Politics, Economics, and Religion


Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 137
Latest Activity: 10 hours ago

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

'Trump's Katrina?' No, it's much worse (Juliette Kayyem - CNN)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Joan Denoo Oct 2. 5 Replies

It is a difficult task to turn the memory of Hurricane Katrina into a quaint story of well-meaning government actors unable to save a city from destruction. President Donald Trump managed to do that on Saturday morning when he essentially blamed…Continue

Tags: Juliette Kayyem, CNN, tragedy, Puerto Rico, Donald Trump

Trump, America's First White President

Started by Grinning Cat. Last reply by Grinning Cat Sep 30. 1 Reply

[reposting from the group "Conversations on Race, Ethnicity, and Culture", which will be was cleared and closed October 1.]Trump, America's first white presidentSo writes…Continue

Tags: race, racism, systemic racism, endemic racism, class

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by Joseph P on August 26, 2016 at 10:22pm

When people have violated which laws, Tom?  The Voting Rights Act?  Those have been violated, man.  The day after the SCotUS decision.

If you mean other laws, then please specify.  What are you talking about?

Comment by tom sarbeck on August 26, 2016 at 1:49pm

Bert, that MIGHT not be so.

The Republican Party before Reagan invited the evangelicals to join was more Libertarian and favored small government,

After the evangelicals joined at his invitation the Party became authoritarian and favors big government.

The Libertarians still in the Party don't care when or where people put body parts and the rest. The authoritarians don't have minds able to handle much else.

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on August 26, 2016 at 12:10pm

The funny thing about people who push for "smaller government" is they want government to stop taxing and regulating business, but they tend to be just fine with government dictating when and where you can stick body parts and preventing people from using contraception, getting abortions, etc. It boggles my mind that people don't see through this hypocrisy and hiss them off the stage.

Comment by tom sarbeck on August 26, 2016 at 11:14am

Idaho, that guy a wakkadoodle?

No. He might be helpful in another contest.

The wakkadoodles are those who won't be helpful.

Comment by tom sarbeck on August 26, 2016 at 11:06am

Joseph, the questions in your post below reveal you as a thinking voter. I consider myself a thinking voter because I've asked the same or similar questions.

It's more mind clutter than I want so I use a kind of filter.

I decided that I will get answers to them only when the news tells me that people have violated the relevant laws and are being prosecuted.

I'm now able to clutter my mind with stuff that's more important to me.

Comment by Joseph P on August 26, 2016 at 10:24am

You bet.  Most states have a religious requirement to hold ANY sort of public office, even water and soil commissioner.  Those articles in their state constitutions are only invalid because they're superseded by the federal constitutional-prohibition of such requirements.  I think that over half of our state constitutions now have explicit bans on gay marriage and the recognition of gay marriages from other states, too.

Over half of the states would immediately implement minority voting restrictions, too, just like they did immediately after SCotUS struck down the article of the Voting Rights Act which required approval by the federal courts, before any law affecting voting could be implemented in certain states.

Seriously, what the hell were those judges thinking?  It wasn't even a 5-4 decision.  They wrote something to the effect of, "This article is unnecessary, since those states have not shown this sort of behavior recently."

Yeah, because the legislators in those states knew that those restrictions would never go into effect, since the federal government would shut them down before they could be implemented.  Literally the DAY after the ruling, though, many of the states that had been on the list immediately passed laws restricting voting.  We have many states that would love nothing more than to roll civil rights back to the 50's or earlier.

Comment by Grinning Cat on August 26, 2016 at 9:07am

Joseph, thanks for pointing out the (not-so-)hidden agendas behind many calls for "small government" and "states' rights"... many of the "states' rights" folks would be overjoyed to have the federal government supersede state law when it would support their own privilege!

Comment by Joseph P on August 26, 2016 at 7:23am

Also, what do you mean about dictatorial people trying to get governmental positions?  Do you think that the Postmaster General is lording over her power over shipping in the US?  Oh, wait, we have UPS, FedEx, DHL ...

And we've had the Republican Congress trying and failing to destroy the USPS.  I don't think the Postmaster General is feeling particularly powerful right now.

Do you think that the head of the EPA is in it for the power?  No, I'm pretty sure that she is running the EPA out of a sincere desire to preserve the environment.

Or did you mean people like Senators and Congressmen?  They're going to find ways to throw their weight around no matter how many governmental agencies they manage to strip down to the bare bones.  If anything, those sorts will end up throwing all of those functions off to their corporate donors.

Personally, I have more faith in a governmental agency that is at least supposed to be accountable to the citizens of the country.  Corporations are only accountable to their shareholders.  We need governmental regulation to bring those corporations to heel, when they get out of control.

Another problem that I have is with the Libertarian party itself.  The current heads of the party are trying to break things down to the state level, as much as possible.  In other words ... States Rights.

We remember what that term involves, right?  Electoral laws to suppress the vote of minorities would stand unchallenged, such as the one here in North Carolina which just got struck down by the federal government.  State-level theocracies would be allowed to flourish.  State-level laws against homosexuality would be reinstated, including the sorts of sodomy laws that Lawrence v. Texas struck down.  Gay marriage would be unrecognized in well over half of the states in the country.  Abortion would be banned in well over half of the states in the country.

People trying to break down government to the smallest, most local unit possible are often doing so because they've lost to more progressive laws and rulings at the federal level.  They want to roll things back to a more regressive state of affairs, in as many states of the country as possible.  Considering that the more regressive states also tend to be the largest, most rural states, that would give them probably well over 3/4ths of the country, by unit of landmass.

Comment by Joseph P on August 26, 2016 at 5:17am

When you guys speak of shrinking "big government," what exactly are you talking about?  Are you talking about reversing the Affordable Care Act?  Are you talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?  The EPA?

Are you talking about the Department of Transportation, which actually needs MORE money, so they can rebuild many of the bridges in the country which are in danger of falling down?  Are you talking about rules and regulations, such as the ones here in North Carolina which require that everyone have liability insurance on their car, so you aren't screwed if someone hits you with it?  Do you want to get rid of the minimum wage laws?

People throw out the word "big government," which is a classic Fox News catch-phrase, but they never seem to know exactly what they mean by it.  You're aware that most government programs are there to help poor people and maintain necessary infrastructure, right?

What exactly do you want to shrink?  Because strangely, when the supposed small-government types actually start doing it, they tend to start with the programs that help poor people, because apparently income-inequality in this country isn't bad enough already.

Comment by Idaho Spud on August 25, 2016 at 8:26am

Tom, that man you know is a definite wakkadoodle.  

I like how Penn trashes Trump in the end of his video.  I have problems with all politicians, but I would vote for any of them before Trump.  He's worse than all of them put together.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service