Conservatism

[UKMikey]

 

[Famine]

Ok. Like a good Borg. Assimilate. Only one opinion is acceptable. Got it.

Yeah, you're making stuff up again:

Debate is fine. Heated debate is fine. They are not the problem. The problem is people making stuff up and being abusive. And yes, they will be removed.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

You see the bias?

Yeah, the full story doesn't line up with what you posted originally.

 

[Populuxe]

Ok. Like a good Borg. Assimilate. Only one opinion is acceptable. Got it. What exactly did I make up? Because I see a lot of inaccurate reports and biased stories posted.

What the Mod wrote: "Heated debate is fine."
What you read: "Only one opinion is acceptable."

Because I see a lot of inaccurate reports and biased stories.

If you stop watching and reading Fox, Breitbart, OANN, and Stormfront, you'll stop seeing those inaccurate reports and biased stories.

 

[Joey D]

Pro tip, you're brainwashed. The J6 committee is a sham. Why no Republicans on it? Chaney and Crybaby are just like you. Insurrection or coup with no arms? LoL. Of course other Republicans supported Trump. The media baldface lied for 4 years. Trump is a mini Fascist? OMG! Obama spied on reporters, Biden starts a ministry of truth, Twitter,run by libs, bans the sitting POTUS! This thread is a joke. I know Gran Turismo is a game, but wow the amount soft skulls in it is amazing.

Cheney is probably the most conservative Republican in the party so I'm not sure how she's not a Republican, she's like the embodiment of a conservative. She's just not whatever the hell that new brand of fascist Republicans is. However, I have very little in common with Cheney's politics so I'm not sure how we're alike.

Trump is a lightweight fascist though, in fact, he pretty much fits the definition of it:

Fascism, noun - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Trump was and still does exhibit ultranationalism and very much wanted to control the government, economy, social climate, and media in the US. He also forcibly suppressed his opposition through either smear campaigns, paying people off, or just outright threatening them. Have other presidents done this? Probably, but they weren't exactly vocal about it.

Trump also, in his own words, praises despots like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin. That is alarming that any US president or government official would give any credence to those "leaders".

And you know, you've thrown around a ton of accusations without a shred of evidence. GTP isn't Facebook, you can't just ramble incoherently. People here, especially people who spend a great deal of time in this section are all educated people with varying opinions that can, and do, back what they say up with facts. We might not always agree, but we do respect each other. I know you think I'm a "woke" liberal or whatever, but that couldn't be further from the truth. On the political spectrum, I'm very conservative when it comes to economic matters. I'm only liberal on social matters but that's pretty much because I don't think it's the government's business what people do.

Only one opinion is acceptable.

This is an outright lie. Plenty of opinions are welcomed and listened to on GTP, however, almost all of them are questioned. It's a good thing to question opinions because it means you either learn something or strengthen your position by learning factual information. What's almost universally rejected in this sub-forum is, as I've said, incoherent rambling and crazy ideas that are floated outside the conspiracy thread. Go into any long-standing thread and you'll see a huge difference of opinion on things. A good place to start would be the Guns thread.

 

[TexRex]

Cheney is probably the most conservative Republican in the party so I'm not sure how she's not a Republican, she's like the embodiment of a conservative.

This is the truly astonishing thing. I mean...I get it. The Republican party is ****ing gone and is now only about ****ing--or rather getting ****ed by--Trump. Absolute ****ing garbage.

I ****ing hate Liz Cheney as well, the anti-choice, Christian nationalist ****wit that she is, but I recognize that she found principles and I guess I can respect that one thing about her.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not liberal......

Hmmm, I think that you are. I also think that's a good thing. I've long seen you as a voice of reason in here - a rational "middle-ground" person that it is accepting of many types, and seeks fairness. Some people have tried skewing the term / using it as a pejorative but I think that technically it still pretty much means what it used to. I consider myself liberal, and proud to be so.

I think that there's quite a bit of deviousness and divisiveness in how some people contort and limit both "liberal" and "conservative" as terms.

 

[m76]

Both ends of the line moved though, like extremely so. I mean your own government has continued its slide into right-wing kleptocracy, especially with Orbán.

And I know what "woke" means, it's just stupid and cringy the way it's used.

The threshold for what is considered conservative did not change. The Orban party's continued shuffle from left to right has nothing to do with me, or the image I posted. If you think I'm even slightly aligned with Orban's politics just because I'm from Hungary you are dead wrong. By the same logic that would mean every US citizen agreed with Trump when he was elected.

Woke only becomes cringy when radical leftists think they understand it and try to appropriate it. Which is what I assume is going on in that SUN image posted by TexRex, because it literally makes no sense otherwise. That is cringe whether it is trying to be satire or not. It's just wrong on so many levels which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

My concern isn't the unwillingness to look away, it's the tendency toward despotism when advocating for prohibition.

I was never advocating for prohibition, don't misrepresent me just because we are in another topic. I was advocating for requiring certain conditions to be met before allowing suicide by doctor.

I was a bit peckish so I went looking for Turkey, but the only stuff left was covered in Greece so I just passed and chose not to eat. It was only then I knew how Hungary I really was.

Now if you want real cringe it is when another wiseguy thinks he is the first one to make a hungry / Hungary joke.

Seriously though, I've only really taken to learning about Hungary since Russia decided to show the world how laughable their military is. Orbán loves himself some Putin.

I bet Orbán is kicking himself behind the scenes for being so stupid to think he can be an ally to Putin, while at the same time being an EU and NATO member state. Putin spared no time declaring him an enemy. So all the buttlicking was for nothing.

I live in one of the most conservative states in the US that suppress women's rights, calls gays abnormal, & as of just recently, wants the Voting Rights Act of 1965 repealed.

If you live in the most conservative state of the US, then that's not the average, but details, details.

Sexism, bigotry, & racism, all in one state's governing party, but yeah, the average "woke" person is even worse..

Repeating the statement is not a rebuttal, wasn't it the woke who have been seen advocating for segregation in recent times?

 

[HenrySwanson]

One who feels compelled to "self-censor" (which I gather is a candy-ass way of referring to one not saying what they want to say) and complains about it is a whiny, little bitch.

The main issue at play here is that conservatives feel like they had the privilege of dictating what is and isn't okay to say, but now they see that as changing and they don't like it one bit.

I see them as separate issues on the same spectrum. You can complain about how the landscape has changed without being a conservative crying that they "can't" be homophobic anymore.

Would all people who complain about censorship that isn't state mandated be "whiny, little bitches" too?

My favourite episode of South Park is Bloody Mary. In it there are a lot of things very offensive to Christians, most notably that a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeds "out of her arse". Predictably this caused an uproar from the Church with demands that it be pulled by Comedy Central (the network that shows South Park). They asked the creators if they would take it down in the US and they agreed it could be for the second airing as it was close to Christmas. It returned to air the next year and is still available to stream.

If Comedy Central had pulled the episode completely, and ordered the creators to never do anything offensive to Christians again, would they be "whiny, little bitches" if they complained about those actions?

 

[McLaren]

If you live in the most conservative state of the US, then that's not the average, but details, details.

It means I have a far better understanding of the average conservative ideals in the states; I live amongst them.

Repeating the statement is not a rebuttal, wasn't it the woke who have been advocating for segregation in recent times?

I just gave you 3 examples from the Texas GOP, the party in actual power here, that are far more severe than a small number of weird fanatics who wanted safe spaces for black people.

 

[TexRex]

I was never advocating for prohibition, don't misrepresent me just because we are in another topic. I was advocating for requiring certain conditions to be met before allowing suicide by doctor.

"Conditions."

This you?

It costs a lot of resources to bring a child into adulthood, when they can start repaying the debt. And I'm not speaking of student loans alone. Even if you live in a country where education is for free, it is provided with an expectation of becoming a contributing member of society for 30-40 years. So opting out is a dereliction of your duties as part of a civilized society.

Inexplicably, this began with your opposition to cosmetic surgery:

Plastic surgery always makes a person look worse, not better. And I think plastic surgeons specializing in hacking up perfectly fine looking people by exploiting their vanity are morally equal to Dr. Frankenstein. Yeah, that also includes silly cone boobs. The only kind of plastic surgery I'd allow is reconstructive surgery to correct disfigurement caused by illness, genetic defects and accidents.

The right of bodily integrity was referred to in response to this and you attempted to shoot it down by saying that the right also applies to assisted suicide, which is frequently illegal. Suicide is also frequently illegal, particularly in Middle Eastern nations, and so without knowledge of your country of origin, I was kind of thinking it may be one of these.

Of course, that something is prohibited by law isn't particulary substantive. There are lots of stupid laws.

There are lots of stupid laws.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution holds that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

In Alaska, someone may not get drunk in an establishment that sells alcohol and remain on the premises knowing that they are drunk.

In Indiana, liquor stores are not permitted to sell refrigerated non-alcoholic beverages. Stocked water and soft drinks must be kept at room temperature.

Fortune telling is against the law in Maryland.

It's illegal to use vulgar or obscene language in front of two or more people in Mississippi. State of Mississippi: "**** the First Amendment."

In Pennsylvania, it's illegal to barter a baby for goods or services. Okay, that's pretty reasonable. What's stupid is that you may be charged with a misdemeanor for doing so.

On the other hand, adultery is a felony in Michigan.

On the topic of marriage, a couple may not tie the knot in Nebraska if either or both of them has a sexually transmitted disease. Even if one who does not is aware that their partner does.

In New York, an individual may not wear a mask or otherwise conceal their identity in public if accompanied by others who are similarly disguised. "Remember, remember, the 5th of...uh...sorry, guys...you'll have to take those Guy Fawkes masks off."

The passage and enforcement of laws should protect rights without violating rights. It frequently does not.

I maintain that no rights are protected by restricting access to suicide assistance even as it is in countries that allow it conditionally. Where it's not allowed (which is the case much more than it's allowed), its prohibition may be based upon "justification" that you've offered.

Sure, there are unscrupulous actors out there, but prohibition on the basis that it prevents malpractice is inappropriate. It's like banning burkas (or yarmulkes, because apparently that's also a thing) on the basis that some who don them may hold "extremist" views.

Obviously the availability of minimally restricted suicide assistance doesn't guarantee that individuals won't self-inflict. Assistance should absolutely be conditioned on consent and practitioners should never be compelled by law to render services.

Permitting this care observes and respects the right to bodily integrity. That's my concern. I do recognize that a great many individuals who seek to end their life do so because they don't fully understand their options, and so I'm a proponent of intervention provided the act of intervening isn't such that an individual's right to bodily integrity is violated.

Aaaaanywaaaaay...look at this tiny mother****er:

 

[Danoff]

Assistance should absolutely be conditioned on consent and practitioners should never be compelled by law to render services.

👍

I do recognize that a great many individuals who seek to end their life do so because they don't fully understand their options, and so I'm a proponent of intervention provided the act of intervening isn't such that an individual's right to bodily integrity is violated.

It is possible to lose one's right to bodily integrity. This is readily apparent to anyone who accepts capital punishment as viable for certain crimes, and/or who accepts that the right to self-defense can include lethal force. I would also say that your right to bodily integrity can be somewhat intertwined with your right to move about in society. Someone who is institutionalized for mental impairment may, for example, have to take certain medications. I would argue that there are people who lack the right to suicide simply due to their demonstrated inability to understand that right.

 

[TexRex]

It is possible to lose one's right to bodily integrity. This is readily apparent to anyone who accepts capital punishment as viable for certain crimes, and/or who accepts that the right to self-defense can include lethal force.

Definitely. While I do absolutely believe that execution is appropriate for those who have demonstrated such disregard for the rights of others, I still have concerns when the criminal justice system frequently gets that "justice" bit wrong--not only convicting the innocent but convicting the guilty unjustly. I'm certain I've made this position known here.

I would also say that your right to bodily integrity can be somewhat intertwined with your right to move about in society. Someone who is institutionalized for mental impairment may, for example, have to take certain medications.

I'm in complete agreement with you here.

I would argue that there are people who lack the right to suicide simply due to their demonstrated inability to understand that right.

I'm in agreement here, but it's problematic. In my effort to explore the conditions for which that user was advocating elsewhere, and of which one was terminal illness, I brought up dementia. Dementia is tricky because one suffering from it--particularly in cases so advanced that a merciful end is a consideration--frequently can't communicate much of anything, let alone consent. I don't know that it's fully understood what dementia sufferers themselves understand.

 

[R3V]

Only one would believe 1/6 was a coup.

I told myself not to read or post this section of the forum again, but I clicked and can't resist asking. What would you call what happened that day, and what outcome of it would you have liked to see?

 

[Danoff]

I'm in agreement here, but it's problematic. In my effort to explore the conditions for which that user was advocating elsewhere, and of which one was terminal illness, I brought up dementia. Dementia is tricky because one suffering from it--particularly in cases so advanced that a merciful end is a consideration--frequently can't communicate much of anything, let alone consent. I don't know that it's fully understood what dementia sufferers themselves understand.

I think it might be best for that person to express their wishes ahead of time in writing, and ultimately transfer the decision to a medical guardian. I'm certain that if we (society) put our heads together, we can come up with a good system through which people suffering from dementia can humanely commit suicide.

ALS would be another good example, where if you let it go too far you can't get consent. But with a guardian and expressed wishes ahead of time (and of course a medical evaluation), I think we already do this for ALS sufferers. If not officially, I think it might be unofficial.

=================================

I think people might be surprised to learn just how much unofficial assisted suicide there really is. People suffer a great deal when they're nearing the end of their lives, and helping them end that suffering is one of the big (and super obvious) roles that the various healthcare workers that interact with these people have to face. At some point you know, as a healthcare worker, that a little more pain medication has the potential to end their lives, and they need that pain medication.

 

[TexRex]

Not sure why, but I had it in my head that it was more than this. The current freakout for something so innocent would be absurd...but then that's exactly what it is.



Edit: Woke Disney could have at least thrown in some over the pants scissoring.

 

[Populuxe]

Not sure why, but I had it in my head that it was more than this. The current freakout for something so innocent would be absurd...but then that's exactly what it is.



Edit: Woke Disney could have at least thrown in some over the pants scissoring.

Disney showed one second in the life of two women in a happy, loving, and committed relationship. Of course we need to break out the tiki torches and Frankenstein rakes.

 

[McLaren]

I am not at all surprised at the over-reaction. These are the same people who think the real reason Disney did not bring Tim Allen back to voice Buzz is because he's a conservative. Except for, ya know....

‘Santa Clause’ Series Starring Tim Allen Ordered at Disney Plus

"The Santa Clause" franchise is being continued as a limited series at Disney Plus with Tim Allen returning to star as Scott Calvin

variety.com

 

[TexRex]

I am not at all surprised at the over-reaction. These are the same people who think the real reason Disney did not bring Tim Allen back to voice Buzz is because he's a conservative. Except for, ya know....

‘Santa Clause’ Series Starring Tim Allen Ordered at Disney Plus

"The Santa Clause" franchise is being continued as a limited series at Disney Plus with Tim Allen returning to star as Scott Calvin

variety.com

Okay but Tim Allen has two--TWO!!!--syndicated television sitcoms. The new guy doesn't have even one and has never starred in a remake of a movie in which the main character turns into a dog.

This attack on conservatives cannot be tolerated!

 

[Biggles]

Aaaaanywaaaaay...look at this tiny mother****er:

Yeah, but to be fair he says they should be made "un-alive" by "due process" ... so as long as it's all legal, what's the problem?

 

[Populuxe]

Yeah, but to be fair he says they should be made "un-alive" by "due process" ... so as long as it's all legal, what's the problem?

I'm pretty sure he thinks "due process" is a lynch mob. "The people have spoken!"

 

[TexRex]

Yeah, but to be fair he says they should be made "un-alive" by "due process" ... so as long as it's all legal, what's the problem?

I mean...

"My dude." Hemant is awesome.

Tangentially, if the article is defamatory (it's not), it would be libelous rather than slanderous. Libel is actually considered by legal minds to be the greater wrong--something about the nature of the written word, where spoken infractions are more likely deemed to be offhand rather than malicious--but these mother****ers are too stupid to recognize even the basic differences.

 

[UKMikey]

The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy.

Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology.

Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.

Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism.

Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

 

[TexRex]

Amazing.

Setting aside the record of insincerity from Alito himself and the other conservative justices, the reason not to trust his disclaimer is that the Supreme Court has become an institution whose primary role is to force a right-wing vision of American society on the rest of the country. The conservative majority’s main vehicle for this imposition is a presentist historical analysis that takes whatever stances define right-wing cultural and political identity at a given moment and asserts them as essential aspects of American law since the Founding, and therefore obligatory. Conservatives have long attacked the left for supporting a “living constitutionalism,” which they say renders the law arbitrary and meaningless. But the current majority’s approach is itself a kind of undead constitutionalism—one in which the dictates of the Constitution retrospectively shift with whatever Fox News happens to be furious about. Legal outcomes preferred by today’s American right conveniently turn out to be what the Founding Fathers wanted all along.

Edit: I should say that the entire piece is fantastic, alas it's paywalled so I won't be transcribing it here.

 

[TexRex]

Sen. James Lankford in 2010 deposition: 13-year-olds can consent to sex

Sen. James Lankford in in 2010 deposition: 13-year-olds can consent to sex

okcfox.com

Before he became a leading voice for conservative causes on Capitol Hill, U.S. Senator James Lankford spent more than a decade as the director of youth programming at the Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center, a sprawling campground about 80 miles south of Oklahoma City that attracts more than 50,000 campers in grades six through 12 each year.

The Republican lawmaker's tenure at the camp is a prominent feature of his political profile, noted in the first paragraph of his official Senate biography. That experience is also coming under renewed scrutiny as the Southern Baptist Convention, which is affiliated with the group that owns the camp, faces a reckoning over its handling of sexual abuse cases.

In 2009, while Lankford worked at the camp, the family of a 13-year-old girl sued a 15-year-old boy who was alleged to have had sex with her at the camp. Lankford, who was not in Congress at the time, is not alleged to have had any direct knowledge of the alleged assault, has not been accused of any wrongdoing and was not a defendant in the lawsuit, which was settled for an undisclosed amount before it was scheduled to go to trial.

But in a 2010 deposition in the case, given a week after he was elected to his first term in the U.S. House, Lankford testified that he believed a 13-year-old could consent to sex.

“Yes, I think they can,” Lankford told Kenyatta Bethea, a lawyer for the girl's family, according a 155-page transcript of the deposition obtained by The Associated Press.

The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16, and although there is an exception in the law for minors between the ages of 14 and 17 who have sexual contact, there is no provision under which a 13-year-old could consent to sex. When Bethea pressed if his answer was still the same “if I ask you that question in terms of your position as a father,” Lankford maintained his stance.

“Yes, they can,” he said.

Under additional questioning about whether he would allow his two daughters to consent to sex at the age of 13, Lankford gave a more expansive answer.

“No, I would not encourage that at all," he said. "Could she make that choice? I hope she would not, but I would not encourage that in any way with my own daughter.”

It’s unclear whether Lankford, who has no formal legal training, was aware of the legal age of consent at the time of his deposition. It's also uncertain whether any criminal charges were filed against the 15-year-old boy. Telephone messages left with Murray County District Attorney Craig Ladd were not returned.

The testimony is surfacing before Tuesday's primary for the GOP Senate nomination that would allow Lankford to seek another term. After early concerns that he could be vulnerable to a challenge from the right, he enters the election in a strong position. The primary winner will head into the fall general election as the overwhelming favorite in this deeply Republican state.

Aly Beley, a spokeswoman for Lankford’s reelection campaign, declined to comment for this story.

The revelation of Lankford’s testimony comes at a difficult moment for the Southern Baptist Convention.

A scathing investigative report, conducted by an independent firm, found that top SBC leaders stonewalled and denigrated survivors of clergy sex abuse while seeking to protect their own reputations. In response, the SBC voted overwhelmingly earlier this month to create a way to track pastors and other church workers credibly accused of sex abuse and launch a task force to oversee further reforms in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

This is not the first case of alleged sexual assault at Falls Creek, a 400-acre campground nestled in the Arbuckle Mountains. The camp is owned by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, which is now called Oklahoma Baptists and is part of the SBC.

Benjamin Lawrence Petty pleaded guilty in 2018 to raping a 13-year-old Texas girl at the camp. Petty, who was a cook at the camp, tied a rope around the girl's wrists, raped her and threatened to hurt her if she told anyone, according to investigators. Petty was ultimately sentenced to probation in the case, and a civil case filed by the girl's family against the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma was settled. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Lankford no longer worked at the camp when the attack occurred.

Court records show that Rev. Lori Walke, an attorney and senior minister at Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, served as a guardian ad litem for the Texas girl during the civil case. Walke declined to talk about details of the case, but said she attended Falls Creek as a young girl and has serious concerns about how the camp operates.

“Even as a kid, you recognize some things that feel off," Walke said. “This real obsession with the purity culture is overwhelming. The rules around clothing, particularly for girls, were just obsessed over."

“And then, the real lack of oversight, generally speaking, in all other matters," she added. "It was absolutely due to the fact that there’s just not enough adults around."

Oklahoma Baptists did not respond to questions about how many cases involving sexual misconduct at Falls Creek have been settled. In a statement, Executive Director-Treasurer Todd Fisher said the recent vote to approve recommendations from the SBC’s task force will bring about needed national reforms.

“I am thankful Oklahoma Baptists already made significant steps toward preventing abuse in Oklahoma, implementing a number of best practices in all areas of our ministries, including at our encampments,” Fisher said.

Oklahoma Baptists spokesman Brian Hobbs said some of those best practices for Falls Creek include mandatory background checks for anyone 18 and older, increased security, professionally developed safety training for all camp staff and church leaders bringing groups to the camp and protocols for reporting abuse or suspected abuse.

During his deposition, Lankford said he had no problem sending his daughters to the camp, including in instances when he was not present, though he acknowledged that supervision wasn't perfect.

“I know that our adults are watching out for our kids, but the process of that, obviously I can't guess for every adult how they're going to handle it,” Lankford said.

 

[Imari]

This is not the first case of alleged sexual assault at Falls Creek, a 400-acre campground nestled in the Arbuckle Mountains. The camp is owned by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, which is now called Oklahoma Baptists and is part of the SBC.

Benjamin Lawrence Petty pleaded guilty in 2018 to raping a 13-year-old Texas girl at the camp. Petty, who was a cook at the camp, tied a rope around the girl's wrists, raped her and threatened to hurt her if she told anyone, according to investigators. Petty was ultimately sentenced to probation in the case, and a civil case filed by the girl's family against the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma was settled. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Holy ****, wut? Probation for restraining, raping and threatening a child? Seems legit, no problems there.

No wonder dudebro thinks it's okay for 13 year olds to consent to sex if that's the sort of slap on the wrist you get for literal rape.

 

[Keef]

If we’re in the business of eliminating constitutional rights then it seems like it’s time to eliminate the right to religion, which has led to the extremist politics responsible for limiting the rights of women and minorities lately. And we should eliminate the right to guns, which restrict children’s and families’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through constant fear for their safety.

 

[UKMikey]

If we’re in the business of eliminating constitutional rights then it seems like it’s time to eliminate the right to religion, which has led to the extremist politics responsible for limiting the rights of women and minorities lately. And we should eliminate the right to guns, which restrict children’s and families’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through constant fear for their safety.

At the very least, how about taxing political churches like they said they would?

 

[PeterJB]

The fact that prayers are recited at inaugurations and the Oath of Office is done on a Bible is enough to eliminate this notion that there is any realistic separation of Church and State in the US.

 

[Scaff]

The fact that prayers are recited at inaugurations and the Oath of Office is done on a Bible is enough to eliminate this notion that there is any realistic separation of Church and State in the US.

In regard to the oath of office you're mixing up preference with requirement, as the Bible is not required at all. Four Presidents have not used the Bible and when you get below Presidential level it becomes more common.

Plenty of examples of issues with a mixing of Church and State exist, but that's not one of them.

Bibles Aren't Required for the Oath of Office - FactCheck.org

Q: Did the Supreme Court rule that it is illegal to take the oath of office with anything but the Bible? A: No. That is a made-up claim that originated on a self-described satirical website. FULL QUESTION Did the United States Supreme Court rule that Congress has to swear on the bible? FULL...

www.factcheck.org

Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org