Peace for the parties

[JimR-OCDS]

You believe that secular political rights for non-Christians and Christian gay Christians leads to a failed state. I suppose we could go around the world and assess states that stand against homosexual rights and those that oppose them. IMO, it is you that has a lot of learning to do. or, perhaps, we simply have a difference of opinion. Are almost all the states of the EU failed states? Australia, NZ and Canada?

The groups you mention already have rights as the US Constitution says.

Homosexual rights? When states tried to give them civil rights, they rejected it. Why?
Because they want homosexuality especially marriage, to be the moral equivalent of
heterosexual marriage. Fact is, there is no such thing as same sex marriage. That was
made up by homosexuals and their supporters. Marriage is between a man and woman
as God designed humans to be.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And when a majority of Americans believe that transgender surgery should allowed on children without consultation, we might address this issue again.

BTW, how many such cases were there last year?

And how many women died in the same time period because they couldn't get proper health care?

So, you support the mutilation of young people with drugs and surgery, because they're are less of them that die
than women who don't have access to health care?

 

[mark46]

So, you support the mutilation of young people with drugs and surgery, because they're are less of them that die
than women who don't have access to health care?

I do not support such horrendous actions or policies. But the fact that a minority of politicians and Americans would allow these travesties does NOT mean that we are a failed state.

With regard to comparing numbers, my point is that women having health care is one where larger numbers oppose their health care with much larger consequences.

 

[mark46]

The groups you mention already have rights as the US Constitution says.

Homosexual rights? When states tried to give them civil rights, they rejected it. Why?
Because they want homosexuality especially marriage, to be the moral equivalent of
heterosexual marriage. Fact is, there is no such thing as same sex marriage. That was
made up by homosexuals and their supporters. Marriage is between a man and woman
as God designed humans to be.

You seem to believe that we have a theocracy where the state can decide moral equivalencies, or if no theocracy, then at least having laws that reflect religious beliefs.

We do NOT have a theocracy. Homosexuals rejected having civil rights? What nonsense! In the US, we ALL have certain inalienable rights. We have laws for all. Perhaps, we should make adultery illegal with civil punishments. Why not?

You don't want the state to be able to give property rights, health care rights and other rights to homosexual couples by allowing them civil marriage. I ignore the obvious fact that there are Christian denominations accept such marriages within their churches. IMO, there should be limits with regard to how much the state should impose the religious values of the majority of its members. I agree that there are times when religious values should become state law. Individuals often need to be protected. Examples include laws against bigamy, having requirement for marriage (e.g. age, consent), laws against having sex with a minor.

You equate a child being allowed to have transgender treatment and surgery without parental knowledge with homosexual marriage. IMO, this type of moral equivalency is more likely to lead to a failed state (or perhaps theocracy) than current policies. This type of understanding surely is part of the divide between the parties, and the enmity between them.

Surely, it is right for Christian moral beliefs to be made into law, since the majority are still Christian? Really? So, if one of the Detroit suburbs is Muslim, then they have every right to impose sharia law? NO!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is really a matter of mature civility and that involves listening skills and empathy. Neither side has it. No peace.

 

[mark46]

You seem to believe that we have a theocracy where the state can decide moral equivalencies, or if no theocracy, then at least having laws that reflect religious beliefs.

We do NOT have a theocracy. Homosexuals rejected having civil rights? What nonsense! In the US, we ALL have certain inalienable rights. We have laws for all. Perhaps, we should make adultery illegal with civil punishments. Why not?

You don't want the state to be able to give property rights, health care rights and other rights to homosexual couples by allowing them civil marriage. I ignore the obvious fact that there are Christian denominations accept such marriages within their churches. IMO, there should be limits with regard to how much the state should impose the religious values of the majority of its members. I agree that there are times when religious values should become state law. Individuals often need to be protected. Examples include laws against bigamy, having requirement for marriage (e.g. age, consent), laws against having sex with a minor.

You equate a child being allowed to have transgender treatment and surgery without parental knowledge with homosexual marriage. IMO, this type of moral equivalency is more likely to lead to a failed state (or perhaps theocracy) than current policies. This type of understanding surely is part of the divide between the parties, and the enmity between them.

Surely, it is right for Christian moral beliefs to be made into law, since the majority are still Christian? Really? So, if one of the Detroit suburbs is Muslim, then they have every right to impose sharia law? NO!

It is really a matter of mature civility and that involves listening skills and empathy. Neither side has it. No peace.

I disagree.

I believe that there are many in the Senate who continue to have friends and working partners in members of the other party. They have worked hard on lots of legislation over the years, and even in the last three. Currently, they are working on all of the spending bills. And yes, many, many pieces of legislation were passed with senators working together in 2021 and 2022.

Such civility will be tested after this election and into the 2026 and 2028 election cycles. Many of those friends will retire.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I do not support such horrendous actions or policies. But the fact that a minority of politicians and Americans would allow these travesties does NOT mean that we are a failed state.

With regard to comparing numbers, my point is that women having health care is one where larger numbers oppose their health care with much larger consequences.

We're not a failed state yet, but heading that way as our society follows their own commandments rather than following
God's commandments.

FYI, the founding of the United States was based on the book of Exodus. It was the first example of a people who fled
captivity for freedom. It was the first society that elected representatives for the 12 tribes of Israel.
Both Jefferson and Franklin proposed the National Seal to be of the Israeli's fleeing Egypt for freedom.
Many people today believe that the US was founded according to the French Revolution ideology.
Such is not the case as the French Revolution only lasted 10 years before Napolean took over.

Healthcare is a right for both women and men. However, healthcare must be moral.

There are only two genders, male and female. Only a man and women get married. Everything else
is according to societies own twisted morality.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You seem to believe that we have a theocracy where the state can decide moral equivalencies, or if no theocracy, then at least having laws that reflect religious beliefs.

We do NOT have a theocracy. Homosexuals rejected having civil rights? What nonsense! In the US, we ALL have certain inalienable rights. We have laws for all. Perhaps, we should make adultery illegal with civil punishments. Why not?

You don't want the state to be able to give property rights, health care rights and other rights to homosexual couples by allowing them civil marriage. I ignore the obvious fact that there are Christian denominations accept such marriages within their churches. IMO, there should be limits with regard to how much the state should impose the religious values of the majority of its members. I agree that there are times when religious values should become state law. Individuals often need to be protected. Examples include laws against bigamy, having requirement for marriage (e.g. age, consent), laws against having sex with a minor.

You equate a child being allowed to have transgender treatment and surgery without parental knowledge with homosexual marriage. IMO, this type of moral equivalency is more likely to lead to a failed state (or perhaps theocracy) than current policies. This type of understanding surely is part of the divide between the parties, and the enmity between them.

Surely, it is right for Christian moral beliefs to be made into law, since the majority are still Christian? Really? So, if one of the Detroit suburbs is Muslim, then they have every right to impose sharia law? NO!

I do not advocate a theocracy. Where you get that idea is beyond me. However, we as a society do
have laws and our laws for the most part are based on Judeo/Christian principles. You may not
agree, but the founding of the US was based on Israeli Republic found in Exodus.

 

[Pommer]

You may not
agree, but the founding of the US was based on Israeli Republic found in Exodus.

How was ancient Israel at all a “republic”?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How was ancient Israel at all a “republic”?

They elected their representatives, two for each of the 12 tribes, 72 of them.
Moses only gave them the laws given to him by God, he did not make up
his own laws.

A book you might want to read about it is, "The Magna Carter of Humanity," by Oz Guiness. The
author provides the history behind the founding of the United States and how linked to Exodus
it was.

 

[returntosender]

Compromise and empathy. Understanding that both sides are actually on the same team, not against each other and not assuming the worst intentions in others. Not believing everything done by the other side is all a part of some diabolical scheme to destroy the country.

All worthy. How do we get there?

 

[mark46]

All worthy. How do we get there?

We have been there at least from WWII until 2008.

I think that we ignore the fact that we have had many periods of huge political differences. However, at least until 2008, there was a lot of respect across party lines by the majority of those of both parties. Even in the past 3 years, there have been lots of mutual respect across party lines. The Senate passed lots and lots in 2021 and 2022, compromise laws that took 60 votes to pass.

The problems are in the country as a whole, and within the parties.

THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE
Much of the issue here is media, especially social media. Folks don't even hear the positions of the other side. They are led only toward hate of anything that is said by the other side.

I have two examples.

First, let us consider the state of the economy. By any technical or scientific assessment, we have a very sound economy (probably the best performing in the world), one that has greatly improved over the past 3 1/2 years. But let's look at what people believe. People believe that their lives are going in the right direction and that they are improving economically. Voters believe that their communities are headed in the right direction. These positions are held by a large majority, over 2/3 of voters. HOWEVER, when asked how the national economy is doing, or where the country is headed, the answer is strangely different. 2/3 believe that the county is headed in the wrong direction and that economy is in very poor shape. It takes a lot of nonsense from national and social media to have people to have these contrasting views. So, folks are much better off than 4 years ago (and 1 year ago), yet the president has the worst ratings in history, and gets very low grades on the economy.

Second, let us look to Israel. A large majority favor US positions actions regarding the Hamas War. However, a majority give Biden poor marks for his handling of the War. Put Biden's name on any statement and 2/3 of voters give a negative response.

WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The leftists within the Democratic Party hate not only Trump, but anything said by Republicans. If Republicans say it or propose it, it must be bad for us. Since this group is getting control more every day, this will be more and more of a problem. There are still lots of centrist liberal Democrats who work well with Republicans, but many are old men who will retire soon. The Democratic Party is a big tent. The party has dealt with this issue before, It will again. The leftists will have power until they lose a national election of two, and then the party will move back toward the center.

WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
As it stands, the Republican Party will not survive. Many, many new members (MAGA Trumpers that have been added since 2015). These newcomers cannot co-exist with those who follow the long tradition of conservatism. They reject the party of Reagan, the Bush's, Dole, McCain, Cheney, Romney and Pence. They are populists, rather than conservatives. BTW, as a conservative party, there was always room for moderates. In the past, the conservatives were institutionalists. They support working with Democrats in order to run the country.

This situation wouldn't be a crisis if either group were a small minority, but that is no longer the case. Both groups have strong support. For now, the conservatives are being pushed out. If this continues, then there will be no empathy or working together. If the conservatives were to regain power within the party, then things can be different. The MAGA's cannot even accept institutionalists like McCarthy.

So, we will wait. We will soon see what the post-Trump Republican Party looks like, perhaps after 2024, perhaps after 2026, certainly after 2028. Thirteen years is not really that long for a such a political anomaly to have control of a party.

THE MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM
Voters are having less and less confidence in the government. The danger is the end of our democracy as we have known it. To be clear, this issue is very real. We aren't even sure that the House would certify the election of a Democratic president, regardless of the vote totals.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What is the road to peace among the parties?

Jesus Christ.

 

[returntosender]

Jesus Christ.

And i could say that hasn't worked so far.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And i could say that hasn't worked so far.

I don't believe He's truly been invited... Talk is cheap, actions say it all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is the road to peace among the parties?

There isn't one: there's too many stringent idealogues who exist within and among both conflicting parties, like chocolate chips in a chocolate chip cookie.

It'll never become some sort of plain civic dough for all of us to work with. Besides, where the U.S. is concerned, and if we take a cue from James Madison via a couple of his Federalist Papers, total social peace was never expected to be able to come to fruition anyway.