100 years ago when white Christians shot, lynched, and beat their Black neighbors and burned their homes and businesses to the ground then stole their land... is that the kind of Christian virtue you're looking for?
Brent, ol' buddy, WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME! Also, you may not be aware of this little codicil in the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3, where it says:
Like it or not, pal, this nation is SECULAR, at least on paper, regardless of what you and your Christian cohorts think. Also, something to keep in mind: not all of the citizens of Tulsa are necessarily Christian! I have little doubt but that there are more than a few Jews, some Muslims, Mormons ... oh, and more than a few ATHEISTS. And it is YOUR JOB to treat all of them EQUALLY.
And all that Christian posing does NOT help matters. 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑎 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒.
To people like Brent, the Establishment Clause means no one denomination can be the Church of the United States and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests just means you aren't allowed to require any particular denomination for the public official.
I don't care what religious beliefs my elected officials have. I just want them to be able to do the job while respecting everyone's religious freedom and hopefully have some alignment with my politics.
As was consplained* to me: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "separation of church and state" [true]. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion [false], it means your free to believe in whatever religion you want [true], but you have to believe in a religion [false].
It's a simple proof- and proof that wannabe theocrats never really think things through:
- You have the freedom to believe in and practice any religion of your choosing; for this to be true, you must have the freedom to 𝘯𝘰𝘵 believe in and 𝘯𝘰𝘵 practice every other.
- You have the freedom to convert from one religion to another; for this to be true, you must also have the freedom to 𝘯𝘰𝘵 believe in and 𝘯𝘰𝘵 practice the religion you started out with.
- Therefore, you have both a general and a specific freedom from religion- 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 religion- because it is a necessary prerequisite to the freedom 𝘰𝘧 religion.
But more complex than some people can handle. For them there's only one religion and lip service about other religions. That's why they resort to christian pseudo-history.
They consider atheism a "religion" in all the worst senses, but not a religion when it comes to anything beneficial, like protections to exist. You know, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, murdered and the police were like, "Oh well. She had it coming." Yeah. christians are assholes.
They likely think that a religion has to have at least one god. I like confunding them by pointing out that I belong to a religion that doesn’t have any deities and/or supernatural beings. (The Satanic Temple.)
Moving the goal post. A regular christian tactic. I think of it like universal expansion, the goal is constantly moving away faster than you can approach it.
Oh, now there is an idea. Ever since Douglas Adam's died, I've been looking for something better than an Improbability Drive.
New from Cozco:
The MagaXtian Impulse Drive. No need to worry about pesky things like mass,energy, or even speed. Just attach one TrumpGoalPost on the pointy end... and OFF YOU GO!
White Nationalists/ 7-Mountains-Dominionists all want a Nation where their tribe rules and anyone who is different is shoved into the nearest closet or ‘that part of town.
Of course. There are more than a couple denominations that are LGBTQ+ friendly. I just wish they were more vocal when jerks like Brent open their mouths.
Since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, religious tests for public office have actually been PROHIBITED. That's because the Founders, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, knew the dangers inherent in having state-sponsored religion. It's why they made sure to give us a SECULAR government, where government protects all religious expressions but promotes none of them.
It would be nice if these white christian nationalists actually read the Constitution instead of just waving it around.
David Barton would like a word… Don’t you know they built the 10 commandments into The Constitution? All you have to do is shut your eyes when you read it.
They want a white christian (State) theocracy. Their ancestors fled a country that had a state religion. They fled because of religious persecution at the hands of the State. An irony so obvious to most of us, but forever lost to them.
That's because most of them don't know their own history, nor the history of this country, dating from before the Revolution. Reminder: It was a state theocracy that killed innocent people in Salem, MA on the bogus charge of witchcraft.
I expect few of them think about the laws the Founders had lived under as subjects of Britain. The king was the leader of the church of England and ruled by "divine right". It was illegal for Catholics to hold high office. Catholic marriages were not recognized by English law ... until 1836! Colonists were forced to swear allegiance to the leader of a religious denomination they may not have adhered to. The original settlers left Europe to escape religious persecution, and yet by the early 1700s they were effectively back to living under a state religion. The disestablishment of religion was fundamental to the Founders' beliefs and intentions for their new republic. We must guard it jealously.
Absolutely, and freedom of conscience was being argued for as early as the 17th century by people like Roger Williams, founder of Providence Colony which became Rhode Island. And why you ask? Because the people who left England to escape religious persecution set up their own theocracy that persecuted anyone among them who disagreed. The Founders knew all that history, and that of state religions in Europe, and realized the only way to truly guarantee religious liberty was by recognizing that, in James Madison's words, 'religion and government both exist in greater purity they more they are kept apart.'
Last I heard, mayoral candidates in this country will, if gaining public office, swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend not only their own state's constitution but the US Constitution as well.
No religious test for public office? That's a good thing; a necessary thing. But there SHOULD be some sort of test for prospective office holders and their knowledge/comprehension of both their state constitutions and ESPECIALLY the US Constitution.
there is such a test, it has one and only question 'Can you get elected?'. Sadly,many of the *people* who grade the test with their votes are blithering idiots.
They have this twisted and cherry picked idea of the history of America that makes them believe the opposite. They really do think that an authoritarian theocracy is what the founders intended.
If Jesus were really a supernatural being and could see the things they've done in his name and how the majority of them are intolerant, vengeful bigots who worship money, they should be ashamed. But only assholes make statements like this, like being a straight white Christian man in Oklahoma is some terrible burden placed upon them. All the privilege just weighs them down, so many others to denigrate 24)7.
They want to feel that being a Christian in America is a scary, dangerous thing. Obviously it’s not, but it plays to their persecution syndrome to pretend like it is.
ETA changed “oppression” to “persecution”, because Christians love to feel persecuted and oppressed. It makes their life worthwhile. For them.
Why don't they ever ask each other what constitutes a MAN? Why are they so obsessed with what makes a woman? Is this their way of 'protecting' us? Like we can't handle ourselves? Like my tiny woman brain cannot comprehend life so I need a big strong man who belives in imaginary beings to be my protector? Get over yourselves already. 🙄
A man is the opposite of woman basically to these assholes. Was it FA that had an article a while ago on how this is essentially the way it's defined culturally here as opposed to... maybe Denmark where a man is the opposite of a boy. That's just a quick and dirty summation but it made a lot of sense. If to be masculine you have to consider femininity less than, you are naturally going to end up with the immature and ignorant posturing of men behaving like permanent teenagers. If you are considering masculinity from the perspective that it's a state you grow into that encompasses being a fully developed adult who doesn't have to constantly police themselves for anything feminine, your outcome will be more helpful to society.
This actually makes sense. And this attitude also makes it very very difficult for a mother (me) to raise a 'sensitive' boy in a very rural environment. I would love for men here to hug each other or hold each other when things are too much or even just like look at each other when they speak, show their full humanity. It would be the most beautiful thing.
"Research shows that in Denmark it can be acceptable – even desirable – for men to show a FEMININE side."
Can we stop with the essentialism already ? Why not simply say HUMAN side ? Saying tears are feminine is one of the roots of the problem with toxic masculinity.
Awww. See this is what we need more of, everywhere. I'd rather this than how many shitty beers you can chug or noisy trucks, or mullets and just other stupid SURFACE stuff that =man. It's tiring and I want my daughter to find a man not from here. 😕
"Homelessness is not primarily a housing issue, it's a drug addiction issue; it's a mental health issue."
I take issue with that. I was homeless for 5 years. Not because I was addicted (I'm not addicted and never have been) but because I was laid off from my job. Drugs and mental health issues had nothing to do with my half-decade of homelessness.
IMHO, (and given you have more experience than anyone should, I won't be surprised if you educate me) homelessness is a consequence of several independent issues, including those, but all of which should be addressed as well as housing.
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a physical and social impossibility. Sometimes people need help.
Some people would rather hundreds of thousands suffer than one person get one penny of help they don't need (or in their opinion deserve).
The reason I finally got back on my feet sure wasn't anything to do with VanNorman's imaginary friend. I hit 62 and took early retirement. Social Security be praised.
Unless 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 the ones who need help, of course- then all that bootstrap rhetoric is quickly replaced by the distant sounds of crickets chirping in the night...
Ever since my hysterectomy in February, I have been lost trying to figure out how I should look and act. Should I grow out my beard? I like wearing dresses but I feel like I’m not supposed to anymore. Maybe I should call my Republican elected officials to get instructions on how I should live the rest of my life.
I don't think I could anyway. I stopped shaving anything a decade ago, and you can barely tell, even with my dark hair. The hairs I have are long, but so spread out that they're hardly noticeable. I am lucky that way, I know lots of women who have a lot of hair they wish they didn't just to avoid crap from others.
Though, in middle school (6,7 &8 th grades) I wasn't shaving yet, and I wore a tank top for a spirit day and a couple of boys made fun of my armpit hair. They taunted me for a few years after that over it. It made me self conscious regarding body hair, but I outgrew that in the Army. And now that I'm of an age, I have given out all my fucks and have no more left to give. If it doesn't please me, it doesn't matter to me.
French actress Corinne Masiero was given shit for her unshaved armpits. Her answer ? A sarcastic and firm “Fuck off” who started with “My apologies for being a naked and ugly 57 years old woman”.
Oh, hell, I know about Down's. Worried about that while my first wife was pregnant with my daughter (who came out WONDERFULLY), but had never heard the term, "trisomy" before.
You know, I bet everyone who read this article KNOWS the Constitution prohibits the government from supporting any religion over others. I'll bet they learned it in high school or even a middle school civics class.
So here's this preacher, pretty old from the looks of it, who has no clue what is in the Constitution.
This is what a "church upbringing" gets you, even when you were raised when women and black people were barely considered human beings and they still prayed in schools.
So he's either lying or he's ignorant. Either way, he's not going to make a good mayor.
I'm guessing they read article VI clause 3 the same way they read the 1st amendment. I.e. they read "no religious test" to mean "you can't exclude Christians no matter what their sect...but you can exclude nonChristians" just like they read "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" to mean "you can't establish one Christian sect above the others...but you can establish Christianity over non-Christian religions or atheism."
Although if you dabble in Christian nationalist circles, they're obviously preparing to get rid of "fake" Christians. That means "Catholic" if you're evangelical and "protestant" if you're Catholic.
(the more things change, the more they stay the same).
Well of course. Once you've accomplished the big move from "no test" to "Christians only", it's very easy to make all the smaller moves you need via redefining "Christian" in a stricter and stricter sense. In most of the south, that probably means Protestant; outside of a few places the US has a pretty strong history of anti-Catholic bias, and the whole reason the Mormons ended up in Utah is because they got chased out of every place between there and their original settlement in New York.
This is why American schools absolutely MUST start teaching civics and government again. Hell, my education started in 1956, and I never heard of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution until AFTER I came out as an atheist!
Ther needs to be a national minimum standard for what is taught, including civics and government. If states want additional requirements, good on them. But we need a national standard, like most of the rest of the world.
That part of the Constitution isn't covered much. It wasn't when I was in school. When I told people about it, they called me a liar. Even when I quoted it with a link, they still called me a liar because ... reasons.
Given the fact the U.S. Constitution expressly bans religious tests for holding public office, I don't know what time he's referring to. It also flies in the face of the history of what Christians acting in the name of Christianity have done to their fellow humans. Neither this country, nor the wider world, faces a single problem that has a religious solution.
Some of the states had religious tests for office in colonial pre-Constitution days, but since Oklahoma didn't become a state until 1907, he's not referring to *it*. AFAIK there was never a time when his area of the country had a legally required Christian government.
Although I wouldn't put it past him to be so wholly ignorant of history as to think there was some 18th century British-derived puritanical Christian government there.
Both Georgia and North Carolina required office holders to be Protestant. Maybe he's confusingly thinking the Oklahoma territories were west west west Georgia?
Or maybe Mexico had some formal Catholicism requirement when it owned parts of OK? I don't know. I didn't think they really *had* a structured government over those territories 1550s-1850s, but I'll admit my own history of that area and time is pretty weak.
I am aware such laws existed, but the only reason they were on the books is because no one challenged them in the federal courts where they would have been struck down.
In any case, I would think that Article VI, paragraph 3 ("no religious test") and paragraph 2 ("supreme law of the land") would put the kibosh on any state law.
No, I meant that he's referring to the real, active tests for office which were in existence in these states in the early 1700s.
Is it really any surprise evangelicals go back to this period? Their white supremacist and libertarian bedfellows have been pushing for it for decades. They'd much rather have the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution. Much weaker federal government.
He specifically talked about the revolutionary war, meaning before the country was established and had a government. You know when it was illegal for Catholics to own land.
His type loves the king thing. Handel wrote "King of kings, Lord of lords" not 'President of presidents, Representative of representatives'. It's apparently a Christian desire to have an absolute dictator rule over them (and over everyone else too).
What annoys me the most about this article is I've been listening to sermons about how we need to 'get back to Christianity' or 'have a revival of faith' or 'remember our Christian values' since childhood. This? Nothing new. It's the same song and dance on repeat for probably a few hundred years now.
Political figures use these turns of phrase in an effort to pretend to be part of the Christian 'in' crowd without actually knowing anything about a given group of Christians. By definition, they will have to walk it back later and they know it. It's pure manipulation, and quite bluntly it's well past time even Christians stopped falling for it. Of course, considering the MAGA crowd, there will always be some people who fall for this sort of manipulation, it just seems a disproportionate number of them will be Christian.
If you're still looking for a reason to vote next November, here's the reason you need.
The reason why they're spouting on about "a revival of faith" and the need to "get back to Christianity" is because at some level, THEY KNOW THEY'RE LOSING. More open seats in church, lower attendance, not as much bread in the collection plate, and many of them are panicking because of that. Very few of them understand that the problem is what they see when they look in a mirror: the lack of substance, the inconsistencies of their holy book, and particularly those of their number whose behavior belies their supposed belief.
They are becoming obsolete, and they can't bear the thought of that.
100 years ago when white Christians shot, lynched, and beat their Black neighbors and burned their homes and businesses to the ground then stole their land... is that the kind of Christian virtue you're looking for?
Shh. You weren't supposed to say it 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥.
Obviously.
Before that the even more virtuous owned slaves or defended slavery.
It's very probably his favorite wet dream.
𝑚𝑦 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑦𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑎 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠.
Then, later:
𝑁𝑜, 𝑛𝑜, 𝑛𝑜, 𝑛𝑜. 𝑀𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡’𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡
Brent, ol' buddy, WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME! Also, you may not be aware of this little codicil in the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3, where it says:
... 𝑛𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠.
Like it or not, pal, this nation is SECULAR, at least on paper, regardless of what you and your Christian cohorts think. Also, something to keep in mind: not all of the citizens of Tulsa are necessarily Christian! I have little doubt but that there are more than a few Jews, some Muslims, Mormons ... oh, and more than a few ATHEISTS. And it is YOUR JOB to treat all of them EQUALLY.
And all that Christian posing does NOT help matters. 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑎 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒.
To people like Brent, the Establishment Clause means no one denomination can be the Church of the United States and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests just means you aren't allowed to require any particular denomination for the public official.
I don't care what religious beliefs my elected officials have. I just want them to be able to do the job while respecting everyone's religious freedom and hopefully have some alignment with my politics.
As was consplained* to me: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "separation of church and state" [true]. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion [false], it means your free to believe in whatever religion you want [true], but you have to believe in a religion [false].
*Conservatives tell me things.
It's a simple proof- and proof that wannabe theocrats never really think things through:
- You have the freedom to believe in and practice any religion of your choosing; for this to be true, you must have the freedom to 𝘯𝘰𝘵 believe in and 𝘯𝘰𝘵 practice every other.
- You have the freedom to convert from one religion to another; for this to be true, you must also have the freedom to 𝘯𝘰𝘵 believe in and 𝘯𝘰𝘵 practice the religion you started out with.
- Therefore, you have both a general and a specific freedom from religion- 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 religion- because it is a necessary prerequisite to the freedom 𝘰𝘧 religion.
Absolutely true.
But more complex than some people can handle. For them there's only one religion and lip service about other religions. That's why they resort to christian pseudo-history.
These theocratic traitors believe in everyone under them having freedom FROM choice not freedom of choice.
christianity sees that you have only one choice, to believe or not to believe. To them there are no other choices.
The scary thing is I believe they know that, they just don't want it to be true, so they make their own fantasy about the US constitution.
hmmm. as some xians say that atheism is a religion, I guess we're good.
Also xians: “That doesn’t count!”
They consider atheism a "religion" in all the worst senses, but not a religion when it comes to anything beneficial, like protections to exist. You know, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, murdered and the police were like, "Oh well. She had it coming." Yeah. christians are assholes.
They likely think that a religion has to have at least one god. I like confunding them by pointing out that I belong to a religion that doesn’t have any deities and/or supernatural beings. (The Satanic Temple.)
And when you tell them about Zeus and the Greek pantheon, they’ll change the definition again.
And just keep changing it to avoid losing the argument.
Moving the goal post. A regular christian tactic. I think of it like universal expansion, the goal is constantly moving away faster than you can approach it.
Oh, now there is an idea. Ever since Douglas Adam's died, I've been looking for something better than an Improbability Drive.
New from Cozco:
The MagaXtian Impulse Drive. No need to worry about pesky things like mass,energy, or even speed. Just attach one TrumpGoalPost on the pointy end... and OFF YOU GO!
Then they call atheism a "religion," because if your passionate about something, that's the only thing they require.
If I must believe in a religion, I'm going with Takian Humanist.
I prefer Takei Humanism. He's got a mean wit.
Tak's pretty darned witty, too.
“Remember Koom Valley!”
😁
He doesn't demand that you think of him, only that you think. I'm down with that.
White Nationalists/ 7-Mountains-Dominionists all want a Nation where their tribe rules and anyone who is different is shoved into the nearest closet or ‘that part of town.
A good percentage would be good with those who are different being *under* that part of town.
Where I grew up that is a given.
I think its now Mountain Dew-minionists. But maa changes every day...
And among the christians, some may not share his bigoted and outdated "values".
Precisely. There are, indeed, live-and-let-live Christians out there. The shame is that guys like Brent get all the headlines.
I tend to be okay with the religious institutions and their people who table at local Pride festivals.
Of course. There are more than a couple denominations that are LGBTQ+ friendly. I just wish they were more vocal when jerks like Brent open their mouths.
True, but too many are usually very quiet about their opposition, rarely voicing (overheard) dissent, or "voting" with their feet.
Right on!
Since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, religious tests for public office have actually been PROHIBITED. That's because the Founders, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, knew the dangers inherent in having state-sponsored religion. It's why they made sure to give us a SECULAR government, where government protects all religious expressions but promotes none of them.
It would be nice if these white christian nationalists actually read the Constitution instead of just waving it around.
Next you will want them to read the bible. We can't have that now. /s
Joe, 😂🎯
David Barton would like a word… Don’t you know they built the 10 commandments into The Constitution? All you have to do is shut your eyes when you read it.
They want a white christian (State) theocracy. Their ancestors fled a country that had a state religion. They fled because of religious persecution at the hands of the State. An irony so obvious to most of us, but forever lost to them.
That's because most of them don't know their own history, nor the history of this country, dating from before the Revolution. Reminder: It was a state theocracy that killed innocent people in Salem, MA on the bogus charge of witchcraft.
Yep.
I expect few of them think about the laws the Founders had lived under as subjects of Britain. The king was the leader of the church of England and ruled by "divine right". It was illegal for Catholics to hold high office. Catholic marriages were not recognized by English law ... until 1836! Colonists were forced to swear allegiance to the leader of a religious denomination they may not have adhered to. The original settlers left Europe to escape religious persecution, and yet by the early 1700s they were effectively back to living under a state religion. The disestablishment of religion was fundamental to the Founders' beliefs and intentions for their new republic. We must guard it jealously.
Absolutely, and freedom of conscience was being argued for as early as the 17th century by people like Roger Williams, founder of Providence Colony which became Rhode Island. And why you ask? Because the people who left England to escape religious persecution set up their own theocracy that persecuted anyone among them who disagreed. The Founders knew all that history, and that of state religions in Europe, and realized the only way to truly guarantee religious liberty was by recognizing that, in James Madison's words, 'religion and government both exist in greater purity they more they are kept apart.'
Last I heard, mayoral candidates in this country will, if gaining public office, swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend not only their own state's constitution but the US Constitution as well.
No religious test for public office? That's a good thing; a necessary thing. But there SHOULD be some sort of test for prospective office holders and their knowledge/comprehension of both their state constitutions and ESPECIALLY the US Constitution.
there is such a test, it has one and only question 'Can you get elected?'. Sadly,many of the *people* who grade the test with their votes are blithering idiots.
I seem to recall this thing called the Constitution that says the exact opposite.
Why do these people hate the Constitution? Why do these people hate the Founding Fathers? Why do these people hate America?
I can think of one thing or two they love that most of the Founding Fathers did, like owning slaves.
They just treat the Constitution as inconvenient when it disagrees with their biases.
They have this twisted and cherry picked idea of the history of America that makes them believe the opposite. They really do think that an authoritarian theocracy is what the founders intended.
They have the right to cherry pick since Washington, allegedly, cut a cherry tree 😁
The likelihood of that story being true is about as likely as Jesus taking a stroll on an unfrozen lake.
Yeah, I never believed that story. No kid ever admits to doing something naughty.
That damn liar Mason Parson Weems made it up in his book about Washington.
"Although there were other myths about Washington in Weems’s book, the cherry tree myth became the most popular. Weems had several motives when he wrote The Life of Washington and the cherry tree myth."https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree-myth
I like the "I'm an unashamed follower of Jesus."
This kind of suggests being a follower of Jesus is something some christians are ashamed of.
That's pretty funny!
If Jesus were really a supernatural being and could see the things they've done in his name and how the majority of them are intolerant, vengeful bigots who worship money, they should be ashamed. But only assholes make statements like this, like being a straight white Christian man in Oklahoma is some terrible burden placed upon them. All the privilege just weighs them down, so many others to denigrate 24)7.
It's something a whole lot of them 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be ashamed of, the way the religion's being wielded by their leaders.
They want to feel that being a Christian in America is a scary, dangerous thing. Obviously it’s not, but it plays to their persecution syndrome to pretend like it is.
ETA changed “oppression” to “persecution”, because Christians love to feel persecuted and oppressed. It makes their life worthwhile. For them.
Dedicated follower of fashion.
Why don't they ever ask each other what constitutes a MAN? Why are they so obsessed with what makes a woman? Is this their way of 'protecting' us? Like we can't handle ourselves? Like my tiny woman brain cannot comprehend life so I need a big strong man who belives in imaginary beings to be my protector? Get over yourselves already. 🙄
A man is the opposite of woman basically to these assholes. Was it FA that had an article a while ago on how this is essentially the way it's defined culturally here as opposed to... maybe Denmark where a man is the opposite of a boy. That's just a quick and dirty summation but it made a lot of sense. If to be masculine you have to consider femininity less than, you are naturally going to end up with the immature and ignorant posturing of men behaving like permanent teenagers. If you are considering masculinity from the perspective that it's a state you grow into that encompasses being a fully developed adult who doesn't have to constantly police themselves for anything feminine, your outcome will be more helpful to society.
This actually makes sense. And this attitude also makes it very very difficult for a mother (me) to raise a 'sensitive' boy in a very rural environment. I would love for men here to hug each other or hold each other when things are too much or even just like look at each other when they speak, show their full humanity. It would be the most beautiful thing.
I agree that it's hard in most areas of the US and even moreso rural areas.
Here's an article:
https://theconversation.com/what-americans-can-learn-from-danish-masculinity-221548
"Research shows that in Denmark it can be acceptable – even desirable – for men to show a FEMININE side."
Can we stop with the essentialism already ? Why not simply say HUMAN side ? Saying tears are feminine is one of the roots of the problem with toxic masculinity.
Yeah I'm not a huge fan of this exact extrapolation but it's the first result I found about the study.
Ragnar Lothbrok must be turning over in his grave.
Awww. See this is what we need more of, everywhere. I'd rather this than how many shitty beers you can chug or noisy trucks, or mullets and just other stupid SURFACE stuff that =man. It's tiring and I want my daughter to find a man not from here. 😕
My 13 seems totally uninterested in crushes or anything else like that and I'm hoping she likes girls, to be perfectly honest.
Because they have no idea how to be a real man, just abusive patriarchal tools.
What is a woman?
Someone who cover's their drink when alpha males approach.
If you have to drop something in her drink, are you really an alpha male?
No, but it's not about what is, it's about self-perception, aka self-deception.
Also, an alpha male is someone not developed enough for beta testing.
Alpha males are insecure little boys in a man's body.
Very true. Overgrown boys imagining they're John Wayne (I'm dating myself with that one) - Andrew Tate.
Including John Wayne. Cosplaying a tough man.
He played a hero but wasn't one. Did everything he could to avoid serving in WWII.
I saw an interview where he said John Wayne is a character he plays.
"... an alpha male is someone not developed enough for beta testing."
This is one of the best things I've read in years.
Thanks. It took me a while to develop that one.
An alphole ?
:D
"Homelessness is not primarily a housing issue, it's a drug addiction issue; it's a mental health issue."
I take issue with that. I was homeless for 5 years. Not because I was addicted (I'm not addicted and never have been) but because I was laid off from my job. Drugs and mental health issues had nothing to do with my half-decade of homelessness.
IMHO, (and given you have more experience than anyone should, I won't be surprised if you educate me) homelessness is a consequence of several independent issues, including those, but all of which should be addressed as well as housing.
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a physical and social impossibility. Sometimes people need help.
Some people would rather hundreds of thousands suffer than one person get one penny of help they don't need (or in their opinion deserve).
The reason I finally got back on my feet sure wasn't anything to do with VanNorman's imaginary friend. I hit 62 and took early retirement. Social Security be praised.
Welfare Queer !
PROUD TO BE ONE!!! I worked most of my life to get here.
"Welfare Queer!"
youtu.be/1-syQ2lOCr4
Unless 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 the ones who need help, of course- then all that bootstrap rhetoric is quickly replaced by the distant sounds of crickets chirping in the night...
> "... (I'm not addicted and never have been) "
Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to love.
🤗
Heard that tune in my head and now I have to post this
youtu.be/ad0w59lBfXU
That was mean. And funny.
Can't go wrong with Al.
Ever since my hysterectomy in February, I have been lost trying to figure out how I should look and act. Should I grow out my beard? I like wearing dresses but I feel like I’m not supposed to anymore. Maybe I should call my Republican elected officials to get instructions on how I should live the rest of my life.
I think not.
Trust me on this. Don't let your beard grow, especially in summer. It itches 😁
I don't think I could anyway. I stopped shaving anything a decade ago, and you can barely tell, even with my dark hair. The hairs I have are long, but so spread out that they're hardly noticeable. I am lucky that way, I know lots of women who have a lot of hair they wish they didn't just to avoid crap from others.
Though, in middle school (6,7 &8 th grades) I wasn't shaving yet, and I wore a tank top for a spirit day and a couple of boys made fun of my armpit hair. They taunted me for a few years after that over it. It made me self conscious regarding body hair, but I outgrew that in the Army. And now that I'm of an age, I have given out all my fucks and have no more left to give. If it doesn't please me, it doesn't matter to me.
French actress Corinne Masiero was given shit for her unshaved armpits. Her answer ? A sarcastic and firm “Fuck off” who started with “My apologies for being a naked and ugly 57 years old woman”.
“𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑒 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛, 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 … 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡, 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤, 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡, 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡? 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒,” 𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑. “𝑆𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑠, 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑋 𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠, 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑.”
Nope.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Human genetics and physiology is inconveniently screwy in places, ain't it? 😁
Science makes their head muscle thing hurt…
Yeah. Those two remaining brain cells are getting a WORKOUT. 😝
Two ? You are optimist.
Not counting the various case of trisomy affecting the sexual chromosomes.
Hey, I learned a new word (and concept) today: "trisomy." THANKS!
You never heard of Down syndrome ? It's also called trisomy 21.
Oh, hell, I know about Down's. Worried about that while my first wife was pregnant with my daughter (who came out WONDERFULLY), but had never heard the term, "trisomy" before.
I learned it in biology in 7th or 8th grade (same teacher from 6th to 9th grade, it's hard to remember what I learned in any given year).
Interesting how they cherry pick science when it serves their agenda.
Half-wits hopped up on Jesus Juice.
You know, I bet everyone who read this article KNOWS the Constitution prohibits the government from supporting any religion over others. I'll bet they learned it in high school or even a middle school civics class.
So here's this preacher, pretty old from the looks of it, who has no clue what is in the Constitution.
This is what a "church upbringing" gets you, even when you were raised when women and black people were barely considered human beings and they still prayed in schools.
So he's either lying or he's ignorant. Either way, he's not going to make a good mayor.
I'm guessing they read article VI clause 3 the same way they read the 1st amendment. I.e. they read "no religious test" to mean "you can't exclude Christians no matter what their sect...but you can exclude nonChristians" just like they read "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" to mean "you can't establish one Christian sect above the others...but you can establish Christianity over non-Christian religions or atheism."
Although if you dabble in Christian nationalist circles, they're obviously preparing to get rid of "fake" Christians. That means "Catholic" if you're evangelical and "protestant" if you're Catholic.
(the more things change, the more they stay the same).
Well of course. Once you've accomplished the big move from "no test" to "Christians only", it's very easy to make all the smaller moves you need via redefining "Christian" in a stricter and stricter sense. In most of the south, that probably means Protestant; outside of a few places the US has a pretty strong history of anti-Catholic bias, and the whole reason the Mormons ended up in Utah is because they got chased out of every place between there and their original settlement in New York.
Yeah, everyone hates the Mormons. I've listened to some Mormon live TikToks and when the Christians get on, the fight is on.
Tom Lehrer: National Brotherhood Week
“Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
I look forward to the time when these songs need explanatory footnotes.
Christians like that twist the Constitution after a fashion that Chubby Checker never dreamed of!
This is why American schools absolutely MUST start teaching civics and government again. Hell, my education started in 1956, and I never heard of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution until AFTER I came out as an atheist!
Oklahoma can't even afford to keep their schools open 5 days a week, and with the current political climate there, things are not likely to change.
There are some school districts where I live that are considering a four-day school week, mostly because lack of funds.
It really sucks living in the decline of a civilization.
Ther needs to be a national minimum standard for what is taught, including civics and government. If states want additional requirements, good on them. But we need a national standard, like most of the rest of the world.
History too, we all see the results when farton's kind of textbooks are used.
"So he's either lying or he's ignorant."
Oh come on. You're in America, the land of opportunity. Why can't it be both?
And probably is!!
Your face looks different for some reason. 🤔
That part of the Constitution isn't covered much. It wasn't when I was in school. When I told people about it, they called me a liar. Even when I quoted it with a link, they still called me a liar because ... reasons.
It probably won't surprise you that Christians interpret that completely differently than the rest of us...
Given the fact the U.S. Constitution expressly bans religious tests for holding public office, I don't know what time he's referring to. It also flies in the face of the history of what Christians acting in the name of Christianity have done to their fellow humans. Neither this country, nor the wider world, faces a single problem that has a religious solution.
Some of the states had religious tests for office in colonial pre-Constitution days, but since Oklahoma didn't become a state until 1907, he's not referring to *it*. AFAIK there was never a time when his area of the country had a legally required Christian government.
Although I wouldn't put it past him to be so wholly ignorant of history as to think there was some 18th century British-derived puritanical Christian government there.
+++ If you just make enough noise about your conservatism, you're free to say any stupid, irresponsible thing you want.
Both Georgia and North Carolina required office holders to be Protestant. Maybe he's confusingly thinking the Oklahoma territories were west west west Georgia?
Or maybe Mexico had some formal Catholicism requirement when it owned parts of OK? I don't know. I didn't think they really *had* a structured government over those territories 1550s-1850s, but I'll admit my own history of that area and time is pretty weak.
I am aware such laws existed, but the only reason they were on the books is because no one challenged them in the federal courts where they would have been struck down.
In any case, I would think that Article VI, paragraph 3 ("no religious test") and paragraph 2 ("supreme law of the land") would put the kibosh on any state law.
No, I meant that he's referring to the real, active tests for office which were in existence in these states in the early 1700s.
Is it really any surprise evangelicals go back to this period? Their white supremacist and libertarian bedfellows have been pushing for it for decades. They'd much rather have the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution. Much weaker federal government.
Probably. The Constitution was created because the Artilces of Confederation failed to badly.
No one challenged them because they were scared of being murdered.
Wouldn't surprise me. After all, the Trail of Tears started there and ended in Oklahoma.
He specifically talked about the revolutionary war, meaning before the country was established and had a government. You know when it was illegal for Catholics to own land.
So, he wants a king instead of a president?
He wants to be a dic(k)tator. He's come right out and said it.
Up until now, he only managed to be a dick.
My deepest apologies to penises from around the world.
His type loves the king thing. Handel wrote "King of kings, Lord of lords" not 'President of presidents, Representative of representatives'. It's apparently a Christian desire to have an absolute dictator rule over them (and over everyone else too).
Fun fact, Handel got those particular lyrics from the book of Revelation.
"What civil rights does he believe need to be stripped away from various groups?"
All of them.
"Which Bible does he want injected into public school classrooms?"
The one he was told to buy.
"My point would be that I think people that are informed by Christian values make good public servants"
Once again, DM's maternal grandfather was an Atheist AND a public servant for the country who adopted him. Oops, he was of these dirty immigrants.
“He’s qualified to be a mayor,” Lahmeyer said. “He knows what a woman is.”
Oh ? I don't know, and AFAIK, I was born with XX chromosomes and an uterus.
What annoys me the most about this article is I've been listening to sermons about how we need to 'get back to Christianity' or 'have a revival of faith' or 'remember our Christian values' since childhood. This? Nothing new. It's the same song and dance on repeat for probably a few hundred years now.
Political figures use these turns of phrase in an effort to pretend to be part of the Christian 'in' crowd without actually knowing anything about a given group of Christians. By definition, they will have to walk it back later and they know it. It's pure manipulation, and quite bluntly it's well past time even Christians stopped falling for it. Of course, considering the MAGA crowd, there will always be some people who fall for this sort of manipulation, it just seems a disproportionate number of them will be Christian.
If you're still looking for a reason to vote next November, here's the reason you need.
The reason why they're spouting on about "a revival of faith" and the need to "get back to Christianity" is because at some level, THEY KNOW THEY'RE LOSING. More open seats in church, lower attendance, not as much bread in the collection plate, and many of them are panicking because of that. Very few of them understand that the problem is what they see when they look in a mirror: the lack of substance, the inconsistencies of their holy book, and particularly those of their number whose behavior belies their supposed belief.
They are becoming obsolete, and they can't bear the thought of that.
They only know they’re losing butts in the seats, but they never ever want to question WHY.
babble believers always start with the answer, no need for questions /s
It is the answers they don't want.
Don't need a _reason_ to vote ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gf3bIKIJy4