This is so much hogwash that's going on in America, perpetuated by the Leftist idealogues who want to shove the Bible into a mudhole along with the Christians.
They say Christianity (they label it "religion") is "separate" from State policies, yet they allow a Muslim Imam to have charge over U.S-to-foreign policy even in the controversy about building a Mosque near a sacred piece of ground in New York. That's "religion". Or is it? If not "religion", then it must be a Nationality. And if it's a Nationality, it's a foreign Nationality and has NO PLACE here in THIS Nation.
We are so tolerant that we listen to the whinings of Muslims about their "civil rights" here in America, while we allow the rights of Christians to be tromped on daily.
I'm not talking about the rights of the Catholic Church to do ANYTHING. I'm talking about Christianity, basic Christianity, upon which our laws were based.
Mr. Obama has openly said he wanted to "change" the very foundation of America. Well, he will succeed if Americans including Christians don't stand up and tell him he's full of hogwash.
We are allowing HIM to set State policy every time we indulge him in his little speeches about how Islam is "protected under the Constitution", yet never does he take up for Christianity being protected under the Constitution.
Obama was elected by a majority of American voters. Perhaps you are calling for a change from our democratic process. Maybe you'd like this to be a religious theocracy, just like they have in Iran
You never heard him say his goal was to "fundamentally change" America?
Look again. It's easily found online or in his speeches.
Several times. It was one of the planks in his campaign as well. Matter of fact, since Ron brings up religious theocracy, who was it claimed "He was the one we've been waiting for"? Sounds sort of 'second coming' ish to me.
Please quote even one speech of Obama's where Brenda's fabricated line was used.
Easy.....as a metter of fact, he's said it in many forums and in different ways.
Of course, now you're gonna say 'transform' and 'change' are not the same thing.
I can agree with the idea that Fundamentally Changing America has it's drawbacks and needs to be cautiously done.
But, once again, as I've said countless times on these forums, if we just read and follow the constitution, it should make sense and not be a big deal:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
I LOVE the second way to amend the Constitution: it's glorious. "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States," --- it directly illustrates that the Federal government is a TOOL of the states. Not the other way around: the states can just completely ignore Congress altogether to pass an Amendment!! Fantastic!
He actually did say that but Brenda is using it completely out of context. When Obama said that, he was not referring to the Constitution etc... he was referring to the way things are being run in the white house. Thus is why their is so much 'outrage' going on...thankfully, we can see more clearly who the 'bad guys' are and they don't like that very much so they have to make up even grander lies.
No, he meant the Constitution as well as other things.
His actions since being in Office have proven that.
No he did not mean the Constitution. You're interpretation is incorrect.
He was talking about the way "business" does it's business in Congress. Especially, the stranglehold business has on Congress.
That is the "status quo" Obama was voted into office for in the first place.
it should be painfully obvious to everyone who has read the constitution that the people at fault for "doing business in Congress" is none other than the congressmen themselves. The tenth Amendment makes it illegal for Congress to pass any law that benefits a specific industry or of any specific company.
Petitioning your government is allowed - thus the lobbyists are simply expressing their free speech. It is the government that is breaking the law by giving them money.
I agree Evan, and I do not understand why the majority of States are not calling for the cacus, and inforcing their legislators to obey or be impeached at the state level. Remove them from office, screw elections and lies, get it done!
The President has no power to change the Constitution. He couldn't do it even if he wanted to.
You should throw your shovel away. You are trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Indeed, the president can't change the constitution, the document even says so.
The problem is just that the president ignores the constitution and does what he wants - just ask FDR when he outlawed gold, or Lincoln when he invaded a foreign country without a declaration of war, or Bush when he did the same.
I'd like to see the quote if anyone can provide it:
Mr. Obama has openly said he wanted to "change" the very foundation of America.
My search has found examples of "change" and "foundation" in the same sentence, but never as Brenda has phrased it, nor her implication that Obama intends to abandon our county's most important principles.
That's what I was trying to express. The illusion that Brenda has created out of context is to promote her idea of what she intended it to mean.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit … ica/gGxvrx
In this speech, "A New Foundation", as per Brenda in turn meant "change the foundation of America." Not speaking of the Constitution and he even goes as far as to use a Biblical story as part of his analogy of change the foundation.
However, Brenda would find this blasphemous because he says that we need to change the foundation, Ie: don't build a house on a the same pile of sand...build it on a rock- of course meaning we need a stronger foundation regarding the economy ie; changing the foundation of America but NOT the Constitution as Brenda seems to believe it means.
Sorry but Obama did say that in His speech and Interview, on Chicago Public Radio.
Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it
Chicago Public Radio Interview, 2001.
he talks about Judges that Legislate from the bench, not judge by the law of the land, and thats why he is stacking the Court. To make the changes through the law. He knows his polocy's, once passed by congress and senate, can be challanged in the law.
That's the only way to get them repealed or changed back. So if a Judge is loose, or as he says; legislates instead of rules, he can win. He can force the radical change he wants. He is no fool, he is a sharp man, and we are allowing this to happen.
Obama is a very schrewd lawyer folks, he knows how to play this country well, make no mistake about it. he is not after the Constitution, he is not that stupid, He is bypassing it in the Law.
A "religious theocracy"?
No, not really. Because "religion" is too broad a term. Christianity, true Christianity, is not a "religion"!
Would you prefer to see Islam's Sharia Law imposed upon Americans?
Christianity has protected America for a long long time. Now the liberals are whining about it, biting the hand that protects them.
Right now they're basically backing off, letting the Christians and Muslims fight it out verbally.
Maybe they think they can water-down Islam just like they're trying to water-down Christianity in our laws.
Just as soon as the social conflict between Christians and Muslims reaches a plateau, then the libs will swoop in and back whichever one they perceive as having "won", hoping that by that time it'll be so tolerant of all things that it can further insert its own agenda right there in the loopholes.
"Would you prefer to see Islam's Sharia Law imposed upon Americans?"
Who is advocating that? Who? Nobody in the US anywhere in the political spectrum from flaming socialist to radical anarchist wants that.
Don't conjure chimaeras to bolster a weak argument; it will backfire on you and make your argument look even more foolish than it is.
"Christianity has protected America for a long long time."
No. America has protected Christianity since its founding. Of course, it has also officially protected all the other religions, including Islam, under the free exercise clause.
"they're trying to water-down Christianity in our laws."
Uh, nobody is trying to legally water-down Christianity. In fact, the only people capable of watering down any religion are that religion's adherents.
I am starting to think that this siege-mentality among right-wing Christians is a response to having had it easy for far too long--they feel the need to be struggling against some oppressor, and have to invent one.
Christianity isn't a religion?
are you nuts? Christianity is like THE definition of a religion.
Some guy claims to be the son of god, and also, at the same time, God. Then we're told that if we don't listen to him, and do everything that contradicts what he said earlier.... God will get angry and mad at us, and he'll send us FOR ALL ETERNITY to be tortured by little demons who's sole reason for existence, apparently, is to make my afterlife suck. ...
... but god loves me!
And we HAVE to accept ALL of this, even though it logically contradicts itself, on a matter of pure, 100%, unbridled FAITH.
Oh, and While I'm on the subject - did anyone else notice how There are two people in the bible that resurrect? Jesus gets resurrected, and SO DOES HEROD!! -- Jesus can't begin his journey until Herod dies, and, apparently, jesus begins his journy (aka, Herod Died), but then at the end Jesus gets handed over to Herod.... the dead guy... here's a link showing that the bible is a pneumatic device for remembering the astrological calendar: http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/ … yth17.html
How is this NOT a religion? That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
There is seperation of church and state, tehre is also 'Religious freedom' two key values which America was founded on. Don't get mad because a religion wants to build a mosque in your country, you also shouldn't get mad when a government says it is not it's place to intefere.
Also the Mosques is not at ground zero, you actually have to walk for several minutes just to find teh street the proposed building is on, and then you need to remember that they are not even building a mosqu. They are building a muslim community center, for Muslim based teachings and activities, it has a prayer room so people can go to pray at the alloted time of day.
This has been hugely sensationalized by the media, and to me has simply been an attempt at character assasination on teh president, because he obviously should not have to make the choice on whether some muslim community building is built several blocks away from ground zero.
Christianity is protected under the constitution, the US government would have as little right to stop a church being built near ground zero as it does a mosque.
Infact any religous decesion at all would be down to the state. And that is a nasty little loophole which religous (Christian) Groups have exploited for a long time, and definitely was not an intention of your founding fatehrs who were incredibly clear that there should be as little connection to religion as possible with the government.
i would just briefly like to comment that there truly is NO "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution
I'm an Atheist or Agnostic - one of those two - and I simply have to admit that the first amendment does NOT prevent State governments from passing religious laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
CONGRESS shall make no law.
The tenth amendment then makes it a state issue:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
However, in this particular Ground Zero Mosque issue, the state of New York has a law preventing the state government from making a religious law.
Did you mean "constitution" where you wrote "bible"?
You don't understand biblical Christianity, if you'll pardon me for saying it. The entire spirit of the New Testament is an indictment of worldly governments... NOT a call to try and change it and make it godly!!!! On the contrary, it is very clear that the first Christians, Jesus included (or, the way the Gospel writers portray him, at least) were saying -- do not concern yourself with these corrupt man-made governments (after all, isn't the world run by the Prince of Darkness, which will in any case be overturned at the Second Coming), focus instead on ministry on the ground. I can never understand you politicized Christians at all: there is no hint whatsoever in the New Testament that God wants you to establish a Christian government on earth... there is nothing whatsoever to substantiate this position in the Bible.
Who is the Imam in charge of setting our foreign policy, and just what is his position in the government? I can't think of any such person...
What "Christian" rights are being "tromped on daily"? Surely the ACLU would not stand idly by while such a thing happened?
Although I dislike Obama, I do not find that he has set state policy by declaring that Islam has the same protections as all other religions. I can only assume that he would also protect Christians right to build near the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombed by Timothy McVeigh, who was raised as a Christian. I trust you can see the parallel, and will not let your own rabid Christianity get in the way of understanding the similarity to recent debates about a certain cultural center.
Umm....I could see it if it was in a Muslim country, yes.
But neither New York nor Oklahoma are in another Country; they're in MY Country.
And speaking of which, I believe it would be against the laws of, say, Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Iran, to build a Christian church there?
Or am I mistaken about that, do you know?
Oh, and "rabid" Christianity?
lol. And whatever!
I've seen Christian churches in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia and Iran have totalitarian dictatorships that do appeal to religious ideas, but the majority of countries where most of the population is Muslim are a mix of secularism, some religion, some Westernization, etc, but certainly not the kind of totalitarianism found in Iran or Saudi Arabia. So, while I agree with your pinpointing Saudi Arabia and Iran for criticism, countries with predominantly Muslim populations differ widely.
If I'm reading your intent correctly, it is OK to build a Christian church near Oklahoma City because it is YOUR country and YOUR country is Christian. It is not OK to build a Muslim building because, again, it is YOUR country and YOUR country is Christian.
Sorry, it is not YOUR country, and it is not Christian. OUR country was very carefully setup and crafted to be blind to religion - it is not Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, or any other religion. We leave that the other parts of the world that decree their religion is their country and government. Such as the Islamic countries you evidently wish to emulate, changing only the religion to one of your own. If that is the sort of government you wish, you might consider Vatican City or some other rabidly (yes, rabid - I use the term as indicative of any tolerance of other views) Christian country.
This kind of augument, which I've seen a lot of lately on here, is just the same way that kids argue.
"You hit me, so I'll hit you back harder."
"If you copy me, I'll copy you."
"Well, if they're not allowed, we shouldn't allow it."
"They burn bibles, so let's burn Korans."
Isn't it time to grow up?
There are countries where it is difficult to build a mosque, and there are churches in Muslim countries.
However America has freedom of religion, that is your country, take it or leave it.
Those who know Brenda's agenda know shes for the state interfering in individual rights. People would have no right to be gay or lesbian. Any woman who became pregnant would be required to carry to term regardless of circumstances. The 'morning-after' pill would be prohibited. In her narrow view, this is a 'christian country' not a secular democracy, and they must pass the laws that reflect her narrow religious view.
This is called 'freedom'.
"We are so tolerant that we listen to the whinings of Muslims about their "civil rights" here in America, while we allow the rights of Christians to be tromped on daily."
... ... ... we're ... listening ... to YOUR whinings... about civil rights and intolerance...
Um....how did I get dragged into this? I was simply responding to Ron's claim that Obama never said he wanted to fundamentally change America. Since I'm here....what does 'Pavlov's bell is wasted' mean???
? I wasn't commenting towards you - sorry for any misinterpretation!
That post was aimed towards the OP - that's why it is a fresh reply to the OP (i.e., the farthest left on the replies).
And, the quote comes from the OP - i was directly talking to him.
Anyway, let's discuss briefly this entire "separation of church and state".
IT DOESN'T EXIST. -- I'm an Atheist at worst and an agnostic at best - but even I know how to read a piece of paper:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are two very important words in that amendment
1) "CONGRESS"!!!! Congress can't write any laws respecting a religion. Does this mean that the President can? No, of course not - he can't even write laws (although he does regularly with executive statements and orders). This makes EVERY religious law a STATE ISSUE.
2)"THE" - THE right to free speech, THE right o fpress THE right of the people to assemble peaceably THE right to petition their government. -- The use of the word "the" shows that these rights PREDATE our government, and further emphasize that government is a tool for restricting freedoms, NOT granting them.
Anyway, Reading the constitution makes a lot of sense: i highly recommend it.
No one could have said it better. Strange how clear it becomes when you actually READ the document.
it's the darnedest thing - I don't think I ever had a class in my k-12 educational history that actually attempted to make sense of the Document for me. There was never a "let's sit down and read our most important documents and discuss what they mean" class.
very disturbing... I didn't even know the Articles of Confederation existed until after college! I must admit that I think i might've heard them mentioned briefly by a teacher once in my elementary life, but... that's about it!
I don't know when or where you went to school, but in my Junior High, the Articles (and their shortcomings that guaranteed failure) were thoroughly discussed.
it's funny how "guaranteed failure" simply means "we wouldn't have a tyrannical super government that ignores its own creators".
The entire argument that the articles would fail rests ENTIRELY on the belief that the US would have to have the strongest central government possible.
This is wrong. The articles were successful in that they kept the states sovereign, but gave them a way of banding together when need be.
If you think that this system guarantees failure, then we can both agree that the UN is a horrible idea, NATO is a horrible idea, and all political alliances whatsoever are a bad idea. But we would disagree on the reason. Your reason: "The obvious logic is because "they aren't creating a single superpower government"., my reason: "because they are creating governments that are too powerful."
i don't see how my claim that your theory of government must directly lead you to demand a stronger UN and a stronger NATO and, ultimately, a single country in the world, can in any way be considered a straw man argument.
In order to think that the Articles are flawed, you must consider a strong unified government a good thing. And if you think this, then the UN needs to be stronger. It's a direct and logical conclusion from the argument presented.
This is actually a misinterpretation of the amendment, and explains the frustrations of amateur constitutionalists. The supreme court has ruled at least a dozen times since 1947 that separation of church and state is implied by the first. You can have the purely academic discussion ad infinitum, but it won;t change the reality that governments in the U.S. cannot promote religion.
I don't understand how you can claim that I'm misinterpreting it... it's written in English, and the words you claim are in there AREN'T in there... yet, the words that I claim are in there ARE in there.
notice how he says i'm an "amateur constitutionalist" when he says that what-the-constitution-says-isn't-what-it-actually-says, and then he quotes the supreme court, which has routinely overstepped its boundaries throughout the history of our country.
Let's read what the amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
.... nope, don't see "separation of church and state" anywhere in there. Sorry.
Looks like the supreme court got another one wrong.
You are also implying that the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars is wrong...
...words do indeed have implications beyond their simplest meaning; in documents and in forum posts.
i feel like I'm in Orwell's 1984 - I'm saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and people are telling me I'm wrong.
We'll never agree on this point, i suppose, because I will refuse to to allow 2+2 to equal 5
Christianity is not a religion? That the damned weirdest thing I have read all week. Of course it is.
Christianity in its pure form is simply Faith in God (the Godhead---Father, Spirit, Jesus). It means we're not necessarily Baptist or Catholic or Methodist or etc., and especially that we follow Christ, not a particular man-made Church.
The "religion" aspect of it is defined in James 1: 26 and 27, telling us to be separate from the ways of the secular world, to watch that we speak Godly things, keep our heart faithful, and to help the needy ("to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.")
One of the first clues as to whether someone is religious or is simply a Christian is to ask them about their faith. If they mention any religion first, they're probably ...well....just religious! But if their first response is that they're a Christian, then they're most likely saying they're a believer in Christ.
Still pushing the pro divorce agenda I see.
Mark, I'm actually glad that you find my life so interesting. Anytime you'd like to know how Christ's forgiveness works, you just let me know, okay?
Wouldn't it be better to practice acceptance instead of forgiveness?
Acceptance of what? The unacceptable perhaps?
considering human nature, the unacceptable will always happen at some point, which requires repentance, without which there is no forgiveness.
Hey, where is Mark and what have you done with him??!! hhahaha
The fact that people are human and will make mistakes.
That wasn't the point.
So, if a child molester repents his sin, you'll forgive him? Or your 'god' will forgive him.
Accepting them as they are and helping them with their obvious problem is better than your approach. Your approach fixes nothing.
Useless humor. What a shock.
I see you also don't understand the word "repentance" either!
It means to turn from one's wicked ways, which DOES "fix" the "problem". Because God's forgiveness is there for him to obtain; he just has to change the course of his actions, from the heart.
But according to your responses above, you seem to be saying a child molester has "a problem" and should be accepted as such, yet he needs "fixing". So how do you propose to "fix" his problem?
And...you didn't like my humor?!
Maybe it was useless to you, but it helped me.
Throw him in the general population of a prison...prisoners dislike child molesters
You see Brenda, that's your problem, you cannot see two feet in front of your face.....
The "compulsion" a child molester has isn't held in their heart, nor are they thinking with their heart. They are mentally inept to deal with their "compulsion" for kids.
It circumvents their own will power of choice. It's like having no will to fight the urge.
They cannot turn away from it, therefore you "repentance" is false, because you believe in god, which proves god isn't even strong enough to turn these folks, as per your belief.
Acceptance of them and their problem, and getting them to step forward(most get caught before stepping up, due to a lack of will) for help, instead of going around in circles, is the best solution. Compassion for the mentally inept is required.
But, apparently you know nothing about compassion. Which, just proves you know nothing about your own religious practice.
Brenda hates all non-conservative, non-republican, non-Christians.
In her expressing this, all of those people have, in turn, decided to hate her.
She won't just accept that people are different than her, she has to push her agenda, whatever that may be.
This has to be among the most disturbing posts you have made, Brenda. I avoided it for some time because I knew it would bother me, but, foolish me, I opened it today.
This is so wrong on so many levels. I am left speechless. Please tell me there are not thousands who think as you do?
It's okay Pcunix; you're free to go back to your head-buried-in-sand state of mind. Just ignore me and take a deep breath and you'll be okay. I wouldn't want to rain on your parade, or challenge you to think differently than your norm.
There are worse places to bury one's head...
My head is buried in the sand, says the woman with the make believe friend.
I think it's funny you insult her with the phrase "challenge you to think differently than your norm" yet you've shown time and time again that you refuse to think differently than your norm.
I know!!! LOL, I just had to go and do it. LOLOL Just remember, Christianity is not a religion.
Know that, that is all cleared up they can start paying their taxes!!! woot!!!
establishment clause / free exercise = original intent supportive of separation of church and state
as mentioned, since 1947 - everson vs B of Ed - precedent of separation of church and state firm and concretely accepted (accepted via mechanisms outlined by the constitution)
I wont entertain the notion that your interpretative abilities come close to those of Supreme Court Justices.
- this is basic coursework in constitutional law
Brenda should look into the Treaty Of Tripoli (but will not, so will provide relevant excerpt)
" the Government of the US of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
For those who run a government based on principles, a church will become necessary. For others, the church will be converted as a governing centre.
The dreaded Mongol warrior Kublai Khan never stayed under a roof... he went to places, saw them and conquered them. His conquests continued till his last breath.
Like him Islamists never require a mosque at their own places... they go to places, see the places and build a mosque there. They never care for the government of the place... It will go on for ever, till others understand their designs and wake up.
i hope we dont want usa to go saudi arabia way?..M glad that religion and state is separate in usa/europe and other countries...religion should be kept at personal domain
Separation of religion from state is the only way of saving our religions. It will be better if everyone follows this idea.
Church and state are not necessarily separate in Europe. I'm sure you've heard of the Church of England?
by Mick Menous 5 years ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:“No law shall be passed...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes. I swear to Jesus His son? No.One nation under God, ok. One nation under the...
by cooldad 8 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim that this country was created under Christianity? I could be wrong, but I...
by Justin Aptaker 7 years ago
I America a "Christian Nation"? What does that term even mean?I often here that America is a "Christian Nation". Do you agree or disagree with this? And what, exactly, does that mean? Clearly, not nearly all Americans are Christians. Does this mean that a few of the first...
by Art Summers 6 years ago
Do you believe in "separation of church and state"?JFK put forth this policy. In recent days GOP candidate Rick Santurom has challenged this by stating"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George...
by Tessa Schlesinger 5 months ago
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ive-speechCould it have been because they were cynics or atheists and they didn't believe that the church should rule the country?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|