Subj : Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered To : Dumas Walker From : jimmylogan Date : Mon Nov 03 2025 20:42:10 -=> Dumas Walker wrote to jimmylogan <=- DW> Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered DW> By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Sat Nov 01 2025 18:56:48 > Okay - I don't think I'm communicating my thoughts good enough. :-) > > My point is if someone shared my religious beliefs/convictions > 100% then we would, by default, agree on policy me thinks... DW> I would think it very easy that someone who matched my, or your, DW> religious beliefs 100% might also be, for example, advocating policies DW> that would: DW> Crash the economy DW> Lead us into unnecessary war DW> Cause social unrest to the point of unnecessary loss of life DW> Lead to runaway inflation DW> etc. First, my beliefs are for the protection of life and personal freedom. I don't see how those would lead us into unnecessary war, not social unrest. However, society is constantly getting worse and worse, so advocating for morals could be seen as social unrest. But at the same time I don't advocate for safety at the expense of lowering moral standards. DW> I would most certainly not vote for them if I felt that way. DW> This country is not a theocracy and is not meant to be one, which is a DW> good thing considering that most of those are horrible on human rights DW> and eventually fail because they don't know how to govern or manage a DW> complex economy. I know it's not a theocracy, and I am NOT advocating for one. We are a representative republic, and I vote for representatives that I believe are representing ME. That goes for national, state, local, etc. I also know that they can't do anything on their own. I also know that in a lot of things, my views are not the majority. I don't have to agree with the majority, though, and still vote my morals and conscious. Sometimes things go my way; sometimes they don't. .... Black holes are where God divided by zero. --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52 þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com .