Culture Wars

[kalm]

The arch conservatives on the Supreme Court are supposed to be originalists?

Intellectually corrupt or just plain ignorant?

The United States was founded on the liberal/progressive ideas of the enlightenment. It was not founded on Christianity.



https://hartmannreport.com/p/alito-thom ... trayal-de6

IMO, Alito's statement that "people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness" is not as bad as the Chicken Littles are making it out to be. To me, godliness is about being a better person and is not limited to Christian godliness. We are a secular not Christian nation so Yahweh and Allah would be welcome as would Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and many others. And let's not exclude atheists, agnostics, druids and more.

The Founders absolutely did not intend for the United States to be a Christian nation but most were Christians or Deists. Would the Deists be opposed to the US returning to a place of godliness? Does it depend on how you define godliness and whether it is required or an individual choice?

I also don't find getting butt hurt over a neighbor flying a Pride flag to be very godly. Love thy neighbor as thyself and all that.

Well hey, you’re a far better person than Mrs. Ailto.

I don’t disagree on godliness either. I’m not anti-church or religion. I’m just think that this recording as well as public statements and rulings support his theocratic undertones.


I’d have less of an issue coming from an elected official. It doesn’t sit well coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Thus is the type of thing the founders were concerned about.

[UNI88]

IMO, Alito's statement that "people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness" is not as bad as the Chicken Littles are making it out to be. To me, godliness is about being a better person and is not limited to Christian godliness. We are a secular not Christian nation so Yahweh and Allah would be welcome as would Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and many others. And let's not exclude atheists, agnostics, druids and more.

The Founders absolutely did not intend for the United States to be a Christian nation but most were Christians or Deists. Would the Deists be opposed to the US returning to a place of godliness? Does it depend on how you define godliness and whether it is required or an individual choice?

I also don't find getting butt hurt over a neighbor flying a Pride flag to be very godly. Love thy neighbor as thyself and all that.

Well hey, you’re a far better person than Mrs. Ailto.

I don’t disagree on godliness either. I’m not anti-church or religion. I’m just think that this recording as well as public statements and rulings support his theocratic undertones.

I’d have less of an issue coming from an elected official. It doesn’t sit well coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Thus is the type of thing the founders were concerned about.

Practically speaking he's an idiot who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. I've been at my job for 5+ years and most of my current and past Board members have no idea what my political affiliation is. Why? Because my job requires that I be evenhanded and respectful of the different perspectives of my members. That requirement is 1,000 times more important for a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

His words and actions definitely make it reasonable to question whether his opinions are based solely on his interpretation of the law or if they're influenced by his ideology and bias. SCOTUS does need a code of conduct. I'm hopeful that Roberts will come around on that one.

[kalm]

Well hey, you’re a far better person than Mrs. Ailto.

I don’t disagree on godliness either. I’m not anti-church or religion. I’m just think that this recording as well as public statements and rulings support his theocratic undertones.

I’d have less of an issue coming from an elected official. It doesn’t sit well coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Thus is the type of thing the founders were concerned about.

Practically speaking he's an idiot who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. I've been at my job for 5+ years and most of my current and past Board members have no idea what my political affiliation is. Why? Because my job requires that I be evenhanded and respectful of the different perspectives of my members. That requirement is 1,000 times more important for a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

His words and actions definitely make it reasonable to question whether his opinions are based solely on his interpretation of the law or if they're influenced by his ideology and bias. SCOTUS does need a code of conduct. I'm hopeful that Roberts will come around on that one.

[UNI88]

trump's zealous mullahs are working feverously to determine how they will force their religious standards and ideology on everyone.

Project 2025

Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.

For the sake of child well-being, programs should a rm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith-based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman.

Project 2025, Section 3.14 - page 481

Anyone supporting this trash has no room to complain about the woke left.

[BDKJMU]

[Caribbean Hen]

trump's zealous mullahs are working feverously to determine how they will force their religious standards and ideology on everyone.

Project 2025

Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.

For the sake of child well-being, programs should a rm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith-based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman.

Project 2025, Section 3.14 - page 481

Anyone supporting this trash has no room to complain about the woke left.

Yep let’s destroy the family unit immediately

[UNI88]

trump's zealous mullahs are working feverously to determine how they will force their religious standards and ideology on everyone.

Project 2025



Project 2025, Section 3.14 - page 481

Anyone supporting this trash has no room to complain about the woke left.

Yep let’s destroy the family unit immediately

By limiting marriage to only between a man and a woman.

By supporting and voting for the serial adulterer who has 5 children with 3 different women.

[kalm]

trump's zealous mullahs are working feverously to determine how they will force their religious standards and ideology on everyone.

Project 2025



Project 2025, Section 3.14 - page 481

Anyone supporting this trash has no room to complain about the woke left.

Yep let’s destroy the family unit immediately

All family units should be respected and supported. Regardless of makeup or sexual orientation.

[BDKJMU]

Remember 4 years ago when people said it wouldn’t stop at the Confederate Civil War statues. And it didn’t. It spread to Founding Fathers. And now we found out this week the left is against Marquis de Lafayette. Now why would liberals be against Lafayette?

[Caribbean Hen]

Yep let’s destroy the family unit immediately

By limiting marriage to only between a man and a woman.

By supporting and voting for the serial’sadulterer who has 5 children with 3 different women.

the playbook calls for destabilizing America. One of the ways to do that is to break up the family unit.

[UNI88]

By limiting marriage to only between a man and a woman.

By supporting and voting for the serial’sadulterer who has 5 children with 3 different women.

the playbook calls for destabilizing America. One of the ways to do that is to break up the family unit.

I don’t want to break up the family unit. I want to respect family units that are different from my own. It doesn’t impact me if 2 men get married, 2 women have a baby using a sperm donor, etc. if 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together and possibly raise children, more power to them.

A marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. The government has no right to discriminate and limit who can enter into such a contract. If the term marriage causes Christofascists angst then the government can change the name and whoever presides over the ceremony can call it a marriage or not.

I find it fascinating that Christofascists get so hung up on something that doesn’t impact them. The supposed party of freedom sure is interested in dictating to others what they can and can’t do.

People who want to gut public education should not be calling out others for wanting to destabilize America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in

[kalm]

the playbook calls for destabilizing America. One of the ways to do that is to break up the family unit.

I don’t want to break up the family unit. I want to respect family units that are different from my own. It doesn’t impact me if 2 men get married, 2 women have a baby using a sperm donor, etc. if 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together and possibly raise children, more power to them.

A marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. The government has no right to discriminate and limit who can enter into such a contract. If the term marriage causes Christofascists angst then the government can change the name and whoever presides over the ceremony can call it a marriage or not.

I find it fascinating that Christofascists get so hung up on something that doesn’t impact them. The supposed party of freedom sure is interested in dictating to others what they can and can’t do.

People who want to gut public education should not be calling out others for wanting to destabilize America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in

Or school meal programs or state Medicaid…the list goes on and on.

[Caribbean Hen]

the playbook calls for destabilizing America. One of the ways to do that is to break up the family unit.

I don’t want to break up the family unit. I want to respect family units that are different from my own. It doesn’t impact me if 2 men get married, 2 women have a baby using a sperm donor, etc. if 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together and possibly raise children, more power to them.

A marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. The government has no right to discriminate and limit who can enter into such a contract. If the term marriage causes Christofascists angst then the government can change the name and whoever presides over the ceremony can call it a marriage or not.

I find it fascinating that Christofascists get so hung up on something that doesn’t impact them. The supposed party of freedom sure is interested in dictating to others what they can and can’t do.

People who want to gut public education should not be calling out others for wanting to destabilize America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in

But what about the kid?

It’s always about me with the left

[BDKJMU]

the playbook calls for destabilizing America. One of the ways to do that is to break up the family unit.

I don’t want to break up the family unit. I want to respect family units that are different from my own. It doesn’t impact me if 2 men get married, 2 women have a baby using a sperm donor, etc. if 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together and possibly raise children, more power to them.

A marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. The government has no right to discriminate and limit who can enter into such a contract. If the term marriage causes Christofascists angst then the government can change the name and whoever presides over the ceremony can call it a marriage or not.

I find it fascinating that Christofascists get so hung up on something that doesn’t impact them. The supposed party of freedom sure is interested in dictating to others what they can and can’t do.

People who want to gut public education should not be calling out others for wanting to destabilize America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in

Why just 2 people?

[UNI88]

I don’t want to break up the family unit. I want to respect family units that are different from my own. It doesn’t impact me if 2 men get married, 2 women have a baby using a sperm donor, etc. if 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together and possibly raise children, more power to them.

A marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. The government has no right to discriminate and limit who can enter into such a contract. If the term marriage causes Christofascists angst then the government can change the name and whoever presides over the ceremony can call it a marriage or not.

I find it fascinating that Christofascists get so hung up on something that doesn’t impact them. The supposed party of freedom sure is interested in dictating to others what they can and can’t do.

People who want to gut public education should not be calling out others for wanting to destabilize America.

Why just 2 people?

It's a contract and a contract doesn't need to be limited to 2 people so I'm fine with it being more but knuckle dragging Neanderthals probably aren't evolved enough to accept that possibility yet.

Why do you frequently attempt to limit the focus to part of a post you disagree with?

How does 2 men or 2 women getting married or having children (through sperm donor or adoption) impact you?

[BDKJMU]

Why just 2 people?

It's a contract and a contract doesn't need to be limited to 2 people so I'm fine with it being more but knuckle dragging Neanderthals probably aren't evolved enough to accept that possibility yet.

Why do you frequently attempt to limit the focus to part of a post you disagree with?

How does 2 men or 2 women getting married or having children (through sperm donor or adoption) impact you?

And you just made the point made on here 10 years ago. Change the definition from a man to a woman and next the left will be calling for polygamy within a generation. Didn’t take you that long.

It doesn’t, so I really don’t care.

[UNI88]

It's a contract and a contract doesn't need to be limited to 2 people so I'm fine with it being more but knuckle dragging Neanderthals probably aren't evolved enough to accept that possibility yet.

Why do you frequently attempt to limit the focus to part of a post you disagree with?

How does 2 men or 2 women getting married or having children (through sperm donor or adoption) impact you?

And you just made the point made on here 10 years ago. Change the definition from a man to a woman and next the left will be calling for polygamy within a generation. Didn’t take you that long.

It doesn’t, so I really don’t care.

I know I did. My position has evolved. You should try it sometime.

Most people don't respond to something they "really don't care" about.

[houndawg]

It's a contract and a contract doesn't need to be limited to 2 people so I'm fine with it being more but knuckle dragging Neanderthals probably aren't evolved enough to accept that possibility yet.

Why do you frequently attempt to limit the focus to part of a post you disagree with?

How does 2 men or 2 women getting married or having children (through sperm donor or adoption) impact you?

And you just made the point made on here 10 years ago. Change the definition from a man to a woman and next the left will be calling for polygamy within a generation. Didn’t take you that long.

It doesn’t, so I really don’t care.

You say that like its a bad thing

Mind your own bidniz whydoncha

[UNI88]

AN OPEN LETTER TO MARTHA-ANN ALITO ABOUT HER NEW PRIDE FLAG

• First off, snaps for cultural competency. If queer people love anything, it’s a fucking flag. (Literally. We’ve been known to carry them around in our back pockets.) From one flag-lover to another, it’s devastating to hear that your husband isn’t supportive. He sounds kind of flag-phobic.
• Back to your flag: your use of the fire emoji is on point.
• Honestly, your design is so strong that pairing it with your “Sacred Heart of Jesus” flag seems like gilding the lily. But it’s sweet that you want to honor the gay community’s historic situationship with the Catholic Church.
• Speaking of which, I’m here for “Italians on hot mics” as this year’s Pride theme. It’s giving Pope Francis. One complaint: Couldn’t you two have staggered the merch rollout? I just shelled out for a THAT’S THAT ME FROCIAGGINE crop top, and now you’re hitting me with this. Corporate Pride is so expensive.
• And that brings us to “vergogna.” You are not the first person to look at the LGBTQIA+ community and try to hand us a symbol of shame. And whether we’re talking about a pink triangle or an unprintable slur, we always manage to take the hateful thing you created and make it our own. A badge of honor. You see, Martha-Ann, to us, “pride” is not another word for ego—it’s an act of defiance. It’s laughing through broken teeth. It’s about endurance, love, and solidarity with anyone who has been deemed unworthy to exist. And it’s about celebrating the fact that we’ve always been here and will continue to be here long after you’re gone.

So, go out on your back porch and fly your white flag. You’re fighting a losing battle. Besides, we already took all the colors.

[kalm]

AN OPEN LETTER TO MARTHA-ANN ALITO ABOUT HER NEW PRIDE FLAG

• First off, snaps for cultural competency. If queer people love anything, it’s a fucking flag. (Literally. We’ve been known to carry them around in our back pockets.) From one flag-lover to another, it’s devastating to hear that your husband isn’t supportive. He sounds kind of flag-phobic.
• Back to your flag: your use of the fire emoji is on point.
• Honestly, your design is so strong that pairing it with your “Sacred Heart of Jesus” flag seems like gilding the lily. But it’s sweet that you want to honor the gay community’s historic situationship with the Catholic Church.
• Speaking of which, I’m here for “Italians on hot mics” as this year’s Pride theme. It’s giving Pope Francis. One complaint: Couldn’t you two have staggered the merch rollout? I just shelled out for a THAT’S THAT ME FROCIAGGINE crop top, and now you’re hitting me with this. Corporate Pride is so expensive.
• And that brings us to “vergogna.” You are not the first person to look at the LGBTQIA+ community and try to hand us a symbol of shame. And whether we’re talking about a pink triangle or an unprintable slur, we always manage to take the hateful thing you created and make it our own. A badge of honor. You see, Martha-Ann, to us, “pride” is not another word for ego—it’s an act of defiance. It’s laughing through broken teeth. It’s about endurance, love, and solidarity with anyone who has been deemed unworthy to exist. And it’s about celebrating the fact that we’ve always been here and will continue to be here long after you’re gone.

So, go out on your back porch and fly your white flag. You’re fighting a losing battle. Besides, we already took all the colors.

[BDKJMU]

AN OPEN LETTER TO MARTHA-ANN ALITO ABOUT HER NEW PRIDE FLAG

I heard the secret recording that the left is getting all bent out of shape over. A giant nothing burger.

[kalm]

I heard the secret recording that the left is getting all bent out of shape over. A giant nothing burger.

I’m sorry you don’t understand.

[BDKJMU]

I heard the secret recording that the left is getting all bent out of shape over. A giant nothing burger.

I’m sorry you don’t understand.

Oh I understand perfectly

[kalm]

I’m sorry you don’t understand.

Oh I understand perfectly

Yes. You only like selective freedom and establishment power which you agree with.

We get it.

[houndawg]

The arch conservatives on the Supreme Court are supposed to be originalists?

Intellectually corrupt or just plain ignorant?

The United States was founded on the liberal/progressive ideas of the enlightenment. It was not founded on Christianity.

The United States was the first country at that time in history to openly reject any role for religion, a prohibition that appears twice in our Constitution and repeatedly in the writings of the Founding generation as you can read in great and astonishing detail here.

Religious leaders in the Founders’ day, in defense of church/state cooperation and collaboration, tried to argue that for centuries kings and queens in England had said that if the state didn’t support the church, the church would eventually wither and die. They wanted subsidies, like Bush’s and Trump‘s “faith based initiatives,” and to avoid all taxation.

“Father of the Constitution” James Madison, himself an active Christian, flatly rejected this argument, noting in a July 10, 1822 letter to Edward Livingston:

“We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government.”

He added in that same letter:

“I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”

….


No matter how hard Republicans try to reinvent the Founders and Framers of this nation in the image of their libertarian billionaire patrons, and no matter how imperfect and even brutal their time was, the simple reality is that in 1770’s America this nation’s Founders undertook history’s first truly great progressive experiment.

And they put their lives on the line to do it: when they signed their names on the Declaration, a death warrant was issued against each one of them by the largest and most powerful empire in the world.

But in the end, they believed they had succeeded.

As President George Washington wrote on March 15, 1790:

“As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.”

https://hartmannreport.com/p/alito-thom ... trayal-de6

"....the United Srates are in no sense a christian nation.." - Congress 1790