Like Pope Francis, Democrat Questions if Trump is a Christian

I got Mandela for exactly the same reason I got Washington, he could have been king of emperor or president for life and turned it down flat, communist or not the ability to look the most seductive god of all dead in the eye and turn it down cold is extremely rare among human beings

 

That's not what Catholics believe. They take the part of the bible where Jesus says one has to confess their sense to literaly means to confess to a preist. Protestants take it to mean accepting that you are a sinner and asking forgiveness for specicic sins, but Catholics do not. The fact that you don't agree with catholic beleifs doesn't realy matter.

 

And why excommunication rarely occurs. For Francis to question if Trump is a Christian could be an excommunication in a sense.

 

Anglicans/ Lutherans view confession as a sacrament.

 

That;s because they are based almost complete off of Catholicism. Martin Luther was a devout Catholic who only left the church because he thought it was corrupt.

And Anglican churches were formed from the Church of England, which is basically a copy of the catholic church started because the Pope wouldn't grand King Henry VIII a divorce.

 

Catholic dogma doesn’t really matter, because it was invented by man, for the purpose of controlling men. That’s why Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity. The only thing you know about Christianity, is because the parts of the gospel were picked out to create the Bible, to suit Constantine purpose.
Jesus said love God and others and put God's Kingdom first, and forsake all, go, preach the good news.”
So where does in in any alleged words of Jesus say build a organization of man meeting in defined buildings erroneously called "church". A system based on political motivations to prey on the peoples' wealth and control their minds for the selfish purposes of those who are in control and at the top of the system? That’s exactly what the Catholic Church has done for centuries.
I’m not a bible thumper, but I’m sure that’s no where in the Bible.
Think about that, before getting testy, when simple facts and logic are pointed out to you?

 

You raise valid points regarding the organizational aspects of Christianity. Catholics [also Orthodox/ Lutherans/ Anglicans] believe that Christ enters a person to heal/ forgive/ strengthen us sacramentally to be unconditionally caring people. The priest is merely an outward communication of the Gospel. Generally Protestants do not believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence but believe God guides us to live a compassionate/ self-sacrificing life.

 

Government is not the enemy. However in my experience, the less of it we have, the better we are able to enjoy individual liberty. And I think that is man’s natural condition.

 

I don’t know if you know about a certain road, the name escapes me, just like the destination, but it’s paved with good intentions. That’s government.

Of course I say this in jest, sorta. I do applaud the last part of your post though. I’m sure if others including myself made more of a effort to try, and live by the same credo, the world would be better off, and we would need lest government.

 

I would include Gandhi, except he never told anyone to go to Hell. He just tried to work with people as much as possible & become an impediment when that didn't work. But he always became a non-violent impediment. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. used Gandhi's tactics during the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s & 1960s, with considerable success. So, he could also be regarded as one of those exceptions you mention.

 

Governments are supposed to represent the entire population of a nation--though I agree, that seldom happens. Ours certainly doesn't, & in my opinion, has actually done so to any successful level during the years immediately following World War II & thru the 1950s, when much concentration was placed on growing the middle class. Ours government today, represents & works for the wealthiest classes & big business, at the expense of the rest of us. I didn't see that until the last decade, but I see it now, and it bothers me. I don't envy the wealthy--they are welcome to whatever they have. But I have deep concerns for the ever increasing funneling of wealth back to those already wealthy, skipping those who do most of the work & deserve benefits from that wealth the most. For me, what your post identifies is the historic tendency for governments to evolve into what we have now, where a small minority of extremely wealthy families gain control & power & use government for their own purposes without regard to the general population or its needs. If that's what you're saying, then your post has merit, though personally, I feel it may be overly pessimistic.

 

I don't disagree with you philosophically, but I sense your post would be more accurate back when the population of the Earth was between 1 & 2 billion, rather than now with over 7.5 billion & growing. It becomes ever more difficult to live a life with individual freedoms when you're constantly competing with hordes of other people for everything you need or want in life. Somewhere along the line, those hordes must decide to form cooperative programs for the benefit of all, just to assure the survival of the individual.

 

He gotkilled before the opportunity became available to him so it is hard to say.

 

It is a common thread within libertarians to revere the past and seek isolation.

 

Agreed. But they're on a losing path simply due to the ever increasing population on a planet with finite living space.

 

It is not sustainable but rather a form of denial

 

Don't care.

 

Yeah, it's just democrats being hypocrites. They aren't christians, so when some godless peasant starts talking about how somebody else is a godless peasant, it's hard not to laugh.

I laugh.

As for the pope, he's merely another godless peasant. Tell that skank moron to weed out all those pedophiles he hires, and then maybe he might be able to show his face in public again.

 

In the United States, the government is supposed to represent the people within the confines of the Constitution which limits the government.

Post-war the government contributed with the GI Bill and regulations weren't as limiting and controlling as they are today. Regulations, which I'm sure you are fully supportive of, are one of the principle means by which the wealthy, ruling elite restrict the market.

Furthermore, the government had not yet been able to extend its cancerous influence into all of the other aspects of American society that it is fully involved in today - most notably education, housing, and the beaking up of familes.

It is you who is supporting the Establishment's strangling of the economy, inflating the currency, and the attacking the family and middle class.

The government is controlled by the Establishment - the people you are railing against. They are the people that have wealth above that of being merely "wealthy".

They've created this system over the past 100 years - it is the system that you support. That is what you don't understand.

Of the 2 dominant political parties, it is the Democrats that protect the kakistocracy to a greater extent than the Republicans. That said, the leadership of both parties are beholden to the same people at the top. In reality, there is no difference between Chuck Shumer and Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy.

The only group of representatives currently actually opposing the The Establishment and representing the people and the Constitution are a small cadre of Republican libertarians - most recognizable of which would be Rand Paul and his recently retired father Ron Paul.

Haven't seen too many others taking up the mantel of leadership after Ron Paul retired, but what resistance there is, is all in the Republican Party. There isn't single Democratic Party representative in the House or Senate that actually opposes the The Establishment.

Pessimism and optimism have nothing to do with viewing government. What is required is a sober and realistic view and understanding of what government is, and what it is supposed to be doing. Liberals are neither sober or realistic about what government is.

Is $160 Trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities "optimistic"?? Because that is what you are passing on to your children and grandchildren. Worse, you are passing on to them a completely unconstrained, centralized government.

To me, that is the height of pessimism. To me, freedom is "optimistic"; and, freedom can only exist while the government is properly constrained.

That is the essence of Americanism and the foundation upon which America was founded.

 

1. Yes, I agree, but those confines are always open to both interpretation & change.
2. As a liberal, I support regulations for both public safety concerns & to prevent monopolies from forming. Otherwise, I support free trade.
3. Education is & has historically been state &/or locally controlled--not federal. What do you want government to do regarding education? When housing was uncontrolled, landlords were highly prejudiced racially & ethnically, making finding housing for minorities difficult to impossible. Also, landlords frequently refused to fix broken items within the house, forcing renters to absorb that cost. Housing regulations did help this situation for several decades, but under Republican government, things have regressed more than a little bit. The only government leader who has followed a policy of breaking up families that I'm familiar with, has been Trump & the immigrant families along our southern border. Are you supporting or condemning that policy?
4. You seem to have a lot of pent up frustration toward "liberals" without much understanding about what liberals actually support. What exactly do you believe liberals are doing to strangle the economy, inflate the currency or attack the family & middle class? In my view, liberals are the ones most concerned & motivated to help the middle class grow.
5. You believe Democrats are more pro-establishment. Why? What exactly do you mean by "the establishment" here--the Constitutional form of government or the people in the background who actually make it function? Are you against the government workers who try to make government actually work for you & me, or are you against the super wealthy who like to buy crooked politicians to get them to do their bidding?
6. I regard this statement a declaration of your personal prejudice rather than a demonstrable fact.
7. Resistance to what?
8. There's that prejudice toward liberals again. Go beyond attacking & try explaining what you believe liberals are misinterpreting about government. Then see what responses you get.
9. How do you conclude liberals are responsible for those debts? From my vantage point, the problem began under the last Bush administration, when George W drove up our deficits with two wars he started but failed to ask Congress to pay for. Then GW Bush left the nation in the grips of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, which limited what Obama could do, due to the wrecked economy & a hostile Republican Congress after 2010. I really don't see where you're coming from here.
10. What kind of constraints are you advocating?

 

We had over a century of precedent and all of the supporting documentation that went into forming the Constitution and the subsequent amendments - all of that was thrown out the window in the 1930's. As many said then, and many still say today - it was unconstitutional then, and it is unconstitutional today.

If you want to change the Constitution there is an amendment process.

The Establishment, known back then as the Robber Barons or Money Trust, knew the American people would never go along with their attempts to hijack the Constitution, so they had to accomplish their goals by subterfuge, deception, parsing language, and biding their time until they could gain majority control of the Supreme Court. All of this was accomplished in the 1930's during FDR's administration. FDR was a front man for the Robber Barons.

Once the court was flipped, they began to teach the "new" interpretations as gospel in the public schools - starting in the Ivy League schools where many of the leading administrators and professors were Marxists and/or under the influence of the Bankers (Robber Barons).

Many good books have been written on this subject - but of course they are not common fare in colleges today. If you want to learn a thing or two on the subject read Stanford University professor Antony Sutton's books as well Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley's tome Tragedy and Hope. Quigley was one of Bill Clinton's mentors at Georgetown.

Whether you understand it or not, and obviously you don't, you support the foundation upon which monopolistic practices can even occur - I say that with a caveat b/c I agree with anti-trust laws to some extent; but, unlike most, I would argue the proper path to achieving that end would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Monopolies, in general, and over time, need government protection to exist. The Robber Barons had accumulated a tremendous amount of wealth and power in the 19th century, and were using that power and wealth to corrupt government officials. I agree that something needed to be done to stop them; but just arbitrarily assuming the power to regulate private corporations in that manner was not the way to go about it.

That said, once anti-trust was on the books the Robber Barons had to devise another way of gaining complete control. The cornerstone of that plan was the Federal Reserve Act, Income Tax, and Foundation system. From there it was simply a matter of time before they could take over the government, academia, the media, etc.

They crashed the stock market in '29 (a deliberate event), deliberately created the depression, and used that crisis to "smash and grab" (something Obama did during his Presidency), and lay the foundation for the welfare state that we know today.

As I said, you are carrying water for the richest of the rich - and haven't the first clue that is what you are doing. Read some books and get yourself informed. Liberals should be opposed to the ruling elite instead of being they puppets.

A lot to chew on... will have to address your itemized list over time. Hope you have a good weekend.

 

Like all things authoritarian, liberals want one size fits all, top-down control.

Enter the Dept. of Education.

Federal involvement in education is not in any way constitutional. Yet, the FedGov spends $Billions every year. With that money, comes strings - puppet strings if you will.

Prior to the FedGov getting involved in education, the U.S. had one of the highest ranking education systems in the world.

Since the the FedGov got involved, it has been a race to the bottom. This has been deliberate.

The U.S spends more per capita on education than any country in the world, and for that money we have seen nothing but the precipitous dumbing down of our society.

The U.S. now has one of the poorer education systems in the world.

Get the Feds out of education entirely, cut the control strings, and return the curriculum to teaching the basics. Stop the leftist indoctrination.

I have a 9 year old daughter, and the indoctrinators at her elementary school had her marching in protest on MLK Day!!! And holding up her fist in the defiant communist signal.

That is abosutely inappropriate and disgusting. I was completely unaware of these activities until my daughter told me about them.

We have made the decision to pull our kids out of public schools, and beginning next year they will be attending a private school.

In no way is Federal involvement in housing authorized in the Constitution.

As the 10th amendment says these are state matters.

The "projects" have always been under the control of Democrats. All big cities are run by Democrats, and all of them are hell holes.

Aside from the corruption and race-baiting that typically accompanies this subject, there is an underlying reality in human terms.

Loss of purpose is a real and tangible thing. They have no skin in the game. They don't earn their keep, so it is inevitable that they won't have respect for much of anything. Themselves, others, and least of all somebody else's property.

In no way do I support breaking up families that cross the border. That said, they have broken the law and put themselves in that situation.

My wife is an immigrant, and became a legal citizen last year. There's a process to follow.

As for the topic of breaking up families, however, I am referring to our government's decades long attacks in the form of government programs.

I find it amazing that you get upset over immigrants being separated, when the government has decades long policies dedicated to breaking family bonds and stealing their wealth over decades.

Amazing.

 

You covered a lot of territory with your post. There's a lot to respond to.
1. You appear to believe that with liberals, one size fits all. I'm a liberal, and I DON'T believe in, or want, any form of authoritarianism. I support a healthy, functional democracy. The reason I'm a liberal is that I want every American citizen to have equal access to that democratic process, and conservatives appear less enthusiastic on that point.
2. When the Constitution was written, public education didn't exist, so perhaps that's why it doesn't address it. There's nothing I know of that prohibits federal public education either. However, since its inception, public education in America has been controlled locally, by local boards of education, & funded on the state level. That means American public education is almost exclusively controlled at the state or local level. The federal impact comes mostly in enforcing equal access for non-white students into the system, or at times establishing minimal standards to be met to assure graduates can be competitive in the job market even if they move to another state. The failures of our K-12 educational system are mostly due to state & local lack of support for education in their respective locales. I don't deny federal failures too, but you can't blame it all on the feds when the states & local boards make the final decisions for their schools. They are responsible for that.
3. Again, you have to include the managerial decisions made by the local & state authorities. They control public schools--NOT THE FEDS. I agree with you on the decline of educational standards over the past few decades, but I also remember a national trend of individual states reducing or eliminating funding for various public schools &/or programs, which contributed or caused that decline.
4. That might work if our children all remained in the states of their birth for their entire lives, but most don't. I personally have lived in nine states, and had to adapt to notable differences in each. Federal guidelines for public schools helps keep schools teaching for a national job market. Eliminating the feds would cause more harm than good.
5. That's a very generalized charge. What do you mean by it? What "leftist" indoctrination are you referring to or concerned about? As a liberal, I'm wondering what you think we did that makes you so upset.
6. As a former public school teacher, I'm bewildered & curious what teachers made your daughter do exactly, that made you so upset. Were they protesting MLK Day itself? Were they protesting civil rights in some way? Were they protesting MLK himself & his work? I've seen many groups using the extended fist salute as a protest against whatever they were irritated about. I saw KKK & white supremacists in Charlottesville, VA in 2017, using that same salute. I've seen black protesters in the Civil Rights movement use it. It seems to be a universal form of protest--NOT one used by liberals or communists alone.
7. When the Constitution was written, about 97% of all Americans lived & worked on farms, so that could account for the lack of presence in our Constitution. Again, the only reason for federal interference in housing is to assure all our citizens equal access to housing, & to avoid having racist or ethnic or religious or gender bias become a factor in that access. I support those federal laws protecting equal rights. If there are other issues you're aware of in this regard, please state them & give us a chance to respond. But be specific.
8. I do agree that many of the housing projects failed in their purpose & became blights on society. The goal was a good one, but the method failed. Liberal housing projects led to crime & dysfunctional families, but conservative laws led to homelessness & increased crime by leaving millions totally out of the economy. So, you wanna claim some kind of superiority? I don't see it. On this issue, we're ALL failures.
9. There are two basic levels of laws we can break--misdemeanors & felonies. Felonies are serious crimes that do a great deal of damage & for which serious penalties result. Misdemeanors are small, not-so-serious petty crimes that a slap on the wrist punishment suffices. Under the law, crossing our border is regarded as a MISDEMEANOR. It's like illegal parking, or not paying a parking ticket, or getting a speeding ticket, etc. No misdemeanor is serious enough to split families apart with NO WAY TO REUNITE THEM LATER. Such a response to a misdemeanor is itself a felony. Many of those affected families will never be reunited, and our government created hundreds of orphans. Those responsible should be charged, tried & incarcerated--including the leader who thought it all up--Trump himself. I can think of no act or action more un-American than this since the days of slavery.
10. Many of the current victims along our southern border were trying to do it legally, but the reception stations along the border were often closed by the Trump administration so they couldn't follow the rules, and they crossed the border looking for someone to help them & got caught up in Trump's net. Trump has also announced he's not accepting immigrants seeking asylum, further reducing immigrant's chances of doing it legally. There's a decided increase in illegal immigration since Trump took over, but much of it is caused by Trump himself.
11. Again, your charge is too general. Exactly what programs do you feel so strongly opposed to?
12. You accuse our government of intentionally breaking up families & stealing their wealth for decades. What programs are you referring to? Who is stealing their wealth? Where is that wealth going to after the theft? Who gains in such a nasty enterprise?

 

Been super busy... have some answers for you, but have been short of time.

Have a question for you first though... what is your take on the housing crisis and economic tumult that began in 2008??