"Conservatives" and the right are not the ones responsible for the current mess in societies

[stevevw]

I think that sounds kind of paradoxical.

Yes exactly. That is the contradiction and incoherence of the leftist and liberal ideology. It claims unity but promotes devision, it claims equality but promotes inequality, it claims there is no truth and morality is subjective yet acknowledges objective moral laws. It claims gender is fluid yet also appeals to gender stereotypes , it claims it is compasionate but hides the truth which is what really sets a person free and is what a true friend will give you if they really care rather than pretend that everything is OK.

 

[rjs330]

It's not just a left vs right thing.
Let's say the left like unions and let's say the right don't like unions, that doesn't mean that the right are being hateful or bigoted.

The reason why many on the right are accused of hate and bigotry is because they appear to be bigotted.
e.g. fighting against gay marriage, fighting against gay school teachers, fighting against gays adopting children, kicking trans out of the military, voting to ban Muslims (cheering on a leader when he promises to ban Muslims), supporting a leader when he wants to build a wall to keep out Mexicans, suggesting that they are drug dealers and rapists. Supporting a leader when he tells USA citizen Congress women to go back to where they came from.

It's not about conflicting with leftist ideals, its about doing and supporting bigotry.


The left recognise that society is made up of people from all sorts of backgrounds and cultures and beliefs and non beliefs, and they support that, and don't choose to pick on minority groups.



Not really, no.
The left recognise that there are people with gender dysphoria and are open minded and compassionate enough to try to help these people out, to accommodate them.
The right have this "idealistic" view and remain stubborn and attack these people, saying that they have mental issues and should not be accomodated, but instead should look for a cure.


The left are trying to stamp out bigotry. People that attack minorities don't lead to social harmony.


I don't see why conservatives cannot be kind to others, why they feel the need to stand in judgement and to ridicule others and treat them poorly. Surely this isn't a core conservative value.


The left are about inclusiveness, supporting of diversity and against bigotry.
I don't know why the (USA brand of the) right can't be for these things as well.

I think conservativrs have gone a bit overboard on some issues. For example gay issues since that seemed to be a large part of your post.

Gay marriage- I think we went too far with this. I say let gays marry if they want to. Who cares. If they are Christians then what harm does it do to them? It's just a piece of civil paper. Now if they want to force churches or Christians to perform or host their ceremony then that's something else entirely. Go to a venue that isn't religious or one that doesn't feel like their religious beliefs are being violated.

Gay teachers- Again, so what. There are gay people in every profession. Let them be in whatever profession they want.

Gays adopting children- That one's a bit tougher to deal with. Children do best with an intact home with a mother and father. Studies for years have shown this.

Trans in the military- The most important thing for a military unit is cohesion. I don't know if being trans causes problems or not. I so know this, that the military should not be a place for social experimentation. Also, we shouldn't be paying for transexual surgery in the military. It's an elective surgery. I'm not for paying any elective surgery in the military. Wait until you are out.

Now some of these other things are rather typical liberal clap trap.

Banning travel from "some" Muslim countries without serious vetting is not bigoted. Banning travel from all Muslim countries is. But that's not what happened.

Building a wall to keep illegals out of the county is not bigoted. Mexicans and others are welcome here if done legally. Not allowing Mexicans in to the country even if they apply for legal entry just cause they are Mexican is bigotry. But that's not what happened.

Telling nasty and vicious women in Congress.to go back where they came from is counterpunching after being attacked. It's political rhetoric and not bigotry. And we have seen political rhetoric on both sides just creates more political, nasty and mean rhetoric. It doesn't bring anyone together.

The left mostly gives lip service to minorities and the poor. A LOT of black folks recognize this because they realize that dispite all the talk they are still under the thumb of democratic governments that have done a darn thing for them.

The only thing that's really helped them, is what we conservatives have been saying for a long time. If conservative ideals are put into.place then you will have more opportunities for success. And we proved it. The liberals on the other hand keep.telling them they can't succeed without their help. It's degrading. And guess what. They haven't been helped. Despite Democrat control over All these cities.

And Trump.was the guy that actually did things that made lives better. Conservative ideas work.

Liberal ideas keep.people in poverty.

 

[VCR-2000]

@rjs330

I think a big part is the public narrative-the left holds monopoly control on higher institutions like the media, academia, big business, church, pretty much every body outside of the one individual self has been co-opted or infiltrated by those propagating causes from the left-and they are nearly finished with accomplishing their goal on America and the rest of Western society. And it all happened without a single shot being fired.

Not to mention that in order to be "conservative" in the pure sense, you would have to oppose the promotion of homosexuality and trans in large society. Now, I personally don't subscribe to those views necessarily but that is beside the point. By definition, the word "conservative" means the philosophy of keeping and preserving virtues and values that would be held as traditional. The truly conservative view is that romantic relationships are only between one man and one woman, therefore an anything-goes where anything else under the sun including homosexuals and trans* people being promoted and accepted in a society is the opposite "liberal".

 

[stevil]

Gay marriage- I think we went too far with this. I say let gays marry if they want to. Who cares. If they are Christians then what harm does it do to them? It's just a piece of civil paper. Now if they want to force churches or Christians to perform or host their ceremony then that's something else entirely. Go to a venue that isn't religious or one that doesn't feel like their religious beliefs are being violated.

It's a bit strange really.
It's as if the word "marriage" is claimed to be owned by the Christians and they want to have control on that.
Some Christians are against "marriage" of gay people, but are fine with "civil union" of gay people. So for them it is about the label that is used.
Let's say their is a god, for argument's sake. And lets say, that for some reason the god does not like gay people getting married or even in a civil union. What business is that of the Christians?
Shouldn't this be a matter that an all powerful god can deal with him/her/itself?

Anyway, If religious folk want their own "marriages" to be that more special than a state issued marriage, then why don't they certify some marriages? e.g. A Catholic getting married in a Catholic church can proclaim to have a Catholic certified marriage. Could that not be a thing?

I do agree though, that the government shouldn't force a Church to marry people.
If the Church doesn't want to marry gays then they shouldn't be forced to do so.

Gays adopting children- That one's a bit tougher to deal with. Children do best with an intact home with a mother and father. Studies for years have shown this.

The more men there are in the family, leads to a higher chance of domestic abuse, therefore a lesbian family will have less domestic abuse than a traditional family.
In reality, the people that are adopting should be investigated. Do they have a criminal record, do they have a history of domestic abuse? If not, then there is no problem. No need to assess if they are gay or not.

Trans in the military- The most important thing for a military unit is cohesion. I don't know if being trans causes problems or not. I so know this, that the military should not be a place for social experimentation. Also, we shouldn't be paying for transexual surgery in the military. It's an elective surgery. I'm not for paying any elective surgery in the military. Wait until you are out.

Sure, I don't know why the govt have to foot the bill for that.

Banning travel from "some" Muslim countries without serious vetting is not bigoted. Banning travel from all Muslim countries is. But that's not what happened.

Trump campaigned on a muslim ban.

Building a wall to keep illegals out of the county is not bigoted. Mexicans and others are welcome here if done legally. Not allowing Mexicans in to the country even if they apply for legal entry just cause they are Mexican is bigotry. But that's not what happened.

Trump campaigned, saying that they are not sending their best people, that they are rapists and drug dealers.
I agree that imigration policies are needed, but it appears that building a big expensive wall is not an effective way at solving the problems. It is just a symbolic gesture and very welcomed by racists.

Telling nasty and vicious women in Congress.to go back where they came from is counterpunching

Telling people to go back to where they came from is a stereotypical racist phrase. Only racists use this phrase, non racists never ever use that phrase.

 

[rjs330]

It's a bit strange really.
It's as if the word "marriage" is claimed to be owned by the Christians and they want to have control on that.
Some Christians are against "marriage" of gay people, but are fine with "civil union" of gay people. So for them it is about the label that is used.
Let's say their is a god, for argument's sake. And lets say, that for some reason the god does not like gay people getting married or even in a civil union. What business is that of the Christians?
Shouldn't this be a matter that an all powerful god can deal with him/her/itself?

Anyway, If religious folk want their own "marriages" to be that more special than a state issued marriage, then why don't they certify some marriages? e.g. A Catholic getting married in a Catholic church can proclaim to have a Catholic certified marriage. Could that not be a thing?

I do agree though, that the government shouldn't force a Church to marry people.
If the Church doesn't want to marry gays then they shouldn't be forced to do so.



The more men there are in the family, leads to a higher chance of domestic abuse, therefore a lesbian family will have less domestic abuse than a traditional family.
In reality, the people that are adopting should be investigated. Do they have a criminal record, do they have a history of domestic abuse? If not, then there is no problem. No need to assess if they are gay or not.



Sure, I don't know why the govt have to foot the bill for that.



Trump campaigned on a muslim ban.

Trump campaigned, saying that they are not sending their best people, that they are rapists and drug dealers.
I agree that imigration policies are needed, but it appears that building a big expensive wall is not an effective way at solving the problems. It is just a symbolic gesture and very welcomed by racists.



Telling people to go back to where they came from is a stereotypical racist phrase. Only racists use this phrase, non racists never ever use that phrase.

You and I are in agreement on gay marriage. That's something to build on. Christians need to back away from the idea that our beliefs apply to unbelievers. Yes gay marriage dilutes what God intended. But it's unbelievers for pete's sake. Everything they do dilutes what God intended. God will be their judge. Christians don't have any obligation to accept the marriage in their hearts and minds. But marriage in the legal sense is a civil union with a marriage license. Even Christians get that from the government. As long as we believers are not forced to provide marriage services to gays, then let them get married. And as long as Christian organizations are not forced to hire gays (Christian churches, colleges etc) I don't see an issue really.

Remember facts matter. The Muslim ban was not for all Muslims. It was for countries that we were concerned about. That's what happened. All Muslims were not banned from the US.

Once more. The immigration policy was not against all Mexicans. Illegal border crossers only. Which is NOT bigoted. It would be bigoted if no Mexicans were allowed in for any reason. That's not what happened. Now we can argue whether or not the wall is actually a good idea and a proper way to spend money. That's a legit debate. Buy to try and say it's a bigoted and racist idea is nonsense. Because I heard many Democrats and liberals say that electronic surveillance and so on was a better way. Well if electronic surveillance is better at controlling the border then that is just as bigoted and racist as a wall because they are both intended to keep people out. We will have serious difficulties with having things in common and having a legitimate conversation if the words bigot and racist are coming out of your keyboard whenever there is a disagreement on ideas.

Telling people to go back where they came from CAN be racist if you are telling everyone who is not your race to go back just because. If I said every Mexican needs to go back to where they came from just cause they are brown, that would be racist. If I told a brown person who attacked me constantly to go back, then that's based upon their behavior and not their skin color. Because I had no issues with them until they came after me all the time. Then enough is enough.

 

[stevil]

You and I are in agreement on gay marriage. That's something to build on.

I appreciate that we have having an open and respectful conversation here.
We have different views and it is good that we can openly discuss those (and sometimes find some common ground)

God will be their judge.

Yes, well. It's not government's job to be god's judge or god's law enforcers, it isn't our neighbour's or local church organisation's or local religious people's job to judge us on behalf of a supposed all powerful god.

Christians don't have any obligation to accept the marriage in their hearts and minds.

I'm not gay, but I was married in a garden, the celebrant was a secular celebrant, there was no mention of god and not church, synagogue, mosque or the like sanctioned my wedding. I have no interest in whether religious folk consider my wedding a real wedding or not, I would prefer they keep that opinion to themselves.

As long as we believers are not forced to provide marriage services to gays, then let them get married. And as long as Christian organizations are not forced to hire gays (Christian churches, colleges etc) I don't see an issue really.

Depends on what you determine to be marriage services.
I don't think the mere fact of being a "registered" Christian gives you special privileges to discriminate against others. Society has anti discrimination laws in order to help society as a whole get along. We should see each other as equals and we should seek to help each other rather than oppose and oppress. Cohesion in society is a concern of government.

When it comes to a Church performing sacraments, I agree that the Church organisation can have and should have dominion over that. For example the government shouldn't tell the church how to perform babtisms, or marriages or christinings? The Church can choose to not marry a person marrying outside their religion or denomination, they can choose not to marry gays or other "sinners" if they choose. If a church doesn't like cakes that are considered "gay" cakes then a presume they can not allow a church ceremony on their premises or overseen by them to have a "gay" cake.

But, if a baker who provides a public service by baking cakes and selling them to the general public, they cannot and should not be allowed under law to discriminate against selling wedding cakes to gay couples. If they sell the ability to customise cakes to the specified designs of public customers then they cannot and should not be allowed under law to refuse reasonable demands to have a design that portrays a gay relationship i.e. two men or two women figurines placed on the cake.

With regards to providing a public service such as education, I don't accept that the Church can refuse to hire gay teachers. There is nothing biblically (I admit, I know virtually nothing about anything biblical), nor physically that disqualifies a gay person from providing teaching services. I don't see Religious organisations differently from any other private organisation. They should all follow the same laws. If a private organisation is legally allowed to discriminate e.g. not hire blacks as school teachers, then I suppose they have that legal right not to hire gays. But if the law stops them discriminating against blacks, then it should also stop them discriminating against gays.

Remember facts matter. The Muslim ban was not for all Muslims. It was for countries that we were concerned about. That's what happened. All Muslims were not banned from the US.

Let's not forget Trump's telegraphed intent at his campaign rallies and that the ban was initially only Muslim countries and after many challenges in court it include some token non muslim countries.

Once more. The immigration policy was not against all Mexicans. Illegal border crossers only. Which is NOT bigoted. It would be bigoted if no Mexicans were allowed in for any reason.

Trump's words in the campaign were bigoted.
The wall is seen as a symbol of bigotry, and is a highly ineffective and inefficient resolution to immigration and drugs issues.

That's not what happened. Now we can argue whether or not the wall is actually a good idea and a proper way to spend money. That's a legit debate.

Yes, that is what the immigration debate should have been on.
I'm not sure why Trump was determined to have a wall.

Buy to try and say it's a bigoted and racist idea is nonsense. Because I heard many Democrats and liberals say that electronic surveillance and so on was a better way. Well if electronic surveillance is better at controlling the border then that is just as bigoted and racist as a wall because they are both intended to keep people out. We will have serious difficulties with having things in common and having a legitimate conversation if the words bigot and racist are coming out of your keyboard whenever there is a disagreement on ideas.

I understand that you consider the wall not to be a symbol of racism, and I agree that any immigration policy can be accused of racism.
The OP of this thread brings up the topic "right are the "bad" guys who are the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc"
I am just addressing that. Why it is that the "left" associate the right with the idea of being racists.

Telling people to go back where they came from CAN be racist if you are telling everyone who is not your race to go back just because.

I've only ever heard it used in a racist context.
Once I was at a Chinese New Year's celebration, a car drove by with the window down and a guy yelled out "Go back to where you came from"
I can't ever fathom that phrase having a legitimate use.

If I said every Mexican needs to go back to where they came from just cause they are brown, that would be racist. If I told a brown person who attacked me constantly to go back, then that's based upon their behavior and not their skin color.

What if a white USA citizen was annoying you, would you tell them to "go back to where they came from?" Would that make sense?

 

[rjs330]

I appreciate that we have having an open and respectful conversation here.
We have different views and it is good that we can openly discuss those (and sometimes find some common ground)


Yes, well. It's not government's job to be god's judge or god's law enforcers, it isn't our neighbour's or local church organisation's or local religious people's job to judge us on behalf of a supposed all powerful god.


I'm not gay, but I was married in a garden, the celebrant was a secular celebrant, there was no mention of god and not church, synagogue, mosque or the like sanctioned my wedding. I have no interest in whether religious folk consider my wedding a real wedding or not, I would prefer they keep that opinion to themselves.


Depends on what you determine to be marriage services.
I don't think the mere fact of being a "registered" Christian gives you special privileges to discriminate against others. Society has anti discrimination laws in order to help society as a whole get along. We should see each other as equals and we should seek to help each other rather than oppose and oppress. Cohesion in society is a concern of government.

When it comes to a Church performing sacraments, I agree that the Church organisation can have and should have dominion over that. For example the government shouldn't tell the church how to perform babtisms, or marriages or christinings? The Church can choose to not marry a person marrying outside their religion or denomination, they can choose not to marry gays or other "sinners" if they choose. If a church doesn't like cakes that are considered "gay" cakes then a presume they can not allow a church ceremony on their premises or overseen by them to have a "gay" cake.

But, if a baker who provides a public service by baking cakes and selling them to the general public, they cannot and should not be allowed under law to discriminate against selling wedding cakes to gay couples. If they sell the ability to customise cakes to the specified designs of public customers then they cannot and should not be allowed under law to refuse reasonable demands to have a design that portrays a gay relationship i.e. two men or two women figurines placed on the cake.

With regards to providing a public service such as education, I don't accept that the Church can refuse to hire gay teachers. There is nothing biblically (I admit, I know virtually nothing about anything biblical), nor physically that disqualifies a gay person from providing teaching services. I don't see Religious organisations differently from any other private organisation. They should all follow the same laws. If a private organisation is legally allowed to discriminate e.g. not hire blacks as school teachers, then I suppose they have that legal right not to hire gays. But if the law stops them discriminating against blacks, then it should also stop them discriminating against gays.




Let's not forget Trump's telegraphed intent at his campaign rallies and that the ban was initially only Muslim countries and after many challenges in court it include some token non muslim countries.



Trump's words in the campaign were bigoted.
The wall is seen as a symbol of bigotry, and is a highly ineffective and inefficient resolution to immigration and drugs issues.


Yes, that is what the immigration debate should have been on.
I'm not sure why Trump was determined to have a wall.


I understand that you consider the wall not to be a symbol of racism, and I agree that any immigration policy can be accused of racism.
The OP of this thread brings up the topic "right are the "bad" guys who are the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc"
I am just addressing that. Why it is that the "left" associate the right with the idea of being racists.



I've only ever heard it used in a racist context.
Once I was at a Chinese New Year's celebration, a car drove by with the window down and a guy yelled out "Go back to where you came from"
I can't ever fathom that phrase having a legitimate use.



What if a white USA citizen was annoying you, would you tell them to "go back to where they came from?" Would that make sense?

I know you don't think churches have a right to not hire gay teachers. Your being inconsistent. We agree that givernment can't tell churches HOW to conduct marriage ceremonies. But if a churches belief system doesn't allow them to marry gays, then their belief system also doesn't allow them to hire gays. If you start telling the their beliefs don't allow them to decide not to hire gays, then you can also tell them they have to marry them. You are interfering with their religious practices. Which is a direct violation of the constitution. Churches should have the ability not to hire people who don't belong to their church or hold the faith of their church. And Colleges are the same way. An Assemblies of God college should not be forced to hire a Morman or Catholic professor. They shouldn't be forced to hire a professor that is engaging in what they believe to be sinful acts that goes totally against their religious beliefs.

And again the matter of the wall is NOT a matter of bigotry anymore than an "electronic wall" is. If you support any kind of enforcement at the border then you are a bigot. Because any method used to keep Mexicans out of the country is founded on bigotry. That is consistent with your argument. However if you acknowledge that we have a right to secure the border as a sovereign nation, then we can argue what is the best method for doing so, without bigotry being a part of it. So, are you for open borders or closed borders?

I just explained a reason for the use of the language to go back where they came from. I'm the context you mentioned it was ONLY based upon a racial motivation. Go home cause you are Chinese. If the Chinese person had shot at the person or threw bricks at the car then the motivation would have been based upon their actions and not simply on their race. It's an emotional response to an attack. Now if in response to a personal attack is to tell every Chinese person you meet to go back where they came from, then bigotry is probably involved.

I believe the left thinks the right are racists because they disagree with the rights policies. And they respond emotionally. If we disagree with them, the only answer is an emotional response of "racism." A physical wall is racist. An electronic wall isn't. There is no logic in that. Just emotion.

We may not agree on this. And we probably won't. But at least it's been a reasonable discussion.

 

[stevil]

Your being inconsistent. We agree that givernment can't tell churches HOW to conduct marriage ceremonies. But if a churches belief system doesn't allow them to marry gays, then their belief system also doesn't allow them to hire gays.

I don't hold belief systems as special.

Any private organisation that has rituals, should be able to define their own rituals as long as it doesn't hurt people. (human sacrifice or torturing of animals should never be acceptable).
I see a Church wedding service as very different from the official requirement for a government wedding (involves submitting certain papers).
If the church decides at a church wedding that certain words are to be spoken, that a certain person is to preside over the wedding, well that is their domain, not governments.

But ensuring fair hiring practices and anti-discrimination is a government concern.
In my opinion, if the govt has domain over whether an organisation can discriminate against blacks, then it also has domain over whether an organisation can discriminate against gays.

If you start telling the their beliefs don't allow them to decide not to hire gays, then you can also tell them they have to marry them.

What I am saying is that if the Church want to run a school, which is fundamentally not a church thing. Same as baking cakes, if a Church wants to run a cake bakery shop and sell to the public, well that then becomes a public service rather than an exclusive club/organisation thing. And they then need to play by the rules. Is it so hard just to be kind?
If they can't be kind in running a school then maybe they shouldn't be running schools and instead they should focus on their core business.

Churches should have the ability not to hire people who don't belong to their church or hold the faith of their church.

Gay people can be Christians, and many christian schools hire non christian teachers.

And again the matter of the wall is NOT a matter of bigotry anymore than an "electronic wall" is.

It is easy to say that a wall is not a racist thing.
But the context of Trump campaigning by stating that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, the context of Trump campaigning on a ban on Muslims...

It really paints a picture...
Perhaps some people on the right just shrug that off.
I find it hard to shrug that off.

However if you acknowledge that we have a right to secure the border as a sovereign nation, then we can argue what is the best method for doing so, without bigotry being a part of it. So, are you for open borders or closed borders?

I don't think anyone is advocating for open borders. I certainly am not.

I believe the left thinks the right are racists because they disagree with the rights policies.

Do you think that the left think it is racist that the right want to ignore Global warming?
Do you think that the left think it is racist that the right don't like Unions?

 

[NxNW]

That is the contradiction and incoherence of the leftist and liberal ideology. It claims unity but promotes devision, it claims equality but promotes inequality, it claims there is no truth and morality is subjective yet acknowledges objective moral laws. It claims gender is fluid yet also appeals to gender stereotypes , it claims it is compasionate but hides the truth which is what really sets a person free and is what a true friend will give you if they really care rather than pretend that everything is OK.

Actuality, none of these claims you make are true.

 

[9Rock9]

I don't think either the left nor right are squeaky clean. Yes, conservativism has a lot of problems, and so does the left. But pointing out the issues with the other side while denying your own is exactly why we are polarized in the first place.

Yes, Trump was a divisive political figure and a narcissist, and there were some things his base defended him that should not be defended. At the same time, it didn't help that the left was dismissing anyone who supported Trump as a fascist, racist, cultist, etc, and just made what would have been otherwise reluctant Trump voters dig their heels in.

Or the BLM riots vs the Capitol riots. I saw a lot of solidarity between the right and left towards the protests, during the early part. Conservatives started being alienated when they called out the riots and looting as hurting the cause, only for the opposition to defend them. The Capitol riots came as a shock on the nation, but probably would not have happened if rioting hadn't been normalized. It doesn't matter what the reason is, rioting is bad and should not be condoned.

 

[VCR-2000]

Actuality, none of these claims you make are true.

A lot of it actually is true.

 

[VCR-2000]

I don't think either the left nor right are squeaky clean. Yes, conservativism has a lot of problems, and so does the left. But pointing out the issues with the other side while denying your own is exactly why we are polarized in the first place.

Yes, Trump was a divisive political figure and a narcissist, and there were some things his base defended him that should not be defended. At the same time, it didn't help that the left was dismissing anyone who supported Trump as a fascist, racist, cultist, etc, and just made what would have been otherwise reluctant Trump voters dig their heels in.

Or the BLM riots vs the Capitol riots. I saw a lot of solidarity between the right and left towards the protests, during the early part. Conservatives started being alienated when they called out the riots and looting as hurting the cause, only for the opposition to defend them. The Capitol riots came as a shock on the nation, but probably would not have happened if rioting hadn't been normalized. It doesn't matter what the reason is, rioting is bad and should not be condoned.

Because the rules that the left play by aren't the same standard that the right plays by.

 

[NxNW]

A lot of it actually is true.

Let's see:

It claims unity but promotes devision,

False.

it claims equality but promotes inequality,

False.

it claims there is no truth

False.

and morality is subjective

Morality is subjective. You can't even get a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon to agree on the morality of birth control, drinking alcohol, and drinking coffee.

yet acknowledges objective moral laws.

Depends on who you're quoting and the situation. We have laws agreed upon by human beings, but there are no laws handed down by divine revelation.

It claims gender is fluid yet also appeals to gender stereotypes

False

it claims it is compasionate but hides the truth which is what really sets a person free and is what a true friend will give you if they really care rather than pretend that everything is OK.

This is gibberish.

 

[9Rock9]

Yea, but you can get a Baptist, Catholic and Mormon to agree that stealing and murder are wrong. Consumption of alcohol or coffee is not a moral issue, at least not the degree of murder or stealing.

Even if a Christian doesn't believes consuming alcohol is a sin, the Baptist, Catholic and Mormon can all agree that drunkenness and alcoholism are sins.

 

[perplexed]

it claims there is no truth and morality is subjective yet acknowledges objective moral laws. .

??? Can you give an example

 

[perplexed]

Everybody else (mostly from the media) is telling us that the "left" (socialists, communists, "social justice warriors") are the good guys who care about the disadvantaged and the right are the "bad" guys who are the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. If not explicitly, it has become so pervasive to the point where a little of it has even spread to the "right-wing" side.

<Staff Edit>

Why do you make a big deal of this? When I talk about Trumps lies I get called an idiot that is brainwashed by communists and globalists, I am deeply troubled with how deluded people are but the actual insults I cannot take seriously.