The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

they do have the *nuclear option" of changing the rules so that a simple majority is all that is required

only applies when convenient of course (democracy, popular vote & the People be damned)

[Falcon Horus]

...and a near zero tolerance for other religious holidays....

Today is Imbolc -- feast of the return of the light, in honor of the goddess Brigit.

Plus, it doesn't help when certain "turncoats" like John McCain, Rubio, and a bunch of other Repubs have deliberately opposed Trump at various points in getting certain amendments/rules/laws passed. These people were voting against Trump's policy making, not siding in agreement with him.

They don't work for him, they work for the people.

He's a dictator in training.... He still has diapers on

And training wheels, don't forget the training wheels...

[Annoyed]

Plus, it doesn't help when certain "turncoats" like John McCain, Rubio, and a bunch of other Repubs have deliberately opposed Trump at various points in getting certain amendments/rules/laws passed. These people were voting against Trump's policy making, not siding in agreement with him.

SO, dear leader is above reproach?

I wonder how people come up with this "misguided" and "totally false" impression that trump wants to be a dictator, and you like that idea.
Hmmmm.............

Doesn't mean he wants to be dictator, but it does point out a flaw in the Republican party. They can't seem to unify themselves in order to pursue their agenda. Contrast this with the Democrats, who are easily able to speak with a unified voice in their opposition to the Republican agenda.

Does that mean Schumer wants to be a dictator?

[LtColCarter]

THANK you!!! For once, I actually agree whole-heartedly with all of the above, except for the extreme laughter portion. (Might give an bunch of eyerolls about that instead)

LOL...sorry about the laughter. Just found it ironic that people claim to be Christian, but yet they don't embrace the teachings of Jesus. Am I perfect? Heck no! Yet, I try my best to not be a hypocrit! I also don't feel that religion has a place in politics. If our founding fathers intended religion to play a part in our government they would'nt have included a separation of Chruch and State clause in the constitution.

[Falcon Horus]

But there is no clear cut clause where it states "separation of church and state". It says the government cannot endorse one religion over others which is not the same as a clear cut separation.

[thekillman]

That wouldn't be a problem if the Democrats could accept that they lost the election and don't run things anymore.

Who was it that said "Elections have consequences" ?

Not sure what you mean by this, it seems like a non sequitur.

As someone who grew up in the US...and I grew up saying "God Bless America." I don't see wishing a blessing on a country as violating church and state.

It's not people like you saying it, it's politicians saying it. All the time. It's completely normalized for politicians to blatantly wear their religion in public, and they make no secret of making religion-influenced decisions. When then, is there a separation of church and state, when it's clear politicians are expected to be of the church? Obama was hated for being black and non-christian. Are the two really so separated, when a guy can't be a non-christian and not get instant accusations of being a secret evil muslim hellbent on shariah law?

the most "Christian nation in the world."

Sorry, obviously Vatican City is the most Christian nation in the world. But with 230 million Christians the USA is number 1 in population, and that's still a respectable 70% following christianity.

True scotsman arguments don't matter. Christians have been fighting over what it means to be Christian since it's first inception.

[LtColCarter]

But there is no clear cut clause where it states "separation of church and state". It says the government cannot endorse one religion over others which is not the same as a clear cut separation.

True..."Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644, "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

So, while true, there is nothing that specifically says, "separation of church and state" it has been implied and interpreted and upheld by the SCOTUS on several occassions.

[Gatefan1976]

True..."Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644, "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

So, while true, there is nothing that specifically says, "separation of church and state" it has been implied and interpreted and upheld by the SCOTUS on several occassions.

The last 4 minutes of this is where the idea of Church and State being such a bright line falls apart:

[aretood2]

In the US "Separation of Church and State" was never supposed to mean that the government has to pretend that religion doesn't exist or ban state officials from expressing any religious views. That said, the problem with many politicians, especially GOP ones, is that they really don't know much about the religion they say to profess. Take this guy who thought that the immaculate conception was about Jesus Christ.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/polit...omo/index.html

[LtColCarter]

The last 4 minutes of this is where the idea of Church and State being such a bright line falls apart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqEA03v3OtQ

I agree...anyone can believe what they want, but when making legislation the bible needs to be left out of it.

[Coco Pops]

And training wheels, don't forget the training wheels...

I thought the training wheels had fallen off and gotten lost.

So the MEMO this dreaded memo has been released but only to friendly media, the other regular media had to wait......

And the memo is a nothingburger of nothingness

[SGalisa]

LOL...sorry about the laughter. Just found it ironic that people claim to be Christian, but yet they don't embrace the teachings of Jesus....

No problem about the LOL bit. I've just cringed too many times when I've watched hypocrisy in the Church pews ~~ all pious until they walk out the "Church" building's doors. Too many two-faced souls in *spiritual* places.


I've only met 3 people during my lifetime, who have mirrored the heart and gracious gentleness of Jesus and his words. It's how their personalities are naturally made that make them seem that way. I'm just very thankful that I've been able to meet them (two in person, with the 3rd over the radiowaves). If it wasn't for even encountering just one of them, I would have lost all hope of ever staying a Christian at all.

[SoulReaver]

I've just cringed too many times when I've watched hypocrisy in the Church pews ~~ all pious until they walk out the "Church" building's doors. Too many two-faced souls in *spiritual* places.

you talking about the GOP right?

[SGalisa]

you talking about the GOP right?

No. Most Republicans I've ever met are more forgiving and "agreeable to simply disagree" and walk away.
Instead, however, I am talking about the local rift-raft that I grew up with (slap whatever political party label you want on it -- especially if it goes against whatever Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount). I think most of the people I grew up with had a militant lefty-(Democrat)-heart, since they lived two different lives in the public vs. private realms of reality ("militant" as a form of being overly dedicated). There's a phrase I've recently heard -- that when someone strays apart from the approved agenda (whatever that may be) the Democrats "eat their own". I couldn't believe I actually saw this happen in my own neighborhood one summer with a group of kids who tried drowning one of their own "gang" members --- hey, they were supposed to be on the same team... but the Lifeguard had to intervene and stop the incident and rescue the person being attacked. Wow... We had an entire beach of witnesses see the whole event go down. As much as I didn't really *care* about the person being attacked (since she resented me for being a "goody-2 shoes" Christian), I did actually feel sorry for her ending up being attacked. I only heard some screaming behind me, and that's how I found out what was happening.

So, hearing that phrase about the Dems "eating their own"... yeah, I can believe it, even tho I find it a bit shocking to fully comprehend. Afterall, the incident I witnessed in my earlier years caught me off guard, since I thought these people "liked" each other and looked out for and truly *cared* about one another. Boy, was that a rude, wake-up call.

Other incidents included where I couldn't sit in the same pew without seeing these types of people spew hate whenever they looked at me... but then, I sort of laughed (tho, sad as it was) when a certain select few got all pious like walking down the aisle with the Church "gifts".. but went back into utter *hate* mode the moment they walked out the door. Try living with that every day of your life for a good portion of your lifetime. It rots.

I learned a lot of what the (Bible) scriptures were saying about people like "them". Had similar situations occur at various work office environments. Same loathing frothing from their mouths, until they got all "Churchy" ... then they acted like *innocent* little angels... until they went back into their everyday, *real* life. I never saw them going to "Church" as some realistic event in their life, especially with the foul mouthed garbage they spewed out when they were among their own *kind* (type) of friends. It literally made me sick sometimes. Angry at other times. And sad "for they know not what they do..."

Except sometimes, I really think those people *knew* exactly what they were doing and "why". They just figured it was the "in" thing to do to remain popular within their circles of "friends".

Politics doesn't just cross over into the political leadership role/gov't arenas. It exists right within your own local towns with your neighbors playing politics as to who gets favored and who gets targeted for *torment* -- if it is unjustly done to intentionally harm someone who isn't bothering other people, except by their sheer presence of existing (harassment is a common form of that "torment" too).

[SoulReaver]

No. Most Republicans I've ever met are more forgiving and "agreeable to simply disagree" and walk away.
Instead, however, I am talking about the local rift-raft that I grew up with (slap whatever political party label you want on it -- especially if it goes against whatever Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount). I think most of the people I grew up with had a militant lefty-(Democrat)-heart, since they lived two different lives in the public vs. private realms of reality ("militant" as a form of being overly dedicated). There's a phrase I've recently heard -- that when someone strays apart from the approved agenda (whatever that may be) the Democrats "eat their own". I couldn't believe I actually saw this happen in my own neighborhood one summer with a group of kids who tried drowning one of their own "gang" members --- hey, they were supposed to be on the same team... but the Lifeguard had to intervene and stop the incident and rescue the person being attacked. Wow... We had an entire beach of witnesses see the whole event go down. As much as I didn't really *care* about the person being attacked (since she resented me for being a "goody-2 shoes" Christian), I did actually feel sorry for her ending up being attacked. I only heard some screaming behind me, and that's how I found out what was happening.

So, hearing that phrase about the Dems "eating their own"... yeah, I can believe it, even tho I find it a bit shocking to fully comprehend. Afterall, the incident I witnessed in my earlier years caught me off guard, since I thought these people "liked" each other and looked out for and truly *cared* about one another. Boy, was that a rude, wake-up call.

Other incidents included where I couldn't sit in the same pew without seeing these types of people spew hate whenever they looked at me... but then, I sort of laughed (tho, sad as it was) when a certain select few got all pious like walking down the aisle with the Church "gifts".. but went back into utter *hate* mode the moment they walked out the door. Try living with that every day of your life for a good portion of your lifetime. It rots.

I learned a lot of what the (Bible) scriptures were saying about people like "them". Had similar situations occur at various work office environments. Same loathing frothing from their mouths, until they got all "Churchy" ... then they acted like *innocent* little angels... until they went back into their everyday, *real* life. I never saw them going to "Church" as some realistic event in their life, especially with the foul mouthed garbage they spewed out when they were among their own *kind* (type) of friends. It literally made me sick sometimes. Angry at other times. And sad "for they know not what they do..."

Except sometimes, I really think those people *knew* exactly what they were doing and "why". They just figured it was the "in" thing to do to remain popular within their circles of "friends".

Politics doesn't just cross over into the political leadership role/gov't arenas. It exists right within your own local towns with your neighbors playing politics as to who gets favored and who gets targeted for *torment* -- if it is unjustly done to intentionally harm someone who isn't bothering other people, except by their sheer presence of existing (harassment is a common form of that "torment" too).

interesting. could you elaborate?