I may belong to the Gen X / Millennial generation but I've never known a time in which religious extremists weren't trying to impose their will on the whole of America. This divide is now so great that it now threatens to end democratic government and the rule of law. In opinion polls many of them would even support dictatorship if it meant the legalisation of all of their anti-science, anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT positions. Add in the white nationalism and xenophobia along with the religious extremism and it makes a bad situation even worse.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against itself cannot stand. It will become all one thing or all the other.

I don't want to live in a theocracy and as ex-Mormons I don't think you would want to either.

Partition isn't perfect. Look at Ireland and India. It's not a good choice. But these religious people won't compromise. You can't make deals with them. It's either their way or no way at all.

So, while the rest of us want to live in the modern world of the twenty-first century, they can go live in enclaves of white male dominated patriarchal households where no women work outside the home, there are few if any non-whites, LGBT people don't exist, no modern biology or evolution or cosmology, and religion and prayer are everywhere.

Sounds like Utah...

The choices aren't perfect.

Absolutely. Nothing demonstrates your disdain for people you perceive as trying to impose their will on others like insisting that you be allowed to impose your will on others.

Have you ever had a friend call you aside and quietly ask, "You don't really believe all that bullshit you're spouting, do you? It doesn't sound like you've really thought any of this through."

I've been wondering about all the total bullshit YOU are parroting.

Dave, I've certainly had my share of disagreements with TMSH.
But in this case, I agree with him completely.

One of the defining features of our nation is diversity, and finding ways to get along with/work with people vastly different from ourselves. "Partition" us off into warring camps, and you not only no longer have our nation, you have a disaster waiting to happen.

Insisting that our differences are so great that we must be separated would be a complete and utter failure of the idea that is "America."

freedom of the individual from government (social) control.

Interesting, I think you'll find that social control is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the USA and virtually every government.

Please list the successful social movements that you disagree with.

Hmm...
US Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

According to the Declaration of Independence, our founders believed that governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of equality, life, and liberty. It's pretty much a given that some kind of "social control" is required in order to secure those rights for everyone -- because some people refuse to accept that everyone merits them. They deny those rights to people because of skin color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and more.

How else to secure those rights besides some forms of "control?" And by that I mean social punishment by the government charged with securing those rights, for those among us who would deny those rights to some others among us...

Yes, because imposing your will on other people that they be brutally FORCED to tolerate gay people and women having equal rights is totally the same.

tolerate is not an active verb. Where is the force involved?


tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

So basically you would be forced to do nothing about the fact that other people have rights that you do not agree with. Tough, man. Hope you can bear that.

The concept of equal justice under the law with one set of rules and laws for everyone -- no longer seems possible.

Allowing abortion through the first twenty-four weeks is the compromise. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. If sex education and contraception were freely available there would be fewer abortions. But the religious folks can't accept this. They want it stopped by any and all means. It's been over forty years since Roe vs. Wade and they still trying to roll the clock back. Why?

Civil marriage equality is the compromise. Religions are still free to discriminate. No church has to recognise same sex marriage. So why can't they accept this? There is no equivalency between religious morality and the secular law but the religious fanatics don't see it that way.

Here is another area where the religious can't accept compromise. We are well into the twenty-first century and Americans are still arguing about evolution and climate change as if these were new scientific concepts still open to debate and interpretation. They aren't. The US also lags behind the rest of the industrialised world in science and maths education. Schools should teach science and religion should be taught at home or in Sunday school.

Secular government is neutral and does not favour or disfavour any religion. The Pledge of Allegiance was supposed to be a civic oath that would unify a nation of immigrants but in the 1950s the phrase "under God" was added as it was thought that godless Communists would somehow burn to ashes like vampires if they said it. Copies of the Ten Commandments were given out to promote the Cecil B. De Mille film but now are viewed as talismans that will somehow bestow the blessings of Heaven by their presence and therefore must be displayed in all buildings. I would never deny anyone the right to pray or practise their faith but when the religious extremists demand that everyone pray their way and only believe what they believe that's wrong.

The only for them is "god's way."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 02:39PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The concept of equal justice under the law with
> one set of rules and laws for everyone -- no
> longer seems possible.
>
> Allowing abortion through the first twenty-four
> weeks is the compromise. Abortion should be safe,
> legal, and rare. If sex education and
> contraception were freely available there would be
> fewer abortions. But the religious folks can't
> accept this. They want it stopped by any and all
> means. It's been over forty years since Roe vs.
> Wade and they still trying to roll the clock back.
> Why?
>

Honestly, you need to crawl out of your cave once in awhile and actually engage the diversity of the world around you. Are you completely unaware of the breadth of opposition to abortion? The single most persuasive argument I've ever seen is this one by an atheist. If you look at abortion from a purely scientific and ethical point of view, it's extremely difficult to defend: http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/


> Civil marriage equality is the compromise.
> Religions are still free to discriminate. No
> church has to recognise same sex marriage. So why
> can't they accept this? There is no equivalency
> between religious morality and the secular law but
> the religious fanatics don't see it that way.
>

Your statement here is your personal declaration of what you think is an acceptable morality. Others disagree. Most of them aren't seeking to lock you away because you disagree with them.

> Here is another area where the religious can't
> accept compromise. We are well into the
> twenty-first century and Americans are still
> arguing about evolution and climate change as if
> these were new scientific concepts still open to
> debate and interpretation. They aren't. The US
> also lags behind the rest of the industrialised
> world in science and maths education. Schools
> should teach science and religion should be taught
> at home or in Sunday school.
>

Again, you really need to step outside of your echo chamber of self-serving opinions and actually learn what some of the opposition believes. You've adopted a series of talking points (which may or may not be true), but you don't appear to have any actual ability to defend them. What to give it a go?

Regarding climate change, just answer these 3 questions:
1. If climate change is "settled science," why are there significant instances of scientists falsifying data to bolster their claims?
2. Approximately what percentage of climate change is due to human activity and what part is due to our moving through an interglacial period?
3. If science is unable to determine the degree of impact humans are causing (if any at all), why would we castigate those who think it's a small degree, but lionize those who think it's a large degree?


> Secular government is neutral and does not favour
> or disfavour any religion. The Pledge of
> Allegiance was supposed to be a civic oath that
> would unify a nation of immigrants but in the
> 1950s the phrase "under God" was added as it was
> thought that godless Communists would somehow burn
> to ashes like vampires if they said it. Copies of
> the Ten Commandments were given out to promote the
> Cecil B. De Mille film but now are viewed as
> talismans that will somehow bestow the blessings
> of Heaven by their presence and therefore must be
> displayed in all buildings. I would never deny
> anyone the right to pray or practise their faith
> but when the religious extremists demand that
> everyone pray their way and only believe what they
> believe that's wrong.
>
> They only for them is "god's way."

A couple of closing questions
1. You make a series of sweeping statements regarding your understanding of what is right and wrong. Do you believe there is a transcendent source of morality that you're drawing upon, or is morality a purely human-construct?
2. If there is no basis for morality apart from what any of us believes is true, why should anyone accept your morality over any other since there is no absolute right or wrong?

The irony of your position seems to escape you.

I'm not arguing about morality but EQUALITY. I favour REASON over superstition and TOLERANCE instead of intolerance.

What I see is that as far back as I can remember (late 1980s) religious fundamentalists have demanded that abortion be made illegal, racial and LGBT discrimination should be legal, the US Government should be Christian as "God's Law" supersedes all other laws, no sex before marriage, women should subordinate to men and not work outside the home, no equal pay for equal work, evolution is only a "theory" and isn't real, climate change is a made up hoax, and so on. They can't stand it when barriers fall and discrimination ends as more and more people abandon hate and superstition and leave all that behind.

Their voices get louder and louder and they have influenced more and more politicians to try and force the law to conform with their religious views. Now it's no longer even possible to have a rational discussion. It's either their way or they highway.

I don't know what drives these people. They want to force everyone to be like them. It reminds me of the old Soviet joke "After the whole world is Communist, where will we buy grain from?"

I don't want you to be like me. I am not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. You are free to think as you wish.

If somebody wants to be Mormon, or conservative, or Amish, or total Jesus freak evangelical crazy, I don't care. That's their business.

A secular nation has to have a public arena free from religious influence that is neutral and fair to all. You can say "Merry Christmas" and the government can say "Happy Holidays."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 02:31PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not arguing about morality but EQUALITY. I
> favour REASON over superstition and TOLERANCE
> instead of intolerance.

You're missing the point. You insist on EQUALITY, but cannot define it or provide any reason for its primacy other than "it's what I WANT." There are animal rights activists that see no difference between the value of a human life and that of a rodent's. Why should we deny their understanding of EQUALITY and embrace yours? Why do you so easily embrace INTOLERANCE toward rodents but insist it be afforded to humans? What makes your version of EQUALITY right and theirs wrong?


>
> What I see is that as far back as I can remember
> (late 1980s) religious fundamentalists have
> demanded that abortion be made illegal, racial and
> LGBT discrimination should be legal, the US
> Government should be Christian as "God's Law"
> supersedes all other laws, no sex before marriage,
> women should subordinate to men and not work
> outside the home, no equal pay for equal work,
> evolution is only a "theory" and isn't real,
> climate change is a made up hoax, and so on. They
> can't stand it when barriers fall and
> discrimination ends as more and more people
> abandon hate and superstition and leave all that
> behind.
>

See, you're married to an ideology that you're entirely incapable of defending. Go do some homework and come back when you can offer an intelligent response. You've digested some twisted talking points that are unable to discern between opposing viewpoints and totalitarianism. And your response is to suggest totalitarianism. You're a mile wide and a millimeter deep in your actual understanding of the issues you so fervently defend.

I asked you a simple question before that you really need to answer. Exactly what percentage of our current global climate change is due to human activity and what portion is due to the fact that we're in a centuries-long interglacial period completely out of our control? If you cannot answer that question, what's the point of pretending climate change is such an important issue?

You're certainly free to embrace your shallow and unfounded claims, but you're not in any way embracing actual freedom and liberty. In your skewed perception of those that hold opinions other than yours (OH THE HORROR), you're suggesting something that has historically done much greater harm, destruction and murder than anything you cite as offensive.

> Their voices get louder and louder and they have
> influenced more and more politicians to try and
> force the law to conform with their religious
> views. Now it's no longer even possible to have a
> rational discussion. It's either their way or
> they highway.
>
Name one law that has been enacted or proposed that is a purely religious law. Remember, abortion has opponents of every stripe, including atheists, so you cannot cite that as a "religious issue."



> I don't know what drives these people. They want
> to force everyone to be like them. It reminds me
> of the old Soviet joke "After the whole world is
> Communist, where will we buy grain from?"
>

Your irony meter is broken. I think it collapsed under the weight of your own hypocrisy. "They want to force everyone to be like them" says the one who is writing a screed decrying the fact that there are some who don't think like they do.


> I don't want you to be like me. I am not trying
> to convert you to my way of thinking. You are
> free to think as you wish.
>
Am I free to think as I wish in your world? If so, why the hell did you start this topic? Do you understand what "freedom" means?

Your topic suggests something akin to internment camps for those who don't follow your thinking in lockstep. You have no concept whatsoever that diversity, disagreement, and offensive speech are hallmarks of a free society, not elements that should be stomped out.

> If somebody wants to be Mormon, or conservative,
> or Amish, or total Jesus freak evangelical crazy,
> I don't care. That's their business.
>
> A secular nation has to have a public arena free
> from religious influence that is neutral and fair
> to all. You can say "Merry Christmas" and the
> government can say "Happy Holidays."

Did you miss that part where we believe our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" Government is made up of citizens that seldom need to sacrifice their freedoms simply because of who they work for. Our government cannot enact laws respecting religion. Government workers can unabashedly embrace religion to whatever extent they wish -- with few limitations.

The fundamental principle of democracy is equality before the law. All sentient beings have the same rights. This is stated in the American Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of The Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. In the eighteenth century, it was thought that blacks were not fully human and women were not capable of rational thought. Only irrational racists and misogynists hold such views today. The American story is a story of trying to live up to her ideals and the messy process of achieving the fullness of freedom for all.

In a compromise no one gets everything they want -- only some of what they want. The examples I gave are well known and need no further explanation.

The same goes for anthropogenic climate change. You can look up the data as easily as I can. If you choose to dismiss it and the rational scientific thought behind it, that's your problem.

"I Want What I Want" is an old British sex change film. If you don't understand what the concepts of freedom and equality are and what they mean, go back to school and find out.

It's impossible to have a rational argument or discussion with someone who creates facts first and not the other way around.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 05:46PM by anybody.

I'd like to respond


anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fundamental principle of democracy is equality
> before the law. All sentient beings have the same
> rights.

Please define which rights and what sentience means to you.

> This is stated in the American Declaration
> of Independence, the French Declaration of The
> Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the U.N.
> Declaration of Human Rights.

Does it name all the rights? You know that Madison was against the Bill of rights because he felt that enumerating certain rights would lead most to believe that an unenumerated right didn't exist. In the end he relented because certain rights are greater than others.

> In the eighteenth
> century, it was thought that blacks were not fully
> human and women were not capable of rational
> thought.

And yet you hold the same people responsible for the laws that made this second class as a beacon of light in how we should write laws today.

> Only irrational racists and misogynists
> hold such views today.

Were the people that held those views 200 years ago irrational racists and misogynists? Because they also wrote the Constitution.

> The American story is a
> story of trying to live up to her ideals and the
> messy process of achieving the fullness of freedom
> for all.

Nope, freedom for those who fell under the social contract in this specific area of the world. It was never about helping individuals attain greatness is was about winning the right to govern themselves.

>
> In a compromise no one gets everything they want
> -- only some of what they want. The examples I
> gave are well known and need no further
> explanation.

I'm not sure I follow.

>
> The same goes for anthropogenic climate change.
> You can look up the data as easily as I can. If
> you choose to dismiss it and the rational
> scientific thought behind it, that's your
> problem.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I don't think there are many who say that humans are not creating greenhouse gasses that are then effecting the environment. The question is how to measure the overall effect vs an extraordinarily complex set of preexisting conditions.

>
> "I Want What I Want" is an old British sex change
> film. If you don't understand what the concepts
> of freedom and equality are and what they mean, go
> back to school and find out.

I'm not really certain that you understand the concept of freedom and equality. As demonstrated by some of your surprising comments and context. I really think that John Locke and Thomas Payne should be required in history class instead of philosophy.

>
> It's impossible to have a rational argument or
> discussion with someone who creates facts first
> and not the other way around.

This is a rather personal comment that I will leave to you and TMSH.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fundamental principle of democracy is equality
> before the law. All sentient beings have the same
> rights. This is stated in the American Declaration
> of Independence, the French Declaration of The
> Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the U.N.
> Declaration of Human Rights.

A few more questions:
1. Do you believe the Declaration of Independence has the force of law? If so, who taught this to you?
2. Can you point to the specific passage where the DOI claims "all sentient beings have the same rights?" My horse is especially interested in learning more about this.


> In the eighteenth
> century, it was thought that blacks were not fully
> human and women were not capable of rational
> thought. Only irrational racists and misogynists
> hold such views today.

Please provide me with a list of the religious groups or individuals you have encountered who currently believe that blacks are not fully human or that women are incapable of rational thought. Since you seem to just make stuff up, please be sure to provide specific examples and links to support your claims.

> The American story is a
> story of trying to live up to her ideals and the
> messy process of achieving the fullness of freedom
> for all.
>
> In a compromise no one gets everything they want
> -- only some of what they want. The examples I
> gave are well known and need no further
> explanation.
>
> The same goes for anthropogenic climate change.
> You can look up the data as easily as I can. If
> you choose to dismiss it and the rational
> scientific thought behind it, that's your
> problem.

Based upon your understanding of the issue (remember, you brought it up, not me, and I'm asking for the 3rd time) please tell me the percentage of climate change that is due to human activity compared to that which is naturally occurring due to our current interglacial period. If you can't answer this very basic question, perhaps you should just bear us your testimony that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's true?


> If you don't understand what the concepts
> of freedom and equality are and what they mean, go
> back to school and find out.
>

Ah, the last resort for the ignorant ideologue: "If you can't understand my completely vacuous claims that I'm unable intelligently defend, then you're just too stupid!"


> It's impossible to have a rational argument or
> discussion with someone who creates facts first
> and not the other way around.

Finally, a point of complete agreement.

are issues the constitution left to the individual states to decide.

some states will decide one way and others another.

the left can't stand that - so they read into the constitution rights that don't exist, and force their will on everyone no matter what state they live in.

-- if America is to be a unified nation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 02:34PM by anybody.

differ.

otherwise - we aren't a republic.

what you want it appears is a grand and centralized authority.

How can the concept of women and men being equal before the law be authoritarian or socialist?

America has a long history of racism. Should racial discrimination be legal? Why would you want to return to that? Is that freedom from government?


If LGBT people have the same rights as you do how are you harmed? Will you turn to stone if you see a gay person or be cursed if a trans person crosses your path?

before the law. marriage isn't an area given to the Federal Government by the Constitution to oversee.

It is supposed to be left to the states, per the 10th amendment.

If it is then we should just turn over everything to the feds and have equal housing, equal food, equal wealth, equal cars etc. etc. all guaranteed by the federal government.

The Courts have made it into a right however. Now everything will become a "right".

be equally applied to everyone, are you fine with applying the same tax rates to everyone?

Nah, people should just allow other people to be who they are! It really is THAT simple!!!

Except that, as "anybody" pointed out, our society is becoming more and more controlled by people who are convinced that allowing "other people to be who they are" is to follow the dictates of Satan himself.

I only believe that is true in part, Yes there are some nutters out there who believe that, but I think most do not. Look at all the non-Muslim people who are coming together to fight deportations.

Remember that Kim Davis who wouldn't sigh marriage certs for same sex couples in Kentucky, couple got their licence!! She was barred from interfering and basically told to do her job!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 06:09AM by seamaiden.

People who don't like what other people believe can always stay in their safe spaces.

Oooo, a safe space joke! Original!

Hey man, I just go to my happy place.

States rights or wrongs, I suppose.I do like the question though--a choice between religion and freedom. Ha ha...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 12:12AM by donbagley.

You mean like slave states and free states ?

I agree.

Wouldn't work in practice, of course.

I am a Moderate Independent. I don't fit into categories too well. I don't want anyone's religion crammed down my throat, and I also don't want anyone's politics crammed down my throat. Could we have a politically correct zone? I am so tired of political correctness. Also, there should be a separate Mormon zone--to protect the other religious people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 02:48AM by brigidbarnes.

How do you define political correctness? What is an example?

<<I've never known a time in which religious extremists weren't
<<trying to impose their will on the whole of America.

I would say that religious fanatics have always been hard at work. Remember back to the 1930's the KKK was very strong, all about white christian values, keeping white women from getting in with black men, which is a constant temptation. They were trying to do some good which was admirable, but ended up doing a lot of bad at the same time (lynchings, and fear).

If we partitioned off America what might that look like? The heartland as it is (conservative), and (liberal) S. California splitting off? Where the Golden State can bask in their own craziness, of everyone getting everything. Opening all their borders, bankrupting all their local governments by all the strange people demanding free stuff. I don't think the "free zone" would last too long. (but that's just my opinion)

America needs strict laws based on religion, so that the owners of the nation (the wealthy 1%) can preserve it for future generations, otherwise it will be lost.

As willing as I would be to move to the "hate-free" zone, I fear that I would still find angst. Sure, I could view those stuck in the "free-to-hate" zone as poor saps, not my problem and so on, but separating us would not stop their desire to rule the planet. What would we do? Ban missionaries? Let them throw gay teens from roofs in a neighboring State, or, sent to be "cured?" Nor would a border stop anti-science ecological pollution, waste or cruelty. We would know the elephants to be chained by the ankles in their ark, so to speak. We would breathe their air and drink their water.

Separating us would not ease my pain, like sweeping dirt under the rug does not clean the floor.

No. Our "battle" is a noble one, and fighting (arguing) against those who would impose their wills onto others (exclude, prohibit, inhibit, ban, bar, pollute freely) requires that we stay in the thick of it. It's an evolutionary requirement, a duty to civilization.

And before it's argued that those in the "hate-free" zone likewise wish to "force" their wills onto others - don't bother. Anyone who would argue that [my "allowing" a person to live as they will, doing no harm to others], is equivalent to [my demanding that others abide by my version of "moral" behavior], does not grasp basic math (or science). "A" does not equal "B" in this case. My wish to prevent others from sh#$*ing upstream of where I drink is not their "freedoms" being inhibited.

Where we equal each other, we includers and excluders, is that we seem equally capable of destesting the other.

But if the includers exclude the excluders, then they are no longer includers, and must join the excluders, and we are all one again!

Slow clap.

This is way up the list of the strangest threads I have ever read on this forum. And this forum has had quite a few strange threads.

No need for partitions. Just force all children of religious families into boarding schools where they will be taught to be ashamed of their parents and the superstitious and foolish beliefs and rituals of their ancestry. That ought to get everyone on board with the modern world. Also burn the churches, forbid the religious from practicing their ceremonies, dig up their graveyards and send the skulls to collectors who study how the shape is indicative of stupidity, etc. Yep. That ought to solve everything.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Seriously. I don't try to convert others to atheism. The fundie Christian faction in the U.S. needs everyone to be Christian.

It happened to American Indians in an attempt to strip their religion from them and force them into Christianity. My wife was the first of her family not forced to go to a boarding school. Whiny Christians today who try to impose their version of morality onto everyone else would sure pitch a bitch if the same that happened to American Indians was done to them.

I like being part of this large, diverse, messy, human society. It makes life interesting and helps me learn. I'm not afraid of the crazy, stupid, or just plain ignorant. I like being part of the mess.

As an agnostic I find theism only mildly annoying, like misogynistic music or patchouli incense. And my wife, whom I love dearly, is TBM. Besides, I believe in integration, not segregation. So, no.

Although I'm still an American citizen, I stopped living there over three years ago and I rarely visit. I hope not to return. So I should recuse myself from the discussion. I'll let the rest of you fight it out. It's your country now, not mine.

One thing the OP may be too young to have experienced are the "swings" in American politics and religious fervor. They don't last. Either way.

Johnson, for example, courted and counted on the support of the black churches to push through civil rights legislation. He was a "Texas christian," through and through. That all went away under Nixon and Ford.
Reagan was swept into office (and got a conservative legislature along for the ride) on a wave of conservative/christian "moral majority" upswing. There were (and rightly so) concerns about theocracy and undue influence of religion during his two terms.

Then his party was defeated, Clinton came in (and got a liberal legislature along for the ride), and things swung the other way for 8 years.
Then "W", and things swung back conservative/christian.
Then Obama, and things swung back the other way.

This too shall pass. The thing about the US is that it's far too diverse for any one leader to be able to please everyone. Or usually even a majority for very long. One group gets swept in, they don't please everyone (or even their own "base" usually), and they get swept out and the other side gets a chance. That cycle has repeated throughout our history.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to attempts to get around the constitution, or impose theocracy (even small jabs at it) -- we should, and we should loudly and consistently criticize and publicize such things. That's part of what helps swing the pendulum the other way.

But...this too shall pass.

Work to make things *better* for the next round -- not to give up and declare defeat.

very true, about the swinging, I'm thinking of the last 8 years, there was so much swing to the left, that history may very well compare it to the troubled 60s. What with historic rates of national dept, lgbtq rights, transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, mandatory health care, sky rocketing costs, black lives matter, expanding government bureaucracies, welfare, stagnant wages. It makes me wonder how the conservatives will be able to curb all this change. I think the left is winning over the long haul?

It is.

I think we already have that. Free zone is USA and religious zones are Canada and Mexico.

This is how I think America should be partitioned:

Religious zones:
Inside a church.
Inside a home.
Inside your head.

Free Zones:
Everywhere else.

I think we can all agree that the best way to do this is to follow George Orwell's brilliant blue print on how to help everyone have the same goals.

No need to partition or segregate, we need to reeducate.

I don't know about dividing over religion. However, it is becoming painfully clear that society cannot continue to function with people suffering from the mental illness known as "progressivism" having any power. The massive backlash we've seen in recent years to said delusion is indicator that a lot of people are starting to get that.

How do you define progressivism and can you give concrete examples of what you see as its problems?

There are web sites, books and articles galore everywhere for those who haven't taken an interest until now. It isn't necessary for anyone to lay it out off the top of their head on RfM which doesn't allow political discussion beyond limited conversations about religion.

Rather than insisting that everyone else comply with your complaint, why don't you just make moves to isolate yourself from all these horrible people that trouble you so? Remember it's you who is complaining about them, not the reverse. All those horrible religionists seem to tolerate you just fine. They may voice disagreement with some of your opinions, but unlike you, they're not requesting that you be sent away to a walled off internment camp.

There are many places in America where land is still relatively cheap, so why not do as many visionaries have done before you? Buy land, set up a compound, and seek out those who agree with you.

I hear there may also be some land you can buy cheap in Guyana.

and time is on my side.

The younger people under forty don't really care as much about religion, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia as the 45+ age group does.

By 2040 America will be majority non-white and it won't be so easy to be an openly racist, misogynistic, Christofascist, homophobic xenophobe as it is now.

No one will argue about climate change because the reality of it will be there for all to see.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 06:41PM by anybody.

I don't know what the answer is but I don't like the state I live in but I sure wouldn't want to move to Utah or California no offense to anybody that loves those states

Any of you ever heard of Thomas Spencer Monson? He is like the most totally awesome human on the planet right now with a heart surgeon, angry face bald dude (but he has the Spirit so he is totally awesome), and 12 other super righteous men having all the same super powers as Monson. Well what makes these 15 magnificent men so awesome is that they are holy prophets (which means they can prophecy of future events so we're not caught flat-footed), seers (with huge gifts of translating languages & the other things that seers do), and revelators who reveals totally awesome things.

But Monson is like totally super awesome over all these super awesome men because only he can exercise all these super awesome keys. The message is clear - we either assimilate ourselves to what Monson wants so we get heaven; or we're damned. And since we don't want to be damned then we got to follow Monson.

So how do we need to think? Like Monson, period. And don't forget that when the Prophet speaks that the debate is over. This means we don't need to have any unique thoughts of our own but have our mind completely focused on thinking like Monson. This sure helps people see how open-minded the Church is about things and how much free agency the people do really enjoy.

I say these things humbly in the name of Jesus Christ and all the sacred ancient records that the Lord hath wrought upon us in these latter-days. For example, if you can gain a testimony that Joseph Smith told the truth about the Kinderhook Plates then you will know what I write here is the truth. Here is a link to BYU's website where you can find the sacred reference in the History of the Church.

"I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." (see https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-5-chapter-19)