The President that will nominate a new justice and makes an argument that the idea of a god and superstition must be protected.

https://youtu.be/u5iue1zOJu0?t=3872

I see it all the time, how judges and public officials think they can force members, citizens and officials into compelled speech by forcing prayers and tryinf to force people to adhere to religious precepts and how the line that SHOULD separate church and states is always at risk (and in a lot of cases already overlooked) by those in government that don't understand this is NOT a theocracy where you can force people to entertain your magical sky daddy. And new nominations will follow that perspective, the perspective that people should be forced to believe in the idea of a god.

Law is as good as the people who interpret and enforce it.

The Left has done nothing but prop up the Right. If the Left rises, so does the Right, and if the Right rises, so does the Left, and this Left has allowed a lot of people to speak on their behalf who do nothing but insert purity tests and think they can cancel anyone (which the Right has done and continues to do as well) who doesn't agree with their most extreme stances, instead of bringing more people into their side.

I don't have to defend the policies any state took regarding church attendance. Those who prohibited church attendance but took no measures, not even made any utterance of condemnation towards protesters and rioters and how they disobeyed the quarantine have no credibility in my eyes. I can only tell church goers to not follow the irresponsible example of protesters and rioters and vice versa.

If you ask me, just like the rest of daily life affairs that we have to continue doing in spite of the pandemic, churches should be allowed to receive believers and churches should make the adjustments and take the precautions necessary to minimize the chances of the coronavirus spread. And if any church leader decides to approach communion in a different way that doesn't include attendance, like long distance prayer or whatever, that church leader is being very responsible. They say their magical sky daddy can do everything and hears everything so they can pray anywhere, unless the previous claim is false and their god has a local limitation from where he can listen to prayers.

But that is not how things go with churches. They don't give a fuck about coronavirus and protective measures (with god on your side who against you?) and it is just brilliant to see how once again the idea of a god fails miserably to produce responsible behavior within a society.

Or maybe you don’t understand what you are arguing against?  The US is a republic that elects it’s representatives democratically.  A direct democracy would not have any representatives and people would vote on the issues directly.  I haven’t seen anybody advocate or bring up a direct democracy except you.

The abolishment of the electoral college would not change us to a democracy.  We would still have elected officials.  The presidency is the only elected position that has this system in place... changing it to match how every other official is elected would still be a republic system....

Actually in Europe anything resembling the electoral college would disqualify you from being a democracy. It's against the principle of a direct vote. The principle of the direct vote is NOT the same as a direct democracy as it only pertains to the voting of officials and not the voting on issues and laws.

And that's only one of many things that invalidates the US as a democracy. So yes, you are right, the removal of the electoral college would not make you a democracy. For that many other things would have to happen as well.

I personally think that democracy should be measured by how much influence the population in general has on public matters rather than whether or not majority rule exists. The U.S isn't a democracy because the people don't have any influence on public policy, not merely because the Head of State isn't voted on by a majority national vote. 

Economic elites and special interest groups, on the other-hand, do influence public policy. 

A more democratic system implies that public matters are managed by each and every person. 

The anarchist and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon categorized "ideal" or "a priori" forms of government as below, and suggested that "empirical" or "defacto" governments (aristocracy, ocholocracy, etc) were a sort of mixture of these a priori forms that exist in the real world as different people pursue different ideals. Historically the dominant "a priori" form of the U.S was democracy, "rule of all by each" even if the de-facto form was a plutocratic kritarchy. The only difference now is that large swaths of the population have discarded the pretense of democracy, which is a state of affairs that hasn't existed in the U.S since the first party system ended with the collapse of the explicitly anti-democratic Federalist Party, which by the way is the group that founded all of the un-democratic institutions of the U.S (senate distribution, electoral college, absolute judicial review by the supreme court, etc.) Even slave holding confederate states pretended to value democracy as they suppressed pro-unionist majorities. 

From P.J Proudhon's The Federative Principle and The Need To Reconstitute the Party of Revolution

Regime of authority

• • A) Government of all by one -- monarchy or patriarchy;
  • a) Government of all by all -- panarchy or communism.

The essential feature of this regime, in both its varieties, is the non-division of power.

Regime of liberty

• • B) Government of all by each -- democracy;
  • b) Government of each by each -- an-archy or self-government.

The essential feature of this regime, in both its varieties, is the division of power.

The Reps likely want to change the narrative and control it, which they will be able to for the most part. The MSM will focus on this. They want another Kav level situation, except this time with a woman. If the Dems pull a Kav or anything like it with a woman it'll look really, really bad on them. If the Dems stay quiet and let it happen, it'll piss off a bunch of their voters. For the Reps it's a win win as long as they can push it through. It could hurt some Reps in the election, but there seems to be a general agreement that potentially losing the Senate or even Presidential power would be worth it.

California does represent 1/9 of the government. In the US House of Representatives. Senators are sent to the Senate to represent the interests of the states. All states are equal in the eyes of the Constitution. Hence, 2 senators per state. State populations are not equal in the eyes of the state. Hence, the US House.

I hope people here realize the importance of the ACA case they're hearing after the election. If it goes down, pre-existing condition coverage disappears. And covid is leaving thousands of survivors with lung damage and other problems for life. All I ask is, think of the consequences of who gets confirmed. It's not a game.

Don't most Europe countries have a prime minster that is indirectly elected by Parliament/congress?  I much rather have the electoral college system then having my congress man dictate who get my indirect vote for president.  At least this way I have the option to vote for a congress man from one party and a president from a different party.

So you don't know of instances where the US government completely disrespects the separation of church and state and just looks away from violations?

Well, let me take you out of your bubble then:

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/25/another-church-has-violated-the-johnson-amendment-when-will-the-irs-act-on-it/

The court always having to intervene in fragrant disrespect on the separation of church and state and the rights of nonbelievers in public institutions:

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/15/court-order-bans-tn-school-district-from-constantly-pushing-christianity-on-kids/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/07/26/atheist-firefighters-lawsuit-citing-hostile-workplace-can-proceed-says-judge/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/05/avoiding-a-lawsuit-nc-school-removes-bible-verses-from-church-donated-planners/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/05/a-pa-district-is-letting-christians-preach-to-kids-at-a-remote-learning-site/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/03/the-most-antiquated-part-of-mississippis-new-flag-may-soon-be-in-god-we-trust/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/09/01/research-shows-how-public-schools-discriminate-against-atheist-muslim-families/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/29/atheists-persuade-puerto-rico-educators-to-end-mandatory-school-prayers/

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/24/why-is-a-man-who-wrote-a-book-on-the-evils-of-islam-still-a-naval-chaplain/

If you think that disrespect shown above towards non-believers, Atheists, people of other faiths is not enough then show me your examples of public officials disrespecting Christians to counter the number of cases I listed above but be warned because I have even more cases, I just got tired of listing them.

The hostility and abuse of power against non-believers and atheists doesn't look like a big deal when you don't give a fuck about it.

> claims that the government is hostile to religion (Christianity)

> ignores flagrant assaults again freedom of speech and thought against Atheists, nonbelievers, people of other faiths by public officials

> offers no examples of any hostilities against religion (Christianity)

> calls my examples "silly" while offering nothing

You have no examples to give, not even in the "minor" ballpark of what I've shown, of hostilities towards Christians of any sort and yet you claim Christians are the ones having it hard here.

What is your opinion of the President of the United States using "nonbeliever" as a negative?