AProudLefty (07-08-2020), Charoite (07-08-2020)
The Common Law in the US is based off of "religious" morality and values.
For example, not only rape, murder and things of that nature "sins" in Christianty and world religions, but are also "crimes" under "secular" law; with "secular law" having developed or evolved out of older religious and legal systems, such as Roman, Exodus, and so on.
An atheist, for example, can't have any objection to murder, rape and things of that nature except on faith, or on stealing and appropriating those moral values and axioms from world religions (much as degenerate heathen "religions" and cults such as "Satanism" have no morality to speak of which is compatible with that that of law, society and so forth).
So yes, I'd argue based on these facts, state and federal can and should, indeed favor Christianity (and monotheistic, world religion with compatible values) both in public and private over inferior and socially unacceptable trash such as atheism, Satanism and so forth, rather than pretending that such filth and worthlessness is in anyway "equal" to them, when it is decidedly inferior, and has no right to exist it all.
AProudLefty (07-08-2020), Charoite (07-08-2020)
Guno צְבִי (07-08-2020), ThatOwlWoman (07-08-2020), Trumpet (07-08-2020)
Oh really?
An atheist can't have any objection to rape, murder, or other immoral acts by virtue of some "lack of belief in a God".
He can only steal or culturally appropriate those moral axioms from religion, of course.
So yes, a monotheistic religion which prohibits rape and murder as immoral, is decidedly more compatible and acceptable with our Law than a weak and effeminate little atheist who has no morality to speak of beyond that perhaps of a beast, or what he has stolen from his moral and religious superiors.
Charoite (07-08-2020)
Guno צְבִי (07-08-2020), Saudade (07-10-2020)
Cypress (07-09-2020), Iolo/Penderyn (07-09-2020), ThatOwlWoman (07-09-2020), Trumpet (07-08-2020)
The point is that atheists than those with no morality to speak of beyond that of a beast or dog can't be trusted to govern or regulate themselves without the aid of a comparatively enlightened individual, so to indoctrinate them in to the right and moral superior way and path is the duty of the god-fearing and enlightened, much akin to a shepherd hearing a flock of sheep, who would otherwise be lost if left to their own devices.
So why should one who by virtue of their own views claim any moral qualm against rape, murder, child molestation, and vile things of said nature.
I see no reason why such and individual should be presumed to have any rights or means of self-governance; they should merely be quarreled and chatteled like the feral animals which they have so much more in common with than a comparatively enlightened man or woman.
Evmetro (07-08-2020)
ThatOwlWoman (07-09-2020)
BLUEXITA Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red
Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.
It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.
This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america
Bookmarks