Here I am!
*****CHUCKLE*****
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The op being a little adapted Asian girl has no understanding of American history nor does she have any ancestral ties to the west nor any understanding of it
I see... So now it makes a difference to the progressive movement as to immigration status and race when it comes to taking a stance on a subject and if the person they have an issue with isn't caucasian they can throw slurs because that person is not progressive.
So now the progressives are saying that progressive bigotry is OK.
We're building up quit the list of things that progressives are culturally insensitive about.
Looks like bigotry comes in many forms.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No, eagle lips, those are your words not anyone else. PC is adopted: fact. PC is a far right religious fact: fact. PC does not do all the evidence: fact. PC does not debate but rather simply reiterates her chatter: fact. Fact: PC is a progressive statist who would use Big Government to reorder the United States to her specification. Fact: like the music you are linking.
I just read a post demanding "freedom FROM religion"....and noted the terminal misunderstanding therein of both religion, and of the nation.
It requires a closer examination.
The Founders envisioned a God-fearing nation, but one built on the Judeo-Christian tradition. We find references to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
At no time did they intend hostility, or even indifference, to religion.
1. "The Founding Fathers did not want the federal government to impose a national religion. They feared replicating in America an institution like the Church of England, which would set at the federal level an official religious denomination for the United States. They wanted not only to protect individual conscience, but also to protect the religious freedom of the states. Six states, in fact, refused to accept the US Constitution until it was made clear that the First Amendment prevented the federal government from imposing a national church on them....those six states that finally signed the Constitution ran established churches."
Schlafly, "No Higher Power," p.15-16
2. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.
a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina 1776
c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
3. "It is indisputable that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them from the fedral government. Leaders of those six states would never have signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, 'Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to make clear that the federal government ha no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs."
Schlafly, Op. Cit, p. 16
BTW.....Leftism....Liberalism....has all the requirements that hallmark a "religion,"...
...and like the Islamofascism roiling the world today,,,,
....it demands the dismantling of every other religion.
That's what "freedom from religion" actually means.
Eagle Lips, yeah PC is all those things. Guno has his own issues as well. And you do too. Such an arrogance and ignorance make up a bubbling stew of commentary as you. You lack context.
Fact: the OP is not founded on anything much and certainly is out of context.
I just read a post demanding "freedom FROM religion"....and noted the terminal misunderstanding therein of both religion, and of the nation.
It requires a closer examination.
The Founders envisioned a God-fearing nation, but one built on the Judeo-Christian tradition. We find references to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
At no time did they intend hostility, or even indifference, to religion.
1. "The Founding Fathers did not want the federal government to impose a national religion. They feared replicating in America an institution like the Church of England, which would set at the federal level an official religious denomination for the United States. They wanted not only to protect individual conscience, but also to protect the religious freedom of the states. Six states, in fact, refused to accept the US Constitution until it was made clear that the First Amendment prevented the federal government from imposing a national church on them....those six states that finally signed the Constitution ran established churches."
Schlafly, "No Higher Power," p.15-16
2. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.
a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina 1776
c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
3. "It is indisputable that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them from the fedral government. Leaders of those six states would never have signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, 'Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to make clear that the federal government ha no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs."
Schlafly, Op. Cit, p. 16
BTW.....Leftism....Liberalism....has all the requirements that hallmark a "religion,"...
...and like the Islamofascism roiling the world today,,,,
....it demands the dismantling of every other religion.
That's what "freedom from religion" actually means.
Damaged Eagle accuses me of doing, slandering character, what he does to others.
Typical actions of an arrogant and ignorant character are what we are seeing from you: absolutely out of context, though you deny it, friend.
Fact: the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and separation of organized religion and state.
As such, the religious can worship as they please and the non-religious have every right to not have to listen to the religious rant.
Fact: you, as you point out, are arrogant.
Fact: you are mumbling about taking "all the gold".
Damaged Eagle is not making any sense.
But he is fun to read.
What about taking the gold? I don't get that.
I have done exceptionally well in life to education, the crossing of opportunity with preparation and hard work, and a personality that likes meeting and working with other people.
There is nothing that says freedom of religion is somehow not part of American liberties. I don't have to listen to anyone I don't want to in my private life,...
...and generally religion cannot be furthered in the public sector.
Back to the OP: PC appears to creating her own 'new god' to worship ~ a religion based solely on her own grasp of it.
Now....as I was saying about Liberals/Leftists looking for a new god to worship....
7. But Obama still believes he is god. Probably always did.
And he will not rest until all bend the neck and the knee to a federal religion of Liberalism/Leftism/secularism.
Really????? You sound like some sort of fundamentalist with your unquestioning faith in science being an end all to your beliefs even though you've admitted you know little about the subject...
So what makes you any better than a religious fundamentalist who follows his/her doctrine/dogma with unswerving devotion?
BTW your use of belittling pronouns only makes your argument the lesser in any debate on the issue.
Really????? You sound like some sort of fundamentalist with your unquestioning faith in science being an end all to your beliefs even though you've admitted you know little about the subject...
So what makes you any better than a religious fundamentalist who follows his/her doctrine/dogma with unswerving devotion?
BTW your use of belittling pronouns only makes your argument the lesser in any debate on the issue.
you do understand the difference between a noun and a pronoun, right. Funditard is a noun.
I don't have unquestioning faith in science. The thing about Science is that it always questions.
The thing about "Faith" is that it doesn't allow questions.
There's always an excuse why the Magic Sky Fairy doesn't pull through.
Damaged Eagle continues to mumble and stumble.
Only you are talking about churches being forbidden to be built.
And your arrogance and ignorance continues to churn the stew of your silliness.
No one on the far right has been able to show that Americans do not have a right to be free from religion.
No one's child should have to listen to some one else's prayer in school, for instance.
The OP has completely failed, and DE's bumbling has only magnified that fact.