"That wasn't the same post."
> Replies to me with a post saying the government is hostile towards religion
> I react and counter-argue
> says he didn't say the government was hostile
> I quote and link
> says "that wasn't the post" (????)
I don't even know what you pretend to be doing here.
"You brought up theocracy, not me."
Did I say you did? Where? Like I said, my whole point is me worrying about what this country will become if the two sides escalate their hostilities. If a lot of people on the Religious Right could have their way they'd try to force people to be believers if given a chance, compel speech normalizing the idea of a god if they could (they do) and use public spaces for proselytization (they do and I linked precedents).
"Not blind eye. I said I wish he wouldn't. However, Trump doesn't give a crap about religion one way or another and doesn't care about whether a person is a believer or not."
He cares that Evangelicals (his base) cares. He could be thinking about AOC's tits while he signs orders that give power to the church and appointees that will chip away the separation of church and state and it would not matter at all. What matters is what he signs and how he disrespects the separation of church and state.
NOW, before you jump the gun, let me be clear, I haven't said Trump will turn this into a theocracy, I mentioned Trump because you talked about "attacks" against people's faith and I should add philosophy/freedom of thought, etc. and how it mattered when it was about "Catholics" but doesn't matter when it is about nonbelievers and atheist. So far I have seen Trump appoint Right-leaning appointees (which is not illegal lol), try to fuck with the Johnson Amendment, disrespect nonbelievers, etc. which is NOT making this a theocracy but it is indeed a complete disregard for nonbelievers and atheists.
Let me put it this way and simple, anyone can have or not have as much outrage for the confirmation of a "Catholic" like Amy the same way that you have or not have outrage for the words of Trump against unbelievers and atheists.
My position? Don't use people's identities against them: believers, Catholics, Atheists, etc. and just look at the merits and find out if they respect our Constitution: freedom of thought, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, freedom of religion.
"That doesn't make any sense. Of course a non-religious person attacking a religious person for their beliefs is a danger. Flipping the script is not a valid defense."
Is a religious person attacking a non-religious/atheist person for their "beliefs" also "danger"?
That bit you quoted is about me pointing how you feel outrage for the questioning, criticism, "attacks" on Barrett and me asking you if you pretend that you can dismiss something like the attack from Trump towards unbelievers and dismissing that attack as "nothing to worry about" because of what you pretend to sell as an alleged irreligiosity within Trump because then, likewise, people can say the attacks on Barrett are not a big deal because those "attacking" are "hardly" religious either.
My position? I don't care whether someone is religious or not, their attacks are attacks and are independent of subjective appreciation of religious commitment.