Remember that when Republicans complain about drag queens... - Politics Discussion

"technologically advanced mermaids"

Cyborg mermaids? "Come with me if you want to be gay!"

reply

Every movement has it's fringe.

That you want to use that fringe to try to defend using drag queens to mess with children is you admitting that you know you cannot defend your position on it's merits.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles and others openly talk about "satanism" on Twitter and on their broadcasts.

Charlie Kirk said that witches cursed him

These aren't Republican representatives per se, but they're well known Conservative online commentators

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

I like that you didn't even try to deny that you can't defend your position on it's merits.

Shows self awareness.

Now, walk it back.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

What position? I just popped in to say that I don't think you can call the conservatives who complain about satanism, witchcraft etc as being on the fringe at the moment.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Well. true in general. Or even on the left. Mainstream lefty news organs talk about them, because they are out there doing shit, generally on your side too.

I mean, cnn are not only not fringe republicans, tehy are not even republicans at all. They are very much hostile to republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics/satanic-temple-boston-supreme-court-flag/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/12/19/witches-offended-donald-trump-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn

BUT, this thread is about a specific group I never heard of which sounds pretty fringe.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Well. true in general. Or even on the left. Mainstream lefty news organs talk about them, because they are out there doing shit, generally on your side too.

Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles and co call music performances at the Grammys "satanic". They call yoga "satanic". They aren't specifically criticising the Satanic Temple (a very niche group that mostly exists as a prop for the ACLU to bring cases of religious hypocrisy) when they talk about it.

>https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics/satanic-temple-boston-supreme-court-flag/index.html

>https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/12/19/witches-offended-donald-trump-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn

Are you comparing these situations to the nonsense uttered by Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh (whose IMDB page profile constantly gets attention on here btw) and Michael Knowles? CNN is just reporting on things there, they aren't like endorsing Satanism.

>BUT, this thread is about a specific group I never heard of which sounds pretty fringe.

The Daily Wire, Turning Point online Conservative grouping is pretty big in USA.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Kirk and Walsh weren't endorsing satanism or witchcraft either.

Perhaps you need to make your point more clearly.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Kirk and Walsh weren't endorsing satanism or witchcraft either.

No, but they were literally acting as if they are real threats lmao

https://twitter.com/jasonscampbell/status/1628454677628035072?s=46&t=ahSCleNtdi7-TEtiUzvb-w (witches made Charlie Kirk sick)

https://twitter.com/jasonscampbell/status/1581989699501010944?s=46&t=ZThR4BsezTwmgL-DcHYOPA
(anime is satanic)

https://i.redd.it/pj8dtw9ew3m71.jpg (yoga is satanic)

These guys aren't nuts?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Do you believe that Muhammad was visited by an angle that gave him messages from God and told him to spread them to the people of the Earth?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

No

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Me neither.

Do you consider anyone that does believe it, to be "Fringe" and thus to be marginalized in society, culture and politics?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Do you consider anyone that does believe it, to be "Fringe" and thus to be marginalized in society, culture and politics?

Do you mean should they be, or do I think they currently are?

As for my other point here. Charlie Kirk, Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh /aren't/ marginalised figures. They're quite relevant activists in the modern conservative/reactionary movement in the USA. Yet they believe that yoga is satanic, and witches put curses on people.

You don't think these beliefs are bonkers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

I'm asking you to you think they should be?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

Yes to both.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Well, thanks for the honesty.

But, looking at history, your position makes no sense. The entire modern world, that you are part of, that has created the envirnoment that allows an Oh So, Rational Being such as yourself, to imagine himself to be Utterly Superior to those that feel a need for spiritual beliefs...

Was created not by people like you, but by people that believe in various religions, from the Jupiter fearing Romans all the way down to the Founding Fathers, and the soliders that won WWII so that you are NOT being ruled by freaking Nazis.

So, I'm fine with Kirk and Knowles and Walsh as part of the Republcian Mainstream.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>But, looking at history, your position makes no sense. The entire modern world, that you are part of, that has created the envirnoment that allows an Oh So, Rational Being such as yourself, to imagine himself to be Utterly Superior to those that feel a need for spiritual beliefs...

You can have 'spiritual beliefs', but if you start injecting them into your politics, into public platforms you should expect people to laugh at you.

>Was created not by people like you, but by people that believe in various religions, from the Jupiter fearing Romans all the way down to the Founding Fathers, and the soliders that won WWII so that you are NOT being ruled by freaking Nazis.

This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

>So, I'm fine with Kirk and Knowles and Walsh as part of the Republcian Mainstream.

I mean you originally denied they were part of any mainstream.

I don't think you have much ground to call out some democrats or leftists for having loony beliefs when you ignore that many contemporary conservative activists in the USA right now are bible thumping theocrats who think anime and yoga are "satanic". Which would be silly in itself, but those same people want to use the state to impose their worldview on other people.

There's a difference between most Christians and the drivel from Charlie Kirk and Michael Knowles who think the music industry is trying to summon satan through Sam Smith.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Religion, or spiritual beliefs have always been part of politics. And indeed, you are fine with that, as long as they support your side. It is only your enemies that you wish to deprive of their rights. What are you suggesting, btw, is a denial of the human right of freedom of religion.

2. You are attacking the idea that religion or religious beliefs or people that believe them, have any place in politics. My pointing out that such people have done quite well in politics in the past, is completely relevant.

3. I denied that the woman in the op was mainstream. It is you that moved the goal post to anyone that mentioned satanists or witches.

4. Everyone that wants policy is trying to impose their world view on others. You just want to exclude your enemies from that process so you can have your way, and your excuse is religious bigotry and your process is religious persectution.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. Religion, or spiritual beliefs have always been part of politics. And indeed, you are fine with that, as long as they support your side. It is only your enemies that you wish to deprive of their rights. What are you suggesting, btw, is a denial of the human right of freedom of religion.

I've never been particularly "fine" with religion. I accept that it exists and people have the right to believe what they want, but I don't necessarily respect any religious beliefs.

>2. You are attacking the idea that religion or religious beliefs or people that believe them, have any place in politics. My pointing out that such people have done quite well in politics in the past, is completely relevant.

No, I'm saying that Michael Knowles, Charlie Kirk, and Matt Walsh are fanatical theofascists.

>3. I denied that the woman in the op was mainstream. It is you that moved the goal post to anyone that mentioned satanists or witches.

Well, okay, but I don't see how claiming that yoga is satanic is any less stupid than what the woman in the OP said.

>4. Everyone that wants policy is trying to impose their world view on others. You just want to exclude your enemies from that process so you can have your way, and your excuse is religious bigotry and your process is religious persectution.

What have I suggested that would "exclude" religious people from any process, exactly? What persecution have I suggested?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Your intent is clear, you want to exclude people that you judge unworthy from the political process.

Your standards of completetly subjective and not fairly appled of course. I never hear any libs attacking say, Obama for his supposed religious beliefs, or complaining about BLACK CHURCHES working to get out hte dem vote.

But anyone to the right of John Fucking Kerry, and suddenly they remember that belief in God is worthy of shame.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Your intent is clear, you want to exclude people that you judge unworthy from the political process.

And how do I want to do that?

>Your standards of completetly subjective and not fairly appled of course. I never hear any libs attacking say, Obama for his supposed religious beliefs, or complaining about BLACK CHURCHES working to get out hte dem vote.

Did Obama ever propose legislation based on imposing Christianity on other people? Or stigmatise groups based on his interpretation of Christianity?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. By whipping up a cancel mob riled up by religious bigotry and shouting down or terrorizing your enemies into submission.

2. You want me to read his mind across space and time? OK, I will. I will do it as hostilely as you did. ..... .....

got it. His soft immigration policies could easily have been based, I mean, certainly WERE based on his black liberation theology church teachings from Rev GOD DAMN AMERICA wright.

I know cause, just like you, I can read minds. Soooo,

Religious obama. Bad man, imposing his religious beleifs on the rest of US.

Now, condemn him. lol.

Now, walk it back.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. By whipping up a cancel mob riled up by religious bigotry and shouting down or terrorizing your enemies into submission.

What "cancel mob" have I "whipped up"? I just noted the absurdity and fanaticism of contemporary mainstream conservative influencers in the USA.

>got it. His soft immigration policies could easily have been based, I mean, certainly WERE based on his black liberation theology church teachings from Rev GOD DAMN AMERICA wright.

Evidence please

Obama didn't denigrate anyone based on his religion. He didn't pass laws or try to pass laws designed to persecute people that he believes are anathema to religion. Even if his relatively lax attitude to immigration was inspired by his religious faith, it has nothing to do with what many contemporary conservatives in the US want - which is the implementation of law based on their religious scripture.

Prayer in schools, banning of LGBT content (to varying degrees), erosion of LGBT rights (marriage, adoption), 10 commandments displayed prominently, creationism taught in schools, banning sexual content etc. Demonisation of things for being "satanic" or "occult".

>Now, condemn him. lol.

No, because it is not remotely the same.

>Now, walk it back.

I will do and say what I like without your permission.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. You admitted that you wanted such people marginalized and you admitted how you would do it, by having people laughed at if htey tried to engage in normal public policy discussion. YOur intent is clear.

2.Got it. Obama gets a pass for his religious beliefs, becuase it sooooo "different" while those that oppose you, dont. How shocking.

3. But you did walk it back. It was more of a prediction. THanks.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. In an ideal society the social atmosphere would be so that in terms of politics, those people would be laughed out of the room. Just like many types of people are already now. Communists in the USA are completely minor. Just like Scientologists are laughed out of the room. Islamists are also laughed out of the room.

People who inject Communism, Scientology or Islam into their political platforms get nowhere.

2. Not remotely what I said. I literally drew up the distinction - and you didn't evidence your claim regarding Obama's immigration position.

3. No, I did not. You not understanding my position is not a "walk back".

What do you think of Michael Knowles saying yoga is "satanic"? Do you think that sounds like a normal, sensible thing to say?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Clearly you are invisioning a lot more than one person "laughing". So your push back against my point about a mob riled up by anti-religious bigotry is shown to be wrong.

2. Your distinction was pure spin. You see it as better because you agree.

3. Show me Knowless wanting to respond to Yoga by passing scripture into law. That is was your standarnd when the religious person in question was OBAMA.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Yes, "laughing" was plural. Are you upset that Scientologists and Communists are frozen out of US political discourse?

2. No, it was not. And you still didn't evidence your claim about the source of his immigration position.

3. I specifically asked you about your opinion on him saying that, but in related positions:

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1633130210768961536

Literally defending theocracy

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. So, you admit that you want to freeze Christians out of political discourse, as though they are a goofy cult or a political ideology that has murdered a hundred million people.

I wish that more lefties were honest like you. You would never win another election ever.

2. And you've presented no evidence of anyone proposing legislation against yoga, based on Christian scripture. But you claimed it. SO, boom, Obama just as bad as Walsh, but you give him a pass. Like I said. Different standards for people you like.

3. Aw, an out of context clip change of topic?! Cool. So, Knowleges was not do what you said he did. Got it. you were exaggerating to make your enemies look bad.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. No. I want Christians who say stupid shit to be not taken seriously. Same with Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Scientologists etc.

2. And you've presented no evidence of anyone proposing legislation against yoga, based on Christian scripture. But you claimed it. SO, boom, Obama just as bad as Walsh, but you give him a pass. Like I said. Different standards for people you like.

No, he's not. What do you think hating yoga based on it being "satanic" is based on, may I ask?

>3. Aw, an out of context clip change of topic?! Cool. So, Knowleges was not do what you said he did. Got it. you were exaggerating to make your enemies look bad.

Knowles was specifically playing apologist for theocracy. What is that if not suggesting you want a form, a variant of biblical instruction or law to reign supreme and dictate the lives of people in the USA?

Here's some more examples:

PragerU: https://preview.redd.it/puop6dnkrvk71.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=8c4259444a5c79400a516a44e949d7c3d0810670

Charlie Kirk: https://preview.redd.it/al7lfhnfdo971.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=76ef808c1b396600c9a0f60204d45846ecce4f79

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. So just a coincidence that the Christians you mention just happen to be on the other side of you politically?

HOw fortunate for you. Can you see how I find that suspect?

2. I think it is irrelevant compared to say, the way Obama went to a church that taught racism, and marxism and anti-Americanism. Yet, libs like yourself had no problem voting for him.

3. He seemed to be, in that very small clip without context, responding to a claim that the historical ideology of Divine Right of Kings, required absolute unchecked power for the King in question. And making the claim that that was NOT required.

Such a claim might technically be a defense of the idea, but without more contenxt does not even IMPLY that he thinks it is a good system or that he wants it here. That you assume those, is your emotional dislike of him twisting your logic.

That you needed me to explain that to you, is, AT BEST, those same emotions still effecting your brain.

4. No throwing more shit against the wall to see what sticks. You presented a good list of examples for discussion purposes.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I didn't originally mention them *because* they were Christian. I originally bought them up because you suggested they were fringe (or the sentiments expressed by the woman in the OP). In terms of believing things are 'satanic' or that witches exist, people like that are not on the fringe in US conservatism anymore.

2. I'm not American. And did Obama not publicly, at the time, did a speech addressing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)

3. Given the the many comments Michael Knowles has made about culture, I don't think it's too much of a jump to propose that the dude does want religious instruction imposed into public policy.

4. You didn't even tell me what you think personally about the credibility of someone who claims yoga is satanic. Or that witches curse people. Do you think these people sound sensible?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. How do you judge if a youtube personality is mainstream? THey have not been elected to anything.

2. Sure he addressed it. And incredibly, to me, he got a pass for it. I think as long as LEFTY politicians are allowed to be members of churches that teach racism, marxism and anti-Americanism, I am happy to be on the side of YOGA=SATANISM.

3, Sorry, i did not follow that logic at all. He talks about culture, so that means he wants "religious instruction imposed into public policy"?

4. I'm used to it. I live in a world, where religious people vastly outnumber me. And i read a lot about history, where nearly all the major players were religious people. Writing off religious people would be.... insanely arrongant of me, and increadibly isolating.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. How do you judge if a youtube personality is mainstream? THey have not been elected to anything.

They all have a large amount of followers on Twitter, Youtube, and contribute for an online news platform (Daily Wire). They get Fox News interviews spots. They're pretty big amongst the conservative youth.

>Sure he addressed it. And incredibly, to me, he got a pass for it. I think as long as LEFTY politicians are allowed to be members of churches that teach racism, marxism and anti-Americanism, I am happy to be on the side of YOGA=SATANISM.

He repudiated it. I haven't seen Michael Knowles repudiate his claims about yoga.

>Sorry, i did not follow that logic at all. He talks about culture, so that means he wants "religious instruction imposed into public policy"?

Ie pass laws that target things he regards as 'satanic' or 'anti-christian'.

>4. I'm used to it. I live in a world, where religious people vastly outnumber me. And i read a lot about history, where nearly all the major players were religious people. Writing off religious people would be.... insanely arrongant of me, and increadibly isolating.

I'm asking you specifically in terms of these people - do they sound sensible? Is it less mad to identify as bigender or genderflux than it is to say that yoga is satanic, or that they were cursed by witches?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Maybe. Or maybe not. If you want to talk about mainstream, talking PARTY PLATFORMS or formal policies seems more concrete. Funny you mentioned YOGA but not ABORTION. Now there is a mainstream conservative issue.

2. Yes, Obama eventually after getting caught Obama evetually said words distancing himself from the racism and marxism and anti-Americanism of his long time friend and spiritiual mentor. Yet those words clash with his actions of converting to that church in the first place and spending decades as a member and raising his children in it.

Question. When a politicians words don't match his actions, which do you think reflect the real him?

3. Dude. I understood what you are claiming. I don't see any steps between his statement and your conclusion as to his goal. Nothing you said, explains why you conclude that he wants "scripture into law".

4. It sounds fine to me. And far healthier than "identifying" as genderfluid. Religious people in this country have a long history of being productive and healthy citizens. I expect that a generation from now, we will be looking back at the "genderfliuld" craze, as a form of mass hysteria with quite a serious body count.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Maybe. Or maybe not. If you want to talk about mainstream, talking PARTY PLATFORMS or formal policies seems more concrete. Funny you mentioned YOGA but not ABORTION. Now there is a mainstream conservative issue.

I never said abortion wasn't a mainstream issue. The point is why isn't Knowles being mocked for this? Or criticised?

>Yes, Obama eventually after getting caught Obama evetually said words distancing himself from the racism and marxism and anti-Americanism of his long time friend and spiritiual mentor. Yet those words clash with his actions of converting to that church in the first place and spending decades as a member and raising his children in it.

Okay, maybe so. But Knowles, Walsh etc haven't even distanced themselves from some of their bonkers comments.

>Dude. I understood what you are claiming. I don't see any steps between his statement and your conclusion as to his goal. Nothing you said, explains why you conclude that he wants "scripture into law".

https://boingboing.net/2023/03/24/daily-wire-host-laughs-at-ugandas-anti-lgbtq-bill-that-includes-death-penalty-video.html

>It sounds fine to me. And far healthier than "identifying" as genderfluid. Religious people in this country have a long history of being productive and healthy citizens. I expect that a generation from now, we will be looking back at the "genderfliuld" craze, as a form of mass hysteria with quite a serious body count.

Why is it healthier than having some different gender identifier? You do realise tons of people who identify as some form of trans are often successful artists, musicians, actors etc, right?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>I never said abortion wasn't a mainstream issue. The point is why isn't Knowles being mocked for this? Or criticised?

My guess? Because it's not important. MY point was that if you want to judge someone look to their formal policy positions on real issues.

>Okay, maybe so. But Knowles, Walsh etc haven't even distanced themselves from some of their bonkers comments

He only "distanced" himself because he got caught. That being part of that racist, anti-American, marxist Church was who he really was. And that's serious. He was anti-white and anti-American, that's a lot more important than being anti-Yoga. That you want to attack Righties on yoga while giving Obama a pass on far more serious shit, shows that the LEFT is the one where the fringe has become mixed or even dominate.

And you still can't justify your assumption that he want's "scripture into law". So... You're dropping that, right? (just don't respond, we can just move on)

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>My guess? Because it's not important. MY point was that if you want to judge someone look to their formal policy positions on real issues.

I think it's just as relevant as making fun of someone because they are genderfluid.

>He only "distanced" himself because he got caught. That being part of that racist, anti-American, marxist Church was who he really was. And that's serious. He was anti-white and anti-American, that's a lot more important than being anti-Yoga. That you want to attack Righties on yoga while giving Obama a pass on far more serious shit, shows that the LEFT is the one where the fringe has become mixed or even dominate.

Obama repudiated his old church and did nothing in office that suggested any sense of sympathy with any kind of african-american chauvinism.

>And you still can't justify your assumption that he want's "scripture into law". So... You're dropping that, right? (just don't respond, we can just move on)

I think, given the sentiment repeatedly expressed by Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Charlie Kirk is that they are dominionists. I literally linked you a video where he suggested American politicians should take advice from the same types of people in Africa who passed laws punishing homosexuality with the death penalty. There's so much *hint hint nudge nudge* going on with these people. I also linked to you a tweet where PragerU rejected the separation of church of state.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. The "drag queen" issue is not about "making fun of people", it is about whether to allow or even encourage children with pyschological problems to make irreversible physical changes to their bodies while under the age of consent. Did you really not get that? How long have you been paying attention to this issue?

2. Do you seriously believe that he was a member of that church and a friend and political ally of Rev Wright for 20 years without noticing that he was a (literally) raving racist, anti-american marxist? Let's address that before we discuss the implications.

3. Your points here show that you do not understand the conserative position on Church and State AT ALL. Rejecting the separation of Church and State is NOT a call for "scripture into law", but a defense of religious groups and people to have the same rights as every other group and persons.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14783) a year ago

Omg, I thought this was a new post and came to ask my usual(and always unanswered) question of "
Why do drag queen shows require the presence of children?", and it seems like I already have done that in here...and it still remains unanswered lol.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. The "drag queen" issue is not about "making fun of people", it is about whether to allow or even encourage children with pyschological problems to make irreversible physical changes to their bodies while under the age of consent. Did you really not get that? How long have you been paying attention to this issue?

Drag Queens =/= Gender dysphoria for kids. Not quite the same thing.

>Do you seriously believe that he was a member of that church and a friend and political ally of Rev Wright for 20 years without noticing that he was a (literally) raving racist, anti-american marxist? Let's address that before we discuss the implications.

Sorry, where was he a marxist? And Obama directly, in his speech, noted the problems that the wider African-American community has with expressing racism.

>Your points here show that you do not understand the conserative position on Church and State AT ALL. Rejecting the separation of Church and State is NOT a call for "scripture into law", but a defense of religious groups and people to have the same rights as every other group and persons.

How does secularism (the separation of religion and state) somehow suggest that religious groups may not have the same rights as everyone else?

And any thoughts on Michael Knowles wanting the people behind the Uganda anti-gay law to advise US lawmakers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Terminology aside, this is a serious political issue regarding children and irreversible medical procedures. To try to minimize it as " making fun of people" so that you can thus pretend equivelency to something about conservatives...

That is the type of tactic you use, when you KNOW already that you are WRONG.

2. Answer the question. His defense for his actions was that he did not notice. He supposedly found something so attractive in that church and Rev. Wright's message that he "converted" to it, his words, and spent twenty years in it, yet never noticed the actual doctrine that Wright was pushing, even though he was literally screaming it from the pulpit.

We have two choices here, to A. believe that or B. not believe it. If it is not true, then his actions demonstrate agreement, STRONG agreement with the doctrines of the church.

3. Because every other group and person has the right to NOT be "separated" from the state, ie to advocate for their beliefs and interests to be represented in "state" policy and actions.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. Terminology aside, this is a serious political issue regarding children and irreversible medical procedures. To try to minimize it as " making fun of people" so that you can thus pretend equivelency to something about conservatives...

I mean the phenomenon of drag queens being seen by children is not really the same issue as kids being referred for social transition. Any examples of actual kids being given treatment?

>Answer the question. His defense for his actions was that he did not notice. He supposedly found something so attractive in that church and Rev. Wright's message that he "converted" to it, his words, and spent twenty years in it, yet never noticed the actual doctrine that Wright was pushing, even though he was literally screaming it from the pulpit.

I have no idea how prominent Jeremiah Wrights sermons were. The two controversial speeches on Wikipedia pertain primarily to criticising US foreign policy and accusing it of historical racism. And then he was anti-semitic after Obama had publicly disavowed him in an interview.

This doesn't even seem like it stems from scripture - it's just a guy with dodgy foreign policy views. Not sure what makes him a Marxist though.

>Because every other group and person has the right to NOT be "separated" from the state, ie to advocate for their beliefs and interests to be represented in "state" policy and actions.

Right, so Christians who don't agree with the separation of religion and state do want their religious values reflected into law. They wish to, in some sense, impose their religion on peple who do not share it.

And any thoughts on Michael Knowles wanting the people behind the Uganda anti-gay law to advise US lawmakers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I'v seen clips of young people that were horribly messed up by "transitioning" as children. So, yes. If you truly don't believe it happened, I can find some for you. Don't ask just to be a dick.

Let's keep focus. THe point of this line of discussion was you tryihng to show equivalence of Right leaning poeple and Left leaning people in support of the OP's position that it is hte RIGHT that is fringe or weird.

2. Rev Wright, in an interview I saw on tv, admittedt that his church's doctrine was Black Liberation Theology. That is a very radical ideology with anti-americanism, marixism and anti-white racism being the POINT of the whole organization. Those themes would have been constant in the church doctrine.

Answer the question. Do you believe Obama did not notice that for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS?

3. DO you agree that everyone else has the right to try to get their "values" "reflected into law"? And that when they do that, they are then "imposing" them on "people who do not share them?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. I'v seen clips of young people that were horribly messed up by "transitioning" as children. So, yes. If you truly don't believe it happened, I can find some for you. Don't ask just to be a dick.

Sure.

>Let's keep focus. THe point of this line of discussion was you tryihng to show equivalence of Right leaning poeple and Left leaning people in support of the OP's position that it is hte RIGHT that is fringe or weird.

Many right-wing reactionaries that seem to be listened to on by many are fucking weirdos who believe yoga, anime, sam smith are satanic and seem to want women to behave as tradwives.

>2. Rev Wright, in an interview I saw on tv, admittedt that his church's doctrine was Black Liberation Theology. That is a very radical ideology with anti-americanism, marixism and anti-white racism being the POINT of the whole organization. Those themes would have been constant in the church doctrine.

What interview was this please?

>Answer the question. Do you believe Obama did not notice that for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS?

Again, the only controversial sermons I saw were some anti-US foreign policy-type speeches. Not great for someone wanting to aspire to be president, but not some frothing theocrat at all.

>DO you agree that everyone else has the right to try to get their "values" "reflected into law"? And that when they do that, they are then "imposing" them on "people who do not share them?

Christians should be able to campaign for what they want. As anyone should. But the state should be set up to be such that it should be impossible that any law passed on the basis of someone's scripture should be rejected. Or any law that is passed on the basis of trying to impose someone's scripture should be rejected. So any law that forces kids to learn about intelligent design in science, or forces them to pray (or employers), or bans things because they aren't "biblical" should be unconstitutional.

Why are you ignoring my question about Michael Knowles?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. You know what, I don't even want to see it. Here is a vid I could not bring myself to watch. IF this is not good enough YOU need to do it. I..don't want to have to deal with that much sufferent for someone who is likely aware of it, and just fucking with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sV2zeE4X08

2. And my response remains the same. I am happy to side with the anti-yoga people vs the horribly monsters you have on YOUR side.

3. It was a live interview from long ago. I don't recall the show. Do you not beleive me or think that rev wright is NOT black liberation theology?

4. Discussing how badd or not bad the doctrine of the church was, is the NEXT step. Right now I am asking you if you believe Obama's defense ie that he did not notice for twenty years? You don't want to answer becasue clearly, you don't believe him. Because, you are not retarded.

5. And that is the answer to your question. You admit that your goal is to NOT allow people with religious values to engage in teh same kind of political advocacy that everyone else can.

That is depriving religious people of their human rights.

Your position is ANTI-HUMAN RIGHTS or ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS.

It is also religious persecution and religious oppression.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. You know what, I don't even want to see it. Here is a vid I could not bring myself to watch. IF this is not good enough YOU need to do it. I..don't want to have to deal with that much sufferent for someone who is likely aware of it, and just fucking with me.

The David Reimer situation was a poor response to a massive medical cock-up. I don't think it's especially relevant to much here.

Some details on the James case: https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/zzfm3u/texas_supreme_court_denies_james_younger_custody/?sort=top

The kid has not undergone any treatment

>3. It was a live interview from long ago. I don't recall the show. Do you not beleive me or think that rev wright is NOT black liberation theology?

Black Liberation Theology is political. It's a left-wing adjacent worldview. It's a problem for Obama (or was), but it's rooted in political issues not religious.

>4. Discussing how badd or not bad the doctrine of the church was, is the NEXT step. Right now I am asking you if you believe Obama's defense ie that he did not notice for twenty years? You don't want to answer becasue clearly, you don't believe him. Because, you are not retarded.

He probably did notice, but felt his other reasons for going there were more important. And that it didn't really become a relevant part until he decided to run for President.

>And that is the answer to your question. You admit that your goal is to NOT allow people with religious values to engage in teh same kind of political advocacy that everyone else can.

I said no such thing. Christians may run for office and win election. They may not use their position as elected representatives to impose law based on scripture on me.

>That is depriving religious people of their human rights.

People do not have the right to persecute others.

>It is also religious persecution and religious oppression.

Me telling a Christian they may not pass laws to persecute gay people or non-believers is persecuting them?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Whatever. THe examples are out there. I don't have the heart to go though that for you. They exist. They are NOT balanced out by some of us being anti-Yoga.

2. BLT claims to be a religion. It was the doctrine of hte church that Obama was so attracted to, he raised his children in it.

"Other reasons"? HIs stated reason was that he found it's message very attractive.

Yet you want to give him a pass. That utterly demonlishes your credibility in attacking the Right for it's religious beliefs.

3. Not all "religious values" translates to "persecute gays".

That you pretend they do, is you playing a game to justify your position of being against Human Rights. At least for right leaning religious people.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. Whatever. THe examples are out there. I don't have the heart to go though that for you. They exist. They are NOT balanced out by some of us being anti-Yoga.

Sure, they're different things. But your own examples here are a bit dodgy regarding to your point.

>2. BLT claims to be a religion. It was the doctrine of hte church that Obama was so attracted to, he raised his children in it.

Not really. It's a Christian-infused social perspective. It's specifically about focusing on social and racial affairs. It's not like, say, Black Israelites or Nation of Islam.

>"Other reasons"? HIs stated reason was that he found it's message very attractive.

Was he referring to the racial messages there specifically?

>3. Not all "religious values" translates to "persecute gays".

No, but it was an example. I could also use attempts to ban premarital sex, bringing in blasphemy laws, etc. The state should protect its people from being persecuted by laws derived from scripture.

>That you pretend they do, is you playing a game to justify your position of being against Human Rights. At least for right leaning religious people.

What human rights am I against here? Do you think it should be a human right to pass legislation to persecute other people? Religious people may run for office. They may get elected. But the state should have safeguards to prevent them from passing laws that persecute other people. Do you think the US constitution is "against the rights" of racists, because it prevents racist laws being passed?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1/ Yes tehy are different things. The support for child transition is vastly more horrible than being anti-yoga.

2. Nice logical fallacy pretending it is not a religion. Thus you get to give it and Obama a pass for being political while attacking other religious people for being political.

No True Scotsman. Thats that logical fallacy you used. Or simply a nice standard Double Standard.

3. I don't recall him being specific. THe implication was/is that he was talking about the totality of the racist, marxist and anti-american Doctine. Nick picking about which horrible hateful portion of the total was more attractive to him than another, seems kind of pointless. A better question is, what the fuck is wrong with him to like that, or what the fuck is wrong with the US media that pretended to believe him?

4. Or Murder. Or theft. Those would be examples too.

5. Religious people have the right to speak and the right to vote.

You want to deprvie them of that, so that they cannot get their religiously deprived values made into law or policy. Everyone else can have THEIR values made into law or policy, but not the religious people. Unless tehy are lefties like BLT or Obama. Then that is different. Because of the double standared.

Hey, did you think it was wrong of Rev Martin Luther King to get his religious values enacted into law?

"With this faith we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last."

Damn theocrat. You must hate the way he is celebrated and his "values" the basis of so much law and policy.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1/ Yes tehy are different things. The support for child transition is vastly more horrible than being anti-yoga.

Give me some actual **modern** instances of actual children under 10 being given treatment (not social transitioning) please.

>2. Nice logical fallacy pretending it is not a religion. Thus you get to give it and Obama a pass for being political while attacking other religious people for being political.

It's a political wing of a religious movement. And again, when did this show up in Obama's presidency? Did he try to pass laws based on Liberation theology?

>I don't recall him being specific. THe implication was/is that he was talking about the totality of the racist, marxist and anti-american Doctine. Nick picking about which horrible hateful portion of the total was more attractive to him than another, seems kind of pointless. A better question is, what the fuck is wrong with him to like that, or what the fuck is wrong with the US media that pretended to believe him?

Can I get some specific sources here please?

>4. Or Murder. Or theft. Those would be examples too.

People come to the conclusion that those things are wrong independently of religion, in addition, they directly infringe upon the liberty of others.

>You want to deprvie them of that, so that they cannot get their religiously deprived values made into law or policy.

Answer my question: Do you think the US constitution is "against the rights" of racists, because it has constitutional safeguards that prevent racist laws being passed?

>Everyone else can have THEIR values made into law or policy, but not the religious people. Unless tehy are lefties like BLT or Obama. Then that is different. Because of the double standared.

The separation of religion and state is there to prevent people trying to infringe on the rights of others. That's its literal purpose. To prevent a church trying to model the state on their faith.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Under TEN?!!!! So, if I found an freaking ELEVEN year old that was transitiones, your response would be, "Well, that's fine, he/she/it was old enough to consent?!!!!!! Holy freaking GOD!!!!

2. The rev said it was a church. Obama said it was a church. You are making excuses for it and them.

As to how it influenced his presidency, plenty of ways. Far more thaan anti-yogaism is influencing mainstream conservativism.

3. People come to the conclusion that premarital sex or castrating children is wrong independent of religion too. Your standards all seem to be double standards.

4. Now you are equating religion with racism?

5. Model the state on it's faith? It was to prevent a national state church, with the abuses and oppressions that come with that. It was NOT to prevent religious people from engaging in normal political activity.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. Under TEN?!!!! So, if I found an freaking ELEVEN year old that was transitiones, your response would be, "Well, that's fine, he/she/it was old enough to consent?!!!!!! Holy freaking GOD!!!!

Or an 11 year old. Any examples at all?

>2. The rev said it was a church. Obama said it was a church. You are making excuses for it and them.

When did I say it wasn't a church? The point is that Liberation theology is more comparable to a political offshoot of religious tradition.

>As to how it influenced his presidency, plenty of ways. Far more thaan anti-yogaism is influencing mainstream conservativism.

Examples please.

>3. People come to the conclusion that premarital sex or castrating children is wrong independent of religion too. Your standards all seem to be double standards.

I didn't mention anything about transitioning kids. And I'd like some examples where people try to ban premarital sex for secular reasons, if you please.

>4. Now you are equating religion with racism?

I'm equating your logic. Do you think the US constitution is "against the rights" of racists, because it has constitutional safeguards that prevent racist laws being passed?

If I am against religious people's rights because I support secularism safeguarding against religious tyranny, then are you against racist people's rights for the same reason?

>5. Model the state on it's faith? It was to prevent a national state church, with the abuses and oppressions that come with that. It was NOT to prevent religious people from engaging in normal political activity.

Also that too.

And I've never said religious people cannot run for office, or be elected. Just that a law cannot be passed on the basis that imposes their religion onto others.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>1. Or an 11 year old. Any examples at all?

I thought I was clear. I'm not going to wade though that misery so that you can have a link you ignore. You want specific examples, go find them yourself.

>2. When did I say it wasn't a church? The point is that Liberation theology is more comparable to a political offshoot of religious tradition.

The point is, you are making excuses for them, to give them a pass while holding conservatives to a different standard.

>Examples please.

His race baiting during the campaign. His race baiting during his presidency.

Very divisive and harmful to the nation.

>3. I didn't mention anything about transitioning kids. And I'd like some examples where people try to ban premarital sex for secular reasons, if you please.

Those WERE examples. You did not address them.

>4. I'm equating your logic. Do you think the US constitution is "against the rights" of racists, because it has constitutional safeguards that prevent racist laws being passed?

The constitution does not prevent "Racists" from speaking or voting or any poliitcal activity. Neither do I.

YOU are the one that wants to look at people and judge whether or not they have certain human rights.

>5.And I've never said religious people cannot run for office, or be elected. Just that a law cannot be passed on the basis that imposes their religion onto others.

So, they can be elected, but they are not allowed to vote like they want to, becuase their "values" might be based on their religous beliefs?

Your position is...not very well thought out.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>I thought I was clear. I'm not going to wade though that misery so that you can have a link you ignore. You want specific examples, go find them yourself.

Your examples were dodgy. One wasn't modern, and was a medical cock-up. The other example was a lie (the kid hadn't started any treatment at all)

>His race baiting during the campaign. His race baiting during his presidency.

Examples please. Links. Sources. Don't just make claims.

>The constitution does not prevent "Racists" from speaking or voting or any poliitcal activity. Neither do I.

I didn't say it did. But it does stop them from trying to pass laws that discriminate on racial grounds.

>So, they can be elected, but they are not allowed to vote like they want to, becuase their "values" might be based on their religous beliefs?

No, they can't try to pass laws **based** on imposing a Christian worldview on others. So they can't try to pass a blasphemy law, or try to impose mandatory prayer in school/workplaces because that is imposing Christianity on people who are not Christian. Doesn't the US constitution have inherent safeguards against all kinds of laws?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>Your examples were dodgy. One wasn't modern, and was a medical cock-up. The other example was a lie (the kid hadn't started any treatment at all)

You are not listening.

>Examples please. Links. Sources. Don't just make claims.

When he accused mccain of racial fearmongering. When he smeared the cop that arrested the professor, when he talked shit aboot his son looking like Trevon Martin.

>I didn't say it did. But it does stop them from trying to pass laws that discriminate on racial grounds.

How do you imagine it does that? Where in the constitution do you see that?

>No, they can't try to pass laws **based** on imposing a Christian worldview on others. So they can't try to pass a blasphemy law, or try to impose mandatory prayer in school/workplaces because that is imposing Christianity on people who are not Christian. Doesn't the US constitution have inherent safeguards against all kinds of laws?

YOu keep moving the goal posts all over the place. A while back it was all about "religious values", now it's only "laws".

A man elected that is not allowed to vote according to his character, is not really in office. He is just going though the motions while the real power is in the person or people that decide what he is allowed to do.

That is not democratic. Not even close. That is tyranny.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>You are not listening.

I am waiting for examples.

>When he accused mccain of racial fearmongering. When he smeared the cop that arrested the professor, when he talked shit aboot his son looking like Trevon Martin.

Can I get some links please?

And I would not agree that the Trayvon Martin comments were racebaiting.

>How do you imagine it does that? Where in the constitution do you see that?

Fourteenth Amendment?

>YOu keep moving the goal posts all over the place. A while back it was all about "religious values", now it's only "laws".

I never said "religious values" and you seem to be misinterpreting what I said. But you didn't answer my question:

Doesn't the US constitution have inherent safeguards against all kinds of laws to prevent tyranny of the majority?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>I am waiting for examples.

and not listening.

>And I would not agree that the Trayvon Martin comments were racebaiting.

Really? A supposedly white man gets defends himself from a black youth and standard racial tension flares up.

The President COULD have tried to pour water on the fire, but urging calm or to wait for facts. Instead he jumped in on the side of the young black man.

That is well in keeping with the racist and anti-American aspects of BLT.

>Fourteenth Amendment?

There is nothing there that prevents ANYTHING from being passed. Everyone has the right to speak and vote for anything. The law would then have to pass judicial review if it is challenged. But there is no office that stands up in congress and says, THAT SPEECH IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS RACIST, or anything like that.

>Doesn't the US constitution have inherent safeguards against all kinds of laws to prevent tyranny of the majority?

Sure it does. And they kick in if a law is challenged.

At no point is any group pionted to and told, you cannot speak of vote or participate in normal policital activity.

Like you want to do with Conservative churches and religious people.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Really? A supposedly white man gets defends himself from a black youth and standard racial tension flares up.

It was not said, if I recall, when the details came out about that incident. In any case, it's a stretch to tie this specifically to his liberation theology history. Pretty sure Biden has made some foot-in-mouth tier comments too.

>There is nothing there that prevents ANYTHING from being passed. Everyone has the right to speak and vote for anything. The law would then have to pass judicial review if it is challenged. But there is no office that stands up in congress and says, THAT SPEECH IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS RACIST, or anything like that.

That's literally not what I claimed. I am not talking about free speech here.

>At no point is any group pionted to and told, you cannot speak of vote or participate in normal policital activity.

This is never what I claimed.

>Like you want to do with Conservative churches and religious people.

No, I do not.

What I am saying is that if Kentucky for instance passed a law banning blasphemy, it would be struck down at federal level.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Hey, did you think it was wrong of Rev Martin Luther King to get his religious values enacted into law?

MLK used his faith as inspiration as it was his background and he was appealing largely to a Christian population, but racial equality is not the sole purview of Christianity. It's quite unlike trying to ban permarital sex, impose creationism/prayer on children (literal christian propaganda), putting up the ten commandments on public buildings, banning blasphemy etc. These are impositions on others and direct impositions of ones faith on other people.

Should the constitution in your mind safeguard the people from the potential of a specific religion or doctrine imposing itself on non-believers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

The idea of all men being created by GOD, thus all being equal is a religious doctrine that MLK and other christians imposed on a society that was FULL of people that did NOT see all people as being equal.

Rev. Martin Luther King did not just use his faith as an inspiration. He was a leader of a church and used his religious posiiton and authority to mobilize a freaking army that used criminal tactics and broke uncounted laws in order to FORCE political policy that he wanted for HIS people.

And that tradition of black churches being political continues to this day.

Yet, this does not bother you....

MLK used his church to impose his doctrine on non-believers.

What you are missing is that all laws and policies do that.

You want to pick out certain religious groups and deprive them of that right that all other people have.

That is YOU being anti-human rights.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>The idea of all men being created by GOD, thus all being equal is a religious doctrine that MLK and other christians imposed on a society that was FULL of people that did NOT see all people as being equal.

You do not require appealing to a god to endorse human rights.

>Yet, this does not bother you....

No, because MLK was not proposing legislation to impose on other people based on his religion.

>MLK used his church to impose his doctrine on non-believers.

Examples please

>What you are missing is that all laws and policies do that.

Examples please. I mean yes, we bar theft and murder for secular reasons - but theft and murder actually directly harm other people.

>You want to pick out certain religious groups and deprive them of that right that all other people have.

Okay, so do pro-pedophiles have the right to try to pass legislation legalising pedophilia? Or are you oppressing pedophiles?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>You do not require appealing to a god to endorse human rights.

True. But MLK choose to do so. Thus, if you were consistent, you would be far more opposed to his SUCCESSFUL political activity, than to Knowles possibly potentially wanting political policy against yoga.

>No, because MLK was not proposing legislation to impose on other people based on his religion.

Sure he was. It is clear from his words, that in his mind, equality was based on us all being created equal BY GOD. He was not citing

>Examples please

Modern civil rights laws and policies. ALL of them. Barring only one already written before MLK of course.

>Examples please. I mean yes, we bar theft and murder for secular reasons - but theft and murder actually directly harm other people.

ALL laws passed by anyone, end up imposing those laws on the people that disagreed with them. Your requestiong examples is... bizzare.

>Okay, so do pro-pedophiles have the right to try to pass legislation legalising pedophilia? Or are you oppressing pedophiles?

Of course they do. They have the right to speech adn to organize and to vote.

Why would you think that they do NOT have that right?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>True. But MLK choose to do so. Thus, if you were consistent, you would be far more opposed to his SUCCESSFUL political activity, than to Knowles possibly potentially wanting political policy against yoga.

I am not against human rights. Human rights is argued on common ground.

>Modern civil rights laws and policies. ALL of them. Barring only one already written before MLK of course.

They are not impositions based on religious doctrinal grounds.

>Of course they do. They have the right to speech adn to organize and to vote.

>Why would you think that they do NOT have that right?

I didn't say they should not have the right to activism. I said do they have the right to attempt, specifically to pass legislation. Or does the constitution have safeguards in to protect the minorities?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>I am not against human rights. Human rights is argued on common ground.

You are against people like MLK using his group, ie a church and an alliance of churches to pursue political issues and policies.

Except for somereason, specificaly MLK and his church, gets a pass. But in THEORY, you are against it.

That is a denial of the rights of MLK and his church. Except that you make an exception for him.

>They are not impositions based on religious doctrinal grounds.

Sure they are. I hear religious people talk about being created equal, quite often.

>Of course they do. They have the right to speech adn to organize and to vote.

>Why would you think that they do NOT have that right?

.I didn't say they should not have the right to activism. I said do they have the right to attempt, specifically to pass legislation. Or does the constitution have safeguards in to protect the minorities?

You asked me if pedophiles have the right to try to pass legislation legalising pedophilia.

My answer was that of course they do. Why would you think that they do not.

You're not making a lot of sense.

DO YOU THINK THAT PEDOPHILES HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>You are against people like MLK using his group, ie a church and an alliance of churches to pursue political issues and policies.

No, I am not. They can do activism and pursue policies all they like. I am specifically talking in terms of reference of lawmaking when someone tries to pass a law that imposes Christianity on others.

>Sure they are. I hear religious people talk about being created equal, quite often.

Except it's not an imposition on Christianity on others. At all.

>DO YOU THINK THAT PEDOPHILES HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Pedophilia was perhaps a poor example because I don't think the constitution specifically comments on that making pursuing it legally theoretically possible. But the constitution strikes down a lot of laws immediately after they get passed by state governments.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>No, I am not. They can do activism and pursue policies all they like. I am specifically talking in terms of reference of lawmaking when someone tries to pass a law that imposes Christianity on others.

An a law against...say PROSTITUTION doesn't either. But the people voting for it, might be motivated by religious values.

Would they have the right to do that or not in your world view?

In mine, they ALL have the right to speak. In YOURS, you pick and choose who does.

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM YET?

>DO YOU THINK THAT PEDOPHILES HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?

>Pedophilia was perhaps a poor example because I don't think the constitution specifically comments on that making pursuing it legally theoretically possible. But the constitution strikes down a lot of laws immediately after they get passed by state governments.

Nope. I think it was a great example.

ALL PEOPLE, EVEN TEH MOST HATED AND DETESTED still have ALL their human rights.

If EVERYONE doesn't have their human rights, then no one does.

Because the moment you allow that someone or something, say, THE LEFTY MOB, has the power to point to someone and say,

THOSE PEOPLE ARE OUTSIDE and do not have the right to speak,

then we have lost all freedoms. Becuase at ANY point, the mob could be aimed at anyone and that person could lose their rights.

And really, even the people not targetted, would be living in fear of being targetted, and so would stay quite and afraid. Like a good little serf.

Is that the world you want?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>An a law against...say PROSTITUTION doesn't either. But the people voting for it, might be motivated by religious values.

They might, but the issue of prostitution in itself is not just a Christian thing. You can't thought-crime people really. It's the same with abortion. It doesn't involve the imposition of Christianity on people. It's technically a secular issue, but you are much more likely to oppose it if you're Christian.

>In mine, they ALL have the right to speak. In YOURS, you pick and choose who does.

I am not talking specifically about speaking. People can say what they like.

>Is that the world you want?

Everything you said above was a strawman. I have never said anyone should not have the right to speak.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

>They might, but the issue of prostitution in itself is not just a Christian thing. You can't thought-crime people really. It's the same with abortion. It doesn't involve the imposition of Christianity on people. It's technically a secular issue, but you are much more likely to oppose it if you're Christian.

When you are looking at people and trying to guess whether their motivation is secular or religious,

YOU ARE TRYING TO THOUGHT CRIME THEM.

That is the whole point of what your position here.

You want people to be dismissed if they are religious. But not if they are religious and MLK, or OBAMA.

Cauase DOUBLE STANDARDS.

>I am not talking specifically about speaking. People can say what they like.

Yes, you want them somehow prevented from various things but you are very vague as to how it would happen. The effect seems to be that a mob is riled up and "laughs" them off the public space.

Of course, taht is not what the various mobs have been doing. They have been a lot meaner than that.

>Everything you said above was a strawman. I have never said anyone should not have the right to speak.

Really? That is what it sounded like to be. You wanted people be laughed out of the room, or something like that.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>When you are looking at people and trying to guess whether their motivation is secular or religious,

You clearly didn't read what I said. I mentioned nothing about stopping people from voting on that issue due to their motivation.

>You want people to be dismissed if they are religious. But not if they are religious and MLK, or OBAMA.

No, I want the population to be so irreligious that people who wish to impose Christianity or Islam or the population are so unpopular they can't win any support.

>Yes, you want them somehow prevented from various things but you are very vague as to how it would happen. The effect seems to be that a mob is riled up and "laughs" them off the public space.

No, I've said that something like a blasphemy law (for instance) should be unconstitutional.

>Really? That is what it sounded like to be. You wanted people be laughed out of the room, or something like that.

Well that would be the ideal response. It just means I think people who express theofascist views should be laughed off. Same way that Scientologists and Nation of Islam types are laughed off. Or people who claim the earth is flat.

Nothing to stop them from saying those things, but we don't take them seriously.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Your position and various statements seems... not well thought out. You seem to be all over the place.

Are you aware that there are mobs of people, both literal and virtual, that share your opinions about such people, but have used very serious tactics to enforce their desire to see these people,

"stopped from saying those things"?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Are you aware that there are mobs of people, both literal and virtual, that share your opinions about such people, but have used very serious tactics to enforce their desire to see these people,

I've never endorsed violence at all.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

No, you didn't. You didn't mention it at all.

So you are aware of it. It is worth noting that hte context of our discussion is NOT a world where religious people are making a play for making Christianity a State Church, but a world where mobs of very vicious people, both literal and virtural, are ruining lives of people on the Right, often for no real reason.

How would you feel if one of those people joined in the thread and strongly supported everything you said, but started arguing that really, you need to be more serious about it?

(though normally such peopel are extremely dishonest about what they are doing)

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>No, you didn't. You didn't mention it at all.

You just assumed I endorsed violence?

>So you are aware of it. It is worth noting that hte context of our discussion is NOT a world where religious people are making a play for making Christianity a State Church, but a world where mobs of very vicious people, both literal and virtural, are ruining lives of people on the Right, often for no real reason.

I would better be able to respond to some actual examples please.

>How would you feel if one of those people joined in the thread and strongly supported everything you said, but started arguing that really, you need to be more serious about it?

I'd ask them what they mean

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I put no words in your mouth, please don't put them in mine. You are aware of the real world context of this discussion, yet you pretend it is something very different.

2.Here is one.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/conservative-student-hid-in-bathroom-to-escape-mob-protesting-allen-west-lecture

3. It is clear what they mean. in the real world such people feel that, because of some of the reasons you agree with, that violence and fear are called for AND THEY ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW AND HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. No, you completely misread my position when I spoke about the point behind stopping religious-based legislation. I meant it as a check, just like constitutional safeguards.

2. No, I would not support anything like that.

3. I would not endorse violence anywhere.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

The conversation in the US, with people pretending to worry about keeping Church out of government is really just about an excuse to attqack right leaning religious poeople. If you are truly aware of this, then you have accidently fallen in with very bad people.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

I am not bound by what other people do.

Blasphemy laws, for instance, should be unconstitutional. So should trying to force prayer in schools/workplaces, or instruct kids to Christian worship

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

There is no push for any of that in this country. If someone told you there was, they are lying to you.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

PragerU saying the separation of church and state is fiction is though.

Or Candace Owens saying this: https://preview.redd.it/r6b86xb10cta1.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a33a1de91685a9dcb2161b1c6c8b07e958a19b32

Or Michael Knowles saying that yoga and the Grammys are "satanic" and suggesting US lawmakers seek advice from African politicians regarding LGBT issues. He also defended theocracy: https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1633130210768961536

Or Charlie Kirk saying that he was cursed by witches and calling for prayer, and the bible to be taught in schools: https://preview.redd.it/al7lfhnfdo971.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=76ef808c1b396600c9a0f60204d45846ecce4f79

Here's Lauren Boebert saying she opposes secularism: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3540071-boebert-says-she-is-tired-of-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-is-supposed-to-direct-the-government/

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

A minor complaint, especially compared to your comfort with the rev martin luther king leading a religious movement based on churches to force political policy change.

It is clear that your complaint is just an excuse to talk shit about people and policies you dislike.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Dude. Are you seriously making a claim about BLASPHEMY LAWS or FORCING CHILDREN TO PRAY,

and then trying to support those claims by citing someone arguing against Seperation of CHurch and State?

You want to support a claim of BLASPHEMY LAWS, or FORCING CHILDREN TO PRAY,

you have to show an example of BLASPHEMY LAWS, or FORCING CHILDREN TO PRAY.

Citing someone talking about Separation of Church and State, is not that. YOu don't get to assume that disagreeing with the seperation of church and state means they want to "force children to pray".

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Dude. Are you seriously making a claim about BLASPHEMY LAWS or FORCING CHILDREN TO PRAY,

Blasphemy laws I haven't seen anyone call for (although some have nudge nudge wink winked for it), but Republicans regularly call for US schools to have kids pray. Some of my examples are doing just that.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/charlie-kirk-turning-point-usa-pivots-to-christian-nationalism-1234740083/

This is a genuine phenomenon atm with much of the right in USA.

>Citing someone talking about Separation of Church and State, is not that. YOu don't get to assume that disagreeing with the seperation of church and state means they want to "force children to pray".

That is what they mean when they reject separation of church and state, they want to knock down the barriers to impose their faith on people in public life.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. The Rolling Stone? A completely hostile source taking his words out of context and then telling you what he meant. Terrible. And even so, NOTHING there supports what they claim it does. You are being playted. They are tricking you.

2. No it does not. You are assuming that it was it means. You have not supported that assumption at all.

3. Meanwhile in teh real world, violent mobs and virtual mobs are really hurting people, Conservative people that try to speak. That is a real issue. Free Speech has become a partisan issue. Republicans for it, Democrats against it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>1. The Rolling Stone? A completely hostile source taking his words out of context and then telling you what he meant. Terrible. And even so, NOTHING there supports what they claim it does. You are being playted. They are tricking you.

I am pretty certain you reject literal every single source that isn't right-wing.

Here's some examples from a Right-wing media watch:

https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/with_replies

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-issues-dire-warning-about-impact-christian-nationalism-1801677

Texas GOP party platform: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1107244492/texas-gop-platform-embraces-far-right-and-anti-gay-rhetoric

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/features/quiet-rise-christian-dominionism

>2. No it does not. You are assuming that it was it means. You have not supported that assumption at all.

Gave you a bunch of examples where they hint hint nudge nudge about it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. If they give any indication that they are doing a real report instead of a dishonest hatchet job, i am willing to address it. Taking single sentences out of context AND THEN TELLING ME WHAT HE REALLY MEANT? Fuck no. Give me a break.

You can do better than that. Try again.

2. Examples where they "hint hint"? Or, you could be, since you are tilted that way, just assuming the worst.

ME? I looked at them and I saw something completely different.

PICK YOUR BEST EXAMPLE and I will be happy to address it in detail.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. "TPUSA’s faith initiative is currently backing the reactionary preacher Sean Feucht in his Kingdom to the Capitol tour, where he’s staging “revivals” at the nation’s 50 statehouses. The MAGA preacher is explicit about the aim — declaring that he wants “believers to be the ones writing the laws!” and pleading “guilty as charged!” to Christian nationalism. “It’s all part of The King coming back,” Feucht told followers in Oklahoma — a reference to the second coming of Jesus. “That’s what we’re practicing for.”

2. There's a consistent pattern of thought, and on a few occasions it has blatantly slipped.

Lauren Boebert: "The reason we had so many overreaching regulations is because the church complied,” she said. “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

Feel free to browse all the far-right dominionists and ethnonationalists on the Right-wing watch page on Twitter.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

How strange that a member of a group wants HIS group to get it's way on political matters....

The nation is over 60% Christian and less than 30% non religious.

Just stating that you want Christians to be writing the laws, is not radical. Indeed, it would be weird, if they DIDN'T write the laws, or at least most of them.

You seem to be assuming that any laws written by Christians are by definition....

What? Oppressive? Violating the rights of non-Christians?

Explain your assumption.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>How strange that a member of a group wants HIS group to get it's way on political matters....

Turning Point literally backing evangelical christian dominionists.

>The nation is over 60% Christian and less than 30% non religious.

So what?

>Just stating that you want Christians to be writing the laws, is not radical. Indeed, it would be weird, if they DIDN'T write the laws, or at least most of them.

Honestly, your naivety is utterly absurd.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/maga-pastor-sean-feucht-trump-christian-nationalism-1234721527/

"Standing on stage at Sheridan.Church on Wednesday, Feucht made a direct call for Christian nationalism — declaring that America should be governed according to biblical law for the benefit of believers, as a way to prepare for the second coming of Christ."

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Dude, you are not making sense.

Christians are a clear majority in this country. In a democratic system they very well should, mostly, get their way. You seem to think that is wrong, yet you are not clear as to why.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Christians are a clear majority in this country. In a democratic system they very well should, mostly, get their way. You seem to think that is wrong, yet you are not clear as to why.

So "tyranny of the majority" is not a concept you innately oppose then. My point was that the Republican party and wider conservative movement in the US right now flirting with Christian nationalism - many of them imply or sometimes outright state that they essentially want biblical law imposed on everyone.

I believe in secular democracy. I don't care what the majority of the country is. They shouldn't get to impose and persecute people who are not of that faith. This goes for Christian majority countries, Islamic majority countries, Jewish majority countries, Hindu majority countries. It also goes for countries comprised of non-religious majorities. I would also oppose any law that persecutes Christians.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

And you did it again. YOu go straight from Majority rule, to Tyranny, with no explanation or examples or anything.

You're not explaining yourself, and then when I try to guess how you got from point a to point b, you insist that I get it wrong,

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>And you did it again. YOu go straight from Majority rule, to Tyranny, with no explanation or examples or anything.

If US passed a blasphemy law protecting Christianity, that would be tyrannical. If US passed a law to mandate prayer for kids in school, that would be tyrannical. If the US banned Islamic evangelism, that would be tyrannical. I am talking about hypothetical laws that would impose Christianity and censor others.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Right now, In my entire life I have NEVER heard of any serious call for a Blashpemy law from right wing Christians in this country.

And if by some bizarre chain of events, some wackjob managed to get one passed, it would be challenged and thrown out by the courts as per our Constitution.

Meanwhile, while you are so worried about something some Christian might do,

in the real world, lefty mobs, real and virtural, are literally attacking people, hurting people, physically and otherwise, to shut down right leaning voices.

YOu are more concerned with a hypothetical issue, than violent mobs attacking people in the streets over political speech.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>And if by some bizarre chain of events, some wackjob managed to get one passed, it would be challenged and thrown out by the courts as per our Constitution.

And why would it do that? Because it would violate safeguards in the constitution. THAT'S all I've been saying when I refer to separation of religion and state. Laws that persecute people because of their religion, or lack-of, or impose religion on others should be unconsistutional.

>YOu are more concerned with a hypothetical issue, than violent mobs attacking people in the streets over political speech.

Have literally given you tons of sources of far-right dominionists, pastors and poltical representatives flirting with Christian nationalism.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Nope. You have been clear. YOu are upset and want to stop christians from getting to pass any laws.

2. Nope. you have given me sources that show Christians talking about getting their way in political or legislative issues and you just assume or define THAT as tryanny.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I've given many examples, and have made no such comment regarding Christians holding office. This is now a lie by you.

2. 2. Nope. you have given me sources that show Christians talking about getting their way in political or legislative issues and you just assume or define THAT as tryanny.

And what does "getting their way" look like if they say something like "declaring that America should be governed according to biblical law for the benefit of believers, as a way to prepare for the second coming of Christ"

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Many of your examples show Christians engaged in normal political activity and this is presented with panic and alarm. The implication is obvious.

2.Could look like a lot of things.

Do you want me to guess?

I note that Trump ran with strong religious right support, and his court recently overturned Roe V Wade.

That seems likely to be ONE plank of what they would consider morally good law. ie allowing restrictions on abortions.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Many of your examples show Christians engaged in normal political activity and this is presented with panic and alarm. The implication is obvious.

So you take "implications" from me, but when I read into the thinly-veiled dominionism present from some of these activists, preachers, politicians and influencers... that's wrong?

I've outright specified what it is I am referring to when I talk about separation of religion and state - laws designed to persecute people based on their religion are wrong.

>I note that Trump ran with strong religious right support, and his court recently overturned Roe V Wade.

Abortion isn't technically a religious issue.

Anything else you think they might want?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. The difference is that I have been asking you to explain the logic chain you are using but not sharing. Thus YOU are making me guess, to have any idea what you mean.

2. Abortion is clearly a religious issue for many, far more important and real than any of the hypotheticals you have raised such as forcing children to pray.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I have literally told you repeatedly. As have many of the theocrat-wannabes I've linked you to.

2. For many it is, but in practice it can be supported or rejected based on secular reasons. It is not impossible for atheists to oppose abortion access (even if rare). And most of the people I've linked to you openly support forcing children to pray in school, an obvious violation of religion and state.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. No you haven't. You point to people talking about Christians doing shit, and you then assume what they meant ie "hint hint".

2. Show me them saying that they support "forcing childrent to pray".

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Most of the thinks I've linked to you literally quote the people, or are tweets or videos by them.

2. Charlie Kirk: https://preview.redd.it/al7lfhnfdo971.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=76ef808c1b396600c9a0f60204d45846ecce4f79

https://www.expressnews.com/politics/article/republicans-push-christianity-texas-schools-17915163.php

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion/trump-tells-evangelical-rally-he-will-put-prayer-in-schools-idUSKBN1Z22AN

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/florida-governor-desantis-signs-bill-requiring-moment-for-school-prayer-6-15-2021

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6000) a year ago

Good luck man Corbell won't listen to reason. I will sum up his thought process for you. Republican/conservatives=good, Democrats/liberals=bad. His brain goes no deeper than that.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Small bits with no context and lots and lots of them deciding what those bits meant.

2. Not one of those links show anyone saying they will force children to pray. That you think they did, is you demonstrating your deep bias.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Not my fault you barely read them or listened to the clips.

2. What on earth do you think requiring schools to have prayer actually means, dude?

Dear me

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I did read them. They did not show what you claimed they showed, as demonstrated by your belief in point two.

2 It means that the teacher will tell the kids that they have a moment to pray. The kids that want to pray can pray, the kids that don't can sit there quietly and respectfully for a minute.

Clearly.

That you couldn't grasp that, is.... insane. And reflects on your views of point 1 very well.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>I did read them. They did not show what you claimed they showed, as demonstrated by your belief in point two.

I simply do not believe you. Or are you so unbelievably incapable of reading between the lines there's no point here anymore.

>It means that the teacher will tell the kids that they have a moment to pray. The kids that want to pray can pray, the kids that don't can sit there quietly and respectfully for a minute.

That is 100% imposition. Of course one cannot /force/ a kid to literally pray but making them sit through it daily is an imposition.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

You presented this as a violation of Church and State, as Christians depriving non-christians of their rights.

Now that we get down to the reality of the situation, we see that a kid has to sit quietly in school, for a minute.

This is one of the ideas, that you wanted people and groups marginalized for.

Meanwhile, you seem utterly uninterested in the violent mobs of brownshirts that the left have been employing, to silence political speech they don't like.

....

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>You presented this as a violation of Church and State, as Christians depriving non-christians of their rights.

I believe that is exactly what the far-right theofascists that have increasing influence over the Republicans want.

>Now that we get down to the reality of the situation, we see that a kid has to sit quietly in school, for a minute.

Yes, if it is imposed on them and presented as an opportunity for prayer - that is imposition. Simple as that.

>This is one of the ideas, that you wanted people and groups marginalized for.

No, I simply say that prayer in school should be unconstitutional as a violation.

>Meanwhile, you seem utterly uninterested in the violent mobs of brownshirts that the left have been employing, to silence political speech they don't like.

You appear uninterested in the far-right white nationalist adjacent groups that picket and storm pride and drag events.

Two can play at this game. Give situations, and I will respond.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. That a kid might have to sit quietly for a minute in school? What monsters. LOL!!

2. I think it would be a quite reasonable policy.

3. Picketing is legal and constiutionally protected speech. "Storming"? DOesn't happen.

4. You dropping the whole, what would it look like thread?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Yes. It's the principle of it.

2. Why?

3. Okay, and what assaults are you referring to from progressives please?

Some bulk data here: https://www.glaad.org/blog/anti-drag-report

4. Bored now. I want some citations, and some citations that it represents the normality of liberal and progressive thought.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. State teh principle.

2. The rights of the kids that want to pray trump the not existing right of the kids that don't, to NOT sit there quietly.

3. The many assaults on conservatives to silence them.

4. THe link lumps protests and threats together. FAIL.

5. Citations about what? Free speech?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Religious intrusion. It's being marketed by Christian nationalists as a prayer.

2. They can pray on their own. They shouldn't force other people to observe it.

3. Citations please.

4. It mentions many threats in the examples.

5. See (3)

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. It IS prayer.

2. Observe it? The act of SEEING prayer is a problem for you ? This is not about Christians wanting to oppress you, this is you wanting to oppress them.

3. I can't take you seriously.

4. It lumps thme together. THat is bad faith, and bad numbers.

5. Opposition to free speech shown by actions from physical assaults to deplatforming.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. And thus the religious connotations are there.

2. The act of being forced to stay silent daily is the imposition. It would be unacceptable if, in an office job, every morning at 9:10am you were ushered in a room and required to be present as other staff quietly prayed. It's no different at school.

4. Any comments on the threats it refers to?

5. Deplatforming is a valid form of free speech and protest, is it not? It's not violent. Private companies and individuals have the right to choose who they associate with. Still waiting for some examples I can actually comment on.

And isn't the right currently trying to deplatform Target and Bud right now?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Which is fine.

2. I have a right to NOT see people pray? NO, I don't. People are allowed to pray in my sight. THis is YOU wanting to drive religious people from public life and marginalized them.

3. Considering their demonstrated bad faith, I have no confidence in anything they say.

4. I don't not believe it is, and it demonstrats my point about the hostility of hte left to Free Speech.

5. Bud light attacked their fans, not the other way around. Responding is not deplatforming.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Separation of religion and state. Why should the state be covertly pushing Christianity?

2. No, you have the right to not be forced to be present as a matter of ritual as others pray. As I said, it is unacceptable for businesses to do this to their employees. No different for schools. People can pray on their own time.

3. So why bother even talking to me? You refuse to provide examples.

4. You don't believe what is, exactly?

5. How did Bud Light "attack their fans"?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. for many reasons. primarily because it seems to have been a healthy part of traditional society and the non religious students need to be taught tolerance. imo.

2. Kids do not have the right to NOT get an education. All children in school are forced to be present when various shit happens, from pep rallies to black fucking history month. They can put up with some people praying too.

3. I would hope that you would try to find a more credible source. Perhaps the people that you claim are saying shit, just show me them saying the shit, without the massive spin.

4. I do not believe that deplatforming is a valid form of free speech. I think it is taking away another person's right to speech.

5. They took an established behavior, ie buying and drinking their beer and suddenly made that into a celebration of a political position, with the bullying implication that any complaint or hesitation in supporting that, would be labeled as some for of "ism" or "phobe" and the people in question smeared and bullied, possibly even cancelled. And that is exactly what happened.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Teaching tolerance has nothing to do with preaching Christianity. Good to see that you admit you are against the separation of religion and state and wish to impose religious propaganda to children in schools.

Most of Europe is far less Christian than the United States, and does not seem to be worse-off.

2. Being educated about black history (I don't especially agree with a black history month in terms of education, it might be added) is roughly the same about being educated on Christianity. I have no problem with religious education in terms of informing children about Christianity and other religions. That is NOT what being forced to observe and participate, indirectly, in prayer is. Should students also be instructed to observe Islamic ritual?

And yet, in blatant hypocrisy, I am pretty confident you reject any kind of schooling regarding LGBT for the purposes of tolerance.

3. I've given you tons of sources. I am now asking YOU for sources for your claims about the left, as a rule, trying to shut down free expression.

4. So you reject the right for private companies to ban people from their platforms, or remove them from their premises? Is that what you're arguing? Social media sites should be prevented from banning people who violate their terms of service?

5. By having a trans-influencer advertise their products? Is it inherently "political" when a transperson is asked to advertise a product? Why is it okay for Conservatives here to "cancel"?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I clearly stated that it would teach tolerance OF Christianity to the non-religious kids, something YOU demonstrate is clearly needed. That you could not or would not hear that, further demonstrates my point.

2. The point is, the children don't have a RIGHT to not hear this stuff. That was the p oint. Funny how you missed that and went off track....

3. Your pretense that they are following their own terms of service, is nonsensical. Furthermore these virtual places are becoming the new public square. IF the corporations insist on being bad corporate citizens, they can be regluated or even turned into utilities. Respecting property rights is not a suicide pact for democracy.

4. You gave me a ton of clearly bad faith shit sources. Either you only listen to shit, or you are not serious about this dicussion.

5. I explained what htey did and how they did it. Asking questions as though I did not is disingenous. They attacked the fans, the fans responded appropriatedly. Would you like to address theh points I already made or keep pretending that you didn't read them?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. You can teach tolerance of Christianity in comparative religion classes. Conscripting children to partake indirectly in prayer is an implicit endorsement of religion by the state.

2. As I said: That is NOT what being forced to observe and participate, indirectly, in prayer is. Should students also be instructed to observe Islamic ritual?

3. If a website is hypocritical and selectively enforces its terms of service, you are free to leave. As I asked: Are you suggesting that Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, wherever be legally prevented from banning people from their platforms?

4. No, you just choose to hold standards that you would likely would NEVER hold if those guys were Muslims. You gave them an absurd benefit of the doubt.

5. How did they "attack the fans"? I didn't say, by the way, that they could not boycott but the premise of the boycott sounds like they think that transpeople should not exist in public life.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1, Said the man that thinks that SEEING SOMEONE ELSE PRAY, is a violation of his rights.

2. Sitting there quietly and respectfully while others pray is not participating.

3. Not good enough. THey have presented themselves as offering a service in good faith and taken that market based on that. IF they are operating in bad faith, and they are, then we have a right to address that. That is what I am cleary stating. Please address that instead of spinning it.

4. You claim various christians say shit. Yet to support that claim instead of showing people saying that shit, you show me OTHER people talking about whath those people said. I've seen too many lib sources just LIE about conservatives to buy that shit.

5. I already explained how. Please address what I said instead of dismissing it and then offering your own imaginings about what people like me said or meant. If you just want to talk to YOURSELF, than do that, and leave me out of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Being forced to be part of a prayer meeting, as sanctioned by the state, every day is the violation. It would be a violation if it was an office job too, if you were required to be present at daily prayers at 9:02am every day.

2. You are still required to acquiese and be present. And it is still state endorsement of prayer. See above for the employment comparison. Should students also be instructed to observe Islamic ritual?

3. Then leave those websites. You didn't pay for their services (I assume). And how should it be addressed, in your mind, exactly?

4. Every single article I've given you literally quotes, or has video of those Christians. You clearly outright refused to look at the majority of my sources.

5. Is a transperson advertising a better inherently a "political position"? Is a transperson existing in public life in some sense, inherently political? Because they announced support for LGBT with a custom can inspired by her? So fucking what? It's adults, right? I thought the main problems here were children being muddled into this.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I disagree. I think you are hostile to Christianity, unless it is lefty and you want to deprive them of their right to publicy practice their religion.

2. Separation of Church and state is about not having an State Church. Simply "endorsing" the idea of prayer and traditional religion as a good thing is not making that religion a part of the government.

3. Not good enough. THey have created a public space and now are using it to exersize political power in the pursuit of an agenda counter to the interests of the American people.

4. Sure. BUt more they have people like you,"reading between the lines", about what those Christians really meant. Meanwhile Obama can be a member of a church where tehy are literally screaming "god damn america" from the pulpit and I'm not supposed to connect any dots there, cause he played stupid when he got caught.

5. So fucking what? Because they/YOU are making EVERYTHING political, so that you can advance your agenda, but when you get pushback, you pretend that you are the victim. It is effective as long as you can sell the lie, but it is insanely divisive. political conflict is to the point where we have violence in the streets with people dying and you are still trying to add MORE fuel to the fire? That is FUCKING WHAT.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I don't like Christianity - but that's neither here nor there. And no, I do not wish this. I've just told you it should be taught in comparative religion and philosophy in schools.

2. It is that, but it does not just say that. Secularism is a deeper concept than just not specifically employing a theocracy. Why the fuck should the state indirectly endorse Christianity and impose that on students? And historically, it already has been rendered unconstitutional.

Should officer workers be forced, if the employer so wishes, to be present in daily prayers?

3. Not answering my question. How should it be addressed, exactly?

4. Obama never, himself, made any sectarian or religiously inflamed comments to others. Whatever his historical association, it never interfered with his policy-making and he openly repudiated his church. The psychopathic religious fanatics I've met have made repeated dogwhistles in favour of a Christian Iran.

5. Answer my question: Is a transperson existing in public life inherently "political"? Is it wrong for a company to use a transperson influencer/celebrities services to advertise a product, or work with them in some way?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. We have that now, and the results are terrible. And doing this is clearly NOT a violation of anyone's rights.

2. Secularism is. But nothing in teh constitution said that we as a society were secular. The government just was NOT having a STATE CHURCH, with what that entails. Which is a far different animal. YOU want a secular state? Fine. Advance that policy by arguing it's MERITS instead of pretending that this is about RIGHTS.

3. Not a hundred percent sure. Some of them enjoy special legal protections becuase they distance themselves from teh content. That could be revoked since they are controlling content. Many content creators have suffered great personal harm due to unfair bans. They should have redress. some of them (all of them?) have illegally worked with rogue gov agents to control speech. That needs to be investigated and prevented from happening again. Some people probably need to go to jail. ECT.

4. I disagree, i think Obama's comments and policies were quite sectarian and racist and anti-american. Dogwhistles? So, ALL of your evidence is you reading between teh lines? LOL!!!

5, "inherently" Probably not. IN practice? Very much often. In this specific example? UTTERLY COMPLETELY 1000 FUCKING %

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. How are the results terrible? And no, religious classes are not. But forcing people to be present for daily prayers is.

2. Prayer is already (in schools) unconstitutional by a supreme court ruling. And you didn't answer my question regarding hypothetical office prayers.

3. Revoking that protection would not only destroy every single social media site, but also even sites like moviechat. No-one would run a forum or community if they could be prosecuted for what one of their dumbass members said. If there's evidence of governments directing private social media companies, that is different - but you get into dangerous territory when you suggest that social media sites should be managed and prevented from having an independent terms of service.

4. Name these comments and policies please.

5. How so? And if so, so what? Because they announced support for LGBT with a custom can inspired by her? So fucking what? It's adults, right? I thought the main problems here were children being muddled into this.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Skyrocking illegitimacy and divorce with massive negative consquences. Hey, you want to revoke truancy laws, I agree.

2. I disagree with that ruling. And some employer wants daily prayers, I would be fine with that. I've worked at institutions that had religious pasts. I felt that the loss of any faith inside off them was not good.

3. If they want the protections of not controlling cotent, then stop controlling content. Lefties always want to have it both ways. And there is plenty of evidence of twitter workign with rogue fbi spies AGAINST THE ELECTED PRESIDENT to control the election. Are you unaware of this?

4.I already gave you some of his racist comments. as to his policies, his push for illegal amnesty is certainly racist adn anti-American.

5. Because it is a political issue and they thus made drinking the beer a political issue AND set up the situationo so that any complaint from their customers would be deterred by fear of being cancelled. But the customers were brave and pushed back anyways.

Your pretense of not getting this, is your brain trying to avoid dealing with the fact that you are one the wrong side of this issue.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Where is the evidence that prayer in schools would somehow reverse this? Why isn't europe suffering like this? When did I propose revoking truancy laws?

2. So employers should get to force their employees to be present at daily prayer circles?

3. This is a weird comparison. Social media is run by private companies. Should it be the right of a social media website, say, to ban 'hate speech' and put that in their terms of service? Yes or no.

3b. Also: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

4. No, you did not. His comments on Trayvon Martin, misguided, were not racist.

5. So ultimately it isn't just about 'protecting children'. You believe that transpeople existing publicly and being shown to exist publicly is a "political issue".

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Yes. Clearly my intent was that this action alone would reverse decades of social policy and cultural change. Thanks for being a serious person.

Hint. This is a test to see if you will pretend to not realize I was being sarcastic, and thus show whether you are a bad person or not.

2. If an organization or an institution has a religious agenda, non-religious workers should be prepared and able to be tolerant of that.

3. Hate speech is so subjective as to be a license to do anything. SO no.

3b. "requests" are very vague. Hey, try that reading between the lines thing you do.

Also. Are you accepting and supporting the idea that the FBI would suppress true political information during and election so as to control the outcome, WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THEIR ELECTED SUPERIORS?

4. Sure they were. There was an incident that was presented as having racial overtones, and he took the side of inflaming racial tensions and assuming that the "white guy" was the bad racist guy, you know, cause "racism". That's racist and anti-American.

5. i like it when you need to put words in my mouth in order to defend your position. It shows that you are very intimidated by my well thought out arguments.

Would you like to address what I actually said now? Instead of just trying to spin. Here it is again.

Because it is a political issue and they thus made drinking the beer a political issue AND set up the situationo so that any complaint from their customers would be deterred by fear of being cancelled. But the customers were brave and pushed back anyways.

Your pretense of not getting this, is your brain trying to avoid dealing with the fact that you are one the wrong side of this issue.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. But you intimated that the lack of prayer in US schools somehow contributed to illegitimacy and divorce.

2. No. It should be against the law to conscript your colleagues into attending prayer meetings.

3. So people should be allowed to use Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc and throw slurs against gay people, black people, jews etc and the site owners should be unable to ban them?

3b. Did you actually read the full article?

4. No reason to believe he did it to fuel racism, at all.

5. I reject your premise that portraying transpeople (adults, not children) in a positive light is remotely an innately political issue.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Yes I did. If that seemed strange to you, you should have asked me about that, instead of assuming I meant that that ALONE would fix it all. That was silly of you.

The reality of this is that YOU are the one that is intolerant of Christians exersizing their rights in public.

2. If I have a business or an institution, say, A hospital, that I set up as an act of Christian charity and love, celebrating that faith while doing good work, seems ok to me. Even if I was working there and not very religious myself.

You are just intolerant of Christians.

3. If they want the protections of just being platform providers and thus not liable for anything said, then they need to not try to control content. That would be FAIR and JUST and Legal.

I also note that you seem to be ok with people hurling slurs at WHITE people... Strange that. Calls into question whether you really care about "hate" or not.

3b skimmed it. Also. Are you accepting and supporting the idea that the FBI would suppress true political information during and election so as to control the outcome, WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THEIR ELECTED SUPERIORS?

4. He joined a racist church because he liked it's message. A racial incident came up and his actions showed that he believes the racist and anti-American view of America. His actions supported that view and increased division and racism INSTEAD of trying to heal them. Yet you want to give him a pass, while attacking people that want prayer in schools...

Gives us an idea of how your intolerance of religious people is really just political intolerance and a desire for political control for YOUR side. And a lack of respect for the rights of others.

5. Yet in every other point, the more we talk the more obvious it is, that POLITICS is at the bottom of everything you care about. You talk shit about Christianity, but you give a pass to every LEFTY chrisitian that comes up, while only attacking the right leaning ones. For example.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. So what evidence do you have that the lack of prayer caused these social issues?

2. No. Pray all you like. You don't get to demand other people remain your presence and silently observe.

3. Celebrate it on your own time, or with volunteers.

4. When did I say I was okay with people hurling slurs at white people? What's the context here?

5. The Techdirt article argue that there was no order from the FBI to suppress content.

6. What, specifically, is the "racist" and "anti-American" view of USA here? That US has a problem with law enforcement?

7. What rights do I want to remove?

8. I await the times when "left Christians" wish to impose Christian doctrine on people who are not Christian.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. The connection seems obvious. Libs have spent generations attacking traditional morality and as behavior that would traditionally be called immoral becomes more and more common, society is decaying wtih all the human suffering that entails.

2. And again, we see that you think you have some right to demand to not have Christians practice their religion in your presence and they have no right to practice their religion. This oddly does not come up, with LEFT leaning Christians. Just a coincidence I guess. LOL!!!!

3. Who you are to tell me when or how to celebrate my religion?

4. The context is you complaining about "hate speech" and listing all the colors EXCEPT white. D'uh.

5. Correct. BIG TECH was happy to just do as the rogue FBI agents asked them to do, ie LIE to the American people so as to control the election and prevent the voters from having an informed choice about who to vote for. Do you support that or not?

6. That the US, specifically US whites are evul and wacist. Obama's siding with the young black thug vs the supposedly white victim, was clearly racist and divisive. He was perfectly positioned to try to settle and heal racial tensions, instead he choose to increase them.

7. Lets see, so far, in this thread, Right to Speech, Right to assemble, Freedom of Religion, and really considering how much it offends you to be in the presence of people that think differently than you, hinting at Right to even LIVE.

8. Except MLK talked about how his belief in equality was based on us all being "God's children" and he used his CHURCH to IMPOSE his Christian based views on non-Christians and you are fine with that. So, your claim is clearly false. You are making up reasons to justify your anti-Christian bigotry, and they are not your REAL reasons as demonstrated by how inconsistently you apply them.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What "traditional morality" specifically? And why is the secular, less-religious europe not undergoing this massive social decline?

2. A Christian may choose to pray me near me if they want. They may not however, compel me to be present and silent whilst they pray. Which is what school and employment prayer is. I should be able to talk or walk off if I like.

3. I'm not. You can pray when you like. You have no right to demand a quiet audience however.

4. I also didn't mention anti-asian hate speech. But you didn't answer my question: So people should be allowed to use Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc to throw slurs against gay people, black people, jews etc and the site owners should be unable to ban them? Add white people to that if you like.

5. Please source that from the article please.

6. So if someone thinks the USA has rough racial relations, they're inherently anti-American?

7. All of these are lies. I've said no such thing about removing any of them.

8. Is it only possible to support racial equality if you're Christian? You'll note by the way, that I do not consider it a violation of religion and state to legislate against abortion - because it's not in itself, a religious imposition. Some non-theists are against abortion. Even though I myself am pro-choice. So the notion I only defend the prospect of legislation from left-wing christians is outright untrue.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1.A. don't be silly. B. who says you are not?

2. You are being disingenious. You have whined like a faggot repeatedly about people praying near you and now you claim to be fine with it? I call bullshit.

3. A little late for you to claim to be ok with it.

4. I clearly did answer it. Did you not read my answer?

5. You are being silly now. The collusion between Big Tech and rogue fbi agents happened, adn you clearly support it.

6. America has had a bi-partisan consensus on racial equality for blacks since the mid 60s. Denying that and claiming that we are a racist society is anti-american and ironically ACTUALY racist.

7. Sure you did.

8, MLK was a violation of church and state. That you give him a pass is you showing that your entire position is bullshit.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Don't be silly about what? We don't have anywhere near the gun crime and general violent crime as the US does. And how would prayer somehow prevent this anyway?

2. No, I have not. I have said that schools and places of employment should not be allowed to force students or employees to be present at pre-arranged prayer times. And the state should not mandate for their requirement within schools. If someone wants to pray near me, that's up to them. But I am under no obligation, or should be under no obligation to be silent or present.

3. I've never said otherwise. You not understanding my argument is not my problem.

4. No, you decided to deflect and complain that I did not include anti-white slurs. Should Reddit be forced to allow people to throw racial slurs at each other on their platform?

5. No, I do not and there's no direct evidence that it did.

6. When people suggest the US has "rough racial relations" (quoting myself), they're suggesting social conflict - not making a comment about legislation on the books.

7. Yes, I did.

8. No, he was not. The concept of racial equality before the law is a wholly secular concept that can be presented on common ground. And you ignored the rest of what I said: You'll note by the way, that I do not consider it a violation of religion and state to legislate against abortion - because it's not in itself, a religious imposition. Some non-theists are against abortion. Even though I myself am pro-choice. So the notion I only defend the prospect of legislation from left-wing christians is outright untrue.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. You asked what is traditional morality. I called it silly because I was being nice.

2. You have been having multiple hissy fits over the very ideas of someone praying near you and declaring it a violation of your rights. Your desire for tyranny is clear.

3. bs.

4. Why are you pretending that I did nto answer this?

5. Your denial is silly.

6. They are supporting a divisive lie that is killing people and tearing this nation apart.

7. Your oppostiion to human rights is increasingnly normal on the left.

8. He was a religious leaders, using his religious organization to force politcal policy change based on his religious beleifs. That you give him a pass, is just you showing that your stated reasons for your opposition to the religious right, is bullshit.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. You originally used the words "traditional morality". In any case, how do you work out that the removal of prayer in schools somehow causes societal decline?

2. No, I have not. I've objected to the idea that people should be compelled to be present by their teacher or employer at designated prayer times.

3. Nothing to say here other than to simply repeat myself.

4. Scrolling back you said this: "If they want the protections of just being platform providers and thus not liable for anything said, then they need to not try to control content." This isn't a direct answer. Do you consider Reddit banning someone for throwing an anti-white or anti-black slur at someone as "controlling content"?

5. Give me some direct sources to back this claim up. Not addressing it until you provide evidence.

6. I think it's anti-american to suggest that people who have specific viewpoints about the current state of race relations in the USA are somehow 'anti-american'. That to me seems suggestive of rather intolerant attitudes to free expression, if nothing else.

7. I do not have any opposition to human rights. Your allegations here have been outright lies.

8. So? I've never said religious people cannot campaign. He campaigned. The laws that he helped inspired were secular in nature. And you ignored the rest of what I said: You'll note by the way, that I do not consider it a violation of religion and state to legislate against abortion - because it's not in itself, a religious imposition. Some non-theists are against abortion. Even though I myself am pro-choice. So the notion I only defend the prospect of legislation from left-wing christians is outright untrue.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

You're cleary just stonewalling and gaslightin at this point. Giving obama and mlk passes for their religious behavior or violations of church and state, shows that your issue is just an excuse to attack adn marginalize your political enemies.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

MLK did not impose his religion on others. His overall cause was secular in nature and resulted in a secular act. I have made my position clear on the separation of religion and state - it is to prevent religious doctrine is imposed on others (mandatory prayer sessions), or given special protection (blasphemy laws). In US terms, that kind of stuff should be regarded as unconstitutional.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

His words clearly showed that the basis for his beliefs were religious. His autority came from his RELIGOUS LEADERSHIP position. His movement was centered on BLACK CHURCHES and BLACK CHURCH GOERS.

That you want to give him a pass, while having a hissy fit over school prayer,

shows that your position is incoherent and deserves no consideration.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>His words clearly showed that the basis for his beliefs were religious.

Not relevant. The legislation that came from it was not religious in nature. It didn't persecute anyone based on their religious, or lack of religious beliefs.

>That you want to give him a pass, while having a hissy fit over school prayer,

Because school prayer directly imposes mandatory prayer sessions on everyone regardless of their religion or lack of. Civil rights for all does not.

>shows that your position is incoherent and deserves no consideration.

Your lack of understanding how secularism works is not my problem.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Being in the presence of people prarying is not a violation of your rights. Your complaint is irrationa.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

No, it's not. But being forced to be present in a pre-arranged prayer meeting is a violation.

I'm not talking about being around someone incidentally as they happen to be praying, dude.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Skavau,

you only clearly only care about "scripture" when it is convienant for you to do so. MLK, Obama, they get a pass.

That is why you are stonewalling on demanding qoutes and nit picking distinctions and just... plain ignoring shit.

Becasue you know that the only way to even pretend that your position is defensible is to play rhetorial or debating games.

Say something real, or I am done.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>you only clearly only care about "scripture" when it is convienant for you to do so. MLK, Obama, they get a pass.

No, you completely misrepresenting my position on secularism continues to be the theme here.

MLK used his faith as inspiration as it was his background and he was appealing largely to a Christian population, but racial equality is not the sole purview of Christianity. It's quite unlike trying to ban permarital sex, impose creationism/prayer on children (literal christian propaganda), putting up the ten commandments on public buildings, banning blasphemy etc. These are impositions on others and direct impositions of ones faith on other people.

Should the constitution in your mind safeguard the people from the potential of a specific religion or doctrine imposing itself on non-believers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

MLK led an army comprised of CHURCHES, and Church leaders and CHURCH members, to force his political views on the nation as a whole.

For you to accept THAT, makes your pretense of supporting the Seperation of Chruch and State a sad little joke.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

I repeat my comments again:

No, you completely misrepresenting my position on secularism continues to be the theme here.

MLK used his faith as inspiration as it was his background and he was appealing largely to a Christian population, but racial equality is not the sole purview of Christianity. It's quite unlike trying to ban permarital sex, impose creationism/prayer on children (literal christian propaganda), putting up the ten commandments on public buildings, banning blasphemy etc. These are impositions on others and direct impositions of ones faith on other people. It's also, might I add - why abortion legislation is not inherently religious even though most people against it are religious. If I'm partisan, can you explain why I accept that it should be constitutionally possible to restrict abortion rights?

Should the constitution in your mind safeguard the people from the potential of a specific religion or doctrine imposing itself on non-believers?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Being against pre-maritial sex is not "the sole purview of Christianity" either.

Neither is prayer in schools, banning blaspemy, ect.

Your position is senseless. You, like all lefties, never tell the truth about what you really are after.

Because what you want has ZERO to do with the good of the American Citizen.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>Being against pre-maritial sex is not "the sole purview of Christianity" either.

Technically not, although it may well violate other parts of the constitution.

>Neither is prayer in schools, banning blaspemy, ect.

Yes it is. For one, the precedent is already set regarding prayer - it was already ruled unconstitutional. But in addition, it directly imposes religious events on people against their will. Blasphemy is the privileging of scripture by the state, exempting it from mockery, insult or even criticism (it also violates freedom of speech).

>Because what you want has ZERO to do with the good of the American Citizen.

What is it I want?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. So, THanks for admitting it.

2. It is irrelevant if other acts are considered unconstitutional for other reasons. That was not hte point being discussed. Did you forget what we were discussing?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Admitting what?

2. You do realise I noted that as an aside, right? I directly responded to your points.

Also Blasphemy is already unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson and done so on exactly the reasons I stated.

What is it I want?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. That being against premarital sex is not solely religious.

2. Citing an Authority is generally just a logical fallacy. Unless you believe that the court is incapable of error?

3. Something you are not willing to share.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. When did I say it was? People are often against it for religious reasons, but not necessarily so.

2. I'm noting that the precedent is already set - or do you reject all Supreme Court decisions? On what basis is a blasphemy law not a violation of secularism?

3. No, go on. Tell me what I think.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Above just a few posts.

2. On the basis of wanting to avoid public violence by pissed off muslims.

3. You misunderstand. I'm not claiming to read your mind, I am pointing out what is implied by your behavior.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Oh yes, fair enough. I will say that it's likely unconstitutional in any case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas.

2. That's still the state imposing a set of different rule for religious scripture. Doesn't matter if it is done out of fear.

3. And what is implied?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. So, your double standard still going strong. Got it.

2. BUt the motivation is not religous, it is pragmatic. Your previous claim was that the point is motivation.

3. That your true motivation is something else.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Explain the double standard please.

2. No, it wasn't. It was about what the law would do. Whilst I don't really like people arguing on the basis of Christianity, the blasphemy law is a violation because it prejudices in favour of religious scripture, affording it specific state protection.

3. Which is what?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

We are just going in circles now. Your double standard has been well demonstrated and you seem to be out of stuff to say.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

I am responding to every point you claim, and you have refused to answer at least a half-dozen of my questions.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Your position on this is silly.

On one hand you see a violation of church and state with a morning prayer in school but

on the other you see a religious leaders, expressly state his religious motivation for his policial agenda and then lead an army of churches to force the government to adopt that agenda, to this day, and you are fine with that.

It is clear that your stated complaints are not your real concerns.

You have some other reason for wanting to deprive some people of their religious freedom, a reason that you are not willing or unable to share.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>On one hand you see a violation of church and state with a morning prayer in school but

Yes, if students/employees are forced to participate. I don't know how you keep missing that the problem here is that 'prayer in school/workplaces' in this context would be forced upon the employees/students, and THAT is what makes it wrong. Their presence would be required.

>on the other you see a religious leaders, expressly state his religious motivation for his policial agenda and then lead an army of churches to force the government to adopt that agenda, to this day, and you are fine with that.

The outcome is not religious. Equal rights being applied does not impose Christianity on people. If a Christian group was suddenly to campaign against animal abuse, it doesn't suddenly make animal abuse a religious issue.

>You have some other reason for wanting to deprive some people of their religious freedom, a reason that you are not willing or unable to share.

And what religious freedom do I want to remove from people?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

You are against religious people getting to practice their religion. Except, when you are not, for reasons that you will not share.

A child praying in school? Bad.

Obama clearly expressing that he liked the message of a racist and anti-American and marxist church and joining it for twenty years and then running for President?

Good. Nothing to be seen there. No reason to connect the dots. Hell, I'm not sure you think that there are dots.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

>You are against religious people getting to practice their religion. Except, when you are not, for reasons that you will not share.

And how am I against religious people from practicising their religion precisely?

>A child praying in school? Bad.

I said no such thing. I said a teacher forcing their classroom to pray every day = bad.

>Obama clearly expressing that he liked the message of a racist and anti-American and marxist church and joining it for twenty years and then running for President?

When did he say, specifically, that he endorsed the racially-charged messagings of his pastor?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Stop asking meaningless questions and addess teh point. Or stop responding.

2. Except we oovered the FACT that the teacher would NOT be forcing the anyone to pray. So, again, you are mistating the case in order to justify your opposition. Which indicates that your stated comopliants are not your real complaints.

3. HE expressly stated that he found the message of the Church to be so good that he "converted" to the church. And then he stayed for twenty years And raised his children in it. As I have said before.

What more could he say or do to express his agreement with the church's doctrine? Your resistance here would be hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. No. You keep claiming that I wish to prevent religious people from practicing their religion. Each time you claim this, I will ask you to back it up.

2. But presence of people who would not pray would still be required. That is still not acceptable. It's an imposition. Just like how a mandatory workplace prayer meeting every day at 9:20am is an imposition. Just because you can technically choose to not pray doesn't mean it is not imposed on you.

3. Right, and how did he govern in such a way? What policies did he pass?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1.Take a look at point two.

2. You act as though sitting there quietly for a minute is such a huge problem. YOu are prepared to put with ZERO in being tolerant of christians. The slightest inconvience and you want to cry "TRYANNY" and shut them down. The effect is to drive them from the public square.

3. So, be clear, are you accepting that Obama liked the church's racist and anti-american and marxist doctrine, or is this more of a "pretend to not notice that that defense was debunked and come back to it later" tactic?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Yes it is. If it is mandated, insisted as a part of a daily routine within your employment or education. It is a violation of civil liberties and there is no justification for it.

2. I have no idea what Obama specifically thought regarding the matter. He certainly did not govern like Al Franken might.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Thus, my point that you are hostile to Christianity. You are completey intolerant with no consideration for them practicing their religion.

2. So, despite him explicitly stating that he liked their doctrine, and joining the church and staying a member for twenty years, you have no idea what he thought regarding the matter?

This is a good place to stop. You've utterly lost. I feel like I am clubbing a baby seal now, and your stonewalling is just making you look even worse, with every post.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. You don't have the right to insist I observe you praying every day in my job or education.

2. Where did he say he endorsed their racial ideals? Sources please specifically.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Where in the constitution does it say that you have a right to NOT see people pray?

2. When he said he liked the doctrine. And then backed up the words with actions, ie joining hte church for twenty years.

Your double standard here, is as bad as any I have seen from any lefty.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. That's not what I said... How many times do I have to repeat this? I can be with someone in a room, and they can choose to pray. Up to them. I may respond as I like, either by either talking, doing nothing, or leaving the room. Their decision does not encumber any requirements to me.

What is not right however, is for an employer or teacher to set specific prayer times for classes that all students must be present for. Whether or not individual students or employees choose to participate in such events is neither here nor there - a religious-themed event is being imposed upon them. And currently it has already been rendered unconstitutional: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/665/engel-v-vitale

2. Again: Where did he say he endorsed their racial ideals? Sources please specifically. I want sources where he specifically endorsed that aspect as espoused by Jeremiah Wright.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Yes. I get that. That stances shows zero tolerance and great hostility to Christianity. Repeating your position will not change that.

2. His autobiography where he stated that he found the doctrine of hte church attractive. Your stonewalling here is sad, like baby seal sad.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. No, it does not. Would it be intolerant of you if you rejected being told you must be present at the Muslim call to prayer? You don't have to do anything, but you've to be quiet and observe.

Why should I be forced to be present at daily arranged prayers?

2. No, I specifically want the part where he endorses Jeremiah Wrights values. He also did a big, highly regarded speech addressing the history and repudiating the racially-charged remarks he had made (whilst not condemning him for it)

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Muslim call to prayer is very loud. And like 5 times a day. Kind of different.

2. The doctrine was Rev Wright's values, racism, anti-Americanism and marxism. Your stonewalling is very pathetic.

3. Yes, we have a conflict between a politicans words and his actions. Which do you think is the real Obama? His ACTIONS of twenty years, or his WORDs after his actions started hurting him during an election?

That's rhetorical. That you pretend to believe his words is you just giving him a pass for for being a racist, anti-American marxist.

Why do you take the side of the racist anti-american marxist?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. So what? What if you were at your job or in school and were told you must be in attendance as your colleagues pray everyday?

2. Evidence that Obama specifically endorsed those values. His words. Direct quotes please. I will accept nothing less.

3. I don't think it matters. Obama didn't try to impose his religion on people via legislation. And what makes him a marxist, exactly?

And I reject your rather ironically anti-American premise that holding specific beliefs about US racial injustice somehow makes you anti-American.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Can I pray my own way or do nothing and just think of other shit?

2. I am citing his words from his autobiography. I have told you that repeatedly. Your stonewalling is excellent.

3. How do you know? If he was a true believe of his church, then some of his policies could easily have been motivated by his religious beliefs. You have been pretending that that would be a big problem for you.

4. Your rejection of reality is noted.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Yes. But your attendance is still mandatory. Why should you be forced to attend this? Why can't those who want to pray pray without you being present.

2. Link me the direct citations please where he specifically endorses it.

3. Again, I am talking specifically about laws passed that are discriminatory against people who are not Christian, or imposing Christianity on them.

4. How is he marxist? Define Marxist please.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Well, if it is school, I am required by law to be there, for school. This is just a very small part of the day. If it were work, it would be my choice to be there, because I want to get paid. If the owner wants to waste my time with having me watch some idiots pray, that is his right.

2. No, you are being silly. You want to read his auotbiography, go knock yourself out.

3. His specific doctrine included racism, anti-americanism and marxism. His religion could easily have motivated racistt, anti-america or marxist policies. Considering your rabid support of "separation of church and state" when it came to right leaning examples, this should be a huge problem for you. BUt, it's not. You're fine with left leaning churches having political input.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Right, and I am saying that it should be law or unconstitutional to prevent schools and employers from imposing 'prayer time' on their students or colleagues. And that is currently the case in the USA - because it is a violation of the establishment clause. That you're cuck enough to not care doesn't make it any less of an imposition.

2. I continue to await sources. Not reading a whole book because of a forum discussion.

3. Evidence please. What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. I'm tolerant of people that are different than me. I once worked wtih a number of muslims. It would have been weird to see them pray, but, no harm to me.

2. Your excuse is noted.

3. For discussion purposes, his racist and divisive words with regards to the Treyvon Martin shooting is good. That was clearly racist, motivated by racism, and quite possibly thus his racist religion.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. It is highly intolerant for Muslims or Christians or anyone to insist that people must be present for scheduled prayer meetings. Rejecting that does not make one intolerant.

This isn't just about happening to see people pray near you, but being told you must be present at daily scheduled prayer events.

2. You refusal to provide an excerpt or any supporting evidence is noted.

3. That's not a policy. Nor is it marxism at all. At best it could suggest some racial bias. What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. No, it's not.

2. Obama strongly liked his church's doctrine. He clearly and expressly stated this.

3. It is a racist action, quite possibly driven by his religion. Are you ok with him governoring based on his version of "scripture" even though the vast majority of the us population did not share his doctrine.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What do you mean "No it's not"? What do you find tolerant about demanding people are present in your prayer times?

2. He also criticised it heavily and repudiated Wright.

3. I'll ask again: What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. It's not intolerant to pray while other people are present.

2. Yeah, clearly a stupid lie as exposed by twenty years of behavior.

3. I'll ask, why do you want to ignore the possibility that his racist actions were driven by his church.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I didn't say it was. I said it was intolerant to insist that other people be present every day as you pray.

2. I continue to await for direct excerpts.

3. No. Answer my question. Stop dodging it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. You seem confused as to the purpose of school or work.

2. Your excuse is noted.

3. I'm satisfied with teh example we already have. Stop dodging.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What does being forced to attend daily prayers have to do with school or work?

2. Not an excuse.

3. No. Answer my question. I refuse to answer anymore questions by you until you answer them.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Oh, you ready to talk about MERITS of the policy now? Cause I dont' want to bother, if you will just retreat to your "rights" defense.

2. He said it, and you are just stonewalling.

3. We already have an example for discussion purposes. Your evasion is just boring. You want to stop, I'm fine with that.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. You claimed prayer had merits some time ago, although never really backed it up.

2. I don't trust your specific claims. I want the specific quotation. Will accept nothing less.

3. His comments on Trayvon Martin were not policy, they were not marxism, and were at best perhaps suggestive of an internal bias regarding race. Now: What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. When you retreated to an argument based on "Rights" that made my merit argument moot. You aren't trying the standard lefty circular argument tactic are you? That is a real shitty thing to do.

2. Whatever. You choose to stonewall. You will find some excuse.

3. His comments were racist and as a non-religious person, I find it a violation of my right to not be ruled by church "scripture". It is a violation of church and state.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What? Even if mandatory school prayer sessions somehow conveyed benefits (it doesn't) I would still oppose it on secularism grounds.

2. Still waiting for the text.

3. Not answering my question.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. So, why move the discussion to a grounds that you dont' care about? Kind of shitty and evasive of you.

2. He said it. You know he did. You are just stonewalling.

3. Your desire to set the bar to avoid vast segments of what you would call a voilation of church and state, if it were a right leaning figure, is evasive and denied.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. You just bought up its benefits (apparently), presumably abandoning your original claim that it doesn't violate separation of religion and state.

2. Text please.

3. Not answering my question. I've spelled out to you repeatedly as to what constitutes a violation of secular principles.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Now you are just playing silly games. You are stonewalling on violation of church and state, here, while giving obama a pass on everything.

2. No. You know it is true. You aer just stonewalling.

3. But racism was part of his church's doctrine. Ignoring that, makes no sense, if you were serious about "secular principles".

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What? It is a violation of religion and state, and it's also not useful. Are you going to back up your claims that it is somehow beneficial to school and work?

2. Text please.

3. Not entertaining this until you answer my questions: What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Not worth discussing if your opposition is based on "violation of church and state".

2. Why? You know it is true. You are just stonewalling.

3. That's fine. I will keep waiting for you to address his racist actions that were likely based on his church doctrine, based on my "reading between the lines".

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. It's always been based on that.

2. Text please.

3. No. Why should I answer any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Ok. So, i still don't follow how my being exposed to someone praying is a violation of my rights.

2. Why? You know it is true. You are just stonewalling.

3. Because there is no reason to jump around. We were discussing this example and it is a fine example. His church doctrine included racism, and thus a violation of "church and state" if you believe in that. Which you claim to. But you give him a pass.

That is all we need.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I didn't, and I never ever claimed this at any point. I genuinely question your reading ability at this point. I will obviously have to outline this by using two specific scenarios.

Example 1: I come to my place of work. As I enter, I see some of my colleagues praying. This is their choice, and nothing is incumbent upon me. It's just one of those things. I can join in, watch, talk or walk off.

Example 2: I come to my place of work and am told I must go to a specific room and remain present and silent or join in whilst people around me pray. I am also told this is a daily occurence and I may not opt-out.

Example 1 is not a violation, Example 2 IS a violation.

2. Text please.

3. No. You made some specific claims (and I have already answered this repeatedly in prior posts, showing you still don't understand the concept of secularism). What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. You are not required to be there for the prayer, you are required to be there for something else.

2. You're stalling and stonewalling. You know that Obama said it, and that he did it. You just are hesitant to admit that, because you know it is a problem for your supposedly Seperation of Church and State position.

3. I have made specific claims, one of which is that racism was part of a his religious doctrine and thus, according to YOUR deep fear of and opposition to any "church scripture" becoming a basis for goverment activity or policy.

His siding with the black guy, in the Martin/Zimmerman incident despite the strong evidence that the black guy was a violent thug, was clearly racist.

This is not as you do with right leaning religious types, ie "reading between the lines", this is connecting some clearly visible dots.

DOt one, Obama supported the doctrine of a racist and anti-American and marxist church.

Dot two, while Presient when presented with an opportunity to either heal or inflame the racial divide in this country, he choose to inflame it.

Church doctrine used as the basis for governing. BOOM.

Which you oppose. Except when you don't. The rest of your activity in this thread is you trying to pretend that you don't see that.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. What is that "something else" in this situation?

2. Said what provide sources please.

3. Yes, you have made that claim. I've answered it in a number of ways.

3a. This is not policy.

3b. How is his church marxist?

What "marxist policies" did he have in office, exactly? What "racist policies" did he propose?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Your point is that they are required to be there for the prayer. IF they are there for something else, then yyour point is incorrect. It doesn't matter what the something else is. Indeed the only reasons to ask is if you don't believe there is any other reason to be in school, or to cloud the issue.

2. Obama expressly stated that he found the doctrine of the racist,anti-american and marxist church very attractive and joined the church and stayed in the church for twenty years.

3. It was an action as President with direct and harmful effects on the nation. An action which links nicely with the racism of his church.

3b. It has marxist ideology as part of it's religious doctrine. I forget the exact bullshit mechanisms they use to cloak marxist ideology in the rhetoric of church doctrine, but, it was a lot of stupid words games. Which you still see a lot of with lefties. So, no surprise there to either of us I am sure.

4. If you take those answers, and apply them to the Religious Right, does all of your complaints about THEM, disappear, and if not, how not?

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. School prayer here would involve allowing the teacher to specifically set out specific prayer times every day for their class. The act of this is an imposition on everyone whether or not they wish to pray or not. That they are also there to learn is not relevant to the fact that it is an indirect endorsement of religion. An employee is also at a job to work, but that doesn't mean that the employer telling them that as a part of their duties they must sit around a prayer circle every day is any less an imposition of their religion onto them.

2. Still waiting for quotes from you. Not interested in your unreliable interpretation.

3b. And what marxist laws did Obama try to pass? Also, where is your evidence that Black Liberation Theology is inherently marxist?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. It could be seen as an endorsement of the idea of religion, but it is not an endorsement of a certain religion, nor is it requiring participation. This is not a state church.

2. Dude. He was a member of the church for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. His actions validate my "interpretation", lol. You might be projecting your side's constant use of "spin" instead of real ideas. That is not my game.

3. It is absurding stupid to pretend that a man has to push ALL aspects of a religioius doctrine for it to be counted as pushing religious doctrine. We were discussing Obama's pushing of RACISM as him, by your standards, violating Seperation of Church and State.

I understand why you want to avoid the nice clear example. It makes it really hard for you to pretend it is different than what you complain about with righties.

But, as your opponent, I want to make it hard for you. This is a real challenge to your position. Just ignoring it, and focusing on something else that you think workds better for you, doesn't make Obama's racism go away.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Prayer is a religiously-charged concept, and forcing people to partake in prayer events is very much an implicit endorsement of religion by the state. It is already regarded as unconstitutional.

2. I continue to wait for text from him endorsing it.

3. I await evidence that Obama attempted to pass any religious doctrine on the USA when he was in office.

4. No. Answer my questions: What marxist laws did Obama try to pass? How is black liberation theology inherently marxist?

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Being present is not partaking. That need you feel to exxagerate? That is your brain realizing I am right.

2. Dude. He spent twenty years in the church. He raised his children in it. Your demand for confirmation is just you playing delaying games.

3. Black Liberation Theology is racist. Obama had a chance to sooth a supposedly racist incident and instead joined in. That is his church's doctrine, pushed from the Bully Pulpit, a very strong government endorsement of racism/church doctrine.

If you were serious about your position, you would have a problem with it. But you don't. Obama gets a pass.

4. In point one you are flipping out over an implicit endorsement of religion by thee state. Now you want formal law proposals. This is a clear double standard, to give a guy you like, a PASS.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. Again, you are still forced to be present. You would be de facto forced to attend prayer events every day as a part of your schooling/job. Unconstitutional.

2. Still waiting for quotes.

3. Not what I asked you. I await evidence that Obama attempted to pass any religious doctrine on the USA when he was in office.

4. Answer my questions: What marxist laws did Obama try to pass? How is black liberation theology inherently marxist?

You continue to not understand secularism - it's about the state passing laws that prejudice in favour of, or against specific religious ideologies via promotion or discrimination. What a potential political representatives background is happens to be irrelevant if they themselves do not impose laws that do those things.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

1. Nope. You would be forced to attend SCHOOL every day. For a few mintues there would be prayer while you are there. That this is not allowed, is a violation of the rights of the religious people to exersize their religion.

2. Don't care. I WON. You lost.

3. I gave a CLEAR EXAMPLE of him violating church and state BY YOUR STANDARDS. Your desire to jump around to avoid dealing with it, is you losing.

4. In point one you are flipping out over an implicit endorsement of religion by thee state. Now you want formal law proposals. This is a clear double standard, to give a guy you like, a PASS.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

1. I disagree, and so apparently does the supreme court. Prayer should not be endorsed in that way by the school, state or the government. You don't get to force other people to observe as you pray in front of them.

2. Still waiting for quotes from Obama.

3. No, you did not. And not it was not. You continue to not understand secularism is not my problem.

4. Legalising mandatory prayer sessions in school or workplaces is endorsement. That's literally passing a law that enables it. Answer my questions: What marxist laws did Obama try to pass? How is black liberation theology inherently marxist?

You continue to not understand secularism - it's about the state passing laws that prejudice in favour of, or against specific religious ideologies via promotion or discrimination. What a potential political representatives background is happens to be irrelevant if they themselves do not impose laws that do those things.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

If Obama's racism was part of his church doctrine, and it clearly was, then he support of racism in the oval office is a violation of that, from your prespective. THat you give him a pass, shows that this whole argument is bullshit.

reply

[–] Skavau (9296) a year ago

Again, his comment was contentious but certainly not self-evidently racist. I await examples of actual racist comments and policies he's made please.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6000) a year ago

Lol so you can't call Trump racist due to his dad's ties but you can call Obama racist due to his church ties. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

You judge a man by his actions, not his dad's actions.

That you think you had a point, is you being stupid as fuck.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6000) a year ago

Trump himself has been involved with racist stuff not just his dad. He also made sexist claims. Grab them by the pussy.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

You lie.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6000) a year ago

Lol nope. He said grab them by the pussy. That is sexist. You can't refute it.

reply

[–] SandyR (7347) a year ago

Excellent response.

reply

[–] Corbell (8210) a year ago

Do you believe that Obama was a member of that church for twenty years and didn't notice that it was pushing racism and anti-ameicanism and marxism?

Cause that is his defense, and skavau is pretending to believe it, in order to give Obama a pass.

reply

[–] SandyR (7347) a year ago

I don't know enough about all that. I do know Obama ushered in the age of Corporate Marxism -- "Equity for thee, Massive wealth for me..."

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

What does this have to do with shemales wagging their dicks at little kids???

reply

[–] parkerbot (5343) a year ago

Misdirection.

Still waiting for someone to explain why men in dresses want to be around children so much.

Weird rationale incoming...

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14783) a year ago

Why do drag queen shows require the presence of children?

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

They call us cultists while they sacrifice their own children on the altar of their twisted ideology.

reply

[–] robocat893 (13430) a year ago

You are in a cult you're just too stupid to see it. Hopefully someone who cares about you will stage an intervention. It's not too late. You can be deprogrammed.

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

I'm a cultist because I voted for an anti-establishment president?

I'm not the one sacrificing my own children for the sake of wokeness. Or telling men in dresses it's okay to use the same bathroom as little girls. Nor do I have trouble defining what a woman is.

reply

[–] robocat893 (13430) a year ago

*yawn* You are a parrot just repeating what you are told to say by your right wing masters. It's getting old. Why are you so frightened of transgenders? Have you ever met one?

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

Funny, that's what we say about you idiots.

I'm not "afraid" of trannies or anyone else. I just don't think they should be wagging their dicks at little kids. Why do you think they should?

reply

[–] robocat893 (13430) a year ago

Name one transgender who wagged their dicks at little children.

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

Don't know the names of these sick fucks but you assholes casually pretend this doesn't happen. There's tons of them.

https://youtu.be/1UIZ8PwCKFg

https://youtu.be/X-_fAOaQuZg

reply

[–] robocat893 (13430) a year ago

The first video is from Australia so I don't how that would affect American children. In the second video nobody cares what Charlize Theron thinks about Americans because she from South Africa. You are such a dumbass.

I ask you again, name one transgender who wagged their dicks at little children? Also you are confusing transgenders with transvestites. But I expect nothing more from an idiot like you to know the difference.

reply

[–] CraigC (6956) a year ago

Dumbass, the news outlet is Australian, the story is not. You obviously didn't watch all of the Megyn Kelly video either. There are literally tons of examples of this.

No, one dude in a dress is very much like another. In this context, it does not matter. What matters is that we should not have to pass laws on this.

I ask again, why do you think it's okay to expose children to sexually explicit material and imagery???

reply

[–] SandyR (7347) a year ago

Give it up. You're disingenuous and stupid.

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1448) a year ago

Did somebody say black mermaids https://youtu.be/HjwGFxfYpcM

reply

[–] Information-Police (4055) a year ago

I'm pretty upset that there is a character named Flounder who is clearly NOT a species of flatfish.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

it's really easy to laugh at some peoples crazy beliefs, especially those on the other side. but if you're part of a group that believes that a man with a wig on is or can be a woman, then theres nothing more insane. i don't see much difference between that and believing that there are unicorns.

just because people cry and scream "bigot!" doesn't make it anymore belivable.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

They didn’t complain about drag shows, they complained about drag shows being shown to children without parental consent.

reply