Your most important political opinion is the one that never changes, never waivers, and you would sacrifice all you owned to defend.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Many died or lost all of their fortunes.

Today's politicians pledge nothing. They promise much. They talk much. They take all.

Patrick Henry never flipped-flopped on independence.

Nathan Hale regretted he had only one life to lose for his country.

John Kerry said he was for it just before he voted against it.

Barack Obama's position on gay marriage "evolved" just before election day.

Look up the phrase, "Hold your feet to the fire".

Ask how it applies here.

Nuff said.

I support separation of church and state. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that the powers of any religious group should hold no power over any government, nor should they hold any influence over political decrees. The phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson while addressing a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802.

Unfortunately there are those you wish to erase this phrase, or are ignorant of the fact that it is part of the 1st Amendment. Because of this ignorance there are free to impose their religious views on others and persecute those that don't see from their point. On specific example is the members of the Trump Administration who impose that the United States worships God. That is not true!

The people of the United States are free to following any religion and worship any deity they choose. They are free to worship God, Allah, Satan, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whoever, it doesn't matter. What matters is that certain loudmouths of religious faiths should mind their own business and steer clear of politics. I hate to say it but history has shown what sort of damaging influence religions have had on populations and political power, ranging from the Crusades to Nazi Germany.

Recently the separation of church and state is under attack when Trump and his cabinet wish to push forward their new tax reform bill that will allow churches to donate to political parties. This cannot happen! This will severely harm any sort of unity among all religious and non-religious groups what we the people have tried to build. We must strive for a better future where one's beliefs should never contribute to actions or thoughts. We must build a society that benefits everyone, whether you are religious or not, without the harsh discriminations that most religious groups have been known to push on others.

And if religious leaders really want a voice in politics so badly, they better start paying a shit load of taxes.

#religion #politics #separationofchurchandstate

When I was much younger, I thought that the most important political stance that one could take was to be apolitical. I came to this over simplified conclusion by observing that the strict barriers of political ideology often inhibit human progress and problem solving. Of course, this was the reductive thinking of an adolescent. Because, I came to understand that our very existence and all things experienced are in some manner political. Politics is not limited, by any means, to the self-important ramblings of wealthy people in governance. In fact, that is just a spec of dust on the proverbial beach. Further, the manner in which we give such credence to "hot topic issues " is often problematic.

I began to read and study a great deal about various movements ranging from the French Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. (These are among the more commonly known, as I also studied more obsure events such as the Turner Rebellions, etc.) I also began putting what I read in Historical, Sociological, and Cultural perspective. And, I began to understand that such elements all carried an amount of political significance in of themselves.

As different as each situation is, there is a very common back story to each incidence of changing regimes and even micro-political phenomenon. That thread lead me to my most strongly held political opinion.

The solution to many of the world's problems is anarcho-communism. "Oh Lord," the reader is thinking. "She's one of 'those." But, let me ask you to stop and just consider the following. After which, you may go back to squabbling over issues with proposed solutions that seem to be bandaids on bullet holes, as far as I can tell.

Here is a brief explaination of the general tenets of this theology, and it is not at all dominated by angry rebellious teenagers and out of touch flighty vegans doing yoga. (Though, all that has its place, of course.) Essentially, a great deal of human suffering stems from two sources throughout all known time: a struggle for resources and oppression. Both of which are completely unnecessary. There is literally no reason for one group of humans to have more than they can ever hope to use, constantly acquiring even more, while other groups of humans cling to the fringes of survival. This has always been true, and with current technology even more so. This is the part where someone inevitably makes a comment about the importance of competition for innovation and motivation. I strongly refute that claim. To begin with, it is the bastard child of Social Darwinism (a load of bs itself). We have no evidence that supports this thought, and a world of evidence that refutes it. Throughout the known existence of human kind it has been out ability to create community that enabled ALL human progress beginning with organized farming.

That said, it is never the right of one group of humans to subjugate any other group based on anything. I think most of us can agree to that. The question is: can we practice it, or do we get needlessly angry when asked to acknowledge this in the micro-political arena?

Now is the part where someone comments about how unrealistic and impractical anarcho- communism is and how communism in general has always failed. I point the reader to the reality that we have seen such structures work in the past in small communities. The majority of the world once thought that the concept of democracy was radical. Anarchist rhetoric doesn't state that there will be zero governing, but that voluntary groups of people would be self governing. It doesn't propose that it can cure all human tragedy. It merely takes the possibility for mass atrocities committed in the name of resources or dominance off the table. Ridiculous? Irrational? Perhaps, but at it's core, it's the most egalitarian rhetoric I have ever come across.