Y’all kinda odd. Weird projection and I’m not sure you read what you write(?)

How can you square this…

I don’t believe in mandating or forcing anyone to do anything.

Excellent! We agree.

I just believe they are better off when they fill that with the real creator of the universe

Hey, wait…in order to be better off I have to accept some creator? And given the word “real” I assume you mean yours.

particularly over other things like the State.

OK, so this belief in your particular real creator should override the state. In other words, all the laws and policies of the government are set according you your particular beliefs(?) Otherwise, what does this even mean?

It’s no different than if I believe dogs make good pets…

Dogs are cool.

…and this kind of dog is better than this kind.

Different dogs for different folks.

There nothing I nor Josh Hawley said that says we believe we must make laws to force everyone to have this kind of a dog.

But apparently you insist everybody have some kind of dog. You say the Constitution only apples to religious people and the state must be constructed according to your beliefs, so what about someone who doesn’t agree?

I think in your world, if someone has a worldview, it by definition MUST BE forced on others. Which tells me, that is YOU.

Once again, you have it 180° backwards. I’d prefer nobody force anything on anybody to the extent possible. In particular I don’t want anybody telling anyone what sort of religion they should have. I want you to be you and me to be me, and not try to tell others they’re better for having any faith, particularly which one.

Whatever you believe is good for others, let me guess, lockdowns, masks, crt, etc. MUST be mandated by law and when people do not OBEY, they must be punished.

Again, I don’t want to tell anybody anything. There do have to be laws, of course. You have a right to drink and a right to drive, but not to do both. And yes, if laws are broken there will be punishment, because that is the ENTIRE POINT OF LAWS.

As far as your laundry list of buzzwords, I propose we establish the rules the same way we do everything else. So for masks as an example, shouldn’t the idea behind DUI laws apply? You have a right to wear or not wear a mask. You have a right to stay home or to go outside. But if going into a public space poses a risk to the lives and health of the others, that’s exactly where the law is SUPPOSED to step in. It’s the whole point of how laws work, for God’s sake.

The law says you can’t shoot a gun into a crowd of people. You can’t drive drunk on a public street. The entirety of traffic law is based around that: we all accept some restrictions - sobriety, speed limits, stop lights - in exchange for protecting the health and safety of all. So IF going unmasked into a public area risks the lives of everyone else, then you shouldn’t do it. It shouldn’t be controversial.

It’s the same way we do everything else: It’s not OK to exercise what I consider my freedom if I take freedoms away from others. It’s literally the entirety of the law.

As for CRT, you have clearly fallen for the con. You realize the right is on a specific mission to strip CRT of its meaning and then attaching it to everything they don’t like, right? It’s on record, they haven’t been shy. But I don’t think you know what it is, because it can’t be mandated. It’s one branch of “critical theory” a standard academic approach. It’s taught in graduate and law schools. It’s a way of approaching a topic, not a topic in and of itself. All I want is that history be taught accurately. Slavery existed. Racism exists and has an effect on everyone alive today. Pretending otherwise is a lie. Telling white people they’re evil isn’t right, either. But white people do benefit from the system - as long as there is racism against some, then others benefit. It’s not complicated.

You need help and you should get it. Forcing people to follow your view of the world never works out well.

Which is why I’m dedicated to not doing it. I don’t want anybody telling anybody they would be better with religion, or that some people get to decide what’s best for everyone else.

Again, twentieth century collectivism, through force, killed over 100M people. It doesn’t work, it’s ugly, and it’s destructive.

Pretending that the USSR and China have anything to do with American liberalism is dumb as dirt. Sorry, I didn’t want to be insulting, but the historical illiteracy here is too much to deal with. Also, I thought this was about religion, not economics(?)

Projecting your need to control people on others, on Christians, is disturbing. Hopefully you’ll keep it inside the confines of articles.

For hopefully the last time, I DON’T WANT TO CONTROL ANYBODY. It’s the whole damn point.

I want you to be free to worship any way you please…unless that means forcing others to live by your faith. That’s not OK. Otherwise, knock yourself out.

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance? “I just believe they are better off when they fill that with the real creator of the universe, particularly over other things like the State.” So you want to define who the real creator is. You say things are better off when your real creator is in charge and overrides the state. How can that mean anything but that the laws should be written according to or overridden by your idea of the creator?

If you want religion to overriding the state, then you want to make laws according to religion. The whole point of laws is telling people what they can and can’t do. So you want to tell people what to do.

Then you turn around and insist I’m the one trying to tell others what to do? How does that make any sense?

I got to here and suddenly realized you’re probably a troll and you got me to engage. I’m not sure anything you’ve said makes sense otherwise.