Re: I love where Christians improvise to "improve" on JC. their only solutions are in direct conflict with JC teachings, but there is "never" a problem opening wide and swallowing that particular hubris.
Your decision to group all Christians in the same bucket speaks directly to an inability to distinguish outside of your own prejudice.
Re: and then you offer up that your POV shouldn't be on the table because of the "separation" principle
Yes, because I'd like to think that decisions on national policy can be made outside of what one's religion might say is the right thing to do. I believe that's what the founders realized when they wrote the separation principle into the Constitution.
You're calling it out as some kind of hypocrisy, and maybe I can see why you call it that way. I attempted to address this in my last post, where I said that Christ might have us "turn the other cheek" to aggressors who may wish to do us harm. As a Christian, I might want to be aligned with that belief, and lobby to make it national policy, just so that I am not a hypocrite.
However, I think I see a bigger picture on the national level, because not every American is going to be happy with turning the other cheek, and they may want the safety of a pro-active government.
Again, it's possible to be safe without war, but in some cases, the enemy is not going to want to negotiate. I think the Taliban falls into this category.
Re: and you are right, there is no value in conversations with the likes of Chunga1 and, sadly, you.
Well, gosh. If that's what you want, then fine. But I won't miss the ignorant rants, followed by the fingers-in-ears as I attempt to defend my point of view.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
