Not a true Christian: Debate Christianity and Religion's role in Politics

Yes, they are.

Trump is a known personality, whatever else there is to be said about him. He is a star in a way that nobody else in the running (including Hillary) was. You got all kinds of people whose fame helped get them into politics, Tuberville, Franken, J.C. Watts, Herschel Walker, Steve Largent... it's just that you don't often see it lift a guy into the WH from nowhere. Even Reagan used his fame to be governor first.

 

Ban from what? I always thought the Muslim ban was about immigration. The Christians coming from other places ain't the problem.

My guess is that a lot of recent immigrants and Americans of nonWhite nonBlack cultures are less interested in gun ownership than either White folks or Black people. Gun ownership has some traction in the Black community (I own guns, for example, and have since before I was a teen), gun enthusiasm is really a White male rural or wealthy thing. 2A enthusiasm is not my bag.

Oh, his presidency was real, all right. The effects of it are real and will be with us well after we're both dead and buried. It needs to get considerably worse for the people who can make change happen, tho.

 

I see you haven't attended many Fundy/conservative Christian funerals before. That seems mild and respectful compared to some.

 

Wyld Stallyns. Don't disrespect Bill S. Preston Esq. and Theodore Logan III.

 

Porque no los dos.meme.gif

 

Didn't see it posted anywhere, but one of the next fronts in the Culture Wars could be no-fault divorce, according to an article posted by CNN yesterday.

 

InTheNet was clearly ahead of his time with his depiction of an extreme conservative unhinged from reality.

 

They also talk a lot about how family courts are biased against men as an avenue to bring folk into their way of thinking.

 

They also don't do math. There are more women than men, women's voting rates are higher than men's yet the Republicans insist on further alienating women.

 

Easier to prevent people you don't like from voting than to change the way you think.

Pretty sure that's their foundational principle.

 

Well, that and imposing a Bronze Age patriarchal culture's legal and moral code onto a 21st Century society.

In this case, they think that because arranged marriages based on economics, including a bride-price, should be life-long, so should modern marriages based on love. Anthropologically we see that cultures that had arranged marriages did have low divorce rates, but cultures that based marriages on love had high divorce rates. For example, in the Polynesian societies that based marriages on love, the average adult would have 2-3 marriage partners in their lifetime.

 

I remember having a small chuckle when any of my HS or college friends got married. The overwhelming majority of those marriages did not last, and many of the ones that did last should not have. And they had these damn children after they married. It's like, "Hey, let's get into a legally binding partnership, then tack on 2-3 decades of financial and emotional responsibility for family additions that were totally unnecessary, and somewhere four, five years into all of this, one of us does something that ruins it, or we just grow apart. and we still have to deal with the additions. How's that sound for the way you wanna spend the four decades following undergrad school?

And mother********ers line all the way up to do that shit, generation after generation, completely ignoring how well it didn't work out for all the generations that came before them. Yeah, your baby's cute as s/he can be. Adorable and charming! S/he still ain't gonna make enough of a change in the world to merit the cost in time and effort.

 

Well, that's an evangelical Christian's nightmare. And a data point against no-fault divorce.