Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals don't hate the USA. They love it in different ways from the way conservatives do. There is nothing wrong with religion. But our country was founded on the premise of freedom of religion. Not state controlled religion.
Two thoughts:
- liberals might not hate the USA, but they sure don't seem very fond of its flag, the national anthem, the Constitution, or the history/accomplishments of America (or its historical landmarks).
- our country *was* founded on freedom of religion, but remember it was a Christian foundation... the conflict was between Protestants/Puritans and Catholics. Don't misunderstand this point... the Christian God permeated almost every aspect of early colonial America life.
I just don't believe you HAVE to be a patriotic American or Republican to be a follower of Jesus, but many people within the churches act like you do, as if it's written in the Bible.
- liberals might not hate the USA, but they sure don't seem very fond of its flag, the national anthem, the Constitution, or the history/accomplishments of America (or its historical landmarks).
- our country *was* founded on freedom of religion, but remember it was a Christian foundation... the conflict was between Protestants/Puritans and Catholics. Don't misunderstand this point... the Christian God permeated almost every aspect of early colonial America life.
Yes it was a Christian foundation. I am a Christian but do not feel the need to carry a bible with me everywhere I go and would not welcome my government telling me I HAD to be a Christian because it's the approved state religion. This is the point I was trying to make. Taking away our free choices when EITHER side does it is reprehensible to me. And both sides are polarizing us in an effort to take those choices away.
Yes it was a Christian foundation. I am a Christian but do not feel the need to carry a bible with me everywhere I go and would not welcome my government telling me I HAD to be a Christian because it's the approved state religion. This is the point I was trying to make. Taking away our free choices when EITHER side does it is reprehensible to me. And both sides are polarizing us in an effort to take those choices away.
The Nazi's removed Christianity, the Soviets removed Christianity, the Chinese removed Christianity, the North Koreans. Hostorically, those who want to mock and remove Christianity are the evil ones.
Its the same demons here on Earth just a different date, and generation.
why should you not be proud to be a Christian...or a Hebrew... or any other religion??
why should you not be proud of YOUR nation..your flag..your state... your national anthem ??
why do you liberals HATE the USA???
They don’t even know why or what the end results will be.
Quote:
Michel Rocard defends another governance
Tribune of Geneva. March 7, 2012. By Alain Jourdan.
The former French Prime Minister was in Geneva yesterday to relay the call of the Collegium International.
Michel Rocard was alongside Stéphane Hessel yesterday in Geneva to present the "Call for solidarity and responsible global governance" written by the Collegium International. It is a synthesis of a very dense reflection conducted by intellectuals and former political leaders who have come to the conclusion that a "process of metamorphosis" must be initiated towards a "global community".
"I am aware that talking about global governance at the moment is incongruous," admits the former French Prime Minister. "But don't take us for idle dreamers who don't know how to fight," he warned. The Collegium International, of which it is the voice, advocates, among other things, the parenthesis of the concept of a nation-state. It would be "largely outdated" because it is unable to face the challenges of "interdependence" in a globalized world.
You don’t have to be terribly bright to understand the implications of this statement:
Quote:
The bioeconomy of the last chance
The World. June 28, 2011. By René Passet.
Is there a more important and urgent economic problem than the survival of humanity? In 2050, the world will have about 9 billion inhabitants, all legitimately aspiring to the living standards of the currently developed peoples. However, the generalization of current European or American standards would require a quantity of resources representing 4 to 7 times those available to our planet without exhausting its productive heritage.
For the not-too-bright the implications are 75% reduction in your purchasing power and the transfer of something fluke $150 trillion from the West to developing countries. Not sure what else “global equity” is suppose to mean. Right now that looks like the left is betting on the “we can keep a relatively high standard of living” if we reduce the population and somehow end up with “global citizens.”
It’s not a good look and it’s one of those mission critical things where if they fail the crap is going to go downhill really really quickly.
What's wrong with Christianity? America's isn't a Communist country, you know!!
Nothing. But I wonder if you quite strongly side with Christian Nationalist Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.” So, would you like the Catholic church to direct the government to ban sales of birth control pills? If not you, then I think a lot of people in this forum would strongly side with her and hope she gets reelected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.