What is it about our Constitution that these maniacs do not understand? This is not Constitutional -- it's illegal under our laws, and yet this Christian Nationalist fanatic feels comfortable advocating for something completely illegal and unAmerican
(BTW, to all those who get hysterical over Mayor Mamdani and Senator Bernie Sanders supporting some form of socialism, neither are advocating breaking the law nor changing the Constitution. It is not illegal to support socialism. It IS against our Constitution for the government to favor one religion over all others.):
And Pete Hegseth invited him to preach at the Pentagon.
Doug Wilson leads Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. In a sit-down interview, he said he wants the 19th Amendment gone and replaced with 'household voting,' where women only cast a ballot if they are the head of their household. He was blunt about who does the voting in his own home. The man.
He didn't stop at women. Wilson said non-Christians would not be allowed to hold public office in the America he wants. Asked whether they could at least vote, he said, "Yes, probably," then described restrictions on public spaces for non-Christian worship. Church bells, yes. Minarets, no.
Wilson has defended slavery in the American South as a relationship "based upon mutual affection." He believes homosexuality should be a crime. He calls himself a Christian nationalist and says his goal is to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy over the course of several generations, roughly 250 years, one school and one church plant at a time.
And this is the man Hegseth chose to put in front of the U.S. military. In February, the Secretary of Defense invited Wilson to deliver a sermon at the Pentagon, carried on internal Pentagon television, as part of a monthly Christian worship service Hegseth started at the building in 2025. About 300 people attended.
Wilson says he and Hegseth have "met a few times" and "texted some." He opened a Washington church because of how many people in the Trump administration follow his teachings. A Pentagon spokesperson has confirmed Hegseth is a member of Wilson's church network and "very much appreciates" his writings.
Wilson told NPR his vision is "closer to getting a hearing" than at any point in the 40 years he has preached it. He credits the reach he now has to the men who invited him inside the walls of American power. One of them runs the largest military on earth."
52 comments:
You don't like diversity? Muslims want shari'a law (essentially like Hegseth, but with Islam instead of Xtianity). Should they not be allowed to occupy cabinet positions in government?
Oh that's right... only white xtians can be racist... and must therefore be opposed.
Idaho certainly has its share of creeps. Not proud.
It is what it is. The sick pathetic X'tian visions (as sick and pathetic as any extremist Muslim vision) of morons and the authoritarian asshat "leaders" that embrace them.
Wrong. That’s a lie. And you’re spreading disinformation to encourage easily duped people to hate their Muslim neighbors. Go sell your fear mongering at the Mother Ship. They hate and distrust all Muslims. Your kind of calumny is quite welcomed on that blog
”Private Practice vs. Law: Muslims are free to follow the personal and spiritual tenets of Sharia in their daily lives, such as dietary practices or prayer. This is protected by the First Amendment. However, these religious rules carry no legal weight in civil or criminal courts.
“Muslim Americans do not want Sharia law imposed on Americans. The vast majority support the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state.
Studies and community discussions, including those on Reddit, demonstrate that American Muslims view Sharia as a set of personal, voluntary religious and moral guidelines for their own lives rather than a legal or political system to be enforced on others.
Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding have consistently noted that the idea of a movement to implement Islamic law in the U.S. is largely based on unfounded fears and misinformation.”
Ms. Shaw, Where did you come up with the separation of church and state. Why are churches exempt from paying taxes and any contribution to them is tax deductible, they get a double pass. Why do we have religious holidays if there is separation. No even thought the great one said we are not a christian nation we bow to religions.
FROM AI: “Religious organizations are exempt from federal income and property taxes primarily because they qualify as 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. This exemption traces its roots to historical practices and is designed to recognize the public benefit they provide while respecting the constitutional separation of church and state.
The exemption rests on three core rationales:Social Services & Public Benefit: Similar to secular charities, religious groups are viewed as organizations that provide moral guidance, community support, and charitable services, which relieves the government of some social welfare burdens.
Separation of Church and State: Under First Amendment principles, taxing churches gives the government financial leverage over religious practices. The concept that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" means that tax exemption helps ensure the state cannot control or financially suppress religious groups.
Administrative Entanglement: Requiring religious institutions to constantly open their books for tax assessments could lead to excessive government intrusion into church doctrine and internal operations.
However, this tax-exempt status comes with strict rules. Under federal law, these organizations cannot use their tax-exempt resources to intervene in political campaigns or heavily endorse specific political candidates. Furthermore, income derived from businesses that are completely unrelated to their core religious mission is subject to tax
Only one quasi-religious holiday, Christmas, is recognized by the government. Christmas is celebrated as a winter celebration by people who are not religious along with those who are.
BTW, Skud, I didn’t “ come up with the separation of church and state,” the Constitution does, as did Jefferson and John Adam’s who wrote that the United States is in no way a Christian country.
Our laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not the Declaration of Independence, nor the 10 Commandments. Our laws come from the Constitution where God is not mentioned.
That is why all religions are able to be practiced in this country without interference from the government.
The government should stay out of religion; religion should stay out of government.
Aww, poor -FJ feels left out, so he show us his inner Master Race identity again.
I must say its mighty white of him to partake in the paranoid and racist white victimhood shared by his allies in the Storm Front crew, Proud Boys, the Klan, and Patriot Front.
He needn't feel left out. Stephen Miller makes it clear that it's now cool for MAGA Jews to be racists and bigots, too. (As if -FJ hasn't been of the same ilk all along.)
Ms. Shaw, You did give me the explanation of religions being tax exempt but , like charities, everyone pays even those who don't support them.
W only fights white racism. Brown racism is perfectly okay...
Religion is now an integral power in influencing government. Thanks to X'tian Nationalists and their incredible sway in the malignant narcissist and adjudication rapist trump administration.
-FJ, that's not it at all.
Others. perhaps you yourselves because you post under a variety of nom de plumes, have tried to suggest that perhaps we'd rather have "sharia law".
That's not it either. Most sentient beings know every religion has its zealots, its extremists.
But that's not the issue, nor is there an issue with religion per se, or with someone claiming no religion at all.
The issue is with an administration official showing preference to any one religion over another in what is, or should be essentially a secular government.
Sure, people working in government can have their own religions, many do, but when they impose their religion on others, through their positions of influence and power, it's wrong. When it is done with the stamp of approval of the government, it is unconstitutional.
Now, you stated in disgust and sarcastically, "only white xtians [sic] can be racist. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Where in her post did Shaw mention racism?
Your statement seems to be, to quote a certain political commentator, either confession or projection.
No. Most fair-minded Americans are against Brown racism as well:
Key Realities of "Brown Racism"
Broad Demographic Targets: "Brown" is often used as a catch-all term. People of South Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin descent—as well as mixed-race or Indigenous populations—regularly face targeted discrimination.
Institutional & Social Bias: Forms of bias range from subtle everyday microaggressions (such as name-mocking) to systemic profiling, particularly in housing, education, and immigration policies.
The "Perpetual Foreigner" Stereotype: Many brown communities in the US face the assumption that they are not native citizens, which leads to alienation and unique struggles with identity.
Meanwhile, what does Brown racism have to do with the maniac who wants to impose only Christianity on the US as a state religion?
Christianity is the dominant religion in the US, and certain fundamentalists want that religion IMPOSED on all of us.
They don't "ally" themselves with brown racists like NYC Mayor Mamdani and shout "Black lives matter?" They're not building their own Moloch Traps that empower ACTUAL brown racists? Who knew?
Affirming (or not consistently condemning) brown racism isn't anti-racism... its neo-racism If you're an "ally" screaming "Black (not all) lives matter", you're not against racism, you're partial to a particular form of racism Anti-white racism/ neo-racism
ps - You seem to oppose Christian nationalists because they're white. You affirm Islamicists because they're brown. How is that not neo-racism?
Shouldn't you support Islamicists because they're "good" or "right"?
The point is to stop making race-ethnicity an "essential" characteristic of "identity". To stop thinking of ourselves in terms of the hyphens that precede the word "-Americans" in the identity category. Or are you a Democratic-American, and I an Independent-American, and ne'er the two shall meet?
...or does the hyphen denote that "American" means "white" and so I don't want to be associated with those incorrigibly racist people (race is essential)?
Good Gawd, you're being deliberately obtuse. Shouting "Black Lives Matter" is not racist. It is making a specific observation:
Claiming that it's racism is silly. That would be like claiming someone is pro-every other disease if he/she specifically says "Breast cancer matters!"
You always seem to be looking for a way to be enraged and victimized!
Let me remind you that America can be said to be a racist country. Yes, we've made huge advances in race relations, but we also backslide each time we move forward.
Barack Obama is an example of our moving forward, and we should be proud of that. Having a stupid man like Trump and his accomplice wife harangue him about his birth certificate is an example of racism. Yes, I know, other presidents were questioned about that, as well, but not in recent history and not after Mr. Obama produced evidence, as well as the state of Hawaii. Trump never dropped his lying lies and racist harassment of Mr. Obama.
There are many documented incidents of certain members of the GOP circulating images of Mr. and Mrs. Obama as apes, an old racist trope that the KKK and others used to dehumanize Black people.
Trump is still using that racist image, something all decent Americans should be horrified with. Imagine the POTUS, the most powerful person on the planet, going after a former bi-racial president and his wife just to make points with his racist followers! That's how I see it.
Your pals on the Mother Ship refer to Mr. Obama as "Halfrican," and have called other people of color racist names. Then the Captain whines about why people think there's still racism in the US! She actually cites Black friends of hers who affirm this, then gets all upset when she hears it from the media.
Nothing but straight up BS from the fascist class of authoritarian trump cultists.
Anti-racists have no problem shouting "All lives matter". Anti-white Neo-racists do. Why is that?
I'm tired of explaining to people like -FJ/JoeCon why "Black Lives Matter" is NOT racist! The fact that you keep bringing this up means that you willfully will NOT understand. Look within yourself to figure that out:
"Black Lives Matter (BLM) is not considered racist because its core purpose is to advocate for equal rights and systemic justice for Black individuals, rather than to promote hatred or superiority over any other race.
The movement emerged as a response to historic and ongoing racial injustices, particularly police brutality and systemic disregard for Black lives. By stating "Black Lives Matter," supporters highlight that Black people have disproportionately suffered from institutional inequalities and violence, and they emphasize the need to affirm Black humanity in the face of these challenges."
If you're still bitching about his movement, then it means, IMO, you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. That's YOUR problem not mine, and certainly NOT the "Black Lives Matter" movement's either.
-FJ will never admit there's such a thing as "driving while black" until he's pulled over at gunpoint for "driving while Jewish".
Until then he will reek of bigotry and white privilege.
W will never admit that are things like "Driving while poor" and "Driving like a dumb-assed Cracker" that correlate with "Driving while black" and generally mean the same thing.
What, still no "driving while Jewish"?
We can depend on JC/-FJ to spew his racist whataboutism and false equivalence.
Also "Jewish lives matter" is racist, amirite?
”Extensive data reveals that Black drivers are consistently stopped at higher rates than white drivers, independent of socioeconomic status. Even when accounting for income, neighborhood, or time spent driving, Black motorists are 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be pulled over and searched than white motorists.Here are the specific, localized details and research findings regarding this disparity:
National Trends: Landmark research analyzing nearly 100 million traffic stops by the Stanford Open Policing Project found that Black drivers are stopped disproportionately more than white drivers compared to their share of the residential population.
The "Veil of Darkness" Test: To control for whether police target poor neighborhoods or specific driving behaviors, researchers at NYU utilized the "veil of darkness" method. They found that racial disparities in stops drop significantly after sunset when an officer cannot discern the driver's race, strongly indicating racial bias in daylight stop decisions.
Contraband and Searches: Studies, including findings published by the Public Policy Institute of California, show that Black and Latino drivers are searched at significantly higher rates than white drivers. However, contraband is actually more frequently found on white drivers during these searches, suggesting a lower bar for suspecting minority motorists.
Local Data & Speeding: While police sometimes target lower-income neighborhoods, controlling for income does not eliminate the racial gap. Data analyzing telematics and high-frequency location tracking shows that police are 33% more likely to ticket minority drivers for speeding than white drivers, despite finding no discernible difference in the actual speeding behaviors between the two groups.”
You’re WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, AGAIN!!!
You damn biases and incorrect opinions have been proved to be just that: conspiratorial biases and opinions, NOT FACTS.
This was a thread about the far right maniac who wants to take away women’s voting rights, and -FJ/JoeCon hijacked the thread and changed the subject so they could go on about their favorite subject: How horridly treated the majority White Christians are treated in America. It’s plain and simple BS.
Just look at who holds the majority of power in the federal government, the majority of corporations, tech companies, religions, military leadership, and population in this country.
But to read -FJ/JoeCon, you’d think that demographic is being discriminated against by people of color who just want to be treated equally.
BTW, -FJ/ JoeCon have been able to express their opinions here, but at the Mother Ship, where he frequently posts, only those who agree with the Captain are allowed to comment, and -FJ/Joe on have nothing to say about that.
Like Trump they all need to be fed only ideas they like. Anything else is an affront to their opinions.
From Hitler to Trump to -FJ/CJ we see the pattern.
Authoritarian white nationalist liars will ALWAYS play the victim card to demonize and scapegoat people they hate.
Authoritarian Israelis do the same with people they hate, AFTER they steal their land move them into ghettos. Bibi, Trump, and Adolf sittin' in a tree....
Shaw... as to your point about the Mothership, it's her right. 100%. The struggle for, I think you and me is this... -FJ always critical of what we say and never grateful that he can freely come here and express his ideas.
To people who cannot post at all at another of his favorite haunts. And when they carp about free speech and stuff like that, he never points out their obvious hypocrisy.
How racist is, "It's okay to be white", W?
You still censor some of my comments Shaw, although I'll admit, less lately.. I'm allowed to express some, but not all, of my opinions. If my comment is a little too on point, it never appears. Is that treating me "equally"? Should I not feel a bit discriminated upon?
Apparently, some posters here are more equal than others. Would you censor me if I were black or hispanic? Somehow, i doubt it.
As I understand the motivation of humans exemplified by our many named troll they have to be persecuted - it's in their holy book their concept of a deity can't return until every item on the punch list is met even if they have to manufacture some of the details.
I'm laughing at skud's incredulous question of "where Shaw got the idea of a wall between church and state!"?!?!?!!!!! Someone slept through civics class back in the day. Seriously skud, in the age of information overload how is it that you've never read the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I have a pocket version I carry with me as I consider it to be my sacred text. Others opinions vary so I can only speak to my own experience. Entire books have been dedicated to the First Amendment, that one tiny bit of clarity still shining all these years later.
Doug Wilson, ain't he a peach? I can positively say he's never changed his stance once in all the years I've had to put up with his rhetoric beginning from the fight for marriage equality. Think about that, because I know the me of twenty plus years ago is much different than the me of today. As I learned better I did better. Doug Wilson found his rock (religion) and upon that rock he will remain, no changes needed.
The current battle y'all are reading about where Nationalist Christians are pushing their advantage to force their idea of Christianity onto the public - this isn't new. The war officially was started by the Seven Mountain Dominionists which I've told you before but it bears repeating. Command at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs fell to their influence decades ago. The rest of our military was slowly doing the same until the current admin wherein they are just moving in and taking over.
Back in the day Nationalist Christian warriors (their name for themselves) told me to my face that the Constitution didn't really intend to not name a national religion, especially since so many Christians lived here already. These folks told me I would get the punishment I deserved (burning) because I'm a witch and that because I wasn't a Christian the Constitution didn't apply to me. These folks are dead serious and the only thing (in my opinion) preventing them from achieving their stated goals is the one thing I mentioned earlier in my comment - steadfastness.
It's an admirable thing to charge ahead, fully confident that you have all the answers (ask Doug, he'll tell you that aside from God himself he knows all the answers to life's questions). Admirable yes, prone to self destruction through target fixation? Oh hell to the yes.
Final thought - reading through the many named trolls off topic comments reminded me of an interview I saw where the Dudebro host asked their guest a question all while insulting their intelligence (you can't answer my question because you don't understand it) and then spent the rest of the interview talking over the guest when they tried to reply. Like all sycophants the many faced troll got the memo that this Thursday we are all wearing the peach sweater set.
The rightwing fascist Christian Nationalists and the MAGA goons are merely attempting to rewrite history and truth to suit their own morbid pathetic lying world view.
And, they are allied with the lying genocidal Zionist government of israel. The two most destructive and inhumane religions on the planet, Jewish Zionism and Empire Christianity, attached at the hips.
If there is a god, highly unlikely, it will be Zionism and Empire Christianity that will be judged most harshly and thrown into the lake of fire.
I am the blog host and editor. You tend to take over a thread and change the subject, which you did on this thread. That’s like coming to a chat. party in my home and demanding that I and my friends talk about only what YOU believe is relevant and not what the original subject is.
I also have a life besides this blog. You and your personas sometimes leave a half dozen and more comments that I have to read and take the time to answer, which is not always possible for me because I have other things to do.
Your complaining that I don’t publish all your comments is rather selfish. Perhaps if you didn’t flood my blog with dozens of comments, I’d have a chance to read and respond to your opinions.
You’re not the only commenter here, as you know.
That’s why everything you post in the comments doesn’t get published. It’s not because I’m singling you out for exclusion of some of your comments.
PS. The most clever, intelligent, and humorous ideas are expressed using as few words as possible.
JC,
Ever notice what kind of white people would even ask such a question?
We certainly see the pattern in MAGA, Proud Boys, the Klan, etc.
Of course to you, they're not at all racist, amirite?
I'll just say it again.
Racism isn't racism to racists.
Ignorance isn't ignorance to the ignorant.
Delusion isn’t delusion to the delusional.
Treason isn’t treason to the traitor.
A cult isn't a cult to the cult.
MAGA exemplifies all of this.
I'll add, "Sociopaths just see themselves as better than the rest of us."
Empathy and conscience are utterly absent in them. See your role model and hero Elon Musk. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy".
You're right, W. Anti-white racism (neoracism) isn't racism to woke neoracists that practice it. It's only racist to race non-essentialists and the whites (racist or not) who subsequently observe it, and report it. Those who define racism "universally", and not in one particular manner (only whites can be racist).
The most clever, intelligent, and humorous ideas expressed in the fewest words are often cannot be received and subsequently understood that way. it's why I often speak pedantically.
...if only they could be received and understood in that manner I wouldn't have to speak so pedantically.
JC,
How about you show us on the doll where "anti-white racism" hurt you?
Or anyone?
Chances are any anti-white racism by POC is in reaction to white racism.
Racists need to redefine and muddy the term racism, as JC/-FJ exemplifies.
Racism Definitions:
1 a: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
b: behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : discrimination, prejudice, or violence against people because of their race
(-FJ/JC is Exhibit A)
2 a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
(Republican gerrymandering fits this definition.)
b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
(MAGA's immigration policy for whites only)
Grey, So because it says so makes it so. I guess you also believe the SCOTUS's are bipartisan, that politicians look after your best interest and only democrats are honorable.
What? skud, you are making less sense than usual.
Before I go off on a diatribe on the importance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights what exactly did you mean when you said "So because it says so makes it so."
The only comment I aimed your way was regarding your inability to understand the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Added historical facts: The Treaty of Tripoli is very clear that the US of A is not in any way a Christian Nation. I know the Nat-C's have an issue with that fact but then again they also believe it's their religious right to proselytize to anyone anywhere even if their audience is a captive one. Fun note - their rights end where my religious right to punch them in the face begins. Cross the lines and we will see how it goes because to me proselytizing is an act of aggression being their holy book deems me worthy of death on several fronts (witch/LTBTQIA+).
Ah, the guessing game which is you projecting your own strawman arguments onto others and not related to anything I specifically do or do not believe.
As to your last snarky sentence here are my answers because I do my best to answer your questions skud. Hope you return the favor.
skud said to me: "I guess you also believe the SCOTUS's are bipartisan (A), that politicians look after your best interest (B) and only democrats are honorable. (C)"
A. SCOTUS here/now is anything but bipartisan. They lack basic rules of ethics to prevent the outright purchasing of Judges (looking at you CT) and their almost immunity to being removed from their office gives them undue influence which wasn't planned by the founding fathers. I am in favor of reform.
B. Politicians only look out for their own skin. Public Servants seek office to help their fellow citizens. What's the difference? How the human behaves. Not that hard to tell them apart at all it turns out.
C. Only democrats are honorable - LOL I know where you are going with this casually tossed end to your snarky snark of a statement. Oh man skud, you do not disappoint. So, if one is keeping score (which here at the PE comment section we all know you do) the ONLY party who saw a convicted felon and sexual assaulter (which was clarified by the judge as rape for the chuckleheads claiming SA isn't rape) and said that's the man I want to be in charge of the nuclear codes was the GOP. In fact they are the same party who continues to carry water aka coverup for congress critters and presidential administration personnel who have histories of Domestic Violence, adultery, and oh so many accusation of sexual assault.
The Democratic Party has its fair share of the same sorts of humans in it's party but the difference is once the Dems learn about their horrible ways they yeet them out of the party, they don't elect them.
But yeah, both sides skud, both sides (heaviest of snarky snark to the power of snark inflection in my voice).
Well skud, if your a trumper (MAGA) it is clear, very clear, that whatever the criminal president says is so.
So, why not pose that question to your friends on the Mothership? Never mind, I know why you won't
Grey, I would have responded earlier to you scathing rebuttal but I was consumed with google trying to decipher your alphabet and figuring what is next.
If, as you say, the US is not a christian nation why do we give churches tax exempt status. Lester seems to feel there is no god and I am sure many feel the same way. There are a few religions who actually serve people but then you have the Catholics, pedophile training grounds, various thumper religions who serve to enrich the preacher not the preached, LDS who are so giving no one but them can go in a temple. Now why do you feel they should be supported by you and me?
I do agree that trump is all the things you said. I also believe the democrats blew a great chance by anointing, not electing, a complete loser and spending over a billion dollars to lose because they want to have the first female president. I am all for that because the men have sure screwed things up but at least anoint a competent female who can complete a sentence and is not despised by more than half the population.
Scathing skud? Really? How about this - you didn't answer my question. You didn't even touch on it and... you used the word scathing aka bitterly severe, harsh, or witheringly critical. It describes remarks or reviews that are so fiercely cutting they feel like they burn.
Really? I burned you so harshly that you just had to ignore my question and go off on another of your rants which make no sense. You also disrespected the host of this blog. Shaw provided the answer to your question regarding why churches are not taxed. Very good answer too which is why you decided to ignore it?
I know - we're just (high stupid giggle) girls (another stupid giggle) and knowing things is hard!!
Now, answer the question to your statement "So because it says so makes it so". What the heck were you talking about?
Scathing. dude, I've been luke to you (just read a definition of the word luke to mean warmish but not hot which led to the updated definition of lukewarm to be warmwarm. I love the dictionary!)
You want scathing I can do it: From Shaw's reply to you skud on 7/10 on this post:
FROM AI: “Religious organizations are exempt from federal income and property taxes primarily because they qualify as 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. This exemption traces its roots to historical practices and is designed to recognize the public benefit they provide while respecting the constitutional separation of church and state.
The exemption rests on three core rationales:Social Services & Public Benefit: Similar to secular charities, religious groups are viewed as organizations that provide moral guidance, community support, and charitable services, which relieves the government of some social welfare burdens.
Separation of Church and State: Under First Amendment principles, taxing churches gives the government financial leverage over religious practices. The concept that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" means that tax exemption helps ensure the state cannot control or financially suppress religious groups.
Administrative Entanglement: Requiring religious institutions to constantly open their books for tax assessments could lead to excessive government intrusion into church doctrine and internal operations.
However, this tax-exempt status comes with strict rules. Under federal law, these organizations cannot use their tax-exempt resources to intervene in political campaigns or heavily endorse specific political candidates. Furthermore, income derived from businesses that are completely unrelated to their core religious mission is subject to tax
Answer my question skud because what you said in your latest reply is pure word salad. Hey, you OK? I ask because my mom who has dementia talks like this so now I have concerns about your health especially since you asked a question of me that had already been answered.
Oh wait - girl stuff. yeah. Not all men (you know where you stand fellow commentators) but it is my most sincere opinion that most men are not nearly lonely enough.
Skud, replying to a previous post, said this... "I guess you also believe the SCOTUS's are bipartisan..."
I'm not sure about anyone else, and maybe I'm a "pollyanna" type guy, but I don't believe judges are called to be bi-partisan at all. They are called to be non partisan and support the law, doing their best to interpret what politicians wrote in the past and sometimes what past judges have interpreted from that law.
That's what I want. Then, even I prefer a different outcome, I can support them because I can see them as law specific people, as opposed to partisan politicians.
I will make it clearer for you skud: With regard to Empire Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and their view of a creator god, you're correct. I believe none of that. Period. Full Stop
Spirituality is not religion. Religion is but a mechanism of control used by churches and states to further their own interests through fear and the threat of damnatiin and hell. And, its been very effective.
Spirituality is a personal practice grounded in one's experiential knowledge and the inner wisdom that it offers. IOW's it's not taking the easy way out by listening to preachers about what a bible, Talmud, or Koran says and was written by men and governments a millennium ago or longer.
Hope that helps
Skud asked... cluelessly I might add "If, as you say, the US is not a christian nation why do we give churches tax exempt status."
Well gee Skud, I don't know.
We give Hindu centers and groups tax exempt status. Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Jews and many other religious groups can get tax exempt status too. In fact, any group in the United States can receive tax-exempt status if it is organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes.
And receiving tax exempt status does not mean our country is a Hare Krishna, Jewish or even a Buddhist nation.
Did you skip US History, Poli Sci and Civics 101?
Do you really think the US is a Christian nation simply because we give them tax exempt status?
Grey, I never answered your question to what. Your post was entangled with a diatribe of back in the day and assuming I have never read the BOR or constitution. The first amendment assures free speech and religion and not that they should be tax exempt. Any tax exemption results in less revenue for the government which places the burden on everyone even those who don't support that institution. By granting religions tax exempt means there is a connection between church and state because "state" has taken an active roll to benefit the religions.
And no Dave I did not skip civics 101. When I said christian I was referring to religion as a whole all of which get tax free status. Religion is a belief and why should a belief be tax exempt.
I think we would all like SCOTUS to be non partisan but for as long as they have been in existence that has never been the case. That is a big reason their appointment is so important and why the party in power wants to stack the court.
Good job skud. Your nonsensical explanation does I suppose define the views of some. But, lacking logical support it flies in the face of reason.
Just a thought, and it may not happen, but I suspect more Empire Christian churches would close their doors if taxed, especially with the declining membershios.. As well as other faiths may have to close as well.
Post a Comment