The Christian Conservative position in politics doesn't exist anymore in the West (and Trump is actually a degenerate molester)

If you make bullet points they forcibly convert into a numbers list.

For once, I agree with you.

Since our country began, the separation of church and state has “defined” American Politics and American Christianity. In the 1970s Evangelical Christianity began a major push to exert their influence politically, the "Christian Right" was established as a "political" entity. In the process, the Church was appropriated by the political right and used to serve right wing political ends.

Political ends are not compatible with Christian ends, and as the “Christian Right” movement grew as a political entity it increasingly became characterized by political sensibilities as opposed to Christian sensibilities.

In the end, the misguided attempt to make politics more holy, only ended up making the Church less holy.

Is that why your government encourages political attacks on Churches? Why not just outlaw religion?

Hmmm.

I would suggest that intellectual development would/will inevitably undermine a reliance upon fantasy theory.

And such is our moment within that era of informational evolution.

If you make bullet points they forcibly convert into a numbers list.

I dont know how to turn that off either. It seems that merely typing "1." at start creates a forced list, and the only way to avoid it is this:

A 1.

B 2.

C 5.

the only way to avoid it is by typing something before the number. Empty space before number doesnt work.

Why not just outlaw religion?

Yeah, see what happened in USSR when they tried to outlaw religion, or Mao's China. Society works based on religion, because religion teaches values which government doesnt.

Is that why your government encourages political attacks on Churches? Why not just outlaw religion?

Religion has become a tool for political control; no way they would outlaw one of their best instruments of control.

Especially not under an autocratic administration who sees it as another weapon in their arsenal

If you want bullets, why not just use the bullet button

1. That way
2. you get
3. bullets
4. instead of
5. your statements
6. being
7. numbered.

If you want bullets, why not just use the bullet button

That way

you get

bullets

instead of

your statements

being

numbered.

do you see the problem?

I think Sidewalker basically said we should not at all run things how the religions tells us to.

This reminds me of what many who agree with me about Islam end up backfiring on Christianity by saying.

They dislike Islam for pushing Sharia Law. However, the bigger problem with Islam is how evil and wrong it is. A Christian wanting a Christian Theocracy makes a lot more sense than a Christian who'd genuinely side completely with those trying to destroy Christianity and its values, just to flex 'I care for some vulnerable when it suits me.'

It is the hypocrisy in religion that ends up harming the world. More have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason.

Mainly Islam.

do you see the problem?

OMG, now I see it, it was definitely bullets when I hit "post comment", I didn't bother to see that posting it changes it.

Interesting, the same phenomenon occurs when Kristi Noem posts a photograph.

Trump's altered image of an anti-ICE protester marks a chilling new era

Trump was caught altering his tax returns as well. Both results looked horrible.

Trump was caught altering his tax returns as well. Both results looked horrible.

The Trump administration can even make photographs lie.

You're not wrong about the Evangelical Right per se, but their irreligious opponents have always been guilty of the same sin.

Separation of church and state neither means that America is an officially Christian nation nor that the opponents of religion are specially privileged to use the state to lessen the role of religion in society via the education system or other state-funded channels of influence. Secularism means governmental neutrality in questions of or pertaining to religion. Both sides have refused to acknowledge the limitations placed upon them by the constitution, and if the Evangelical right really kicked off in the 1970s then chronologically speaking it was the irreligious who were the first to cross that line.

(And as an aside, the Establishment Clause only applied to the Federal government until the 1940s.)

You're not wrong about the Evangelical Right per se, but their irreligious opponents have always been guilty of the same sin.

I've seen arguments that dogmatic secular modernity came first and produced conservative religious fundamentalism as a reaction to it, but I suspect they grew together, like two sides of the same coin.

Separation of church and state neither means that America is an officially Christian nation nor that the opponents of religion are specially privileged to use the state to lessen the role of religion in society via the education system or other state-funded channels of influence. Secularism means governmental neutrality in questions of or pertaining to religion. Both sides have refused to acknowledge the limitations placed upon them by the constitution, and if the Evangelical right really kicked off in the 1970s then chronologically speaking it was the irreligious who were the first to cross that line.

Two groups that define themselves in terms of opposition, result in two groups that taken by themselves, are inexplicable within the context of their respective positions and which represent these two “polar opposites” categories of one and the same movement

To say that opposites are “polar” is to say that they aren't just opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole, there is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Despite being opposed, they are closer together than either of them is with the reasonable, middle view.

On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic secular modernism that doesn’t appear to be true to science, and on the other side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that doesn’t appear to be true to Jesus.

(And as an aside, the Establishment Clause only applied to the Federal government until the 1940s.)

I Googled to see what you were talking about, very interesting, never occurred to me it wasn't a principle that always applied to all levels of government. Good thing the Supremes made that ruling I guess, or I'd probably live in the Baptist State of Georgia right now.

Part of the problem is word usage, such as "liberal," as opposed to "conservative." These words have both been used, politically, in another time, to describe their polar opposites by political platform. A liberal was, in the 19th century, a Republican. A conservative, a Democrat. Not today. It is believed by a number of sources I perused that it was FDR who launched the use of "liberal" to describe a Democrat, and that is derived from his 1932 acceptance speech in the Democrat National Convention upon his nomination for President in Chicago on July 2. In his speech: "As we enter this new battle, let us keep always present with us some of the ideals of the Party: The fact that the Democratic Party by tradition and by the continuing logic of history, past and present, is the bearer of liberalism and of progress and at the same time of safety to our institutions. And if this appeal fails, remember well, my friends, that a resentment against the failure of Republican leadership – and note well that in this campaign I shall not use the word “Republican Party,” but I shall use, day in and day out, the words, “Republican leadership” – the failure of Republican leaders to solve our troubles may degenerate into unreasoning radicalism." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/acceptance-speech-at-the-democratic-convention-1932/

Did you decide to drop all topics where you defend Trump and his cold blood killing ICE Agents?

He is a conservative a Republican. Democrats are seen as the liberal party. Trump is a MAGA Republican.

Since our country began, the separation of church and state has “defined” American Politics and American Christianity. In the 1970s Evangelical Christianity began 

The USA began, officially, with ratification of the Constitution, certified by signature of sufficient delegates on Article VII on 9/17/1787. Thomas Jefferson did not "codify" "separation of church and state" [which words are not codified in the 1A], until an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson was separated from both church and state in 1787, in France as our foreign minister there, so he had no direct participation in development of the Constitution nor Bill of Rights, including the 1A. He was really mimicking the argument of Roger Williams, a 17th-century theologian who argued for "separation" to protect the church from the "wilderness of the world" more for the protection of the church from government than protection of the government from the church, as is commonly interpreted today. So, no, this may be your politics today, but not in 1787. As for linkage to government, James Madison's letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833 confirmed that prior to the 1770s, many American colonies had government-supported religions and tax-funded religious establishments. So, what "Since our country began, the separation of church and state has “defined” American Politics and American Christianity" existed when our country began? After all, charitable contributions to religion is still, today, a tax-refundable personal and corporate expense, up to limitations set by law.

As for "American Christianity" that is not a singular organization of the Christian religion, and I reject its inference. There are multiple examples of doctrinal differences, but, I understand the general political effort to collect Christianiy, a subject not particularly embraced by the collective left, as a single entity. That's pure Saul Alinsky. let alone Marx.

You're asking me a collectivist question? Don't get it, yet, do you. I reject collectivism, period.

Then you are a selfish individualistic hedonist or nihilist.

Obviously you are not a Nihilist. This leans you Hedonistic.

It is fundamentally impossible to be anti collectivism and also a practising Christian (even LDS who I deny are doctrinally valid Christians). You need to strongly reread the Bible, especially Luke.

Hedonism is the ethical theory that the pursuit of pleasure is the highest ideal, and having much more coverage than merely sex. But it is not my ideal. Therefore, I am neither a nihilist nor a hedonist. Sure, I enjoy pleasure, but it is not my reason for being. Do you think these are the only two attitudes available to human life? Absurd.

You may, at your pleasure, deny that LDS people are not doctrinally valid Christians, but that's on you. You have a right to your opinion, and I am not going to insist you change it lest you go to hell. I do not believe you will. There are a sizable number of LDS people on the world, and growing in every continent and many nations, including China, Africa, and Russia, who disagree with you. I already "strongly re-read the Bible," and do so in four langauges, cover-to-cover, including Luke. Have you? Your criticism is going to need more detail.

The Jehovah’s Witness are outpacing all other religious groups including the LDS.

Accordng to Pew Research, during the period of 2010 to 2050, While Christianity as a whole was 31.4% of world population, and Muslims were 23.2%, by 2050, Christianity will still be 31.4%, whileMuslims will number 29.7%. The trend is significant for Islam, while in very shallow rise

for Christianity, and the latter will, by the trend, fall behind the growth of Islam by roughly 2060.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

I know some of what you LDS do to people that leave the cult to coerce them back in.

Don't try to fool me with your 'no threat' mantra. At least be honest.

Sidewalkerism is the fastest growing religion in the world, going from 0 to 1, it has experience infinite growth.

I bear no responsibility for other people. Some people does not mean all, does it, and it does not alter the great things we accomplish as a whole gathering of worshipers of Christ. Leave it at that. We, each, are only resposiblefor our own thoughts and actions; no one else's, and no one else but Christ has acted to atone for all who sin, conditional on their repentance, which is available to all, so, get off the high horse of criticism that anyone abuses others, because sure as the sun rises, we may do so, ourselves, and will require our change of heart to correct it.