I realize that this is a generalization and a stereotype, but I believe that it is based on surroundings and area also. In my neck of the woods, so to say, I find this to be somewhat accurate (merely based on what I have seen in my little bitty life!!--not a sweeping generalization). That said, it just depends on the person, so I can't really say that, either. My parents are conservatives, and they're not into hunting or nascar, nor are they '[white] trash'.
Politics and dating: hard to say. Someone mentioned being socially conservative vs. liberal....I think that would be more indicative of compatibility than would political beliefs. But, I guess love could conquer such differences, if each party is willing to compromise.
Why all the hate for hunters? You folks do know that a majority of hunters are big on wildlife conservation, right?
I wasn't expressing hatred for hunters...yes, I've heard the rationale that it controls the population. I don't support it, but I can see the point. I just thought that Gob's observation was interesting. Hunting for sport is big around where I live and grew up, and I can honestly say that every single person whom I have ever known to hunt leans to the right, which I guess makes sense.
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
but if hunters are conservationists ... why support the right who are anti-conservationists (see alaska) ... also, why are hunters against registering your guns? ... why is that so contentious?
Why all the hate for hunters? You folks do know that a majority of hunters are big on wildlife conservation, right?
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
yes, the firearm issue is why I said it makes sense. Yeah, I'm not sure I see a correlation between hunters and Nascar fans either; I don't know anything about that racing thing.
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
but if hunters are conservationists ... why support the right who are anti-conservationists (see alaska) ... also, why are hunters against registering your guns? ... why is that so contentious?
Because the average hunter is your typical stupid Republican. Not that all Republicans are stupid, only 98% of them.
Sadly, only Republicans and Libertarians tend to support legalization of guys. These foolish small-town Repubs are convinced that the institution is on their side. Why registering guns is an issue is beyond me. Moderate regulation is a necessity.
Also, conservationists and environmentalists are ridiculously egotistical, thinking that the world needs their help. The world is going to be just fine. We humans and all the other stupid animals, well, we're going away soon. This giant piece of rock and water has about another 5.7 billion years to go.
Also, don't feel bad, Republicans and Libertarians, because those on the left have their heads just s far up their asses.
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
but if hunters are conservationists ... why support the right who are anti-conservationists (see alaska) ... also, why are hunters against registering your guns? ... why is that so contentious?
Because the average hunter is your typical stupid Republican. Not that all Republicans are stupid, only 98% of them.
Sadly, only Republicans and Libertarians tend to support legalization of guys. These foolish small-town Repubs are convinced that the institution is on their side. Why registering guns is an issue is beyond me. Moderate regulation is a necessity.
Also, conservationists and environmentalists are ridiculously egotistical, thinking that the world needs their help. The world is going to be just fine. We humans and all the other stupid animals, well, we're going away soon. This giant piece of rock and water has about another 5.7 billion years to go.
Also, don't feel bad, Republicans and Libertarians, because those on the left have their heads just s far up their asses.
I agree with your 98% stupidity comment, but certainly don't believe it's restricted to the Republican party...I would apply that number to the entire American population (I love this country, but a quick look at what everyone's watching on television these days will confirm this statistic).
The problem with gun registration is that it's the first step toward prohibition. If guns are outlawed, it makes it a lot easier for the government to take them if they're registered and the government knows where they are. The problem with this is that only law-abiding citizens will register their guns, so the end result would be an unarmed law-abiding populace left at the mercy of the still-armed criminal element. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
I agree with your 98% stupidity comment, but certainly don't believe it's restricted to the Republican party...I would apply that number to the entire American population (I love this country, but a quick look at what everyone's watching on television these days will confirm this statistic).
The problem with gun registration is that it's the first step toward prohibition. If guns are outlawed, it makes it a lot easier for the government to take them if they're registered and the government knows where they are. The problem with this is that only law-abiding citizens will register their guns, so the end result would be an unarmed law-abiding populace left at the mercy of the still-armed criminal element. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
without taking this into a gun laws thread ... what makes you think the government would want to take your guns away!?? ... there isn't a country out there that outlaws hunting altogether ... nor is there a country that bans all guns ... to think that the US which is one of the more pro-gun nations out there would go that far seems unrealistic ...
again tho ... hunters should support the party that will best conserve natural habitat for game ... that is not the republican party ...
I agree with your 98% stupidity comment, but certainly don't believe it's restricted to the Republican party...I would apply that number to the entire American population (I love this country, but a quick look at what everyone's watching on television these days will confirm this statistic).
The problem with gun registration is that it's the first step toward prohibition. If guns are outlawed, it makes it a lot easier for the government to take them if they're registered and the government knows where they are. The problem with this is that only law-abiding citizens will register their guns, so the end result would be an unarmed law-abiding populace left at the mercy of the still-armed criminal element. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Where did I say it was restricted to Republicans?
I shoveled the same criticisms onto the Democrats and Libertarians. Also, I forgot the Socialists.
I agree with your 98% stupidity comment, but certainly don't believe it's restricted to the Republican party...I would apply that number to the entire American population (I love this country, but a quick look at what everyone's watching on television these days will confirm this statistic).
The problem with gun registration is that it's the first step toward prohibition. If guns are outlawed, it makes it a lot easier for the government to take them if they're registered and the government knows where they are. The problem with this is that only law-abiding citizens will register their guns, so the end result would be an unarmed law-abiding populace left at the mercy of the still-armed criminal element. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
without taking this into a gun laws thread ... what makes you think the government would want to take your guns away!?? ... there isn't a country out there that outlaws hunting altogether ... nor is there a country that bans all guns ... to think that the US which is one of the more pro-gun nations out there would go that far seems unrealistic ...
again tho ... hunters should support the party that will best conserve natural habitat for game ... that is not the republican party ...
Lol, so, the Dems give a shit about the environment?
I'll tell you what the Democrats care about: the interest groups that have them by the balls. In this case, look up which companies stand to make the most off of 50+ dollar lightbulbs, and then, research who they pay money to while on the campaign trail.
Any positive environmental side effects that this initiative may have (which will not be much), will be purely incidental and are far from what Democratic politicians actually care about.
Lol, so, the Dems give a shit about the environment?
I'll tell you what the Democrats care about: the interest groups that have them by the balls. In this case, look up which companies stand to make the most off of 50+ dollar lightbulbs, and then, research who they pay money to while on the campaign trail.
Any positive environmental side effects that this initiative may have (which will not be much), will be purely incidental and are far from what Democratic politicians actually care about.
relatively speaking yes ... i agree that both dems and repubs suck in general but if we are talking about conservation - i'd say dems are more so than republicans ...
Lol, so, the Dems give a shit about the environment?
I'll tell you what the Democrats care about: the interest groups that have them by the balls. In this case, look up which companies stand to make the most off of 50+ dollar lightbulbs, and then, research who they pay money to while on the campaign trail.
Any positive environmental side effects that this initiative may have (which will not be much), will be purely incidental and are far from what Democratic politicians actually care about.
relatively speaking yes ... i agree that both dems and repubs suck in general but if we are talking about conservation - i'd say dems are more so than republicans ...
Well, that's not saying much.
Democrats, like Republicans, care about two things: power, and money.
What's funny is that everyone here knows that half of the people saying they couldn't date someone with opposing political views just can't get a date to begin with!!!
Here's an interesting question for you musicians out there...could you be in a band or work with someone who has different political views? That is, could you put all the political bullshit aside and just make some killer music together?
Here's an interesting question for you musicians out there...could you be in a band or work with someone who has different political views? That is, could you put all the political bullshit aside and just make some killer music together?
no.
especially in my original band side project. a lot of our music is coming from anger at the current political environment and you can't have some apolitical person being in your band sucking up all of that energy instead of projecting it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Just on the abortion and religion issues...
Abortion: in various states of Australia the abortion law differ from state to state. Do you believe in abortion if the woman is raped? That woman is not looking at a second option and has not made a choice. However if you do believe she can have one then surely you believe that a foetus isn't a baby and hence where is the problem with the termination? And don't you think there are enough unwanted and uncared for children in the world? What kid wants parents that don't want it?
Religon: I'm pretty sure that Freedom of Religon and also Athieism (not sure that's a world but you get my drift is an important part of the US. By using christianity as a basis in government surely that undermines all the other religons more than having an athiest base.
I would say that most conservatives believe that abortion is sometimes appropriate... In situations of rape or when the mother's health is threatened. If the parents don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. I know at least 3 couples off the top of my head that had to struggle to find a baby to adopt. Abortions from rape victims make up less than 1% of all abortions. Over 95% of all abortions are done as birth control. That is the problem. It’s a lack of personal responsibility.
Having an atheist government basis appeases only a small portion of our country. Approximately 80% of the country is Christian. “Other” religions only make up about 6%. So why try to appease such a small portion of the country at the expense of the rest of the country?
Just on the abortion and religion issues...
Abortion: in various states of Australia the abortion law differ from state to state. Do you believe in abortion if the woman is raped? That woman is not looking at a second option and has not made a choice. However if you do believe she can have one then surely you believe that a foetus isn't a baby and hence where is the problem with the termination? And don't you think there are enough unwanted and uncared for children in the world? What kid wants parents that don't want it?
Religon: I'm pretty sure that Freedom of Religon and also Athieism (not sure that's a world but you get my drift is an important part of the US. By using christianity as a basis in government surely that undermines all the other religons more than having an athiest base.
I would say that most conservatives believe that abortion is sometimes appropriate... In situations of rape or when the mother's health is threatened. If the parents don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. I know at least 3 couples off the top of my head that had to struggle to find a baby to adopt. Abortions from rape victims make up less than 1% of all abortions. Over 95% of all abortions are done as birth control. That is the problem. It’s a lack of personal responsibility.
Having an atheist government basis appeases only a small portion of our country. Approximately 80% of the country is Christian. “Other” religions only make up about 6%. So why try to appease such a small portion of the country at the expense of the rest of the country?
Please. Since he's blocked me will someone punch holes in this.
Ok but the question is whether or not Abortion is actually killing a baby or not. and If you say that it is ok in certain circumstances then i have to believe that you're saying that it's not because I don't like to thinkl that you would say it is ok to kill a child under any circumstances. If it's not a child then I cannot understand any problem you would have with abortion in general. So what if there may (or may not because we all know that abstinance is the only 100% effective form of birth control) have been some irresponsibility in the conception. If it's ok sometimes then you have to be saying it's not a child. If it's not a child then it's not a problem. And before we get into it, at 12 weeks it is not a child. Anyone who has seen what an early term misscarraige looks like can attest to that.
And as far as adoption goes I would think from a personal pov that it would be at least as guilt inducing as an abortion with the constant concern about what had happened to your child with no actual control over it.
I have to ask where you get your statistics from when it comes to 80% of citizens identifying as christian. I highly doubt that that number go to church and practice the religion at all times. I'm also surprised to learn that if your numbers are correct the number of Jewish people is so low. Aside from whether or not the numbers are correct it doesn't change my main point which was that Freedom of Religon is a basic right in the US. How can this right exist if the governing body has a clear religious preference?
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
Ok but the question is whether or not Abortion is actually killing a baby or not. and If you say that it is ok in certain circumstances then i have to believe that you're saying that it's not because I don't like to thinkl that you would say it is ok to kill a child under any circumstances. If it's not a child then I cannot understand any problem you would have with abortion in general. So what if there may (or may not because we all know that abstinance is the only 100% effective form of birth control) have been some irresponsibility in the conception. If it's ok sometimes then you have to be saying it's not a child. If it's not a child then it's not a problem. And before we get into it, at 12 weeks it is not a child. Anyone who has seen what an early term misscarraige looks like can attest to that.
And as far as adoption goes I would think from a personal pov that it would be at least as guilt inducing as an abortion with the constant concern about what had happened to your child with no actual control over it.
I have to ask where you get your statistics from when it comes to 80% of citizens identifying as christian. I highly doubt that that number go to church and practice the religion at all times. I'm also surprised to learn that if your numbers are correct the number of Jewish people is so low. Aside from whether or not the numbers are correct it doesn't change my main point which was that Freedom of Religon is a basic right in the US. How can this right exist if the governing body has a clear religious preference?
That’s the problem with trying to generalize an entire group’s opinion. If you want my personal opinion, it is killing a baby. I do believe that even in the case of rape, the baby can be put up for adoption and found a good home. In the case of medical problems for the mother, it can be acceptable. Chances are if the pregnancy threatens the mother’s health, it will most likely threaten the child’s health. In that case you can risk losing both or save the mother. That seems pretty straightforward. As far as guilt with giving a child up for an adoption, the mother is usually very involved with finding the new parents and can feel good about the home the child is going to. Regardless at least the child has a chance to live, and that has got to be easier on the mother than abortion.
I posted the link to my source in my last post, sorry if you missed it. Regardless, a simple google search has already found a few more sites showing similar data. I wouldn’t assume that it has anything to do with “practicing the religion at all times”, but just as how people identify themselves. How can free speech exist if the governing body has a clear preference? Both freedom of speech and Religion are guaranteed in the first amendment. For over 200 years, everyone has had freedom of religion in the US despite the religious preference of the government. I’m not sure why that has to change. In fact, this country is so PC these days, that you could argue that the minority religions actually have more freedom.
I think on the issue of abortion we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think a twelve week old foetus is a baby, I really don't think it's any more than a bunch of cells with potential, but potential is not the same as fact or accomplishment. and I think abortion is the right of any woman. I'm interested in whether or not you are actually for making it illegal as you have to know that this wouldn't stop people from getting the termination, rather just cause an influx of backyard type abortions, which would obviously not be anywhere near as safe for the mother and desperate people will got to desperate measures.
I'm interested to understand how you think that freedom of religon exists under a government that acts with a bias, When the Muslim brotherhood get elected on the other side of the world (and they will be elected) the one thing you can say for them is that they will be honest about their bias for islam. Religon has caused more wars than anything else as it has often served as a justification. Maybe irrelevent but maybe also evidence that religion and politics don't, or shouldn't, mix. Freedom of religon should mean more than the right to practice a relgion of your choice, it should mean an equality regardless of the religon you choose to practice. If the governing body which represents all of these people has a clear collective preference this can't possibly exist, in fact I would go further and say it even starts to promote racism. Why is religion even necessary in Western politics, why is it relevant regardless of the percentage of population identifying as a particular one? It leads to the question of whether bible studies or the equivalent should be taught in government funded school? Of course it shouldn't because it would alienate the students of other faiths. The situation with the govenment is exactly the same just on a larger scale
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
I think on the issue of abortion we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think a twelve week old foetus is a baby, I really don't think it's any more than a bunch of cells with potential, but potential is not the same as fact or accomplishment. and I think abortion is the right of any woman. I'm interested in whether or not you are actually for making it illegal as you have to know that this wouldn't stop people from getting the termination, rather just cause an influx of backyard type abortions, which would obviously not be anywhere near as safe for the mother and desperate people will got to desperate measures.
I'm interested to understand how you think that freedom of religon exists under a government that acts with a bias, When the Muslim brotherhood get elected on the other side of the world (and they will be elected) the one thing you can say for them is that they will be honest about their bias for islam. Religon has caused more wars than anything else as it has often served as a justification. Maybe irrelevent but maybe also evidence that religion and politics don't, or shouldn't, mix. Freedom of religon should mean more than the right to practice a relgion of your choice, it should mean an equality regardless of the religon you choose to practice. If the governing body which represents all of these people has a clear collective preference this can't possibly exist, in fact I would go further and say it even starts to promote racism. Why is religion even necessary in Western politics, why is it relevant regardless of the percentage of population identifying as a particular one? It leads to the question of whether bible studies or the equivalent should be taught in government funded school? Of course it shouldn't because it would alienate the students of other faiths. The situation with the govenment is exactly the same just on a larger scale
We are all just a bunch of cells with potential. I personally can’t imagine that someone would be so desperate to rid themselves of a pregnancy that they would get a “backyard” type of abortion. I think the risks of the “backyard” type of abortion will deter most people from trying it. People will always go out of there way to get around the law. I just think it’s sad our society got to a point where it’s even an option as “do over” for a bad decision. I definitely wouldn’t put it in the class of “rights”, such a freedom of speech. I think we will just have to agree to disagree about abortion.
We’ve always had a biased Christian government, and we’ve also always had freedom of religion. I’d like to know how you think that we can’t have both when we’ve always had both. There are plenty of non-Christians in America that practice freely, and in fact are more protected than Christians because of their minority status. I wish there was equality regardless of religion practiced, but Christians seem to be less equal anymore.
The US has never gone to war over religion. This country was founded as a Christian nation, and that shouldn’t change because a few people don’t like it. There are other places for people to go in this world that will suit them better. It’s like moving to Iran and wondering why they have to be a Muslim country, and trying to get it changed. Of course the difference being that they don’t have the freedom of religion we have, and you would probably be executed. Both parties have plenty of faults. But it’s the democrats that seem to want to “fundamentally transform” what America is, because doing so gets them elected. But it also destroys what made the US the best country in the world. I don’t see what is wrong with a court house of a predominantly Christian nation have the 10 commandments out front. Even if you are not a Christian, the 10 commandments are still good rules to live by. And even if you don’t choose to live by them, I bet you would prefer that everyone else does!
I’m not for Christian studies to be taught to all in public school, although I think there are plenty of various subjects taught that alienate other students. I do think that Christians should have the same rights in public school to practice that minority religions have. I don’t have a problem with elective classes that Christian students can elect to take. I don’t have a problem with things like the pledge to allegiance, which mentions god, or prayer in school. As long as students not in the majority can opt out and practice their own beliefs freely. There will always be exceptions to every rule, and I don’t think that the majority should bend to a small minority so as to not offend them. Needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. But as we know, all Christian activities get banned, yet the minority religions can generally practice freely.
Anything is possible. One needs only to look at the 20+ years of marriage between Mary Matalin and James Carville. Those two couldn't be on any more opposite ends of the spectrum and they make it work just fine.
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
Anything is possible. One needs only to look at the 20+ years of marriage between Mary Matalin and James Carville. Those two couldn't be on any more opposite ends of the spectrum and they make it work just fine.
Correction: they've only been married for 18 years... but you get the point.
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
Comments
It does make sense. Hunters lean to the right because (with the exception of bow-hunting) you need a firearm to hunt. Liberals tend to be more anti-firearm than conservatives. So, you're right...it does make sense. But honestly...why lump hunters in with NASCAR fans? I'm a hunter (and a conservative) and I HATE NASCAR!
but if hunters are conservationists ... why support the right who are anti-conservationists (see alaska) ... also, why are hunters against registering your guns? ... why is that so contentious?
Because the average hunter is your typical stupid Republican. Not that all Republicans are stupid, only 98% of them.
Sadly, only Republicans and Libertarians tend to support legalization of guys. These foolish small-town Repubs are convinced that the institution is on their side. Why registering guns is an issue is beyond me. Moderate regulation is a necessity.
Also, conservationists and environmentalists are ridiculously egotistical, thinking that the world needs their help. The world is going to be just fine. We humans and all the other stupid animals, well, we're going away soon. This giant piece of rock and water has about another 5.7 billion years to go.
Also, don't feel bad, Republicans and Libertarians, because those on the left have their heads just s far up their asses.
Sure...because if we outlaw guns, criminals will certainly respect the law and get rid of all their firearms.
I agree with your 98% stupidity comment, but certainly don't believe it's restricted to the Republican party...I would apply that number to the entire American population (I love this country, but a quick look at what everyone's watching on television these days will confirm this statistic).
The problem with gun registration is that it's the first step toward prohibition. If guns are outlawed, it makes it a lot easier for the government to take them if they're registered and the government knows where they are. The problem with this is that only law-abiding citizens will register their guns, so the end result would be an unarmed law-abiding populace left at the mercy of the still-armed criminal element. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
without taking this into a gun laws thread ... what makes you think the government would want to take your guns away!?? ... there isn't a country out there that outlaws hunting altogether ... nor is there a country that bans all guns ... to think that the US which is one of the more pro-gun nations out there would go that far seems unrealistic ...
again tho ... hunters should support the party that will best conserve natural habitat for game ... that is not the republican party ...
Where did I say it was restricted to Republicans?
I shoveled the same criticisms onto the Democrats and Libertarians. Also, I forgot the Socialists.
Basically, anybody who votes.
Lol, so, the Dems give a shit about the environment?
I'll tell you what the Democrats care about: the interest groups that have them by the balls. In this case, look up which companies stand to make the most off of 50+ dollar lightbulbs, and then, research who they pay money to while on the campaign trail.
Any positive environmental side effects that this initiative may have (which will not be much), will be purely incidental and are far from what Democratic politicians actually care about.
relatively speaking yes ... i agree that both dems and repubs suck in general but if we are talking about conservation - i'd say dems are more so than republicans ...
Well, that's not saying much.
Democrats, like Republicans, care about two things: power, and money.
i agree but still the point is valid! ...
especially in my original band side project. a lot of our music is coming from anger at the current political environment and you can't have some apolitical person being in your band sucking up all of that energy instead of projecting it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Having an atheist government basis appeases only a small portion of our country. Approximately 80% of the country is Christian. “Other” religions only make up about 6%. So why try to appease such a small portion of the country at the expense of the rest of the country?
Please. Since he's blocked me will someone punch holes in this.
And as far as adoption goes I would think from a personal pov that it would be at least as guilt inducing as an abortion with the constant concern about what had happened to your child with no actual control over it.
I have to ask where you get your statistics from when it comes to 80% of citizens identifying as christian. I highly doubt that that number go to church and practice the religion at all times. I'm also surprised to learn that if your numbers are correct the number of Jewish people is so low. Aside from whether or not the numbers are correct it doesn't change my main point which was that Freedom of Religon is a basic right in the US. How can this right exist if the governing body has a clear religious preference?
I posted the link to my source in my last post, sorry if you missed it. Regardless, a simple google search has already found a few more sites showing similar data. I wouldn’t assume that it has anything to do with “practicing the religion at all times”, but just as how people identify themselves. How can free speech exist if the governing body has a clear preference? Both freedom of speech and Religion are guaranteed in the first amendment. For over 200 years, everyone has had freedom of religion in the US despite the religious preference of the government. I’m not sure why that has to change. In fact, this country is so PC these days, that you could argue that the minority religions actually have more freedom.
I'm interested to understand how you think that freedom of religon exists under a government that acts with a bias, When the Muslim brotherhood get elected on the other side of the world (and they will be elected) the one thing you can say for them is that they will be honest about their bias for islam. Religon has caused more wars than anything else as it has often served as a justification. Maybe irrelevent but maybe also evidence that religion and politics don't, or shouldn't, mix. Freedom of religon should mean more than the right to practice a relgion of your choice, it should mean an equality regardless of the religon you choose to practice. If the governing body which represents all of these people has a clear collective preference this can't possibly exist, in fact I would go further and say it even starts to promote racism. Why is religion even necessary in Western politics, why is it relevant regardless of the percentage of population identifying as a particular one? It leads to the question of whether bible studies or the equivalent should be taught in government funded school? Of course it shouldn't because it would alienate the students of other faiths. The situation with the govenment is exactly the same just on a larger scale
We’ve always had a biased Christian government, and we’ve also always had freedom of religion. I’d like to know how you think that we can’t have both when we’ve always had both. There are plenty of non-Christians in America that practice freely, and in fact are more protected than Christians because of their minority status. I wish there was equality regardless of religion practiced, but Christians seem to be less equal anymore.
The US has never gone to war over religion. This country was founded as a Christian nation, and that shouldn’t change because a few people don’t like it. There are other places for people to go in this world that will suit them better. It’s like moving to Iran and wondering why they have to be a Muslim country, and trying to get it changed. Of course the difference being that they don’t have the freedom of religion we have, and you would probably be executed. Both parties have plenty of faults. But it’s the democrats that seem to want to “fundamentally transform” what America is, because doing so gets them elected. But it also destroys what made the US the best country in the world. I don’t see what is wrong with a court house of a predominantly Christian nation have the 10 commandments out front. Even if you are not a Christian, the 10 commandments are still good rules to live by. And even if you don’t choose to live by them, I bet you would prefer that everyone else does!
I’m not for Christian studies to be taught to all in public school, although I think there are plenty of various subjects taught that alienate other students. I do think that Christians should have the same rights in public school to practice that minority religions have. I don’t have a problem with elective classes that Christian students can elect to take. I don’t have a problem with things like the pledge to allegiance, which mentions god, or prayer in school. As long as students not in the majority can opt out and practice their own beliefs freely. There will always be exceptions to every rule, and I don’t think that the majority should bend to a small minority so as to not offend them. Needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. But as we know, all Christian activities get banned, yet the minority religions can generally practice freely.
Correction: they've only been married for 18 years... but you get the point.