Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

The Ds use the very loud, audible and real whistle of RACIST!!!! at every turn. Remember, if you're an AA and don't vote for Biden, then you're not really black. Per Joe Biden.

[AlabamAlum]

AA does not approve of that abbreviation. There is one AA here. Get it right, brigand.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Pretty much all you need to know about COVID this morning:

CFR.PNG HOSP.PNG

To be clear, US CFR is comparatively low. In FL while hospitalizations have increased along with increased case #s, CFR has remained stable or is declining regionally (tri-county). Two points: FL is managing outcomes without crippling economic activity...... and getting better at it. The disease was when it was hatched and is now less serious wrt morbidity and mortality than it is being made out to be.

[lineygoblue]

You cite one of the Limbaugh talking points, open season on Christianity. How might Joe Biden, a fairly devout Catholic, implement this?

Joe isn't going to serve a full term, Jon. I've stated earlier that if we had 2009 Joe, I think those of us who oppose his politics could find a way to muddle thru, just like we did with his pal Barack.

But ..

Joe isn't going to serve 4 years. He'll serve 18 at the most, then he will be forced to leave due to health issues.

Then, his VP will take over.

Gretch Whitmer as President?

Kamala Harris?

Susan Rice?

Stacy Abrams?

I'm not expecting to be shipped to a re-education camp for mentally ill bigoted Christian white folk yet, but I do believe that every law they pass will be targeted at people like us. Revenge is sweet, they say. Even in your last sentence you acknowledged that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Foreign affairs junkies- Keep an eye on Belarus in coming days

[Ghengis Jon]

Liney - I'm as old as you and I have yet to see any law even remotely anti-Christian considered, much less passed. Remember how the GOP hollered that JFK was unfit to be President because he was (gasp!) Catholic? He'd absolutely no doubt about it put the Pope above the Constitution and American law. Besides, many evangelicals sects do not even consider Catholicism as Christian (Popists consider Mary God!!! and other nonsense). How could you even consider someone who is anti-God like Kennedy?

Its the same fire and brimstone bs today. Whip 'our' little group into a frenzy, the world is against us. When the lefty stormtroopers come aknockin', remember you and the missus can have the spare bedroom at my place.

[Ghengis Jon]

Foreign affairs junkies- Keep an eye on Belarus in coming days

Trump is feverishly taking notes.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I wonder if there is anything good being reported in today's news? The torrent of bad news is about as bad as I've seen it. Of course there is always the recipe section of the NYT. It's sort of joyful.

Also .......

I'm as old as you and I have yet to see any law even remotely anti-Christian considered, much less passed.

Not in my wheelhouse at all but from 10K feet it seems to me religious freedom with Christianity being foundationally relevant in the formulation of US laws and rights, has been weakened, subtly, but none the less weakened.

That is consistent with radical elements of the left as well as progressive thought in general. Both rising in contemporary activism, writing and politics.

[Ghengis Jon]

The foundational tenets of our laws and rights will always be there. It is the intolerance of others' religions that is at issue. Take a manger scene at Christmastime. You can't put it on a county courthouse porch. But why not? Because the state may not endorse a particular religion. But what if the county said "We'll display a religious scene celebrating any religion's main holiday. We're putting up a Hanukkah display, a Ramadan display, a Christmas display, a Vishnu display, and the ever popular volcano virgin display. Come one come all. We celebrate Constitutional religious freedom here."

I do not think the Supremes would prevent a manger scene in December, if presented with a situation such as this. (Legal beagles, please chime in.) It becomes similar to "In God We Trust" on our money. If you practice religion, or hold a divine belief, then there is God. He or She might be called Allah, or Yaweh, or whatever, but there is nonetheless God. Which God is being referred to on the cash? All, or none. Who cares, a religion isn't being established and practice isn't being inhibited.

It's Roy Moores of the world that cause the religious angst, just for time in the spotlight. I personally don't see the big deal about religious displays. Whats good for you is good for others in the spirit of brotherhood.




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....

[lineygoblue]

Not in my wheelhouse at all but from 10K feet it seems to me religious freedom with Christianity being foundationally relevant in the formulation of US laws and rights, has been weakened, subtly, but none the less weakened.

And this is the troublesome part for me. There were certainly agnostics and athiests in the days of the founding fathers, and they were all in on the conversations that established the Constitution and our laws. The agnostics and athiests of that day seemed to be fine with laws that had basis in Christian principles, but they wanted assurances that there would be no government mandated religion. They were fine with people of faith freely practicing their religious beliefs, but they themselves, wanted to be left to believe what they believe. As I understand it, personal liberty and religious freedom go hand in hand without one dominating the other. Or, that is what was intended.

Today, the athiests and agnostics want the elimination of anything that remotely resembles religious freedom, especially evangelical Christianity. There is an organization in the country now, known as "Freedom From Religion" which, in my mind, is 100% opposed to what the Constitution has intended. The Constitution never intended to eliminate religious freedom. In fact, it is one of the foundational blocks of the country. What the Constitution forbids, is having the government establish one religious faith that all MUST believe. Sort of like The Church of England, forcing all citizens to "believe the same as our wonderful King". That would be akin to making everyone in America become an Episcopalian, because at one time Donald Trump attended the Episcopal Church. Or, during Barack Obama's reign, everyone would have had to join the United Church of Christ, (or become a Muslim, as his father was), because he was our President.

As I said, I don't believe that Joe Biden (2009 version) would ever be in favor of suppressing the Christian faith. He's not THAT far left. But, the people he's considering for the VP spot, who WILL become President shortly after he takes the oath, have shown hostility toward the Christian faith, and especially evangelical Christians. That's the part that concerns me. When you give the weight of the law to someone who is outright opposed to people of faith, it becomes a dangerous situation. And, that person will appoint at least 3 justices to the USSC, who will back up their policies.

Kamala Harris isn't going to appoint anyone remotely conservative to the USSC. Tell me I'm wrong. And nobody will be able to stop her.

[AlabamAlum]

The atheists of today want nothing of the sort despite the fringe group of extremists you mentioned. The thought that Christians in the US are persecuted is just not true.

[Whitley]

Why?

They'll have the House, they're going to regain the Senate, and for at least a few months, Joe will be in the WH with pen in hand.

The USSC will be permanently swayed to a 7-2 liberal slant when Ginsberg, Alito and Thomas retire. Gretchen Whitmer may actually choose their replacements. Maybe she'll nominate her pal Nessie?

There will be absolutely no way to stop anything they want to do.

What would they need the Republicans for?

1) Biden is pretty much establishment along with Pelosi an Schumer. Pelosi treats the progressive wing of the Dems like she can't wait to be rid of them. Progressives in the House hold very little sway. There are 7 Justice Dems currently in the House (The Squad, Ro Khanna, Raul G. and Jayapal). They will probably add 3-4 more this election cycle (Bowman, Newman, Cori Bush and Eastman). Add a few more people like Rep Katie Porter and there might actually a touch of political power for the progressive wing of the Dems.

Of course, this would only be when the Dems needed those votes. And think Pelosi would much rather work with Republicans than progressives.

2) Biden thinks the only thing wrong with the Republicans is the fact Trump is there. He believes that they (the Republicans) will work across the aisle once Trump is gone.

3) Don't look at this as Republicans vs. Dems. The better way is who is in the pocket of corporations? And there are a lot on both sides that are.

[Whitley]

The atheists of today want nothing of the sort despite the fringe group of extremists you mentioned. The thought that Christians in the US are persecuted is just not true.

True but that thought is repeated many times among right wing news places.

[iam416]

Christians aren’t persecuted in any meaningful sense. However, there are institutions that are openly hostile to christianity and the progressive left has certainly taken aim. Hence the fairly large number of religious freedom cases the Court has recently heard.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Its an open question - is the progressive agenda as it appears now or might become - hostile to Christianity and a threat to its practice? As an agnostic with no dog in this fight, I can see why Liney sees his religions practice rights threatened.