Oh no!!!

If you haven’t noticed, I’m not Bob. I decide my positions on my own, and while I’m socially liberal, that doesn’t mean I agree with the “liberal” positions at all times. I’m not insulted at my position being called “conservative”….I’m not tribalistic that way.

EG-I’m pro gun….but very pro regulation.

I’m actually a fiscal conservative, but unlike the right I know that doesn’t really mean the government should only pay for the military and nothing more. I agree with any spending that saves billions or trillions overall, even when it means some people get a free ride.
I think police are a good idea, although I believe they need serious reforms because they have lost their mission completely.
I think public roads are a good thing, as are public water and power systems.
I think national health care is a no brainer that works well in almost every country and saves trillions per year.
I think a safety net is a good idea...give people something to lose so they don’t turn to crime because they have nothing to lose.

Edit: I’ve said most of my adult life that I would be a Republican if only they would. Today’s Con has no resemblance to the Republican party I thought I grew up with (my entire family was hard core R).
Fiscal sanity, gone. Caring about the environment, gone. Supporting facts and science, gone. Supporting small government, gone (except with lip service). Strong and enforced gun regulations to protect gun ownership rights, gone. Strict supporters of law and order, not anymore. Government out of private life, so incredibly gone. Separation of church and state, gone. Fans of democracy, gone. Honesty, not even a memory.
I’m only a “blue liberal” by default. I might be libertarian if they weren’t crazed anti government extremists and almost MAGA.
Dems are the only ones left that really believe in democratic government.


I agree that 40 years+ without parole is cruel, but certainly not unusual or excessive. I never understand why excessively long prison sentences are considered less than the death penalty…I’m claustrophobic, to me it would be 40+ years of panic. I would give myself the death penalty fairly quickly because I’m not brave enough to face that. Swallow my tongue or bite it off, either works just fine and can’t be stopped. I’m really shocked that’s not the norm, but I’ve (clearly) never had to face it.

But is this a surprise AT ALL? America has been treating politics and democracy as a joke a lifetime already. It has not (or could not) fought for real freedom & democracy t home or abroad not a long while, but instead market itself as the pinnacle of freedom & democracy, but it's far from the truth. It's ALL marketing.

An impartial court, separation of church and state, all illusions. But so be it. It's too far gone. Expand the SCOTUS to bring some balance, it's the only moral thing to do.

Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

I'm from Texas. I support Abortion. No contraceptive is 100% effective, not even if you combine them. If you don't understand that, study how percentages work.

Secondly, kids are hormonally driven creatures. They are literally under the influence of natural chemicals driving them to procreate.

Not every school or parent teaches them about contraceptives. In fact, you will find most 'Christians" only support abstinence. This is the equivalent of telling a chemically dependent addict to "Just Say No!" How well did that work in the drug war back in the day? (Hint: However, despite DARE's bold claims, research has shown that the program has failed spectacularly.)

Third, the people who are most affected by this new law are the people that can least afford the better contraceptives or having a child in a non-stable family environment. This won't bother a middle class or rich family at all, they can just send the kid off to an "aunt" in another state until the issue is resolved. Those kids from poor families will just be forced to have the kid and likely it will ruin their lives. This doesn't even take into account that the new law doesn't have ANY exceptions for rape or incest.

Fourth, the USA was founded on religious freedom. In other words, you get to believe what you want and others get to do the same. This means that if a religious person tells another person that something they are doing is forbidden due to morality contained in their religion, that other person can tell you to fuck right off. Church and State are supposed to be separate, but the Christian right think they should be able to legislate their religious ideas on others. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I'm nominally a conservative. Sadly that means that I get lumped in with you ultra far right wackos that want to turn the USA into a religious state like Iran or Afghanistan. I'm not leaving my home state because some religious nut jobs think it is OK to kill adults by lethal injection but that it is BAD to kill some cells that are multiplying.

Btw, the cardiac activity detected on ultrasound at six weeks is not a true heartbeat. It results from electrical activity, but the valves of the heart have not yet formed. And the sound does not indicate the pregnancy is viable. Women typically don't notice they are pregnant until they miss a period. So if they are unlucky, they may already be close to four weeks pregnant. That leaves them two weeks to confirm it with a doctor, since home tests are not 100%, get together money for the abortion, find a clinic, and schedule an appointment that falls within the remaining time period. Since this law will cause even more clinics to close in Texas, you can add travel and patient backlog to the time. A teen could do everything right and still miss out on the lottery for an appointment, dramatically changing their life for years.

But at least some smug religious person can sip their coffee and be proud they enforced their morality on some evil women that dared sleep around out of wedlock.

Even though I think the world would be FAR better off without religion I in no way advocate any purging of people that "believe" in that crap. But I would also like to not have asshat politicians (mostly Republican in the USA) trying to push their BS religious agenda's in govt, what happened to separation of church and state.... In God We Trust should be removed from anything govt related and any legislation better not have stuff in it because "it goes against my religion".

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

Maintaining a healthy separation of church and state is a conservative position.
Learn your own politics. *facepalm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

RICO will never be used against churches. Kavanaugh's appointment means more and more power handed to churches so long as they are Christian. We are heading to a theocracy, and it'll get worse. Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, at least keeping the church out of the state and believes in the privilege of the church. Gay rights will go out the door. Give them time to replace one more justice on the court, and it may even become a crime. Kavanaugh believes that neutrality between faith and non-faith matters is in fact hostility against the faith.

RICO should definitely be used against churches. They should not be above the law, separation of church and state. Catholic church first.

While I'm ecstatic that even (some....enough, but barely) Alabama Republicans appear to have limits to acceptable behaviour from their representatives, it's pretty embarrassing and disheartening that even a gun toting clan prosecuting good old boy only won by <1% against an anti American, anti constitution, anti separation of church and state, serial child abuser, but I've never been a team player.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

Realistically, no church should have 'status'. We are supposed to separate church and state, not support them by giving them exceptions to the laws of the land. Additionally, I can think of no 'church' that has a commandment that says "Thou shalt have special status and not pay taxes also."

If I recall, any church that considers Jesus to be a spiritual leader should be fucking "render(ing) unto Caesar what is Caesar's." It's hypocritical for them to do otherwise.

My experiences are in direct conflict with your worldview and opinion of the kindness of some Christians. Judged at my own wedding reception in beautiful, nonjudgmental southern california, I was called out and asked if I believed in Jesus and I said no. Why would I say otherwise if it was not true?

Not all of the Christians in our families objected, but many of them did. In fact, many of them refused to be a part of our marriage and begged my wife to leave me. Since then, no one speaks to me on a personal level. They might not have all openly judged me but I'm practically an exile. A thought criminal unfit to converse with on topics of church and state. All of the christians in my life are guilty of this shunning.

The sad thing is, I never make it a big deal (other than when I post my thoughts onto the internet -- where I dump all of my problems) and I don't challenge the beliefs of the people I love -- but they sure do.

You aren't wrong in your logic that not all xtians are judgmental, but you're wrong in your overemphasis of it. Christians need no defender of the faith because God is on their side.

In my own experience and social strata, almost all Christians commit some form of microaggression or judgement upon my lack of faith. Even my wife can't help but occasionally sprinkle a bit of the ol' christian guilt upon my head from time to time. And then she has the gall to talk to me about Christians being treated unfairly.

But that's my life, not yours. I'm sure your flavor of Christ worship is much less judgmental. I don't believe it, but maybe in time I will meet one of these majestic nonjudgemental Christians who don't constantly believe the rest of us will burn in hell for all eternity while they frolic in the basking glow of a jealous, hating God. Sorry, loving... I'm sure it's only love and not a pyschopath's Barbie playset made entirely of humans enslaved to an all powerful being capable of anything.

As usual you are confused, a secular country is not an atheist country. A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion NOR IRRELIGION. We have atheist politicians. https://www.google.com/#q=list+of+atheist+politicians. I'm sure many more are closeted or deists or not as well known. The mayor of the major city I live in is atheist. The United States is the model of a secular nation in that we invented the idea of a separation between church and state. Secular doesn't mean religious people can't hold office. Also, secularism doesn't mean that the wall between church and state doesn't require constant vigilance to uphold.