Herb, it's all of a piece: conservatives believe the fundamental base of the Constitution requires the existence of a god. While an incredible piece of work, the Constitution is flawed by its implied religious underpinnings. We do know that the founders were largely Deists, who believed that their god left Man to rule himself without divine intervention, but there are gaping holes in the wording that allows religious zealots to interpret it as a religious document. You should hear Mark Levin talk about the Constitution, which he calls the law of the land in one breath and says it is god-given in the next.

Here's a theory-- lower intelligence:
https://www.zmescience.com/science/ps...

I think as long as the fetus is in the mothers womb, its hers to do with as she wants and none of our business. Once it is born, that is another matter completely.

Oh yeah? She probably has more than 7. here's #5. Hey, Max, how did you get so rich?
#7 Is it true that your palatial Manse is paid for, no mortgage needed? #1. Are you accompanied by armed guards?

I wish the leftists would wear "never trump" armbands so I know who they are without actually talking to them or interacting with them

Maxine has no 7th veil, which is actually refreshing !

It was a $5 bet. (A lot of money in the 50's). I wanted that $5 badly. It meant a whole night at The Flame Showbar where all the black performers of the day performed. Great music and almost every black performer who later became famous, performed there. Ah well, I guess I just needed to earn the $ legit.

There is a new religion called "Leon." (Noel backwards) which attempts to meld conservative and liberal ideas together. It should be a new party. Actually the Libertarian Party is somewhat like that,

I used to refer to Obama as an arrogant, petulant brat. Look at his reaction to Snowden, demanding that Putin turn him over. I likes Putin's response to the efffect that he will have to think about it for the next month....

You and mia have it right. Trying to convince the irrational is a frustrating waste of time.
(Hopefully that professor isn't now teaching how global warming is destroying animal habitats and it's all the fault of white men.)

Personally, I kinda like the Seinfeld idea."Festivus for the rest of us."

That's the Jewish attitude.
Except for the children.

Nothing would convince them. its a matter of, "We saw them doing it with our own eyes." versus what a learned professor who has spent his entire life studying animals.

To design a religion is the task of a master, to be sure. It has to promise things which can’t be delivered while you are alive and also severe punishments if you violate its tenets. Things which are enjoyable need to be sinful. Periodic absolution must be possible. There needs to something all powerful that lives in the ether and can’t seen or heard. On and in. The established religions have done a reasonable job of getting followers. I thought once of designing an internet. “Design your own religion” website. Let people create a religion, choose dogma, rewards, punishments, and charge membership fees (to be shared with the designers), hire bishops, conduct webinar services etc.

Let people basically have a portal to pick a religion they think is perfect for them. Let the best religion win !!!! Free market

I would offer that the difference between conservatives and liberals is which religion and its collateral effects.

Most conservatives believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic denoted by respect for ones neighbors, strict laws based on moral principles, and much emphasis placed on the hereafter. Most liberals believe in the accumulation of power and wealth, of tiers of people based on perceived class status, and emphasis placed on the here-and-now.

To conservatives, the Constitution protects the individual and upholds the notion of respect and respect alike while providing for the maximum tolerance of religious practice both in public and private while still allowing for differences between sectarian belief sets. A conservative favors reduced government intervention both because he (or she) believes in maximum allowances for individuals to live - and do business - according to their beliefs and because people given too much power over their fellow men tend towards tyranny. Conservatives hold very closely to the original statement in the Declaration of Independence (which the Constitution was created to protect) that "all men are created equal" - not in class structures or castes.

To liberals (ie progressives), the Constitution is anathema because it obstructs the power-hungry through barriers in the form of voting, limited powers, accountability, checks and balances, and so forth. Progressives at every turn seek to create social classes based on some status or identity so as to fragment society and reduce effective opposition to their policies. What is more, progressives want to promote the notion of social classes as an excuse to apply the laws differently based on social status. This furthers their aims of acquiring power and money by allowing them to prosecute their opponents for the very same acts they themselves are absolved of. Hypocrisy is the progressive's daily staple.

Conservatives are universalists, believing in a single set of laws that apply equally and unequivocably to all - laws which are immutable and eternal. Liberals/progressives believe quite simply in "might makes right" - that laws and their application are determined and adjudicated by those in power.

Well said. As a Christian I don't push my beliefs on others even though most Churches have a "Missionary" leaning. I firmly believe that I should live my life according to my Christian faith and allow others to believe as they choose. If asked I will happily explain my beliefs but I never initiate the conversation, not even with my own children.

oh boy....rule #1...you can't argue with a crazy person or persons....

Religion tends to give people hope and brings them together. It has its dark side, as well, but there are a great number of "good" Christians out there and I respect their beliefs, even if I don't follow it, myself.

On the other hand, I have seen a number of Atheist groups sue municipalities over their preferential treatment of Christian organizations. I've seen governments sue Christians over the practice of their beliefs, even when nobody is physically or financially harmed by those beliefs. Why is it, then, that so many continue to blast Christians, yet let non-Christians off with a free pass?

If I had treated my Christian wife that way...our nearly 40 years of happy married life would've ended decades ago. I don't need any more proof than that to allow a person to practice his or her own belief, so long as I'm not personally harmed by it.

Ah, the Facebook "proof" vs the biased professional liar who never held a real job "proof".
Anyone for a nocturnal outing to the zoo with an infra-red camera? Naw, too time consuming. Maybe fund a poll of area possums?
;^)

As a former resident of San Diego, I can attest that they have managed to pretty much wipe out the middle class. Way too expensive to live there without working 2 or 3 jobs. As a result, you have the wealthy and the poor. The strange situation of the wealthy working their asses off and the "poor" not working at all

Religion had its time and did its job. People of two thousand or three thousand years ago couldn't be taught rationality because They attributed their successes or failures to a greater power because they were taught to not have faith in themselves. Moses was a real smart cookie. He wasn't lost in the desert. He was fighting different villages and taking over the people and building a great army. When he won a battle, the first thing he'd do is destroy their idols showing his God to be superior, but if he lost a battle when the winners tried to destroy his God, HA! No soap, his god was invisible.

People with a dislike of abortion includes some moral atheists as well. The cavalier destruction of human life carries over into society, making it more cruel and vicious. Most people in our society have expressed favoring abortion when the quality of the baby's life may be agonizing, or when the mother's life may be truly endangered, or in the case of rape or incest. There's moral balance to that view, making rational but disheartening decisions, and people with less religious fervor can be found who share it.

Painting people with the most extreme views as representative of all is unjust. Conservatives have a variety of concepts. There are those who fit the picture of rabid moralists, to whom the idea of compromise is obscene. Then there are the fiscal conservatives, who favor a free market and light government hand, sharing Rand's view that capitalism can be the most moral agent in society. Then there are the constitutionalists, some of whom treat the Constitution as holy scripture, while others recognize there is a small degree of interpretation to be allowed.

New-fashioned liberals likewise have a spectrum of views. Conservative Democrats (an admittedly hard animal to find these days) are essentially Federalists who believe a strong central government is the best keeper of liberty. They are usually strong supporters of the use of military force, in keeping with the Federal government's prime duty of protecting the republic. Moderate Democrats (also hard to find) view a strong Federal hand in social concerns as at least as important as its security duties, but are concerned and recognize the harm in too much regulation or welfare state activities. Democratic Socialist see nothing wrong in a smothering nanny state, and are repelled by any military action except when the life of the republic is truly endangered. Socialists are the liberal fringe element, eager to scrap the Constitution in favor of a supposedly benign totalitarian government controlled by a morally worthy elite.

On one end of the spectrum of political thought is a recognition that humans are imperfect beings that benefit from a moral code and just rule of law, and are capable of great achievements given the freedom to act. At the other end is the belief that only a gifted few are truly capable of great achievements, and the rest of humanity benefits when those few make the rules and enforce righteous behavior.

You only need to look at California to see liberal politics and absence of morality run amok. The state constitution, under the watchful eyes of liberals, has been "updated" 480 times and is thousands of pages long.

So true.

The real issue is that “religion” is designed around a series of principles set forth by the founders and generally unchangeable by the use of reason. Some or none of those principles may align with the facts of reality or not.

Most religions contain some reasonable elements, but for the wrong reasons, and aren’t susceptible to change based on reason

This makes religion a bad thing in principle

Not that objectivism could ever be a religion per se, but what if there was a religion which had no “god” but incorporated a lot of objectivist ideas derived from and in accordance with reality

Might be better than what we have now?