Anonymous #1 4d

Because the phrase “love thy neighbor” isn’t followed up with the clause “unless they’re gay, trans, immigrants, or people of color”

47

Anonymous #3 4d

And what do you understand “love” to mean exactly?

-8

Anonymous #1 4d

Tolerate. Respect. Support.

45

Anonymous #1 3d

Trying to redefine the word love to continue worshipping Trump. Reevaluate your religious beliefs

33

Anonymous #1 3d

Bro 💀

10

Anonymous #1 3d

have u ever read the Bible on your own without a power thirsty pastor twisting the words for his own benefit?

8

Anonymous #8 3d

I like how you just assumed I was Protestant lol

0

Anonymous #4 3d

At what point did I try to redefine it…? I asked for a working definition because a lot of left-wing folks understand love very differently than Christianity does—that’s all.

0

Anonymous #3 3d

And what do you think that looks like in practice?

0

Anonymous #1 3d

Well no but you’re the one who assumed that that is what I meant. I never invalidated catholic practices, I just said did u ever seek god beyond what you’ve been told or do you just let people tell you what to do and think and want that to reflect in politics

5

Anonymous #8 3d

No, like Catholics don’t have pastors, so you kinda did. But in any case, I have, yes. The problem is that much of what the left today stands for just isn’t compatible with Christianity and even actively opposes it…

0

Anonymous #1 3d

In the bare basics I think one aspect is not electing individuals who are unnecessarily forceful towards oppressed individuals. because everyone is your neighbor, and when you vote for someone who doesn’t love your neighbor, it says that you don’t love them either.

6

Anonymous #3 3d

When you say oppressed individuals, who are we talking about specifically? Illegal aliens?

0

Anonymous #1 3d

Anyone. Gay people. Immigrants. Trans people. Black people. Jews. Muslims. Anyone that his legislation has or plans to target. They’re all your neighbors.

6

Anonymous #3 3d

So what is he doing or already done towards those groups that you think is unnecessarily forceful?

0

Anonymous #1 3d

Immigration officials stormed and raided an apartment building (with unmarked trucks and a helicopter) in Chicago and detained both black children and adults who were citizens. these American citizens were zip-tied. Children were detained separately from their parents. What about this is necessary force?

9

Anonymous #3 3d

Legally speaking? No, not necessarily. People are detained every day for all kinds of different reasons, and when they are, they’re separated from their children. And that’s particularly relevant here because who’s to say the kids weren’t being trafficked?

0

Anonymous #1 3d

The only ones I see opposing it are ex-Christian’s who were raised in the negative sides to the religion (which every religion has) and culture around it and unfortunately feel like they need to find extreme ways to separate from it. The pilgrims were literally escaping religious persecution. Also idk if you’ve ever brushed up on the history of the country but the founders and leaders have always established and maintained a separation of church and state for a reason.

3

Anonymous #8 3d

Opposing what exactly?

0

Anonymous #1 3d

Christianity as a whole and spreading hate/anti-christian narratives. At least in this country. Literally look into Roosevelts speeches in WW2, for a quick example. Yes Christian elitism exists but the US wouldn’t be a democracy if it was enforcing Christian nationalism

6

Anonymous #1 2d

ICE peppersprayed a one year old. Do you endorse that kind of force?

5

Anonymous #3 2d

More details. ICE actually peppersprayed a family in a moving car, including their one year old. They could be charged with murder for that.

6

Anonymous #8 2d

So I take it you’re not a fan of Christianity, which is your prerogative. But what does that have to do with Christian nationalism?

1

Anonymous #3 2d

First, no, they couldn’t be charged with murder for that—pepper spray is non-lethal. Second, DHS has a very different story to tell about what actually happened.

0

Anonymous #1 2d

Pepper spray is non lethal. Pepper spraying a man while he’s driving a car and could crash because he cannot see is lethal.

6

Anonymous #1 2d

Never said that! I love and respect it. The best are genuine Christians. Just adding context about the Americans that “aren’t a fan”. I don’t agree with the negative aspects though & don’t feel like I have to glorify them to have basic respect for the religion. Christian nationalism would be ingraining the country’s politics with it, which fundamentally goes against what the country’s built off of.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of communities that are commonly built off of both politics and religion, but it shouldn’t be the ruling power is all.

2

Anonymous #3 2d

He wasn’t actively driving—he was just in his car.

0

Anonymous #1 2d

Pepper spray is an aerosol and spreads in an enclosed space, such as car. pepper spraying someone in a car traps them all with the pepper spray.

3

Anonymous #3 2d

Your point being…? Look, you can disagree with ICE’s usage of pepper spray in that situation. Frankly, I’m not even sure I agree with it myself. But let’s please not pretend like this was anything even close to (attempted) murder because it just wasn’t.

0

Anonymous #1 2d

You don’t think it’s possible for an individual to crash a car because of pepper spray in their eyes/nose/mouth? Have you ever been pepper sprayed?

5