American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[The Jamesian Republic]

Why exactly does he think Fauci is lying?

He doesn't, he's just pretending so as to win the support of far right conspiracists.

Well he isn’t getting the vaccine any time soon either.

[Ifreann]

He doesn't, he's just pretending so as to win the support of far right conspiracists.

Well he isn’t getting the vaccine any time soon either.

I'd bet every last cent I own and could borrow that Rand Paul is fully vaccinated. Well, not really, I'd feel like I'd swindled someone out of all that money. I'm very confident is what I'm saying.

[Sundiata]

It's not that gay-attraction is a sin in historical Christianity, but gay acts. It's of little relevance to American life and law with the imposition of constitutional secularism. For their day, the founders were an unfortunately liberal group.

I don't know how liberal I am, but I agree with the idea of separation of religion and state. While I support laws prohibiting indecent exposure and the like, the state should not enforce religious morality on the populace.

You're in the very least a classical liberal which both political parties in the United States fundamentally are. I am neither a modern liberal or conservative in the American context; I don't support the separation of religion and state as a constitutional principle and have my fair share of disagreements with the Founding Fathers.

Not limited to that, but it is one example.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Well he isn’t getting the vaccine any time soon either.

I'd bet every last cent I own and could borrow that Rand Paul is fully vaccinated. Well, not really, I'd feel like I'd swindled someone out of all that money. I'm very confident is what I'm saying.

Possibly, do you think that someone would make a Biden worshiping conspiracy theory?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I don't know how liberal I am, but I agree with the idea of separation of religion and state. While I support laws prohibiting indecent exposure and the like, the state should not enforce religious morality on the populace.

You're in the very least a classical liberal which both political parties in the United States fundamentally are. I am neither a modern liberal or conservative in the American context; I don't support the separation of religion and state as a constitutional principle and have my fair share of disagreements with the Founding Fathers.

Not limited to that, but it is one example.

I don't think I'm a classical liberal, not anymore anyway, as I do not believe in free markets. I find both parties to be useless, but I do not think the GOP supports constitutional separation.

[Ifreann]

I'd bet every last cent I own and could borrow that Rand Paul is fully vaccinated. Well, not really, I'd feel like I'd swindled someone out of all that money. I'm very confident is what I'm saying.

Possibly, do you think that someone would make a Biden worshiping conspiracy theory?

Probably not.

[San Lumen]

I mean, you kind of do, considering you're calling the LGBT sinners because of an attraction (or lack thereof) we have no control over.

It's not that gay-attraction is a sin in historical Christianity, but gay acts. It's of little relevance to American life and law with the imposition of constitutional secularism. For their day, the founders were an unfortunately liberal group.

How is this not an inherent contradiction? Its ok to be gay but not act on it? In other words live of life of never touching another man or girl and no intimate acts? Thats totally unreasonable to ask of someone.

[The Reformed American Republic]

It's not that gay-attraction is a sin in historical Christianity, but gay acts. It's of little relevance to American life and law with the imposition of constitutional secularism. For their day, the founders were an unfortunately liberal group.

How is this not an inherent contradiction? Its ok to be gay but not act on it? In other words live of life of never touching another man or girl and no intimate acts? Thats totally unreasonable to ask of someone.

It isn't, and I'm sure those vocal against gay acts would probably think lesser of someone who merely had the attraction.

[Tarsonis]

It's not that gay-attraction is a sin in historical Christianity, but gay acts. It's of little relevance to American life and law with the imposition of constitutional secularism. For their day, the founders were an unfortunately liberal group.

How is this not an inherent contradiction? Its ok to be gay but not act on it? In other words live of life of never touching another man or girl and no intimate acts? Thats totally unreasonable to ask of someone.

Most moralistic paradigms are action centric and involve overcoming impulse.

[Sundiata]

It's not that gay-attraction is a sin in historical Christianity, but gay acts. It's of little relevance to American life and law with the imposition of constitutional secularism. For their day, the founders were an unfortunately liberal group.

How is this not an inherent contradiction? Its ok to be gay but not act on it? In other words live of life of never touching another man or girl and no intimate acts? Thats totally unreasonable to ask of someone.

In its full context, it's not anymore unreasonable to ask than the other 99% of the Christian message. But nonetheless, I sympathize with how difficult adherence can be, even that part.

Those who center on homosexual acts, in my opinion, are often motivated by homophobia and there's nothing Christian about that.

[San Lumen]

How is this not an inherent contradiction? Its ok to be gay but not act on it? In other words live of life of never touching another man or girl and no intimate acts? Thats totally unreasonable to ask of someone.

In its full context, it's not anymore unreasonable to ask than the other 99% of the Christian message. But nonetheless, I sympathize with how difficult adherence can be, even that part.

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

[Sundiata]

In its full context, it's not anymore unreasonable to ask than the other 99% of the Christian message. But nonetheless, I sympathize with how difficult adherence can be, even that part.

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are small in comparison to what we get.

[San Lumen]

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are.

You telling me and anyone else whose gay don't touch or do anything intimate with someone of the same sex and never have children. That's merely another way of telling someone to be alone.

[HISPIDA]

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are small in comparison to what we get.

It's my belief we're all going to Heaven in the end regardless, so I don't see any reason why I should force my beliefs on people who won't accept them.

[Sundiata]

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are.

You telling me and anyone else whose gay don't touch or do anything intimate with someone of the same sex and never have children. That's merely another way of telling someone to be alone.

Not alone, because you'd still have a community. But I am asking you sacrifice this short life in exchange for your eternal one.

If possible, I'd like that ethos to be enshrined into American law but it's not immediately probable.

[The Alma Mater]

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are small in comparison to what we get.

So basically no sacrifice is too big ? No demand unreasonable ? There is no line ?

[Ifreann]

God is famously unreasonable. Wiping out cities left and right, drowning the whole world that one time, getting his own son killed, inventing AIDS. He's an awful bollocks, but he's not an American politician.

[The Reformed American Republic]

It is completely unreasonable. You telling that person to live their life alone and never have a family of their own.

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are small in comparison to what we get.

Assuming there is an afterlife.

[San Lumen]

You telling me and anyone else whose gay don't touch or do anything intimate with someone of the same sex and never have children. That's merely another way of telling someone to be alone.

Not alone, because you'd still have a community. But I am asking you sacrifice this short life in exchange for your eternal one.

If possible, I'd like that ethos to be enshrined into American law but it's not immediately probable.

Yes but i can't touch another guy or do anything intimate, ever marry or ever have children. Thats not only morally wrong its unconstitutional. That would be violation of the 14th amendment.

[Tarsonis]

Sweet. Two CDTs

[Sundiata]

Not live their life alone, no, not necessarily. Nonetheless, it's a reasonable cost for entry into heaven. All struggles in this life are small in comparison to what we get.

It's my belief we're all going to Heaven in the end regardless, so I don't see any reason why I should force my beliefs on people who won't accept them.

That's a good question. It's a question of harm prevention: material and moral. If good does not impose then space is left available for the forces of evil to overrun it. Because it's a material question, state power is relevant to achieving good on this earth.

[Biwolfia]

There have only been like 6 cases of the US getting along with its enemies: UK, Canada, France, Japan, USSR, Germany

[Thermodolia]

You telling me and anyone else whose gay don't touch or do anything intimate with someone of the same sex and never have children. That's merely another way of telling someone to be alone.

Not alone, because you'd still have a community. But I am asking you sacrifice this short life in exchange for your eternal one.

If possible, I'd like that ethos to be enshrined into American law but it's not immediately probable.

It’s never going to be probable. Not as long as the constitution remains and I’m alive

[Thermodolia]

There have only been like 6 cases of the US getting along with its enemies: UK, Canada, France, Japan, USSR, Germany

France and the US where never enemies though, also you forgot spain and mexico

[The Reformed American Republic]

There have only been like 6 cases of the US getting along with its enemies: UK, Canada, France, Japan, USSR, Germany

We only got along with the USSR during specific times. Normally, we were at each other's throats.