www.foxnews.com
That is DEFINITELY going to be an Asterisk record.
I honestly believe he has a divergent relationship with the truth (which makes the name of his social media platform somewhat ironic
I know other people have different views, but I'm not just listening to the party when I say I absolutely believe there is a high risk to democracy and western values from the republican party. I think book bans and undermining separation of church and state is unacceptable and should scare people who value freedom.
It's a matter of perspective and personal philosophy. A person can also reasonably conclude that Democratic party positions are also threats to freedom and democracy.
I think book banning for adults is wrong also. The only books that have been banned to my knowledge are the sexually explicit ones available to prepubescent children in schools and libraries. To listen to the left you'd think not allowing that material to be available to minors was equivalent to the natzi book burnings of WWII.
outstanding.Because one is science and the other is faith.
Thank you! I needed my Regan fix today.
️
Kamala Haris Campaign Raised 81 Million Dollars In 24 Hours:
-PBS Nightly News
Just an example of how dems raise money.
I think the examinations of the "Shroud of Turin" and the "Dead Sea Scrolls" among other Cristian writings and artifacts is very scientific.
Because one is science and the other is faith.
It is the parents job to infuse their children with faith whilst the governments job is to try to turn them into retched, soulless, baby killing pieces of crap
www.complicitclergy.com
"sexually explicit"(minority actually are), or anything regarding LGBT, disagreeable ideologies of race, not just to prepubescent but also teenagers who should be allowed to make their own choices on what they can read. If parents don't like it, they can tell their children they can't read a book. It should not be up to the state or federal. Parents can complain to the school, vote in administrators to the schools that agree with their view, but that is the limit, for SCHOOL LIBRARIES. These book bans often also effect adult libraries because kids "could" have access. That's not the world I want to see. The government should not be allowed to control what information people have access to. And they should absolutely stay right out of regular non-school libraries.
Evolution is not a religion, creationism is. Also, I was only in high school 4 years ago, they taught us about other religions, in a left leaning school they just didn't try to instill the 10 commandments into us. Nor did they present religion as the truth. Regardless of what you believe is true, kids should absolutely be encouraged to use facts gotten by the scientific method and be skeptical of claims that arent proven by it. Knowing what the bible says about the start of the universe wont help us make quantum computers, fusion, knowing what the scientific method says has and will. Regardless of what you feel, evidently God wants us to understand the world in a specific way if we want to develop technologically(a common idea among religious scientists). And I'm religious.
I agree with some of what you said. Disagree on some also. Let me see if I got this right. You think it's ok for a young child to go to a library, any library and look at x rated material and government should not have any oversight of it? I do agree that discrimenary teaching about sexual orientation or race should not be allowed but teaching about alternat lifestyles should not be encouraged either.
As far as book banning sorry states do have some say. The notorious incident that everyone likes to point to was infact parents going to their local school boards and expressing their objections. And it is this activity that gets spread around as “book banning”.
One thing I don't get why at least some republicans support is to not only prevent abortions, but contraceptives in itself because according to Christian faith sex shouldn't be pleasurable and is only for begetting children. It's not exactly hard to see why there are people that claim that they don't care about the well-being of women in general and just are on it to decrease sexual awareness in teenagers and adults in general in order to increase the poor population to keep a steady voter base. Not at all saying it's true, but it's still strange how there is an increasingly influential crowd (especially in state governments as the GOP peels away the federal protection) who want impose laws against homosexuality and sex before marriage and everyone else but constantly talk about freedoms they don't have from the federal government.
And to add to the more relevant subject, prohibited books for a specific age group of students do make sense if they are allowed to read said books at a certain age. Might differ a bit between cultures, but I was taught about the holocaust when I was 11-12-ish, read Anne Frank's diary at that time. Maybe 13 would be a good age, but what should be remembered is that it doesn't require much for a "concerned parent" to start to group together in order to get rid of something they don't like and point out some kind of raunchy content in a work that's been allowed before and no one used to bat an eye about it. In my view it doesn't do much damage when it's limited to a specific school and said works or subjects are still offered to students when they're older, but when politicians are writing bills to get rid of sexual education or wanting to impose a specific kind of christian education to schools it will get easier and easier to get laws in state governments that are not at all too dissimilar to the current laws regarding homosexuality that Russia has if the federal government won't step down. A Trump presidency will obviously not do this, and would likely result in states being increasingly split and antagonistic to each other depending on how the politics will look like there. Won't lead to civil war, but if federal protection for authoritarian or far right measures are removed, it will certainly lay a groundwork for it with the more conservative states implementing policies that might be hated in a neighbouring, more liberal state.
