I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads more know it all than I mean to be.

blungld said:

---

I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads less know it all than I mean.

---

Hey strawman. Never called atheism a religion. And I don't have patience for bigots like you who bring your ignorance to hate on a group of people just to make yourself superior. But you go on and argue with yourself. Just pointed out that the establishment clause is not what you were presenting it to be.

And everyone must push your buttons.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads less know it all than I mean.

---

Hey strawman. Never called atheism a religion. And I don't have patience for bigots like you who bring your ignorance to hate on a group of people just to make yourself superior. But you go on and argue with yourself. Just pointed out that the establishment clause is not what you were presenting it to be.

And everyone must push your buttons.

---

Wow, you really escalated that. What a strange accusation and why the need to resort to direct name calling? I stand against Christian Nationalism and their unAmerican manipulative efforts to turn our country as theocratic as possible. Those are the bigots and we should all be really upset and worried by the progress they have made packing courts and drumming up fake cases and getting bogus rulings as part of a long term strategy.

If you are interested in learning more on the subject read this fantastic book (or just the summary or interviews with Seidel), and please stop blowing up after 2 or 3 back and forths with everyone on BI:

The Founding Myth (about the efforts of Christian Nationalism)

The level of anger in your response suggests that my being opposed to Christian Nationalism makes me a bigot. Is that what you think? Do you agree with their court efforts and stand with Christian Nationalism?

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads less know it all than I mean.

---

Hey strawman. Never called atheism a religion. And I don't have patience for bigots like you who bring your ignorance to hate on a group of people just to make yourself superior. But you go on and argue with yourself. Just pointed out that the establishment clause is not what you were presenting it to be.

And everyone must push your buttons.

---

Wow, you really escalated that. What a strange accusation and why the need to resort to direct name calling? I stand against Christian Nationalism and their unAmerican manipulative efforts to turn our country as theocratic as possible. Those are the bigots and we should all be really upset and worried by the progress they have made packing courts and drumming up fake cases and getting bogus rulings as part of a long term strategy.

If you are interested in learning more on the subject read this fantastic book (or just the summary or interviews with Seidel), and please stop blowing up after 2 or 3 back and forths with everyone on BI:

The Founding Myth (about the efforts of Christian Nationalism)

The level of anger in your response suggests that my being opposed to Christian Nationalism makes me a bigot. Is that what you think? Do you agree with their court efforts and stand with Christian Nationalism?

---

I have no anger toward you. I don't find you interesting enough to generate anger. I lack patience for people like you who feel the need to discriminate just to make themselves feel superior without any justifications

And how convenient to go from discrimination against all Christians to now referring to Christian Nationalist who may not even be Christians. Sorry, ,but that was a weasel move on your part. Stand on your own impact on the world and not just by discriminating against groups. That's like me railing against atheists and then when called upon it, focusing on atheist serial killers. It may be socially convenient to discriminate against Christians in this current society just like it was socially acceptable to discriminate against racial minorities 50 years ago, but it does show your character.

Someone who is Christian wanting to participate in politics is no different than atheist without religion wanting to participate. Nothing in the establishment clause preventing that or even speaks to that. So don't bring the establishment clause into it. You don't understand it, and you are in no position to be lecturing on it.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads less know it all than I mean.

---

Hey strawman. Never called atheism a religion. And I don't have patience for bigots like you who bring your ignorance to hate on a group of people just to make yourself superior. But you go on and argue with yourself. Just pointed out that the establishment clause is not what you were presenting it to be.

And everyone must push your buttons.

---

Wow, you really escalated that. What a strange accusation and why the need to resort to direct name calling? I stand against Christian Nationalism and their unAmerican manipulative efforts to turn our country as theocratic as possible. Those are the bigots and we should all be really upset and worried by the progress they have made packing courts and drumming up fake cases and getting bogus rulings as part of a long term strategy.

If you are interested in learning more on the subject read this fantastic book (or just the summary or interviews with Seidel), and please stop blowing up after 2 or 3 back and forths with everyone on BI:

The Founding Myth (about the efforts of Christian Nationalism)

The level of anger in your response suggests that my being opposed to Christian Nationalism makes me a bigot. Is that what you think? Do you agree with their court efforts and stand with Christian Nationalism?

---

I have no anger toward you. I don't find you interesting enough to generate anger. I lack patience for people like you who feel the need to discriminate just to make themselves feel superior without any justifications

And how convenient to go from discrimination against all Christians to now referring to Christian Nationalist who may not even be Christians. Sorry, ,but that was a weasel move on your part. Stand on your own impact on the world and not just by discriminating against groups. That's like me railing against atheists and then when called upon it, focusing on atheist serial killers. It may be socially convenient to discriminate against Christians in this current society just like it was socially acceptable to discriminate against racial minorities 50 years ago, but it does show your character.

Someone who is Christian wanting to participate in politics is no different than atheist without religion wanting to participate. Nothing in the establishment clause preventing that or even speaks to that. So don't bring the establishment clause into it. You don't understand it, and you are in no position to be lecturing on it.

---

Does pretending to understand other people help you to feel justified? There is nothing bigoted about standing against the legal efforts of Christian Nationalists. And you just leapt to my opposition to those efforts being cover for my true discrimination against Christians. I think all religions are false and there is no god and the people of faith have bought into childish myths, BUT I hold no ill will toward them and think they can/should believe whatever they choose (hopefully educating themselves and actually objectively testing their faith against evidence and reality at some point, but their choice).

I only stand against religious efforts to infringe on other's rights, the Constitution, and the core principles of America that made it unique and beacon for freedom religious and otherwise. That is a civic and secular concern and not bigotry.

As is typical with you, you make an initial post that is broad and rational, and then when challenged you get hot and personal and reduce your positions irrationally and start telling the other who they are and what they believe while dismissing them as unimportant. Your pattern.

You never said if you agree with the efforts of Christian Nationalism and the series of court cases they have manufactured.

Are you going to check out the book I linked or the definition of atheism I provided?

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

I am not a Constitutional scholar. I did not represent that. I said I knew it well and was up to speed on court cases challenged state/church separation. I know Establishment Clause extends protections to atheists. What I addressed was YOUR misunderstanding of atheism and how it applies to shaping a person/politician's views (very different than the protections of Establishment).

Atheism is not a religion. It holds no doctrine. People of all stripes are atheists. A large majority are skeptics, meaning they question dogma and evolve their thinking based on evidence.


That is opposite to the faith based politics of Christian Nationalism that is extremely dangerous as are all theocracies and wholly unAmerican. If your own questions and evidence are irrelevant and your ethics are predetermined and unchanging dogma because a god decided outside of self and society, you are in a danger zone of totalitarianism. It is completely antithetical to have a government by the people and a government by god. Especially when only one group's definition of god is the rule of the land (when it can empirically be shown on the basis of thousands on sects and faiths, and living and dying religions, and post hoc rationalizations for god changing her mind as churches are forced to change doctrine as society evolves faster than faith).


Yep, I sometimes strike a haughty tone. You push my buttons and the restrictions of time and space push out agitation in my posts that I am sure reads less know it all than I mean.

---

Hey strawman. Never called atheism a religion. And I don't have patience for bigots like you who bring your ignorance to hate on a group of people just to make yourself superior. But you go on and argue with yourself. Just pointed out that the establishment clause is not what you were presenting it to be.

And everyone must push your buttons.

---

Wow, you really escalated that. What a strange accusation and why the need to resort to direct name calling? I stand against Christian Nationalism and their unAmerican manipulative efforts to turn our country as theocratic as possible. Those are the bigots and we should all be really upset and worried by the progress they have made packing courts and drumming up fake cases and getting bogus rulings as part of a long term strategy.

If you are interested in learning more on the subject read this fantastic book (or just the summary or interviews with Seidel), and please stop blowing up after 2 or 3 back and forths with everyone on BI:

The Founding Myth (about the efforts of Christian Nationalism)

The level of anger in your response suggests that my being opposed to Christian Nationalism makes me a bigot. Is that what you think? Do you agree with their court efforts and stand with Christian Nationalism?

---

I have no anger toward you. I don't find you interesting enough to generate anger. I lack patience for people like you who feel the need to discriminate just to make themselves feel superior without any justifications

And how convenient to go from discrimination against all Christians to now referring to Christian Nationalist who may not even be Christians. Sorry, ,but that was a weasel move on your part. Stand on your own impact on the world and not just by discriminating against groups. That's like me railing against atheists and then when called upon it, focusing on atheist serial killers. It may be socially convenient to discriminate against Christians in this current society just like it was socially acceptable to discriminate against racial minorities 50 years ago, but it does show your character.

Someone who is Christian wanting to participate in politics is no different than atheist without religion wanting to participate. Nothing in the establishment clause preventing that or even speaks to that. So don't bring the establishment clause into it. You don't understand it, and you are in no position to be lecturing on it.

---

Does pretending to understand other people help you to feel justified? There is nothing bigoted about standing against the legal efforts of Christian Nationalists. And you just leapt to my opposition to those efforts being cover for my true discrimination against Christians. I think all religions are false and there is no god and the people of faith have bought into childish myths, BUT I hold no ill will toward them and think they can/should believe whatever they choose (hopefully educating themselves and actually objectively testing their faith against evidence and reality at some point, but their choice).

I only stand against religious efforts to infringe on other's rights, the Constitution, and the core principles of America that made it unique and beacon for freedom religious and otherwise. That is a civic and secular concern and not bigotry.

As is typical with you, you make an initial post that is broad and rational, and then when challenged you get hot and personal and reduce your positions irrationally and start telling the other who they are and what they believe while dismissing them as unimportant. Your pattern.

You never said if you agree with the efforts of Christian Nationalism and the series of court cases they have manufactured.

Are you going to check out the book I linked or the definition of atheism I provided?

---

You are funny. You are the one who make broad, sweeping judgmental statements against groups of people and individuals, and you ask that question>

If you were limiting your statements to Christian Nationalists, Prosperity Gospel, or KKK, none of which are really based on the scripture, I would have no issues. I don't care about your religious or non-religious stand. You are of course free to feel whatever you want. It's your then ignorant belittling characterization of Christianity which you claim to know but prove with each statement that you really don't know and then painting those who believe in a pejorative manner that are discriminatory. It's like saying I don't mind you being black but don't bring your experiences and beliefs as a black person in my space. Wouldn't that be discriminatory? So much for diversity of experience and thought.

And your posit of conclusion as a premise as you usually do is laughable. Someone who brings their faith in their job as a legislator is neither different from someone who brings their lack of religious faith nor is it a violation of the constitution or the core principles of America. An atheist who brings their views shaped by their lack of religious belief is not violating the constitution. Founders of this country who brought their faith in shaping the constitution did not violate the constitution. Individuals advocating based on their religious beliefs, even if the resulting laws may overlap with their beliefs, does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause. It is a question of whether the subsequent laws then establish an official religion or prefer one religion over another or prefer a lack of religion over any religion. A Christian may have advocated a law against murder based on their belief. But does that violate the establishment clause because it also falls in line with the Ten Commandments? Does that make the country prefer Christians over non-Christians? Does that prefer Muslims over non-Muslims? No. It applies equally. Now, does a time of prayer in school violate the establishment clause? Probably because it prefers religion over non-religion. Does a recess where kids then can pray or others can play violate even if that was promoted by the interest of a Muslim legislator? No. You look at the law and whether the law prefers one religion over another or no religion or whether it applies equally to all irrespective of religion.

I may or may not agree with certain efforts of Christian Nationalism just like I may agree with certain efforts by atheists. There is overlap among different groups. But do I believe Christian Nationalists are Christians? No. But you seem to struggle with differentiating Christianity with Christian Nationalist. As I mentioned earlier, you don't know what Beethoven's composition is supposed to sound like so you run around mocking his composition based on having once heard a second-grade orchestra misplaying it, believing that your limited experience made you some expert on Beethoven entitled to criticize those who are fans of Beethoven.

And no I will definitely not read anything you recommend. If your reading choices made you so narrow minded, I would prefer not to go in your direction. Nothing about you makes me want to emulate your ignorance. I suppose David Duke recommending a book for you to read won't make you eager to read it.

Liars, HYPOCRITES, and morons.

calbear93 said:

---

You are funny. You are the one who make broad, sweeping judgmental statements against groups of people and individuals, and you ask that question>

If you were limiting your statements to Christian Nationalists, Prosperity Gospel, or KKK, none of which are really based on the scripture, I would have no issues. I don't care about your religious or non-religious stand. You are of course free to feel whatever you want. It's your then ignorant belittling characterization of Christianity which you claim to know but prove with each statement that you really don't know and then painting those who believe in a pejorative manner that are discriminatory. It's like saying I don't mind you being black but don't bring your experiences and beliefs as a black person in my space. Wouldn't that be discriminatory? So much for diversity of experience and thought.

And your posit of conclusion as a premise as you usually do is laughable. Someone who brings their faith in their job as a legislator is neither different from someone who brings their lack of religious faith nor is it a violation of the constitution or the core principles of America. An atheist who brings their views shaped by their lack of religious belief is not violating the constitution. Founders of this country who brought their faith in shaping the constitution did not violate the constitution. Individuals advocating based on their religious beliefs, even if the resulting laws may overlap with their beliefs, does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause. It is a question of whether the subsequent laws then establish an official religion or prefer one religion over another or prefer a lack of religion over any religion. A Christian may have advocated a law against murder based on their belief. But does that violate the establishment clause because it also falls in line with the Ten Commandments? Does that make the country prefer Christians over non-Christians? Does that prefer Muslims over non-Muslims? No. It applies equally. Now, does a time of prayer in school violate the establishment clause? Probably because it prefers religion over non-religion. Does a recess where kids then can pray or others can play violate even if that was promoted by the interest of a Muslim legislator? No. You look at the law and whether the law prefers one religion over another or no religion or whether it applies equally to all irrespective of religion.

I may or may not agree with certain efforts of Christian Nationalism just like I may agree with certain efforts by atheists. There is overlap among different groups. But do I believe Christian Nationalists are Christians? No. But you seem to struggle with differentiating Christianity with Christian Nationalist. As I mentioned earlier, you don't know what Beethoven's composition is supposed to sound like so you run around mocking his composition based on having once heard a second-grade orchestra misplaying it, believing that your limited experience made you some expert on Beethoven entitled to criticize those who are fans of Beethoven.

And no I will definitely not read anything you recommend. If your reading choices made you so narrow minded, I would prefer not to go in your direction. Nothing about you makes me want to emulate your ignorance. I suppose David Duke recommending a book for you to read won't make you eager to read it.

---

You feel good about equating me to David Duke? You think that's fair and reasonable?

It would be news to Christian Nationalists that they are not Christian or following scripture. Tell me, how do you decide who is or is not an actual Christian? Do they not belong to mainstream Christian churches and create legislation and court cases in line with their church and faith? No True Scotsman...?

Your analogy is absurd. It is nothing like me saying don't bring your blackness into my life. Did you actually digest what I said? I am opposed to legislation that moves us to theocracy or takes rights from others. Using your poor analogy, it would only be parallel if my position was being against laws that enshrined blackness (whatever that means) to the taking of rights from other people. I don't even know how to resuscitate your analogy because it is so off and only intended to crudely paint me as bigoted.

I think it is hugely different to look at a political issue and analyze the implications and have the flexibility to come to a wise conclusion based on your education, evidence, consultants, experts, and life experience...versus, I need to legislate on the basis of something outside of me and in service of an omnipresent, omniscient, unchanging God. The second case renders a person's intellect and evidence and experience mute and is dangerous. I am surprised that you don't see this or that you would disagree.

I didn't write the book so your dismissal of me is not relevant. Andrew Seidel is bright, articulate, and very interesting.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You are funny. You are the one who make broad, sweeping judgmental statements against groups of people and individuals, and you ask that question>

If you were limiting your statements to Christian Nationalists, Prosperity Gospel, or KKK, none of which are really based on the scripture, I would have no issues. I don't care about your religious or non-religious stand. You are of course free to feel whatever you want. It's your then ignorant belittling characterization of Christianity which you claim to know but prove with each statement that you really don't know and then painting those who believe in a pejorative manner that are discriminatory. It's like saying I don't mind you being black but don't bring your experiences and beliefs as a black person in my space. Wouldn't that be discriminatory? So much for diversity of experience and thought.

And your posit of conclusion as a premise as you usually do is laughable. Someone who brings their faith in their job as a legislator is neither different from someone who brings their lack of religious faith nor is it a violation of the constitution or the core principles of America. An atheist who brings their views shaped by their lack of religious belief is not violating the constitution. Founders of this country who brought their faith in shaping the constitution did not violate the constitution. Individuals advocating based on their religious beliefs, even if the resulting laws may overlap with their beliefs, does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause. It is a question of whether the subsequent laws then establish an official religion or prefer one religion over another or prefer a lack of religion over any religion. A Christian may have advocated a law against murder based on their belief. But does that violate the establishment clause because it also falls in line with the Ten Commandments? Does that make the country prefer Christians over non-Christians? Does that prefer Muslims over non-Muslims? No. It applies equally. Now, does a time of prayer in school violate the establishment clause? Probably because it prefers religion over non-religion. Does a recess where kids then can pray or others can play violate even if that was promoted by the interest of a Muslim legislator? No. You look at the law and whether the law prefers one religion over another or no religion or whether it applies equally to all irrespective of religion.

I may or may not agree with certain efforts of Christian Nationalism just like I may agree with certain efforts by atheists. There is overlap among different groups. But do I believe Christian Nationalists are Christians? No. But you seem to struggle with differentiating Christianity with Christian Nationalist. As I mentioned earlier, you don't know what Beethoven's composition is supposed to sound like so you run around mocking his composition based on having once heard a second-grade orchestra misplaying it, believing that your limited experience made you some expert on Beethoven entitled to criticize those who are fans of Beethoven.

And no I will definitely not read anything you recommend. If your reading choices made you so narrow minded, I would prefer not to go in your direction. Nothing about you makes me want to emulate your ignorance. I suppose David Duke recommending a book for you to read won't make you eager to read it.

---

You feel good about equating me to David Duke? You think that's fair and reasonable?

It would be news to Christian Nationalists that they are not Christian or following scripture. Tell me, how do you decide who is our is not an actual Christian? Do they not belong to mainstream Christian churches and create legislation and court cases in line with their church and faith? No True Scotsman...?

Your analogy is absurd. It is nothing like me saying don't bring your blackness into my life. Did you actually digest what I said? I am opposed to legislation that moves us to theocracy or takes rights from others. Using your poor analogy, it would only be parallel if my position was being against laws that enshrined blackness (whatever that means) to the taking of rights from other people. I don't even know how to resuscitate your analogy because it is so off and only intended to crudely paint me as bigoted.

I think it is hugely different to look at a political issue and analyze the implications and have the flexibility to come to a wise conclusion based on your education, evidence, consultants, experts, and life experience...versus, I need to legislate on the basis of something outside of me and in service of an omnipresent, omniscient, unchanging God. The second case renders a person's intellect and evidence and experience mute and is dangerous. I am surprised that you don't see this or that you would disagree.

I didn't write the book so your dismissal of me is not relevant. Andrew Seidel is bright, articulate, and very interesting.

---

As I mentioned, you are a thin-skinned, goal-post moving, disingenuous, individual.

As far as mentioning David Duke, apparently you have never heard of reductio ad absurdum, or making an extreme counter point to show how ridiculous your demand that i read what you recommend was. No, I will not. What about our discussion made you think I would be seeking book recommendation from you? How presumptuous.

It would be news to Christian Nationalist. It would also be news to KKK. Someone claiming they are Christian but is completely ignorant of the scripture does not make them Christian. Just like it would be news to Jehovah's Witness or Mormons that I don't view them as Christians. Why? Because Christianity means follower of Christ as revealed in the scripture. Nothing more than the scripture. Why? Because that's what it reads in the scripture. No follower would add or remove from the scripture. As I wrote before when you asked the same question, the scripture is sufficient. "As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9

Talk about moving the goal post. It is not a theocracy for someone to bring their religious beliefs to their job as a legislator just like it is not prohibition against practice of religion for an atheist to bring their reject of religion to their job. They are not promoting an official religion by the state nor are they promoting the state itself adopt an official religion. A Christian who based on their beliefs promotes protection for women subject to domestic violence is not promoting theocracy. Someone who promotes protection of life as they view life is not promoting theocracy just like someone with a different view of life and promotes abortion is not promoting the state reject religion.

But you did ask Christian legislators to check their religion at the door. Do atheists need to check their rejection of religion at their door and pretend that they believe in God? Do any protected group need to check their experiences and beliefs at the door?

This is what you wrote: "Conduct yourself in private life by your tenants in faith, conduct yourself in government as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Constitution and the people checking your God belief at the door. "

You do realize that the establishment clause also protects individuals to practice their religion without restraint by the government (not private actors), including Congress, right? The Constitution (which you appeal to) specifically requires the government to allow those legislators to bring their religion in their job as members of Congress. You are the one who are promoting restraint on a freedom guaranteed by the constitution.

You keep writing as if you are some advocate of education, evidence, etc. That makes me laugh when you lack even the basic curiosity to learn more about the actual scripture, the constitution, etc.

Again, your recommendation and your assessment are not relevant or even persuasive. Does it seem like I respect the judgment of a bigot?

calbear93 said:

---

You lack even the basic curiosity to learn more about the actual scripture, the constitution, etc.

Again, your recommendation and your assessment are not relevant or even persuasive. Does it seem like I respect the judgment of a bigot?

---

I am shocked at how comfortable you are calling me a bigot. Comfortable to repeat it rather than get hold of yourself.

And there you go again claiming I learn about "actual" scripture and the Constitution as though I haven't read both, attended church for most of my life, gone to a catholic high school, taken many classes on Biblical study and philosophy, and continue to read books and listen to debates and lectures to this day. I have no curiosity? It's almost like you think if someone disagrees with you then they must not know anything.

As shocking as your temperament and tendency to melt down in exchanges, is your use of loaded terms like "actual"--that you "actually" see yourself as knowing and understanding the "actual" god and meaning of "actual" scripture and can furthermore identify and dismiss those who don't. You have one hell (pun intended) of an ego. Many of your statements do align with recent SCOTUS rulings and the activism of Christian Nationalism. You don't seem to see a problem with a politician or justice incorporating or serving their faith through the instruments of law and policy in America. I do.


A No True Scotsman Fallacy occurs when someone alters the definition of a group or term to exclude counterexamples, often to protect or defend a cherished belief or to invalidate opposing views.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You lack even the basic curiosity to learn more about the actual scripture, the constitution, etc.

Again, your recommendation and your assessment are not relevant or even persuasive. Does it seem like I respect the judgment of a bigot?

---

I am shocked at how comfortable you are calling me a bigot. Comfortable to repeat it rather than get hold of yourself.

And there you go again claiming I learn about "actual" scripture and the Constitution as though I haven't read both, attended church for most of my life, gone to a catholic high school, taken many classes on Biblical study and philosophy, and continue to read books and listen to debates and lectures to this day. I have no curiosity? It's almost like you think if someone disagrees with you then they must not know anything.

As shocking as your temperament and tendency to melt down in exchanges, is your use of loaded terms like "actual"--that you "actually" see yourself as knowing and understanding the "actual" god and meaning of "actual" scripture and can furthermore identify and dismiss those who don't. You have one hell (pun intended) of an ego. Many of your statements do align with recent SCOTUS rulings and the activism of Christian Nationalism. You don't seem to see a problem with a politician or justice incorporating or serving their faith through the instruments of law and policy in America. I do.


A No True Scotsman Fallacy occurs when someone alters the definition of a group or term to exclude counterexamples, often to protect or defend a cherished belief or to invalidate opposing views.

---

Couple of things and then I will let you get the last word since you will anyway with your OCD tendencies.

Shocked that your bigotry against Christianity is getting called our? Remained shocked. Why don't you get a hold of yourself next time you decide to go off on your bigoted rant against a religion.

I am sure you went to school, have taken classes. Seems like it hasn't stuck, with your ignorant questions and ignorant statements that show no knowledge of actual scripture. You seem to lack curiosity since you spend hours and hours acting like an expert on the constitution and the scripture but you do not seem to take the time to research the matter before acting like an expert.

My temperament? Again, such lack of self-awareness. I am melting down? I have an ego? I think it's funny that people like you exist, who is so certain of their superiority without any actual evidence. You have a problem with certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

I will leave with this recommendation and observation. Anyone who is not motivated by tribalism is not impressed by you nearly to the extent you are impressed with yourself. So get a grip.

No true denizen of the Bear Insider OT forum can take their eyes off of this train wreck!

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things and then I will let you get the last word since you will anyway with your OCD tendencies.

Shocked that your bigotry against Christianity is getting called our? Remained shocked. Why don't you get a hold of yourself next time you decide to go off on your bigoted rant against a religion.

I am sure you went to school, have taken classes. Seems like it hasn't stuck, with your ignorant questions and ignorant statements that show no knowledge of actual scripture. You seem to lack curiosity since you spend hours and hours acting like an expert on the constitution and the scripture but you do not seem to take the time to research the matter before acting like an expert.

My temperament? Again, such lack of self-awareness. I am melting down? I have an ego? I think it's funny that people like you exist, who is so certain of their superiority without any actual evidence. You have a problem with certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

I will leave with this recommendation and observation. Anyone who is not motivated by tribalism is not impressed by you nearly to the extent you are impressed with yourself. So get a grip.

---

I will back away, holding up the mirror to your erratic post and quietly rest my case.

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.



West Virginia v. EPA is a 2022 Supreme Court case that limits the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The case focused on the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA the authority to regulate power plants by setting emission standards. The EPA's 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) addressed carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, but was never put into effect.

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court expressly relied on the "major questions doctrine" for the first time in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation, there the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to use "generation-shifting" measures to set carbon dioxide emission limits for power plants. The court found that the CPP exceeded the EPA's statutory authority because Congress did not clearly give the EPA authority over the makeup of the power system.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

calbear93 said:

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

I don't know if I am not being clear or if you have no reading comprehension, but not only did I make no mention of Don McGahn, but I made no claim about SCOTUS. But, the Federalist Society and the Alliance Defending Freedom have been involved in a systematic effort to instill Christian articles of faith into law and erode the church/state separation for decades as part of an organized effort which DOES include appointment of their membership to SCOTUS (is it 5 Federalists and 1 ADF presently?).

Mostly though, organizations serving the aims of Christian Nationalism like the ADF are involved in taking fake and symbolic cases to inch by inch erode protections of church state separation and make Christianity a de facto favored class. Any cursory research on your part would reveal the huge machine behind finding dumb cases like the cake maker or web designer (look into the details of that case, it is completely manufactured, she was never even asked to design a gay wedding site) and how those are brought to high court through funding by ADF to make precedent.

So either you are ignorant of the efforts by Christians (yes they are Christians even if believe that only you and people who think just like you are the "actual" Christians) or you agree with them. These legislative efforts directly take rights from others, are a threat to democracy, are antithetical to government by the people, and are fundamentally unAmerican.

This is what happens when you believe that only YOU know God and therefore have moral authority to make others believe and live as you do.This is the logical outcome of fanaticism and tribalism working to protect itself rather than ensure the rights of all. It is a reaction to Christians feeling threatened as more people turn away from religion--you can't abandon us, we will make you live in a country under our laws and faith. And it works hand and hand in the control of patriarch and authority that the wealthy use to control the low information, gullible class as religion has been used as instrument of power and enrichment for the entirety of civilization.

So you can act offended by my truth telling or you can stand with other persons of faith (including Christains) and stand against these nationalists and court appointments and bogus rulings and, as I said, make faith a private practice and not the law of the land. The Bible is NOT the foundation of American law or government and thank god it isn't. As a secular nation we were unique and a truly free nation with protections for worship and civil liberties. It can be shown over and over again that liberty and freedom has an inverse relationship to the degree of theocracy n a country. That is not bigotry, that is wanting persons of faith of all kinds and atheists to all live happy and independent life in a country that values equality, free expression, and a premium on well being. But, oh how bigoted that is!


Alliance Defending Freedom
"The First Amendment has become the most powerful weapon of social conservatives fighting to limit the separation of church and state and to roll back laws on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Few groups have done more to advance this body of legal thinking than the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has more than 3,000 lawyers working on behalf of its causes around the world and brought in $51.5 million in revenue for the 2015-16 tax year, more than the American Civil Liberties Union."


Threats of Christian Nationalism
Christian nationalism refers to an ideology that asserts all civic life in the U.S. should be organized according to a particularly conservative and ethnocentric expression of Christianity. Christian nationalism is more than theological or religious beliefs. It includes several cultural assumptions including:

• Strict moral traditionalism focused on sustaining social hierarchies.
• Comfort with authoritarian controlexercised by the "right" peoplethat includes the threat and use of violence.
• A desire for strict ethno-racial boundaries around who is a "true" American, where non-white and non-natural born citizens are viewed as unworthy of full participation in American civic life. (This is why many label it white Christian nationalism)

The Fake Web Designer Case
Here's what you need to understand about this case: No one has ever asked her to make a wedding website. Ever. No one will ever ask hercertainly not gay people.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

I don't know if I am not being clear or if you have no reading comprehension, but not only did I make no mention of Don McGahn, but I made no claim about SCOTUS. But, the Federalist Society and the Alliance Defending Freedom have been involved in a systematic effort to instill Christian articles of faith into law and erode the church/state separation for decades as part of an organized effort which DOES include appointment of their membership to SCOTUS (is it 5 Federalists and 1 ADF presently?).

Mostly though, organizations serving the aims of Christian Nationalism like the ADF are involved in taking fake and symbolic cases to inch by inch erode protections of church state separation and make Christianity a de facto favored class. Any cursory research on your part would reveal the huge machine behind finding dumb cases like the cake maker or web designer (look into the details of that case, it is completely manufactured, she was never even asked to design a gay wedding site) and how those are brought to high court through funding by ADF to make precedent.

So either you are ignorant of the efforts by Christians (yes they are Christians even if believe that only you and people who think just like you are the "actual" Christians) or you agree with them. These legislative efforts directly take rights from others, are a threat to democracy, are antithetical to government by the people, and are fundamentally unAmerican.

This is what happens when you believe that only YOU know God and therefore have moral authority to make others believe and live as you do.This is the logical outcome of fanaticism and tribalism working to protect itself rather than ensure the rights of all. It is a reaction to Christians feeling threatened as more people turn away from religion--you can't abandon us, we will make you live in a country under our laws and faith. And it works hand and hand in the control of patriarch and authority that the wealthy use to control the low information, gullible class as religion has been used as instrument of power and enrichment for the entirety of civilization.

So you can act offended by my truth telling or you can stand with other persons of faith (including Christains) and stand against these nationalists and court appointments and bogus rulings and, as I said, make faith a private practice and not the law of the land. The Bible is NOT the foundation of American law or government and thank god it isn't. As a secular nation we were unique and a truly free nation with protections for worship and civil liberties. It can be shown over and over again that liberty and freedom has an inverse relationship to the degree of theocracy n a country. That is not bigotry, that is wanting persons of faith of all kinds and atheists to all live happy and independent life in a country that values equality, free expression, and a premium on well being. But, oh how bigoted that is!


Alliance Defending Freedom
"The First Amendment has become the most powerful weapon of social conservatives fighting to limit the separation of church and state and to roll back laws on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Few groups have done more to advance this body of legal thinking than the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has more than 3,000 lawyers working on behalf of its causes around the world and brought in $51.5 million in revenue for the 2015-16 tax year, more than the American Civil Liberties Union."


Threats of Christian Nationalism
Christian nationalism refers to an ideology that asserts all civic life in the U.S. should be organized according to a particularly conservative and ethnocentric expression of Christianity. Christian nationalism is more than theological or religious beliefs. It includes several cultural assumptions including:

• Strict moral traditionalism focused on sustaining social hierarchies.
• Comfort with authoritarian controlexercised by the "right" peoplethat includes the threat and use of violence.
• A desire for strict ethno-racial boundaries around who is a "true" American, where non-white and non-natural born citizens are viewed as unworthy of full participation in American civic life. (This is why many label it white Christian nationalism)

The Fake Web Designer Case
Here's what you need to understand about this case: No one has ever asked her to make a wedding website. Ever. No one will ever ask hercertainly not gay people.

---

It's your stupidity or inability to separate Christianity that includes black and Asian congregation in inner cities and political organization like Christian Nationalism. The Supreme Court who hears the cases was shaped by Don McGahn. He is not a Christian Nationalist. And the Supreme Court is not controlled by them no more than Soros or the Jewish community is not the puppet masters of the liberal justices. I am sure there are groups that fund cases from the left and the right. I am sure that Soros helps fund some of those causes. Now if someone were to claim that Jews were behind the liberal movement because Soros or JDL funds some cases or that atheist were behind Pol Pot because Pol Pot was an atheist, you would rightfully and accurately say they were bigots.

I tried to explain that you are like an idiot thinking you can criticize Beethoven's composition (Christianity) because a second grader orchestra (Christian Nationalist) played it poorly and you have no idea what his composition really is. But it goes over your head. Go ahead and be like those bigots who claim that Jews are behind the liberal movement. You do the same when you characterize Christianity by acts of Christian Nationalist despite the fact that nothing about the scripture advocates what they are doing. That's because you are ignorant about the scripture.

You are a bigot by any other name. And an ignorant, conspiracy loving, delusional nut. As I mentioned, basement dwelling, bigoted conspiracy nuts from the left like you and those on the right are identical.

calbear93 said:

---

It's your stupidity or inability to separate Christianity that includes black and Asian congregation in inner cities and political organization like Christian Nationalism. The Supreme Court who hears the cases was shaped by Don McGahn. He is not a Christian Nationalist. And the Supreme Court is not controlled by them no more than Soros or the Jewish community is not the puppet masters of the liberal justices. I am sure there are groups that fund cases from the left and the right. I am sure that Soros helps fund some of those causes. Now if someone were to claim that Jews were behind the liberal movement because Soros or JDL funds some cases or that atheist were behind Pol Pot because Pol Pot was an atheist, you would rightfully and accurately say they were bigots.

I tried to explain that you are like an idiot thinking you can criticize Beethoven's composition (Christianity) because a second grader orchestra (Christian Nationalist) played it poorly and you have no idea what his composition really is. But it goes over your head. Go ahead and be like those bigots who claim that Jews are behind the liberal movement. You do the same when you characterize Christianity by acts of Christian Nationalist despite the fact that nothing about the scripture advocates what they are doing. That's because you are ignorant about the scripture.

You are a bigot by any other name. And an ignorant, conspiracy loving, delusional nut. As I mentioned, basement dwelling, bigoted conspiracy nuts from the left like you and those on the right are identical.

---

Wow. Just wow. I took the time to lay out some information you could have thought about and specifically responded to, but no. Stupid? Nuts? Bigot? What is wrong with you? And you think that you are the one operating at a higher level of Christianity, one of the rare who know "actually" the Beethoven of faith? I know I don't get "actual" scripture but remind me that part of the Sermon on the Mount about calling people who don't understand you or agree with you stupid bigots? You and Jesus are just operating at a such a transcendent level.

Peter 3:15: "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...and break out with stupid and bigot and the "actual" Christianity if that doesn't work."

So I guess I'm just some boob who hears the symphony and goes duh what's that noise?--but somehow still able to write cogent posts, site scripture and cases, and provide you with reviewable content to consider. I did so because it is a real concern, nit to insult you or vent my hatred (I don't) of Christians. But that's all you want to hear. Persecution. It is objectively laughable your level of discourse, your need to put down others rather than respond, and the cover you give yourself that you believe there is no need to sully your high mind with the low thoughts of others like me.

There is NOTHING conspiracy theory about the ADF. This is well documented and factual. See, the way conspiracies work is they are made up and have no supporting evidence. And bigots are bigoted against people or a type of person rather than opposing laws and policy that restrict rights for ALL people including those creating the laws and policy. You are too far down your rabbit hole to get it or even consider the information and perspective I am giving. You obviously don't even read it.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I see what people and groups actually do, and stand against it if it is destructive. There is nothing made up about the goals and objectives of the ADF and Christian Nationalism.

calbear93 said:

---

nothing about the scripture advocates what they are doing...

---

Good to hear. So why not state really clearly you oppose Christian Nationalism and what they are doing through the courts and the erosion of separation of church and state. Lots of "actual" christians do that instead of your deflection, name calling, and hedging:

Faith leaders against Christian Nationalism

Note how often Christian Nationalists use languge like "real" Christians and "real" Americans...hmmm, sounds a lot like "actual" Christianity and your singular ability to understand Beethoven.


NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
Here is a real-life example of how this fallacy can be used:

"Our government has such a small Christian influence that the courts have ruled it's ok to kill babies now. Typical. The people who support legalized abortion but claim to be Christians don't really follow Jesusthey have lost their way."

In an effort to argue that abortion is wrong, it is assumed that Christianity is inherently and automatically opposed to abortion (begging the question). In order to do this, it is further argued that no one who supports legalized abortion for any reason can really be a Christian (equivocation through an ad hoc redefinition of the term "Christian").

It is common for a person using such an argument to then proceed to dismiss whatever the "alleged" members of the group (here: Christians) have to say. This is because they are supposedly fakes who are lying to themselves at the very least and at most lying to everyone else.

Similar arguments are made regarding a host of controversial political, social, and economic questions: real Christians can't be for (or against) capital punishment, real Christians can't be for (or against) socialism, real Christians can't be for (or against) drug legalization, etc.

Ah yes, she sued against something that never even happened. Totally of pure intention. This case was taken by parties interested in eroding church and state separation and they paid for snd promoted this case because there were no defendants and it is easier to take someone's rights away when they don't exist and are instead an abstract idea and you reposition the case as her being persecuted for things that never happened. It's all about her precious religious freedom that wasn't under assault or limited. Completely manufactured and an atrocity of an outcome.

And you think I don't know the facts of the case or are ignorant?

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

I don't know if I am not being clear or if you have no reading comprehension, but not only did I make no mention of Don McGahn, but I made no claim about SCOTUS. But, the Federalist Society and the Alliance Defending Freedom have been involved in a systematic effort to instill Christian articles of faith into law and erode the church/state separation for decades as part of an organized effort which DOES include appointment of their membership to SCOTUS (is it 5 Federalists and 1 ADF presently?).

Mostly though, organizations serving the aims of Christian Nationalism like the ADF are involved in taking fake and symbolic cases to inch by inch erode protections of church state separation and make Christianity a de facto favored class. Any cursory research on your part would reveal the huge machine behind finding dumb cases like the cake maker or web designer (look into the details of that case, it is completely manufactured, she was never even asked to design a gay wedding site) and how those are brought to high court through funding by ADF to make precedent.

So either you are ignorant of the efforts by Christians (yes they are Christians even if believe that only you and people who think just like you are the "actual" Christians) or you agree with them. These legislative efforts directly take rights from others, are a threat to democracy, are antithetical to government by the people, and are fundamentally unAmerican.

This is what happens when you believe that only YOU know God and therefore have moral authority to make others believe and live as you do.This is the logical outcome of fanaticism and tribalism working to protect itself rather than ensure the rights of all. It is a reaction to Christians feeling threatened as more people turn away from religion--you can't abandon us, we will make you live in a country under our laws and faith. And it works hand and hand in the control of patriarch and authority that the wealthy use to control the low information, gullible class as religion has been used as instrument of power and enrichment for the entirety of civilization.

So you can act offended by my truth telling or you can stand with other persons of faith (including Christains) and stand against these nationalists and court appointments and bogus rulings and, as I said, make faith a private practice and not the law of the land. The Bible is NOT the foundation of American law or government and thank god it isn't. As a secular nation we were unique and a truly free nation with protections for worship and civil liberties. It can be shown over and over again that liberty and freedom has an inverse relationship to the degree of theocracy n a country. That is not bigotry, that is wanting persons of faith of all kinds and atheists to all live happy and independent life in a country that values equality, free expression, and a premium on well being. But, oh how bigoted that is!


Alliance Defending Freedom
"The First Amendment has become the most powerful weapon of social conservatives fighting to limit the separation of church and state and to roll back laws on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Few groups have done more to advance this body of legal thinking than the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has more than 3,000 lawyers working on behalf of its causes around the world and brought in $51.5 million in revenue for the 2015-16 tax year, more than the American Civil Liberties Union."


Threats of Christian Nationalism
Christian nationalism refers to an ideology that asserts all civic life in the U.S. should be organized according to a particularly conservative and ethnocentric expression of Christianity. Christian nationalism is more than theological or religious beliefs. It includes several cultural assumptions including:

• Strict moral traditionalism focused on sustaining social hierarchies.
• Comfort with authoritarian controlexercised by the "right" peoplethat includes the threat and use of violence.
• A desire for strict ethno-racial boundaries around who is a "true" American, where non-white and non-natural born citizens are viewed as unworthy of full participation in American civic life. (This is why many label it white Christian nationalism)

The Fake Web Designer Case
Here's what you need to understand about this case: No one has ever asked her to make a wedding website. Ever. No one will ever ask hercertainly not gay people.

---

It's your stupidity or inability to separate Christianity that includes black and Asian congregation in inner cities and political organization like Christian Nationalism. The Supreme Court who hears the cases was shaped by Don McGahn. He is not a Christian Nationalist. And the Supreme Court is not controlled by them no more than Soros or the Jewish community is not the puppet masters of the liberal justices. I am sure there are groups that fund cases from the left and the right. I am sure that Soros helps fund some of those causes. Now if someone were to claim that Jews were behind the liberal movement because Soros or JDL funds some cases or that atheist were behind Pol Pot because Pol Pot was an atheist, you would rightfully and accurately say they were bigots.

I tried to explain that you are like an idiot thinking you can criticize Beethoven's composition (Christianity) because a second grader orchestra (Christian Nationalist) played it poorly and you have no idea what his composition really is. But it goes over your head. Go ahead and be like those bigots who claim that Jews are behind the liberal movement. You do the same when you characterize Christianity by acts of Christian Nationalist despite the fact that nothing about the scripture advocates what they are doing. That's because you are ignorant about the scripture.

You are a bigot by any other name. And an ignorant, conspiracy loving, delusional nut. As I mentioned, basement dwelling, bigoted conspiracy nuts from the left like you and those on the right are identical.

---

Without reading all the back and forth of your guy's debate, I'd like to say BlunGld is solid!!! Long history of enjoying his posts , particularly on the hoops board in years past. He doesn't waste as much time here in OT land, which is to his benefit, but we miss him all the same.
And you're not voting for trump, which makes you alright, too!

Carry on.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

certain decisions by SCOTUS so that means it's Christian Nationalism?

---

The fact that you don't know how these cases came to be, who funded them, and their part in a widely known and documented strategy of Christian Nationalism reveals that I am discussing these things with a person who does not have the wider context.

---

So now Don McGahn is a Christian nationalist? More conspiracy. I would fall for your stupidity but I actually know a few folks who were involved in vetting the Supreme Court justices. But you go ahead and pretend your conspiracy theories are not whacked. We have morons on both sides drowning in conspiracy theories about puppet masters working in the shadow. They have figured all this out from their basements.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

---

Please tell your friends they are *******s who did a terrible job of vetting.

The case also marked the first time the Supreme Court relied on the "major questions doctrine" in a majority opinion to hold that a federal agency lacked authority to issue a regulation. The court's approval of the doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state.

---

Why, because you think only liberals should be appointed?

And major questions doctrine has existed for decades and was even assumed in the broadening of the agency authority in the Chevron case. Do you think it is more Constitutionally defensible for unelected individuals to act as dictators to not only enforce but legislate and adjudicate laws that have major impact on the country without express authority of the elected Congress? What about the major question doctrine do you disagree with? If a Trump appointed agency commissioner decides to write his own laws that go beyond the express authority of the agency when it has great impact on the country, should courts just show deference?

---

Because the ruling leads to an ongoing degradation of the environment.

Look, you can sit there are spout about the wonderfulness of individual FREEDOMS, rip on LIBERALS and make accusations that liberals are reducing people's freedoms as if they were DICTATORS, but let's go back to why we have laws.

Human nature unrestrained is a mess.
Hmmm. I wrote a nice phrase about it a couple weeks ago. I'll have to find that.

In this case, we need to protect the environment. But apparently, individual freedom is more important to you.

I don't want to debate this morning. Moving on.

---

Respect for the constitution is important. Railroading someone for murder who is a bad actor and has abused his family may be utilitarian but we are a nation of laws and not of expediency. You may want EPA to do more, in which case Congress should expressly delegate. Trumpians agency commissioners may want authority to take extreme actions that Trumpians want but I assume you wouldn't want them to have that power without delegation by Congress with the checks and balances.

---

Americans continue to voice supports for the environment, and for all sorts of things that don't get passed into law, or adjudicated by courts.
Why?
Gerrymandering in the house.
Unequal per capita representation in the senate.
Electoral college not equating to popular vote in the executive branch.
Unethical manipulation of the supreme court.
Dark money by select few unknown special interest bigwig$.
Media outlets who are more interested in fanning flames of discontent as a pathway to eyeball revenue than responsibly informing - aka misinformation and propaganda: fear sells.

More to your point, checks and balances don't work in the current arena because of the things I mentioned above.

People don't want Trump either. But we may end up with him.

The founders would be appalled.

Can somebody tell how in the &@$# can Captain Bone Spur can bring a convicted felon and Russian pool boy, Manofort, back to work on his campaign.? The idea that Captain Bone Spur can get security briefings is laughable. What could possibly happen when a twice impeached individual who owes almost half a billion dollars gets security briefings that involve Russia or China and through Manafort gets an offer to trade money for info?