DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Buttigieg campaign roasted for adding applause to CNN town hall clips

Ok. Who has tried to force their religious beliefs into public policy? And on what issue?

You do realize that Mayor Pete isn't allowed to adopt from most Christian adoption agencies because he is gay. right? Yet those adoption agencies receive tax dollars.

Even though they are businesses that serve the public, not restricted to any person of religion or denomination, they can discriminate against gay people because they see it as a sin. I'm referring to the bakery debacle.

Now i know you're going to claim religious freedom. But this is where I feel people use religion to discriminate against people who have different belief system as themselves.

Look into Religious Freedom Day and Christian Heritage Week.

Do you know what public policy means? None of this has anything to do with religion inserted into public policy

You're lost.

How is the policy of a private organization the same as injecting religion into public policy?

Are you saying that Historically and currently everyone who held a traditional view of marriage did so because of religion?

So says the guy who denies the Constitutional right to have a theological mandate as well as a constitutional one. And the right to pursue both, consistently, without compromising either one

Which BY LAW is a persons right

They take taxpayer money. If you receive tax money it forces taxpayers to be subsidizing religious beliefs. It's not that complicated.

Define "traditional view of marriage" and exactly whose tradition? You will probably answer your own question.

My tax money subsidized atheism and naturalism as taught in public schools. It works both ways

So your saying that evolution can not be a part of creation? That God can not create creatures that can evolve depending on a changing environment? It seems you consider evolution as atheism.

That view of marriage which until very recently was universally considered the cultural norm. Sure Greeks and Romans had same sex marriages, but one man one woman has largely been the cultural norm, even in ancient and primitive cultures

And the fact that same sex cannot reproduce, seems to indicate that if there is a blind watchmaker as atheists claim, for some reason that did not favor same sex marriage.

Slavery was at one time considered the cultural norm as well.

Google Ontological Naturalism. It is the denial of all supernaturalist

Schools teach an ontological naturalism. They teach things like, we know abiogenesis occurred, because life exists. Literally quoted from a public school textbook Ontological naturalism

Apples and oranges.

Marriage is not slavery

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

I answered you just didn’t like the answer

The slavery you are thinking of is much different than ancient slavery. Ancient slavery was often in ancient times a way to escape starvation and death. From an evolutionary standpoint, that would mean surviving instead of dying

The abomination of slavery of the last few centuries is different in purpose and nature

I take it you're not married....

:-p

There’s a lot of women around the world who beg to differ bro. You can’t be posting all this Christ stuff and not acknowledge how a lot of women are still verbally, emotionally, and physically abused in relationships, especially in some arranged marriages whose principles are rooted in religion.

It still happens far too often right here in America.

No it’s not. What a pathetic stance, and point of view.

Arranged marriage is cultural, not religious.

That is according to culture, not religion. At least, not my religion anyways.

Arranged marriages is both cultural and/or religious. Last time I checked, the early figures in Christianity had a ton of wives, as well.

Enforced marriages and polygamy are not Christian tenets of faith. Sorry to break that to you

I saw your edited post. Lol.

And David was one. There are also a few others with a bunch of wives. Solomon being another, to answer your unedited question.

And not tenets of faith? According to who? You?

You Christians can’t even agree on The interpretation of scriptures and values with each other, so what makes you think the rhetoric will work with me?

What you’re saying compared to what we see around the world ain’t adding up bro. Sorry.

Haha, you’re funny

You actually think that because the Bible records something as happening, it endorses it. I suppose you think because David committed adultery, he did so because God told him to. Lololololololol. Yeah, I’m laughing. Did you know God laughs at scorners too? Lololololol

I’ll tell you what. Show one scripture where the Bible specifically commands or endorses polygamy. Not a record of it happening, but an actual endorsement or approval

If you lived in 1,500 BC, and the Assyrians invaded your land, and you had to flee to another country with no money or possessions, and you and your family were on the brink of starvation, and you had to choose between starvation and death or to go into servitude, which would you choose?

Death or slavery?

This is a real scenario that played out probably millions of times

It’s easy for you to judge an ancient culture when you have all kinds of protections and safety nets they didn’t have

Now this doesn’t excuse racial slavery, which is a different matter altogether

I’m going to make a new thread called sundries, and if you all want to continue you can go there to get this thread on track. Or if you dont want to, great. I will be replying to people there if they want to continue.

If you guys want to keep arguing with me, or talk about anything in the realm of politics or religion, there’s a thread in everything else called open forum on antythingbregarding politics oecreligionSwing by...or not. Either way

what? i didnt understand any of that rambling.

New thread on “Anything Else” called open forum on any topic, politics or religion. I opened a new thread so either you guys could stop or I could answer there to take it away from this forum. Either way, it’s up to you

Well my answer would have to be, "Why Bernie Why?"

Remember how Bernie's Storm Troopers attacked and beat Trump supporters in 2016?

They are still at it I see...

The politically influential Culinary Union in Nevada released a statement on Wednesday claiming that its members have been “viciously attacked” by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. after the union publically warned its members against backing a candidate in the state’s Democratic caucus who supports “Medicare-for-All.”

The union’s statement comes amid reports of harassment of union members over the phone and on social media by alleged Sanders’ supporters less than a day after the union released a flyer claiming that Sanders wants to “end culinary healthcare.”

“It’s disappointing that Senator Sanders’ supporters have viciously attacked the Culinary Union and working families in Nevada simply because our union has provided facts on what certain healthcare proposals might do to take away the system of care we have built over 8 decades,” Geoconda Argüello-Kline, the secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union Local 226, said in her statement.

Sanders Brownshirt Brigade. Oh nice.

Jc

Rush Limbaugh: ‘Mr. Man’ Trump Will ‘Have Fun’ With ‘Gay Guy’ Buttigieg Kissing His Husband

https://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-mr-man-trump-194910689.html

Days after being awarded the Medal of Freedom during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, right-wing talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh wondered aloud about how, in a general election face-off, “Mr. Man, Donald Trump” would “have fun” with Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s sexuality.
Limbaugh, who recently announced that he’s been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, was back on the air Wednesday and weighed in on Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary results.
In a segment first flagged by Media Matters, Limbaugh said the Democratic establishment is faced with some “hard cold truths” about the state of the race over the fact that democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the frontrunner, followed closely by Buttigieg, which Limbaugh pronounced as “Booty-gieg.”
“So you’re faced with dyed-in-the-wool socialist who’s not even a Democrat,” the conservative talker declared. “A gay guy, 37 years old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages. Can you see Trump have fun with that?”
Alec Baldwin and ‘The View’ Clash With Meghan McCain Over Rush Limbaugh Honor
He went on to say that the “grand poobahs” of the party are probably thinking that they can’t win with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)—who produced a strong third-place finish in New Hampshire—stating that they believe Trump will “wipe the floor with her.” He further asserted that they couldn’t allow Trump to beat two Democratic women in a row in the general election.
“They’re sitting there and they’re looking at Mayor Pete, 37-year-old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage,” continued Limbaugh, who has previously declared that heterosexuals are “under assault.”
“And they’re saying, ‘OK, how’s this going to look, 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s going to happen there?’”
“And they got to be looking at that, and they’ve got to be saying, that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness, and despite all the great ground that's been covered, America's still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president,’ he added. “They have to be saying this, don’t they?!”
Limbaugh concluded his tirade by saying that some Democrats may “think that is the ticket” and that they need to get a “gay guy kissing his husband on stage” to “ram it down Trump’s throat.”
“Really,” he laughed. “Having fun envisioning that.”

________

When rush goes, I hope Satan takes that metal and shoves it up his ass.

No.

This just goes to show. The GOP’ers are very uncomfortable with Pete as a front runner. A young honorable guy with public service experience and a gay veteran, their worse nightmare.

You really have nothing bro.

Post 1731369. Says all that need be said

Oh, and at the end of the day and the beginning of the day, people who conflate another persons theological and their constitutional mandate are really not very good at thinking.

But most of you don’t even know what that means, lol.

Yawn.

I bet Pete doesn’t conflate other people’s theological and constitutional mandates. But I still won’t vote for him due to his policies.

Some might not. You sound like a couple posters that stick to the 'Smack Shack' area of the forum.

Sorrow you think constitutional principles are smack.

The constitution allows one to have a theological mandate and a constitutional mandate. And it is possible to fulfill both without conflict. Politicians do not lose the freedom of religion when they get elected. But they must adhere to constitution The Bible is perfectly compatible to adhering to Constitution. The

It’s a leftist grab for power to try to exclude people with a theological mandate that DOES NOT CONFLICT with their political and constitutional mandate.

But only leftist religious people like Pete are welcomed in politics by Libs. Double standards

If you don’t think Pete’s religious beliefs shape his worldview, you’re probably wrong. Religion always shapes worldview and worldview shapes your views and policies

As long as your policies don’t violate the constitution, your religion will not violate anything. For example, my faith says that all men are created equal. That is a religious statement. Do you know where to find those words? In the declaration of independance, signed by the proponents of seperation of church and state. Sounds like your definition of that statement is faulty


If you guys thought through your arguments, this would be obvious to you. But your bias prevents you from seeing clearly