Is Trump the Greatest President in US History?

Fwiw, the exact same thing happened to people that were in favor of segregation and opposed to interracial marriage. The evolution of society is inevitable.

You are the exact person that has been brainwashed into thinking racial equality is equal to a predilection for a sexual perversion. It has absolutely zero to do with society evolving to some more enlightened plane.

But l would be interested in your research into which societies disintegrated after openly championing homosexuality. Or the regret you feel for the 3 pals you grew up with, dying of AIDS back in the early 80s, while in their 20s.

1 Like

I don’t think they’re equal. I’ve also never said as much. That doesn’t mean a clear line can’t be drawn comparing the 2.

The people that wanted blacks in separate bathrooms said the same thing, so you’ll have to excuse my laughter here. If society is evolving to not letting the government tell as many people what to do with their lives, I’m happy, I don’t really care if it’s not “enlightened.”

And you have research that these societies disintegrated BECAUSE of homosexuality?

AIDS (like all STDs) is a moron test, not a gay test. You use protection or risk an STD. I understand that if I don’t wear a seatbelt, my chances of dying in a car accident go up. I don’t trust other drivers to be safe enough for me to not wear one, I just do it anyway.

A bit of a politics intersects religion tangent.

Yes, really rapid cultural change over the past 15 years. Obama supporting “marriage between a man and a woman” in 2008. I wasn’t talking about people changing their minds. I was talking about people lying to themselves, aware of that or not. Something like 2 in every 5 Soviets were informing on their neighbors and families, and yet we’re all very sure that we wouldn’t do such a thing.

Have you seen this? I don’t normally follow UK news, but if you search for Tim Farron and his position on homosexuality, he’s a liberal Christian. It looks like the question, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” may become a litmus test for political life, even if you say you support gay marriage, and anti-discrimination statutes. The Church of England is being really torn by it as some Bishops lobby to change doctrines, traditional views “untenable.”

Then we had this here in the US. Bernie Sanders questioning a Trump nominee about his religious beliefs.

The problem in the church isn’t tradition, it is scripture. There’s no ambiguity or wiggle room about homosexuality in all the Abrahamic religions. So the question isn’t “do you believe homosexuality is a sin?”.

It is “does your scripture say homosexuality is a sin?”

Now scripture also says that all have fallen short of the glory of God. None are blameless, not even one. We are to preach the gospel to everyone and condemn nobody. That doesn’t mean we have to change our standards.

Well, that depends on your definition of “condemn” as you may recall 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5 mentioned expelling someone from the church and handing them over to Satan.

But, yes we are all sinners to be sure.

You’re disagreeing with a straw man. I didn’t say central planning, I said legally ordered. They aren’t the same.

Yeah, we’re pretty much saying the same thing. It’s still lose-lose. The only thing I get out of Trump are policies more in line with my beliefs. Policy is what is going to affect me long after Trump is gone. I despised HRC’s politics. And if a tree stump were opposing her, I would have voted for the tree stump.

It’s way to early to make a determination base on such a small amount of time, anyway. It wouldn’t matter who won, you cannot determine the guy’s worth for at least a couple of years. 6 months is nothing.
I don’t think a ‘good portion of republicans’ think that either. He’s not exactly a beacon of Republicanism. Seeing as how the party and the trump campaign fought, during the campaign indicates that many republicans made peace with him, but don’t necessarily like him.

At least until he’s faced down some real challenges and succeeded in their midst.

Bizarre yet illuminating that Bernie would double down on a dumb question like that. It hints at his own dogma and that it’s a strong dogma.

1 Like

Well, there’s intense pressure on churches to back away from any doctrine about homosexuality. We’re seeing very rapid change there among many protestant churches.

The other issue, is that this may soon become politically untenable. In other words, I predict that it will soon become very hard to be electable if you hold these views. It won’t be enough to say you support gay rights.

If you look at the NPR link above, Bernie Sanders questioned Vought about his belief that non-Christians are going to hell. Religious litmus test? Politicians have long avoided saying their agnostic or atheist, but I think that will shift dramatically.

Regarding homosexuality, the politician in the UK was able to say “we’re all sinners,” effectively skirting the issue in 2015. That didn’t fly in 2017. He was pointedly questioned, and felt pressured to come out and say “it’s not a sin.” I could be wrong, but I predict that in the next decade or so, as older voters die, we’ll see people who hold these traditional Judaeo-Christian interpretations become unelectable. I’m not sure what will happen with Muslims if they grow as a percentage of the population and become a political force, since many of them also share these views (non-Muslims damned, or homosexuality is a sin.)

1 Like

The same thing will happen to Muslims that happened to racists, is currently happening to homophobes, and has happened on behalf of society to every major change point in history. No institution (religion, govt, any ideologies) can defeat time. When society starts to lean in 1 direction even a little, all you need is time for math to kick in. If that lean is stable, it’s just a waiting game.

In recent years, we’ve seen small groups of people try to mount the last line of defense as it were (KKK for racism, WBC for homophobia and so much more, Nazis for racial superiority) just as we have throughout history with all major social changes. This generation of them isn’t special or magical. They’ll buckle to time.

Agree that it’s a matter of numbers. We’re talking about someone being elected, so that becomes very important.

Just to clarify here a bit


It’s not hateful, extremist wing dings like the Westboro Baptist Church that are effected. Those people aren’t electable now. This is most mainstream Christians. Think traditional Catholics or Protestants who have taught that homosexuality is a sin. You can support gay marriage, and anti-discrimination statutes, and have homosexual family members that you love. I supported Civil Unions, for example way back in maybe 2004, as did many gay people at that time. I think we’re going to see people who hold traditional religious views either reinterpret their doctrine, or become unelectable, at least in some places, very soon.

These are more likely the questions that voters will need to consider. Will you decide that you will not vote for a Catholic unless they pass a litmus test that makes them publicly denounce their doctrine on these issuesl? Will you decide that you will not hire such a person, if you can see that they are affiliated with a traditional Christian denomination? Did you think Bernie was appropriate in saying he would not support the Trump nominee, following that line of questioning?

1 Like

I mentioned in a comment above how agnostic and atheists have long had to either sidestep or deny unbelief if they wanted to be electable, particularly in some regions. I’m sure there are many agnostic politicians who claim a religious tradition, because it might damage their ability to serve in public life if they were forthright. As the demographic shifts, I think we’ll see this with people who hold traditional religious ideas, unless we decide as a people that we want it to be otherwise.

You just say that to make it sound like you’re original. Like a Libertarian. You’re basically a Republican, just probably not religious I’d guess.

Which is what people want to make sure of with those questions. If it’s an important topic for someone, why would they not find out their elected rep’s thoughts on the matter?

Of course. We all will. If a Scientologist tried to run for Congress what do you think would happen? Would we not be correct to make sure the negative sides of Scientology don’t negatively influence his/her decisions?

Do you think we shouldn’t inquire as to the religious beliefs of our elected officials? They take it into the room with them to vote. They don’t leave it at the door. Tell me if a Muslim man was running for high office nobody would question his religion. Nobody would ask if his religion influenced his voting.

1 Like

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Maybe read this Atlantic article, and see if you still want to go down that path. I do not.

From the article below -

"It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term “Islamophobia” to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americans—and many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity.

This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test America’s founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI. But that danger did not stop Sanders or Van Hollen from focusing on Vought’s religious beliefs during his confirmation hearing
"

“
As the demands for tolerance in America become greater, the bounds of acceptance can also become tighter. Ironically, that pits acceptance of religious diversity against the freedom of individual conscience.”

1 Like

Does pushharder not comment here?

I rarely go into PWI but current events make me jump in from time to time and just realized he seems to be missing.

He got banned a year ago @Nards

1 Like