Help me, did I miss something, or did President Joe Biden give his National Day of Prayer presentation without ever using the word “God?”

I've looked in the platform of the Democratic Party of Texas and couldn't find the word “God.” So, I reviewed the platform of the Democratic National Committee. The only place I found the word was a statement regarding “God given talents,” not God as the Lord.

Living in the middle of the Bible Belt, it should be easy to find the presence of the Lord. There are over 20 churches in my town, so the Lord should be well represented.

I ask my Democrat Christian friends, who warm the church pews on Sunday mornings, to explain this deletion of God and how they defend it? I ask them if their Democratic Party wishes to replace God or eliminate him from our society?

Donald Pollock

Texas City


Recommended for you

(57) comments

Stuart Crouch

Seriously? Another Texas City light bulb here. Go read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all of the Amendments. Then try and find someone who can explain it to you in terms you might can understand.

You might also query some of your Republican friends, assumably warming the pews of the same said church, if they believe standing in their garage makes them a car. Good luck, sport.

Carlos Ponce

Stuart Couch provides a non-answer He's the GCDN forum's version of a dog chasing his own tail.

Carlos Ponce

And Stuart, none of my Republican friends think standing in a garage makes them a car. But my Liberal Democrat friends they can identify as anything they want - even a car.

Ed Buckner

Well written, Mr. Crouch.

Thomas Carpenter

Carlos Ponce projecting. Paid your bet yet?

Carlos Ponce

Wait and see who's paying whom.[beam]

George Laiacona

Apparently the author of this comment is not up-to-date regarding the First Amendment. Our Founding Fathers were correct when they included the “Separation of Church and State” in our Constitution. Comments like these have been brought foreword for quite some time. Today’s problems include the church trying to influence government by excluding the President from receiving holy communion because the government allows abortions. The God comment is just another way to bypass the First Amendment for personal interests.

Ed Buckner

George Laiacona, you will probably get pushback from the ill-informed who will tell you, correctly, that the *words* "Separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution or amendments. The ideas, repeatedly affirmed by the courts, ARE there even if not the words. For much more on all the things not in the Constitution--and the things that are even when the words aren't, see

Charles Douglas

I, and many others understand the first Amendment enough to know that the LEFT is trying to strip it away from Conservatives who lives here. While many conservatives today are getting doxed, censored, cancelled, dismissed from positions, subscriptions, schools, and fired from jobs for speaking out for what they believe, the LEFT and all of their media, and SWAMP supporters stand silent with nothing to say? They say nothing, because this is apart of their master plan to form a one party rule in this nation in order for socialism to be established and Capitalism to be eradicated!

This is apart of the puzzle they are putting together in order to turn Red States Blue! Other parts of that puzzle are the silent oppression of African-Americans and Hispanics by Open Borders, maintaining Subpar Schools, High Crime Neighborhoods, Menial Job Opportunities, and using Government Subsidies to control their attitudes toward self-responsibility! Defunding & Dismantling the Police is being pushed to enhance high crimed neighborhoods! So It hits a sore spot to hear the LIBERAL Left complain about their First Amendment rights when their party is stepping on other's rights everyday with a political agenda.

The Democrats also are big on the Words Racist & Slave. They championed, and supported Slavery from the beginning,along with Jim Crow, Share-Cropping, and Segregation in America. They made laws and stood on the floors of Congress pushing the miseries of BLACKS & Hispanics in this nation for decades! Dr. MLK got beat-up, knocked down, spat-on cursed out and called the N-Word by Democrats and the KLAN, and their actions were supported by powerful men like Joe China, James Eastland, John Stennis, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, and J. Fulbright! Lyndon Johnson played in that game too, though not as much as the rest! Now Democratic are trying to take over the country on the backs of African-Americans and Hispanics, using low-down deceptions and lying schemes concering slaves, and race.

Wayne D Holt

Speaking of not being in the Constitution: there is not one mention in the Constitution of the Supreme Court, let alone lower courts, being the final arbiters of what is and is not permissible under the founding documents as to the actions of the federal or state governments. That was a little innovation that SC Justice John Marshall thought up, later aided by Justice Joseph Story. They claimed the right of unlimited judicial review of any federal and many state laws that could be construed as interstate in nature and not of the familiar police powers. Treaties also came under their sole purview this way.

So when folks see "the courts" have established the separation of church and state, they should keep in mind one branch of our triune system of government declared itself superior as to its power to interpret the Constitution. They did it based on nothing, out of thin air, and gave such power to justices who are appointed for life. Here's is what the luminary T. Jefferson had to say about this innovation in a private letter to a friend:

"You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

What would Jefferson know about the Constitution? He just wrote the damn thing.

Ed Buckner

Oh my, Wayne, and you were doing so well up to ... Uh, pardon me for slipping into First Grade Teacher mode (a level I never even taught)--let me try again--Mr. Holt, you're correct in many respects but mistaken about Jefferson and the Constitution. TJ was in Paris as the Minister to France (under the Articles of Confederation) and missed the Philadelphia 1787 Constitutional Convention completely. Jefferson was the primary author (though John Adams disputed even that) of the Declaration of Independence 11 years earlier, and Jefferson was certainly influential in re the Constitution--but he wasn't even *among* those who wrote it. His friend James Madison is generally credited as being the "Father of the Constitution," though in fact many helped write it. The Constitution did establish a Supreme Court (Article III) but didn't make clear that the courts were the final interpreters of the law or Constitution. As suggested by Mr. Holt, the thing that settled that was a Supreme Court decision--Marbury v. Madison, 1803--that President Jefferson was displeased about. The reason M v. M has since been accepted is somewhat complicated but boils down to this: someone (or something) has to have the last say. If not the courts, then who? All American citizens, certainly including me, can point to USSupCt decisions we think were mistaken, but it is reasonable to conclude that courts can decide until the one higher authority--We the People--can overturn what they say through legislation or, more often, the difficult process of amending the constitution. The courts have pretty consistently held that "separation of church and state" sums up the real intent of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) and First Amendment. There have been attempts--most notably by the NRA (no, nothing to do with rifles--the National Reform Association--see ) to amend the Constitution and make this a Christian nation. But those efforts have so far failed completely.

Wayne D Holt

Thank you, Ed. As anyone can see who has been reading all these missives, I have been on a tear lately and writing a lot, fast, and not just on this topic. You are correct, of course. I have always thought of Jefferson as the intellectual author of American liberty, if there is any one that could be said about. We covered this in a previous exchange, I believe, in what were the founding documents. But not of the Constitution directly, you are correct.

I consider the Declaration THE founding document and Jefferson as the one most responsible for the principles of American liberty and jurisprudence we are familiar with. Of course, there were many who contributed a great deal. But there is no one who can claim to stand above Jefferson as to a guiding hand when it comes to the values that went into American independence. The Constitution is the plumbing; the Declaration is the water that is the reason for the plumbing.

As to your rhetorical question, if not the courts who should decide? Well, I think Jefferson answered that quite neatly in his letter, quoted above. The danger is not in the division of power, the danger is in the concentration of power. We see today activist judges who shamelessly disregard the most clear constitutional principles, conjure up new ones never mentioned and do it without review, other than by other black-robed mandarins.

Jefferson says about the constitution, "It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." There is your answer. Each branch of government moves the mechanisms of its constitutional duties within itself.

Why should the Supreme Court have the final say on legislative issues when the Congress cannot dissolve the judicial branch, or the executive dissolve the Congress--although that is what Honest Abe was up to. Why should nine unelected poobahs have more say than 535 who face the people from time to time at elections? The assumption is they will be more evenhanded. What test measures that? What preconceptions are screened out? And what do we do when we confirm a pig in a poke for life?

And no, it doesn't count that the judiciary sends the "unconstitutional" laws back to Congress to fix...because they may once again review and find them wanting. Indeed, courts have claimed for themselves a power that was never given to them by We The People nor our representatives: the final and ultimate review of the laws that govern our society. Marshall and Story simply took it.

Jefferson was rightly more concerned with the concentration of power given to unelected mandarins rather than the messiness that would occur from competing interests among the three branches. And...he was right. Over 330,000,000 Americans are now under the thumbs of nine tribunes who are there for as long as they can fog a mirror.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I will be watching your pronouncements like a hawk for a similar opportunity to lapse into First Grade Teacher mode. [beam]

Ed Buckner

See, I KNEW you were a hawk! [beam]. So, the Constitution *seems* to say that only Congress can take us to war. Prezzes of both parties have said, "Nah, that's not really what it means--I have the right to protect the nation from eminent harm, so as C in C, I call out our armed forces" and Congress says, "Now see here Bub, that's OUR prerogative." Can the judiciary step in? And why do you think that everyone--Congressfolk, Prezzes, etc.--seems to have bought Marshall's argument? Can you give an example of where a Prez or Speaker of the House ignored the USSupCt? Why not?

Wayne D Holt

"And why do you think that everyone--Congressfolk, Prezzes, etc.--seems to have bought Marshall's argument?"

I think I can tell you why they DIDN'T object forcefully enough (Jefferson did). Because in human relations, those who seize the high ground, even of low morality, are hard to dislodge. It's the exact same POLITICAL reason the Supreme Court refuses to hear cases today. Not because they are significant, it's because they do not want the political fallout all over their clean black robes.

"Can you give an example of where a Prez or Speaker of the House ignored the USSupCt? Why not?"

How about all three branches ignoring the Constitution? I would cite the Legal Tender laws and the chartering of the Federal Reserve consortium of private banking interests as great examples that illustrate when there is money to be made, power to accrete and influence to peddle, there will be a powerful and organized constituency to do just that. The rest of us are outside looking in on the banquet of misbegotten gains.

Ed Buckner

Donald Pollock should strive to learn the difference, in a free, democratic republic, between a political party and a church. Joe Biden seems to me to be a devout believer (no one knows anyone else's true religious or irreligious beliefs, of course), but he was elected to be a political leader and a representative of ALL Americans, not a religious leader. Does Mr. Pollock think, I wonder, the previous president was a good example of Christian or godly values? The First Amendment/Bill of Rights means we all have freedom of religion, including the right, if we prefer it, the freedom to have no religion. If an atheist is elected s/he has no right to use the public office to oppose religion; if a Muslim is elected s/he cannot use the public office to promote Islam. Same goes for anyone else.

Wayne D Holt

Mr. Buckner, much of what you say rings true as to the necessity to avoid a government approved imprimatur of any religion. The religious wars of Europe taught the Founders that a government should lead by moral example, not official indoctrination. Washington has not done that probably since JFK was president but that is for another time.

I do take issue with your expression that Biden seems to be a devout believer and Trump a poor expression of godly values.

Devout believer of what? His religious affiliation does not accept abortion; Biden is a big fan of it. Biden has a long history of consorting with known racists--even ex-KKK--as well as making blatantly racist or crypto-racist comments. Trump has never uttered the kind of bald faced bias that Biden has over past decades, seemingly entirely unconscious of it.

Finally, there is that magnificent piece of work--his son, Hunter. Someone who beds his brother's widow and sex texts his niece, arranges all sorts of influence peddling deals with shady foreigners, gets paid an extravagant amount of money to "consult" on technologies and processes about which he knows nothing other than his VP dad's mobile phone number, video tapes various sexual escapades with prostitutes, smokes crack cocaine...need I go on?

How it is possible that such an upright Christian could raise someone like Hunter? How far did the Hunter acorn really roll from the Joe oak? Why does Joe always appear to be hugging him and has never made, to my knowledge, a public admonishment of his behavior? Could it be that the 10% of the illicit deals The Big Guy scoops up is enough to make this devout Christian shut his pie hole and not blow up lucrative deals?

Yes, that is exactly what appears to be the case. Tee totaling, potty mouth Trump indeed has a less sordid lifestyle and family history than The Big Guy. I don't know if God wears a MAGA hat but I seriously doubt He counts Biden and his dysfunctional clan as the first fruit of Zion.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Holt, as I think you realize, I'm an atheist and so arguably unqualified to comment on what qualifies as Catholic or Christian, etc. Biden appears devout to me--talks the talk, etc. As to disagreeing with Catholic doctrine on abortion, I'm pretty sure that polls have shown most American Catholics disagree with their religion on that subject. I'm not an unconditional fan of Biden--he's been more leftist than I expected and from my vantage point, that's a good thing. I am disgusted with kin of presidents using their connection to a president to significant financial advantage--and that's true of the kin of many prezzes, Dem and GOP, certainly including Trump and Biden (Hunter). Some of what you write is, I think, ill-founded conspiracy crap. Biden has been around forever and has consorted with too many racist or racist-leaning folks, but seems to be accepted now overwhelmingly by African-Americans. Trump never said racists crap openly, but his dog whistles have been legion. Do i believe Trump paid off a hooker for her silence? Probably--but I don't know. Did he make quite crude sexist remarks--yes, on tape. Since I don't believe in any gods, obviously I don't think any gods wear Biden hats or MAGA hats. Main thing, for me, is that no president gets to make religious decisions for me. Period.

Wayne D Holt

Ed, I didn't realize you were an atheist; you appear to take principled stands on issues--some of which I disagree with--but the principled part is important.

"Dog whistles" are in the eye of the beholder. They apparently have replaced the beam from previous narratives, which shall remain unreferenced here.

Biden isn't leftist; he's a stenographer taking notes and executing what he's told to do, to the best of his limited ability. If they told him tomorrow to claim he was a John Birch Society co-founder, he would be on-board.

Trump made crude sexual remarks on tape 15 years ago? We have an impressive contemporary video archive of Biden sniffing women and girls, plus touching them in ways that other men have been accused of as an assault. No conspiracy theory about it, the videos are clear. The low murmurings in the womens'/girls' ear is not always understandable but then again I never could figure out what the Dirty Old Man was saying to Ruth Buzzi on Laugh-In years ago.

I didn't know Black Americans overwhelmingly accept Joe and his racist past. Got a source for that claim?

As to your religious lack of belief, fortunately that was provided for in our system of government and is still intact. Those who do believe are of the mind that individual free will as to belief was antecedent to the governmental assurance and just a confirmation that human beings may choose their destinies. There are, no doubt, plenty of atheists who are better people than some of those in churches, mosques and synagogues. One only needs to look at attendance at any Washington DC religious service to figure that one out.

And it's not just presidents who don't get to decide your beliefs. No person has the right to do that. I include those of the vast Secular Religion that infects us today. With you, I will never tolerate their insistence on my acceptance of principles that I find personally abhorrent.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Holt, we vigorously disagree on quite a bit, with sharply different assessments of Biden, Trump, etc. But I fully agree that no one--prez or priest, school board member or street corner pundit, Fox News or MSNBC performer--is empowered to dictate beliefs or opinions to me or to you.

Ed Buckner

BTW, Mr. Holt, I'm well aware that Biden did not draw as much support among black Americans as Obama or HRC, and that Trump increased his support among African Americans from 2016 to 2020. But Biden still won 4/5ths of the black vote--pretty close to overwhelming.

Charles Douglas

Well articulated Mr. Holt! You said it good!!!! God Bless you!

Maris Helfrich

As the old saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words!" There is much to be admired in Biden's actions, policies and programs.....his deep concern for the poor, the destitute, the needy and those suffering under unequal treatment by our government. His outreach to those who are suffering in various parts of the country is exemplary. His sincere respect and fair treatment of his fellow human beings and partisans is to be admired. God does not begrudge him for not using his name as long as he is following the chief maxim of Christianity " Love of God....& love of neighbor" and spending his time and efforts toward merciful & just actions. "Whatsoever you do for the least of my brethren , you do unto me! "

Wayne D Holt

Are we talking about the same Joe Biden? Fifty years in Washington and nothing to show for it but hair plugs and a Rolodex of oligarchs for Hunter to chat up influence to.

There is a difference between a self-penned hagiography and reality. What you have described is the former.

Wayne D Holt

Joe Biden called Mercer University student Madison Moore a 'lying, dog-faced pony soldier' after she asked him a question at his event in Hampton, New Hampshire on Sunday. Moore said: 'It was kind of humiliating to be called a liar on national TV by the former vice president.' Daily Mail, Oct 2, 2020.

WWJD=Who Would Jesus Demean?

Carlos Ponce

"There is much to be admired in Biden's actions, policies and programs...." That's for the joke, Maris but the sarcasm may not be evident to some.

domenico nuckols

Republicans can care less about the down train the poor and somebody doesn’t have any money because I only care about is the bottom line

Carlos Ponce

down train?

Wayne D Holt

Donald Trump, Don Cornelius...let's not quibble about the small stuff.

Jim Forsythe

There's a place I know where the train goes slow

Where the sinner can be washed in the blood of the lamb

There's a river by the trestle down by sinner's grove

Down where the willow and the dogwood grow

You can hear the whistle, you can hear the bell

From the halls of heaven to the gates of hell

And there's room for the forsaken, if you're there on time

You'll be washed of all your sins and all of your crimes

There's a golden moon that shines up through the mist

And I know that your name can be on that list

There's no eye for an eye, there's no tooth for a tooth

I saw Judas Iscariot carrying John Wilkes Booth

Cary Semar

Donald, if you insist on watching a lot of television, you must learn not to take it too seriously.

Bailey Jones

He mentioned John Lewis. That's close enough for me.

Ed Buckner

Wow! Great comment, Bailey Jones. I had the immense honor of meeting and talking with John Lewis several times, and he is a true American hero.

George Laiacona

You do realize that the negative comments concerning Hunter can all be traced to the FOX propaganda news stations

Carlos Ponce

Not true, George Laiacona.

"MBNA paid Biden son at critical time for bankruptcy bill" AP August 26, 2008

"Biden’s Son Hunter Discharged From Navy Reserve After Failing Cocaine Test" Oct 16, 2014 The Wall Street Journal

"Hunter Biden talks about his addiction, 'I was in that darkness'" Delaware Online July 1, 2019

"The first story about the Hunter Biden laptop appeared in the New York Post" October 20, 2020

Plenty more before FOX News approached the subject.

Wayne D Holt

George can't help it. He was born with a silver spoon in his eye.

Charles Douglas

Even if what Mr. Laiacona has said is true, it simply details how far in honesty, ethics, and integrity this nation has fallen, when we find that the majority of the Free Press and Big Tech Organizations have chosen to pack water for the Radical Liberals instead of reporting the news honestly and holding politicians and others accountable for their actions. Any lunatic can see Organizations like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and other major news outlets except FOX News have submitted to be surrogates for the LEFT in this country! You would have to be blind as a bat NOT to see it.

Ed Buckner

Let's see, Mr. Douglas. "Organizations like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and other major news outlets" have reported that all 50 states and DC certified the 2020 election as being won by Biden, while Fox News continues to imply that there is real doubt about the outcome, court cases and state certifications be damned. Is that the sort of disparity you have in mind?

Charles Douglas

Yes, exactly like I had in mind. I use to be a Democrat for many years, I use to listen to Don Lemon, and all those RADICALS before I knew better! They are as one sided, and racist as they come. Sorry, I'm hanging with Fox! It is time to stop thinking about the last election, I will never believe it was straight-up fair. That's okay because Trump is on his way back! History will not repeat itself, of that you can be sure. I use to love Wolf Blizer, until I found out he is just like Don Lemon.. maybe worse! Neither of them are fit to shine Walter Cronkite's shoes as far as honest, truthful, even-handed reporting goes!

Ed Buckner

And to think, Charles Douglas, I was beginning to think you might be credible and not a dupe. Oh well.

Charles Douglas

Your feelings must be catching Ed, because I think the same thing about you now. No Democratic Liberal is going to do my thinking for me, or tell me I am inherently inferior because of my race. You think what you want ....this is a free country, and I will be sure to form my own opinions as well. Happy Independence Day, especially to all you military and veteran people.

Ed Buckner

My lack of confidence in your credibility is unrelated to your race. I think all the millions of folks, black, white, or others, who accept nonsense uncritically are unworthy of taking seriously. I certainly respect the right of all such Americans--including you--to hold and express ill-founded opinions--but not the opinions. As a US Army vet (1969-1970), I thank you for your good wishes.

Charles Douglas

So I read this as will go on doing you and stop trying to influence me from doing me. Good enough, because better men than you have tried and failed trying to do otherwise. Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder! I personally don't try to change other's thoughts and opinions but I do make mine known. I have never called your disrespect to GOD nonsense, but if it ever was nonsense floating aground, that is at the front! I can see you have a high opinion of yourself, that is okay as long as you stop going around trying make out like everybody else are fools except you.

Carlos Ponce

"I ask them if their Democratic Party wishes to replace God or eliminate him from our society?" The extreme Left wing has replaced Him.

"Was the Arch of Baal Erected in Washington Before Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony?"

Snopes finding: TRUE.

Th Democrats' support of abortion is reflected in Baal and Molech worship.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce, I'd urge everyone to read the Snopes essay you linked to. Otherwise they might take you seriously--or think you're cheering on ISIS (see the essay for details).

Carlos Ponce

I've read what is pertinent.

Wayne D Holt

Ed, I read the Snopes entry in its entirety. I don't think you're getting it.

ISIL destroyed 28 religious historic structures just between June 2014 and February 2015. The only structure the Institute for Digital Archaeology (IDA) chose to reconstruct was one that was the gateway to the temple where an image stood with a fiery pit in front of it. Infants and children were hurled in and burnt alive to propitiate the god Bel or Baal. Drums were beaten to drown out the screams of agony.

This "exhibition" has been touring the world, having already been displayed in New York, London, Florence, and Dubai. Is this just a cultural tour? How naive! IDA Director Roger Michel said it was built in solidarity with the people of Syria, who have been subjected to such unimaginable horror by ISIS and the Assad Regime. Catch that last bit? The Assad Regime, that would be the one popularly elected and which has been invaded for its oil. Russia is currently pushing back on that little western sortee.

So, out of all the historical religious architecture the IDA could choose to recreate and uplift the world with, it chose to recreate the gate to a living hell of pagan depravity and massacre of innocents. And they did it in solidarity against a regime that has been fighting not to be toppled by western hegemonic force to dislodge a Russian client state.

Ted has the right idea. Stick to the Gamers Bible. That is about the depth of understanding shown here.

Ted Gillis

No one knows what you’re talking about Carlos.

Baal and Molech worship? That’s just stupid.

I had to look that up in the encyclopedia Gigantica, Old Testament BS section.

Carlos Ponce

Ignorance is bliss but dangerous.

Wayne D Holt

For the uninformed: Baal and Molech worship centered on the immolation of infants in a fiery pit at the base of the image. It was done to propitiate their god; they beat drums to drown out the screams of the infants as their parents stood by and watched.

Encyclopedia Gigantica, the gamers' Bible and collective narrative. Try reading scholarly works some time, it will do wonders for your understanding. Maybe not.

Wayne D Holt

Bonus Conspiracy Fact for Today: At the IRS headquarters building in Maryland, the entrance plaza is graced with twin striped columns of 13 bands each, alternating black and white.

These are identical to Freemasonry's twin columns Jachin and Boaz and recreate the checked pattern of Masonic temple floors, Sufi decorative art and other esoteric symbolism of duality.

This is a literal substitution from Masonic lore and refers to the construction of Solomon's temple mentioned in 1 Kings Chapters 6,7. Now why in the world would the world's most notorious tax collectors, working for a secular government, construct Masonic symbols for public inspection? It gets better.

See the black pyramid (same as on the reverse of a dollar bill) behind those pillars in the distance? On it is written the Constitution for the united States but no Bill of Rights. Instead, on the columns are written various remarks, this commentary among them: "The Bill of Rights was not ordained by Nature or God.”

One could go on and on but the take-away regarding symbolism like this, the Arch of Bel and other examples too numerous to mention here: you are living in a dreamland that has been spun by those who wish you to take a nice comfy nap and sleep through the Great Reset they have planned for many years. The fact that you are willing to be a dupe and accept the gaslighting just makes the project easier for them. Every time you croak "Conspiracy theory!" because your level of research ends at Snopes and MSNBC, you have just made the enslavement of your children that much easier. It's happening in plain sight. Wake up.

Charles Douglas

Mr.Holt> [thumbup][thumbup]

Ed Buckner

Saying "Conspiracy theory!" doesn't mean one is wrong. Mistranslating Latin phrases like "Novus ordo seclorum" doesn't make the conspiracy theory right, either. Religious liberty requires not granting government the power to make religious decisions for citizens. And citizens also get to decide whether claims are wacky or not.

Wayne D Holt

Of course, citizens, being the sovereign in our system, they should never be coerced in any way regarding freedom of conscience from government influence. I 100% agree with that principle.

Yes, too, that we get to decide what is wacky and what is worthwhile. As long you don't try to force your reality on me--you don't seem like the type, BTW--we are going to get along just fine.

Ed Buckner

The only way either of us in entitled to try to force reality on the other is via legislative processes. (If my strong opinion is that I ought to be able to drive 85 mph in a school zone, other citizens have good ways to keep me from acting on that opinion--even if I can still hold and express the opinion.)

Wayne D Holt

To use your analogy, right now Big Tech--which is up to it's LCD screen in Big Gov influence--is in the process of not allowing you to drive 85mph in a school zone, while also forbidding you from explaining to interested others why it's a great idea to do so.

I don't think you should drive 85 in a school zone. I DO think you should be allowed complete freedom of expression to persuade me it's a fantastic idea. I don't need anyone to filter out "harmful content" for me. And that means anyone.

Ed Buckner

"To use your analogy, right now Big Tech--which is up to it's LCD screen in Big Gov influence--is in the process of not allowing you to drive 85mph in a school zone, while also forbidding you from explaining to interested others why it's a great idea to do so.

I don't think you should drive 85 in a school zone. I DO think you should be allowed complete freedom of expression to persuade me it's a fantastic idea. I don't need anyone to filter out "harmful content" for me. And that means anyone." I think I mostly agree. I sure as hell don't trust Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg, et al., to decide what's OK and what isn't. They claim, not wholly unjustifiably, that they're private entities--but they have social responsibility, etc. I would argue that there should be some limits, at the extreme edges, but not based on religion, philosophy, etc. If someone posts "all atheists are immoral scumbags," my remedy, to cite the quote attributed to Mr.Jefferson, is more speech, not less." The exceptions? hard to specify and that makes it dangerous. IF someone posted somewhere, "Meet at my house at [address] at 7 pm tonight--we're going to go gut Wayne D Holt at his house at [address]," I'd say, "not allowed." If someone says, "Trump won the election," I have a right to say, "bull," but not to have it taken down even though it's demonstrably false. IMNHO.

Wayne D Holt

I'm with you, I agree broadly with your conclusions. Especially about gutting me.

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.