Subj : Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
To   : JIMMYLOGAN
From : Dumas Walker
Date : Tue Nov 04 2025 17:11:07

>  > 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.

I didn't say that your beliefs would.  I am saying that someone who shares
your *religous beliefs* 100% might make a great *church* leader but still
be a very horrible choice as the leader of a *country*.

Which brings me back to my original point, people who vote *only* with their
religious beliefs can cause a country a lot of problems if/when they get
what they want.

From what it sounds like, you are not one of those people, BTW.


 * SLMR 2.1a * IBM = Institute of Black Magic
---
 þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

.