• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

hating the other side

Goldwater pushed them away back in the 60's. Nixon certainly never bothered bringing them home. Reagan, however, recognized the benefit of pandering to them, and Bush Jr took it to a whole new level.

Okay, did they have any effect in the founding of the country?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Lol but the bathroom thing and the cake thing lives on....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

But, it's just a minor blip on the problem scale. And, they'll be lucky to keep any of those rights by the time Trump, Pence and the Right Wing Congress and Courts get through with rewriting the rule book. Which is why we have more important things to worry about now,
 
No, Patrick Henry was a professing Christian, but most of the founders were Deists, Unitarians or other. Have proof to the contrary?
Okay so you are saying the religious "right " had less influence on the founding of the country, then they do now?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Okay, did they have any effect in the founding of the country?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Hard to say. It was a different time. Seems they went out of their way though to write the First, expressly stating that this is not a Christian Nation.
 
But, it's just a minor blip on the problem scale. And, they'll be lucky to keep any of those rights by the time Trump, Pence and the Right Wing Congress and Courts get through with rewriting the rule book. Which is why we have more important things to worry about now,
Being forced to bake a cake is a right????

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Being forced to bake a cake is a right????

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

If you ask the proponents, forcing someone who sells cakes to bake you one certainly is.
 
Hard to say. It was a different time. Seems they went out of their way though to write the First, expressly stating that this is not a Christian Nation.
Seems pretty clear to me on what influence they had in the foundation of the country...... funny the religious right you rant about is the one of the main reasons you have the right to rant about anything you want...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Seems pretty clear to me on what influence they had in the foundation of the country...... funny the religious right you rant about is the one of the main reasons you have the right to rant about anything you want...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Maybe you are confusing the Witch Burners with the Founders?
 
If you ask the proponents, forcing someone who sells cakes to bake you one certainly is.
No they fool themselves, that "right" they secured for themselves is no right at all. If you are not free to pick and choose on who you associate with you are not free at all...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Seems pretty clear to me on what influence they had in the foundation of the country...... funny the religious right you rant about is the one of the main reasons you have the right to rant about anything you want...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

The Religious Right would never have written the First using the wording, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," like the Founders did. They would have declared this a Christian Nation, if they were RR like you claim.
 
No they fool themselves, that "right" they secured for themselves is no right at all. If you are not free to pick and choose on who you associate with you are not free at all...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

You must have missed the part where I said that I don't agree with the Zealot Left on this issue.
 
You must have missed the part where I don't agree with the Zealot Left.
No I saw that.. there is zealots on both sides... defining what zealot is becomes the issue....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
No I saw that.. there is zealots on both sides... defining what zealot is becomes the issue....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

People who think--no insist--that they have rights that do not really exist, like the right to cake or forcing their religion into the schools.
 
The Religious Right would never have written the First using the wording, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," like the Founders did. They would have declared this a Christian Nation, if they were RR like you claim.

So you've never read the Danbury baptist letter?
 
So you've never read the Danbury baptist letter?

Sure. That affirms separation of church and state.

"Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state


There is no mention of Christ or Christianity in the Founding Documents. God, yes. Christ, no.
 
Sure. That affirms separation of church and state.

"Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state


There is no mention of Christ or Christianity in the Founding Documents. God, yes. Christ, no.

Establishing Christ in the founding documents would have been mixing church with state, no? What is your point?
 
Okay so you are saying the religious "right " had less influence on the founding of the country, then they do now?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

In that post I was pointing out that very few of the men we refer to as founders of this country were Christians. What other religion do you ascribe to the "religious right"?
 
Establishing Christ in the founding documents would have been mixing church with state, no? What is your point?

We agree. I apologize for misinterpreting the point of your post.
 
I'm too moderate to hate either side.

Besides, the only people I hate are those who abuse animals, children and the elderly.
 
Ok...we have all heard the Right calling the Left Libtards, Commies and unAmerican Muslim sympathizers for years. Now we have the Left rightfully calling the Right out as partisan hacks who would hand the country to Putin if it meant keeping their Right Wing fantasies alive.

Do you hate the other side?


Why?

I'll start. Even before this Trump fiasco, I developed a strong hate for the Religious Right. I'd probably be a Republican (at least up until Trump showed up) if not for them. Their constant insistence on pushing their religious values on the rest of us has been turning me off for about 20 years, and it's only getting worse. I hate those bastards.




I hate no one, Hate lends power over you to others.
 
Hate takes more energy than I have to spare.
 
Actually, the religious right has always called the left evil. And since at least 1980, they have been a major force within the right.

Odd... I know lots of people that would be considered the "religious right" and I can only think of one who would call the left "Evil". But then that's just truth and if you're a hate-filled liberals, you can discard it your leisure if it doesn't align with your hate.
 
Back
Top Bottom