written specifically to protect the minority from the ravages of a majority that would control them for no more reason than that they can. It's also why the original ban on governmental religions; to prevent a majority from forcing its religious beliefs onto a minority. (This last is somehow often forgotten by the majority religion for some odd reason. Quick to dump on gays, but heaven forbid women are forced into a hijab.)
Yes, abortion hinges on when human life (not life - a tumor is alive but we don't think twice about cutting it out) begins. I can't define it and I don't any other (honest) person can - the result is that I accept the compromise the law provides.I don't think you understand how a democratic republic form of government works. Thst is what we have in the US. Yes, we have the Constitution and the Bill of rights which protects us with certain unalienable rights given to us by our Creator. In our government, we are not ruled by popularity votes, majority rules. It is a representative government. We elect Congressmen and Senators who does the actual bidding for us. If we don't like it, we can vote him or her out. However, that is not to say, a court can just create laws. That is called judicial activism which we conservatives are against. We believe in the Constitution and originalist. Which means that the 3 branches are equal and checks each other so that one cannot rule as a king. I don't get why you keep saying we religious people want to force our will on the masses. The Constitution is clear on this point. No one is forcing anything. If you want to know what that is like, go to Saudia Arabia where Sharia law is the governing vehicle. We don't have that here or anywhere near it.
As regard to gay marriage, we just don't believe redefining marriage between a man and a woman is the right course. It is not based on some bigotry. It is a difference of opinion. A better way to deal with it is to have civil unions that give the same equal rights to each partner. Unfortunatelupy, the Supreme court took that option off the table. This subject is emotional and yet we never had the proper discussion. It is very similar to abortion rights. That is why, even after 40+ years, nearly 50 percent of the people are still pro life. They were never given the proper debate it deserved. Row v. Wade was a mistake. Did you know the women who was central to that case, later became a pro lifer."In our government, we are not ruled by popularity votes, majority rules."
So? And if 60% voted to once more enslave blacks, do you think it would happen? If they took the vote from women? If Islam was voted in as the official governmental religion? Our constitution is there for a reason, and it isn't just to show pretty words.
"No one is forcing anything." (religious beliefs and tenets, that is)
You can say that with a straight face as you deny gays the rights you have? As blue laws are still enforced here and there? As churches hold political rallies while claiming religious exemption to a host of laws? Or as they prohibit religious actions they don't like, such as polygamy? As you require women to dress differently than you do, just because they are female? And you can really stand there and say it's not forcing religious beliefs onto others? How is it that suddenly it is others that must take the title of "civil union" rather than church goers that don't wish to share the label? You don't want to share the "married" label, change your own! But no, churches will try and force others to change.
And yes, that subject is emotional. It brings tears to see otherwise kind and generous people deny the right of marriage...because their god says it is sinful and they're not empathetic enough to realize that their god does not have the final, or even a useful, voice. Religion has trodden with a heavy foot for thousands of years, has maintained a death hold on too many populations, for anyone not to be able to recognize that fact.
No, Jack, I can't read your words and think that you would enjoy the yoke of Islam around your neck; why you continue to try and put your own yoke of Christianity around the neck of others really is beyond me. You have to know, and have to understand, just how objectionable it is, and just how little the spin and excuses you make for it mean to those that don't want it. You keep the chains of Christianity the priesthood fastens upon you, but don't try and extend those chains to anyone else!Wow, I must say you have a huge chip on your shoulder. What happened to you that turned you away from God? Was it organized religion or were you just rebelious, and reject any form of structure and authority? Yet, you have no problem givng in to a secular government that tax at will and waste and tax some more in the name of equality.
The definition of marriage has been the same for thousands of years. It is not just religiously based but it is based on natural and social norm. It is also based on biology. You need a man and a women to procreate and to raise a family and nurture the baby into adulthood. That is how humans survive through the thousand years of history. I don't deny there are many other forms of family units. There are single parents, and divorced families and adopted families and families formed with various unique partners. However, the ideal form is a mother and a father. That is just fact.
I have nothing against gays. They are born with it, and no one choose to be gay. I have friends that are gay. Belief it or not, there are even some gays that agree with my position regarding marriage. They only want the rights that come from being in a commited relationship. A civil union can be that vehicle without disturbing 5000 years of human history. Can you understand that? In fact, up to only a few years ago, many democrats and republicans had the same view including Barack Obama. Somehow, he evolved. Gimme a break.What happened? I grew up. I grew up and began to reason my way through life rather than taking the word of a priesthood for what is and what should be. I recognized the impossibility of what was being presented as fact and realized it was only myth. The same myth that, in various forms, that same priesthood has used to chain man for more thousands of years than we can guess. Nothing to do with authority - I have many times voluntarily submitted myself to the authority of others - but far more to do with humanity. And with reason, yes.
Yes, it has long been the same. The bond of two or more people in love, people that wish the world to greet them as one, that wish to remain as one forever. I understand that the "forever" part is failing in these days and times, but it is still true for many. What that definition is not, and never has been but for small local cultures, is an agreement with the priesthood or an imaginary god, to perform those tasks. It goes far beyond any such puny thing, right into the heart and soul of who and what we are. Even today it is treated that way by some.
And of course that definition has usually included obligations and duties, both legal and moral. Those, too, have varied widely by culture and location, but they have existed most places as local guidelines as how to behave in a marriage.
And no, the ideal family is probably not a father, mother and children. More likely it is a a group of fathers, mothers and children, all working together through decades or centuries to care for each other and grow the family. We won't know because that dratted priesthood prohibits it. Probably as it takes power from them and puts it into the family.
But here, here is a wordy definition you can use, spoken to a couple in a marriage ceremony: "today you will begin your participation in the greatest institution that man has ever created – that of marriage to the one you love. Through time and love you will find that although there will remain two bodies and two minds in your home, there will be but one soul to present to the world. Two will become one in the deepest sense of the word.
Marriage has been described as the best, and most important, relationship that can exist between two human beings. It is the construction of your love and trust into a single growing energy of spiritual life.
For what greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined together to strengthen each other in all labor, to minister to each other in all sorrow, to share with each other in all gladness.
Your love is the fabric that you will wrap around yourselves and take comfort in when the world seems cold and dark and it is what you will present to others when it is a warm and happy place.
I admit that perhaps I failed a little in not including the possibility of more than two partners, but it was for a two person marriage. Nowhere will you find reference to both sexes, no requirement for a man and a woman. It is no more necessary to a marriage than a god or a priest is. What IS necessary is that 2 human souls wish to be joined as one.
Good that you have nothing against gays. You will understand, then, and sympathize with their desire to share what you take for granted so easily. It cannot hurt you to share that - can you understand how it cannot possibly degrade your marriage, your union with your wife, your family, to allow two people in love to express their own love to the world? Even if they use the same assemblage of letters to do it with? It's true that your priests will likely disagree, fearing losing some of their power over the people as "marriage" goes beyond the church and into the hearts of men and women, but is that truly a bad thing?I appreciate your long explanation and gives me a better understanding of where you are coming from. As a Catholic convert in my 40s, I wrote about my experience in one chapter of my autobiography. I also have several hubs on my religious views. You will be surprised and learn that I did not come to my belief merely due to blind obedience to a priest. As an engineer and a scientist, my faith is based on logic and life experiences. I have traveled all over the world due to my job and have experienced many culture and seen it first hand. I came to the conclusion that all this cannot happen by accident, or evolution. I also write about the amazing human body...
As far as gay marriage, everything you described can be accomplished by civil union. In fact, it can be expanded to include a much broader definition such as multiply partners or any other combination that people can dream of. It is a legal definition and affect how the law is applied in cases of guardianship or medical decisions and estate settlements...There is no need to redefine marriage.
What you describe have been tried in the 1960s with communes and the hippies generation. Guess what. It failed. The best and most stable form for a child growing up is the basic family unit. These communes failed because it goes against human nature. It has little to do with whether you believe in God or not. It is as much an economic one.
I am glad we are having this conversation. I hope we can reach a better understanding even if we disagree on the fiinal policy. Keep reading and learn and share...life is too short to constantly battle. Have a great weekend.By the way, here are a listing of all my writings...
"My Contents of Hubbooks"
It is an index of my articles by category.
You can find my articles including my autobiography and many other topics.
Many of my articles are linked for easy access.
I created this concept of a hubbook.
BTW, I am not a loon in believing this. Just a few short years ago, many politicians on both side of the aisle including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had the same position I have on gay marriage.
"What about marrying a pet, a computer, polygamy... it is endless...... Sorry Jack, that line of reasoning is so bizarre. I know it's not your own thinking, you have picked it up from someone else, but it does not in any way help in accepting diversity. Your intelligence surely tells you it's not reasonable.
Ok.. If you don't want the term "marriage" used by same-sex couples, what term would accept? If you were to use a different term, would you embrace their right to enjoy all the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples, without exception? E.g., taxation, superannuation, legacy, child rearing, etc.?Yes to all. I think civil union should be the proper course. If the current laws don't cover some of these issues, just revised the law. I would support them because I am for equality.
"Equality". As long as people you approve of are a little more "equal" and get to choose which form of marriage they would like to have. Or will you relegate all marriages not performed by the priesthood to second class, calling them by another name all of a sudden?
What do you mean? Equality as based on our Constitution. Equal justice, equal opportunity, not of equality in everyway. That is not possible. We are not equally gifted, mentally or physically. Please don't confuse the issue. I was talking about rights, such as inheritance, social security benefits, medical decisions... all the arguments used by gays that they want to be married so they can have these rights...
I am saying they can achieve all the above by implementing laws that cover by civil unions. It can be extended to cover any groups that want to share their life.
Some gays actually agree with me and that the marriage issues was not important.
It is the activists that are making this an issue.I understand that. Blacks were "equal" in the back of the bus, or in their segregated but equal school, just as gays are "equal" in having a "civil union" when they want the same "marriage" as those a little more equal.
"I am saying they can achieve all the above by implementing laws that cover by civil unions."
Just as the religious can have their "God's union" performed only by clergy but providing for all the same things marriage does. Is there something wrong with having to accept a lesser title for your union, but that gays should be happy with? So far you've steadfastly refused to accept the new, lesser, title for you own union - is it because you don't like being discriminated against, don't like being set aside as different than mainstream or just want someone else to do the changing? After all, what difference does a word make if it means the same thing?You are missing the point. Words do have meaning and thus why I object changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with my religion. There are marriages in every nation and every culture and not all are religiously based. They are based on human nature... get it?
Marriage was the foundation of cilivization, a family, which became a community, which became a tribe and then a nation...the progression of human development was based on our human nature, a sense to belong, a coop to work together, division of labor, working towards a more perfect union...
Why are you so stuck with religion? Where is the separation pf church and state that you liberals claim you support...? Do you even know the meaning of that term?No, Jack - you are missing the point. You have suddenly decided that the millennia old definition of marriage was "one man and one woman", (which is patently false) and then want to use your personal definition to require a sub-class of people to use different terminology for their union. Terminology which you decline to use yourself. That you go on and say that words have power, and that gays can't use the words you have decided are for you and yours, simply accentuates the point that you are willing, or even eager, to discriminate against those you find objectionable.
"Where is the separation pf church and state that you liberals claim you support...?"
I'll give you a hint: it isn't to be found in requirements that what God has proclaimed a sin be separate from God's people and not allowed the perks that God's people have. I doubt that you will find a single atheist that cares if gays marry - virtually all the naysayers are theists of one kind or another, and, in this country, virtually all are Christian. Odd, then, that you claim it is not religion based.
"Marriage was the foundation of cilivization, a family, which became a community, which became a tribe and then a nation...the progression of human development was based on our human nature, a sense to belong, a coop to work together, division of labor, working towards a more perfect union...
All the things gays exhibit in their marriage. How is it they are then relegated to second class status in the matter of marriage?
Related Discussions
- 338
Hillary just affirmed she wanted to give Obamacare to illegals. How does that f
by Ralph Schwartz 8 years ago
Hillary just affirmed she wanted to give Obamacare to illegals. How does that feel?Obamacare exchanges are collapsing everywhere, people are paying too much, now Hillary wants to expand the program to illegal aliens. How can anyone who wants to see America continue as a nation support...
- 61
Trump Ignoring the Facts in His ‘Meet the Press’ Interview
by Willowarbor 3 months ago
In an interview that aired on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Trump gave his usual bluster and ignored some important facts...13,099 Murderers...Trump claimed that the U.S. had “13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years” who were undocumented immigrants. That claim is...
- 32
Bad Day For Biden His Voters Right Act Appears To Be Dead In The Water
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Biden’s promise to update Voting Rights Act hits Senate roadblockPresident Joe Biden's campaign promise to update the Voting Rights Act has hit a roadblock in the Senate today, threatening a key campaign promise made by Biden about civil rights.Biden's live statement to press --- ...
- 29
President Donald Trump as Presidential Candidate or President ...
by Kathryn L Hill 7 months ago
If Trump had a crystal ball which showed he might (somehow) start a civil war here in the good ol' USA, would/should he decide not to run? - wondering.
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 37
A clean sweep. The big Trifecta. Republicans win the House!
by Tim Mitchell 3 months ago
Republicans win House in major boost for Trump's agenda by BBC (Nov 14, 2024)https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9g21xqyoOr, pick and choose. Google landing page for search phrase, 'Republican win House'https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … win+house+A surprise?Thoughts, criticisms,...