PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on December 20, 2020, 03:01:50 PM
-
But somehow ANTIFA and BLM are not?
This is a sample of some of the garbage His Fraudulancy is bringing to the WH.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democratic-lawmakers-call-biden-advance-secular-agenda-all-levels-government
-
So a PAC and 3 legislators present a proposal for returning to constitutional secularism.....scary...i guess you could tortuously read it as applying to those scary baptist and Methodist lol
Heres the offending bit
"We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists."
-
"shift rhetoric"
hmmmmmmmmm. I wonder if the authors of that proposal understand what that term says about them....
-
So a PAC and 3 legislators present a proposal for returning to constitutional secularism.....scary...i guess you could tortuously read it as applying to those scary baptist and Methodist lol
Heres the offending bit
"We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists."
But nowhere does it say to label ANTIFA and BLM as domestic terrorist. I guess you've forgot about the riots and burning and murders over the summer.
And you conveniently overlooked "The rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat,". Really? YGTBSM
-
So a PAC and 3 legislators present a proposal for returning to constitutional secularism.....scary...i guess you could tortuously read it as applying to those scary baptist and Methodist lol
Heres the offending bit
"We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists."
You wear your stupid so well.
-
The Democrats, MEDIA, Education, Entertainment, and Corporate America continue to demonize White Males, Conservative women, and Christians as a form of retribution and punishment for the perceived past. It is criminal.
-
You wear your stupid so well.
Insults aside other than some feelings of whataboutism why exactly would one be bothered by this.
-
Insults aside other than some feelings of whataboutism why exactly would one be bothered by this.
I find it brilliant that the left has invented the word "whataboutism". In one word it completely invalidates and absolves everything their side has ever done and focuses on the "evil" that is on the right. Trump put kids in cages! Yeah, but it was started by Obama. Whataboutism! Trump must be demonized. See how it works?
-
So a PAC and 3 legislators present a proposal for returning to constitutional secularism.....scary...i guess you could tortuously read it as applying to those scary baptist and Methodist lol
Heres the offending bit
"We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists."
How has Christianity invaded the federal government?
-
Insults aside other than some feelings of whataboutism why exactly would one be bothered by this.
It is beyond stupid how leftists try to control discussion this way.
-
Insults aside other than some feelings of whataboutism why exactly would one be bothered by this.
I’m an atheist so in theory I’m not immediately threatened by a few people promoting “de-radicalization” of “white christian nationalists”. But I am a libertarian, and the people promoting these positions are anti-liberty and the means they propose are literally government central planning of belief systems. I believe it is generally considered a good idea to counter bad ideas as soon as they emerge. Once they gain broader traction it is that much more difficult to change minds because people become emotionally invested in their positions. So one would be bothered to respond who rejects central planning and constraints on liberty. I hope this answers your rhetorical question.
-
I’m an atheist so in theory I’m not immediately threatened by a few people promoting “de-radicalization” of “white christian nationalists”. But I am a libertarian, and the people promoting these positions are anti-liberty and the means they propose are literally government central planning of belief systems. I believe it is generally considered a good idea to counter bad ideas as soon as they emerge. Once they gain broader traction it is that much more difficult to change minds because people become emotionally invested in their positions. So one would be bothered to respond who rejects central planning and constraints on liberty. I hope this answers your rhetorical question.
see now this is a policy criticism. Its what people should be posting instead of trying score political points by saying what about antifa or BLM.
I would agree providing funding for deradicalization isnt governments role i dont like anyone in government having the ability to determine who or what is radical.
-
see now this is a policy criticism. Its what people should be posting instead of trying score political points by saying what about antifa or BLM.
I would agree providing funding for deradicalization isnt governments role i dont like anyone in government having the ability to determine who or what is radical.
Asking again. How has Christianity invaded the federal government?
-
Asking again. How has Christianity invaded the federal government?
i dont know that its invaded but i know the PAC wants better enforcement of the establishment clause and removal of funding from organizations that discriminate based on religion. IE adoption agencies that recieve federal funding not working with same sex couples.
I see their point cant say im too bothered either way.
-
i dont know that its invaded but i know the PAC wants better enforcement of the establishment clause and removal of funding from organizations that discriminate based on religion. IE adoption agencies that recieve federal funding not working with same sex couples.
I see their point cant say im too bothered either way.
Somehow leftists forget that the Establishment Clause has two provisions. The “...or prevent the free exercise thereof” clause seems to get overlooked.
-
i dont know that its invaded but i know the PAC wants better enforcement of the establishment clause and removal of funding from organizations that discriminate based on religion. IE adoption agencies that recieve federal funding not working with same sex couples.
I see their point cant say im too bothered either way.
Do you recognize that you are suggesting enforcement of no religion? How do you propose that happen without a violation of the 1st amendment?
-
i dont know that its invaded but i know the PAC wants better enforcement of the establishment clause and removal of funding from organizations that discriminate based on religion. IE adoption agencies that recieve federal funding not working with same sex couples.
I see their point cant say im too bothered either way.
Interesting choice of an example! Two things of note:
(1) As a libertarian I’d have to ask why is the government funding adoption agencies? If they didn’t do that then the religious beliefs and policies of the adoption agencies is strictly a private contractual matter between the adoptees, the agencies, and the adopters.
(2) There just happens to be a case before the Supreme Court on the subject of adoption through a religious agency that discriminates against same-sex couples. It is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_v._City_of_Philadelphia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_v._City_of_Philadelphia)) But in this case the dispute does not seem to involve money or funding, but the city stopped referring children to the agency (CSS), effectively cutting it off. Nor was it a case that same-sex couples had only that agency available - there were other agencies that would work with same-sex couples. In this case the city stopped referring children to an agency that had been operating for over 100 years. CSS basically claims it was the city discriminating against them because of their religious beliefs. According to wikipedia “The central question during oral argument was whether CSS is running a government program or is it the recipient of a license to provide a service. This distinction is crucial, for "it could determine the outcome and allow the court to avoid confronting the vexing intersection of religious liberties and marriage equality."”