Forum Replies Created
-
X,
You mentioned you lean toward libertarian. “Secularism” is libertarian. It’s basically “We can swing our fist all around as, as much as we like. But our freedom to do so stops when it comes up to someone else’s nose.”
That’s all. Believe whatever you want. Hold any faith you desire. You just don’t get to punch someone in the face with it.
Beyond that, we live in a secular society. No one should be allowed to force their religion on others
But we should go ahead and force the removal of religion from all things America, because … ? That’s hypocritical. As I stated earlier, I’m not a Christian, but I am a huge believer in peaceful religion being the catalyst for healing the social & racial divides. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Spiritualism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shivism, Wicca… Why is it more acceptable to strip all of that away from people because a *minority* of the Nation is secular? What does secularism promote in terms of (in its purest forms) peace? It’s nothing more than a disguise for a militant anti-religious philosophy, and a movement to destroy the very fabric that holds communities and families together.
I’m not sure I want to debate the virtues of religion, though. That’s another one of those rabbit holes.
No one has attempted “the removal of religion from all things America.” That’s never happened. In fact, America is the most Christianized nation on earth, with the most churches, the most outlets for that religion (in the physical and virtual worlds), the most state support, the most tax-payer-funded benefits (bar none) anywhere in the world. America is overrun with churches, Christianity, its power, its media. It dominates our politics, too, even though the founders set things up to prevent that. Even though the founders detested the combined power of church and state they saw in Europe, which resulted in centuries of slaughter. They wanted none of that for us.
What does secularism promote? The peaceful coexistence of all faiths and the acceptance that some people won’t have one. The only way to preserve and protect actual “religious freedom” is to prevent any one religion from dominating the public square.
Since there are literally millions of places to worship in America, and anyone can worship inside their own heads, it’s pretty obvious that the best way to accommodate our diversity is to keep at least one place free of religious domination. No one is asking for any more than that. Just to keep a Switzerland-like space, free and clear so everyone is welcome and there is no pressure to conform to the dominate faith.
Is that so much to ask?
It might be worthwhile to explore what the alt-right IS.
It’s a very definite thing, and Trump went out of his way to court them and include them.
Every other republican candidate steered clear of them. Or at least in terms of visible actions, kept them at an arms distance. Trump sought them out and made them important in his inner circles. He treated them like allies, and that’s openly.
So then…who and what are they.
It is worth investigating if people are willing to surf sites like 4chan and the likes. It’s a disturbing movement, but it’s not anything new. It’s just old school bigotry with a man-bun. Hillary’s mistake was spotlighting it and stirring it up to somehow make a point about Trump himself. Had she just left that alone, and let Trump try to fend off the allegations of his indirect ties to that movement (laughable in and of itself), then she would have been much better off. She, herself, and not Trump, was the likely cause for their turnout at the polls, IMO.
He has direct ties, X. He chose one of its leaders as his campaign chair, as already mentioned. And it’s a lot more than just 4chan and the Men’s Right’s folks. Its primary bloc is white supremacists, who use the Orwellian phrase, “white nationalists” to hide that a tad bit. Breitbart, WND, Alex Jones — those people and groups, etc.
His ties to them are direct, and he wouldn’t have won the EVs without them, without the white militias like the Oath Keepers, etc. etc.
Only you Billy would claim I was wrong. The mass appeal of Trump despite the 17 month savaging he received from the establishment is something which cannot be denied. I’d say he had more supporters that didn’t vote than Hildabeast did. Next time don’t nominate a corrupt traitor.
No, bnw. I think any objective person would look at the results of the election, and all the data prior to it, and the exit polls, and all the video and audio of Trump’s racist, xenophobic, misogynistic statements/policy ideas, and the 4,000 lawsuits against him, and his six bankruptcies, and his bragging about being a sexual predator, and his endless lies, and reach the same conclusion.
As for your last sentence: I didn’t nominate her. I’m not a Dem and don’t vote in Dem primaries. And there is no proof she is a “traitor.” That takes intent. You have to prove she intentionally exposed classified documents with malicious intent. Just being tech-stupid, arrogant and careless doesn’t add up to “traitor,” unless you’re a part of the right-wing lunatic fringe.
His list of potential cabinet appointees include women, gays, and blacks. So much for being a racist, or homophobic, or a misogynist. And please. You can’t honestly believe that Killory is THAT stupid that she didn’t understand the lucid instructions given to her about the handling of classified information. Careless? lol. Intentionally defiant would be a more apt description. Let alone lying about it. Let alone allowing someone without security clearance (her maid) print out and view classified materials. And yes, that falls under the category of traitorism.
Do you honestly think that just appointing a diverse group of people negates all the vicious things he said, or the obvious oppression of minorities implicit and explicit in his policy ideas? Come on, man.
Also: The bar for “traitor” is a hell of a lot higher than that, bnw. Again, it takes “intent.” It takes purposely trying to undermine this country’s security, in that particular case, and there is zero proof that she did that.
I’m not defending her actions, at all. Again, I think she likely acted with arrogance and a sense of assumed privilege, and was tech-stupid to the nth degree. She also made things worse by going shields up during the GOP’s witch hunt. But none of that rises to the level of “treason.” Not in the real world. On the ultra-paranoid, ultra-partisan, lunatic right, yeah. But not in the real world.
