Constitutional Christianity

I am Pro-Jesus and Pro-Constitution. It is essential that we think and search for ourselves, so let not other’s opinion or the media be enough. I am open to debate politics and religion but I will disengage if there is a lack of respect or a failure to stay focused on the main topic.

[libertyechelon]

Gender identity, at its core, is not something that can be empirically proven. It is deeply personal and is how an individual sees themselves and the feel that what they believe brings them happiness. In that sense, gender identity is a belief about oneself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

As a believer in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, my faith shapes my understanding of truth and reality. This too cannot be proven empirically. The Gospel brings me joy, and I hold it as the foundation of what I believe to be true. Just as my beliefs are deeply meaningful to me, these too are beliefs about myself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

Secular law is built upon objective principles, things that can be broadly agreed upon to create a fair and functional society. Laws have changed over time to reflect evolving understandings of equality, such as women’s suffrage and civil rights. These changes were made to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, sex, and other characteristics, ensuring a more just society.

While I may not personally agree with every aspect of how the LGBTQ+ choose to live, I do believe in treating all people with kindness and respect. Coexistence is not about agreement, but about maintaining boundaries that allow for both personal beliefs and social harmony. Our legal system, particularly the First Amendment, ensures that we can hold different beliefs while respecting each other’s freedoms.

However, concerns arise when workplaces, legal systems, and media enforce gender identity as an objective truth that all must publicly affirm. When individuals face professional or legal consequences for declining to endorse a belief they do not hold, it raises serious questions about freedom of thought and speech. If my faith were imposed on others in a way that demanded their verbal or behavioral conformity, it would be seen as coercion. The same principle applies in reverse.

Consider this: If an atheist were required, under legal threat, to use specific pronouns based on someone’s self-perception (Two-Spirit for example) despite not sharing that belief, it would be a violation of their rights. The First Amendment exists to prevent such coercion.

History provides cautionary examples. In medieval Europe or parts of the Middle East, religious or ideological conformity was and is in some places still enforced under threat of severe punishment. When subjective beliefs are mandated by law, freedom is at risk.

Ultimately, everyone has the right to believe as they choose so long as those beliefs do not infringe on others rights. I can respect individuals for who they are without being compelled to affirm beliefs I do not share. This is not an issue of fear or intolerance, it is a matter of maintaining the freedoms that allow me to be happy and live free.

[elumish]

It is incredibly important to train yourself to have your first instinct be to look something up.

Don't know how to do something? Look it up.

See a piece of news mentioned on social media? Look it up.

Not sure if something is making it to the broader public consciousness, either because you don't see it much or you see people saying nobody is talking about it? Look it up.

Don't know what a word means? Look it up.

It will make you a better reader and a better writer, but it will also just make you more equipped to cope with the world.

So often, I see people talking about something as though it is the first time anyone has ever acknowledged it, when I've been reading reports about it on the news for months or years. Or I see someone totally misinterpreting an argument because they clearly don't know what a word means--or, on the other hand, making an argument that doesn't make sense because they aren't using words the right way.

Look things up! Check the news (the real news, not random people on social media)! Do your research! You (and the world) will be better for it.

[libertyechelon]

Especially with politics, my brothers and sisters.

[mysharona1987]

I have seen toddlers in Gaza with their heads blown off.

And other footage that will haunt me till the day I die.

But lady with the towel with shampoo stuck in it still considers herself a war crime victim.

[libertyechelon]

My question is: Do you know what happened to the toddlers and people that were in those same missile strikes in Jerusalem? People are being blown up on both sides by real bombs. I would try to at least show respect for human life instead of satirizing the post of a woman that survived a missile attack.

[libertyechelon]

Africans and the Slave Trade

It’s important to recognize that the transatlantic slave trade didn’t start solely with European involvement. African traders, rulers, and societies were deeply involved in the sale of enslaved individuals long before Europeans became significant players in the market. Many enslaved Africans were sold by other Africans, often as a result of tribal conflicts, raids, or as part of established economic exchanges. These sales were not new when Europeans arrived, they were part of a long-standing trade network, and African kingdoms had been involved in various forms of human trafficking for centuries.

That being said, Europeans played a massive role in expanding the scope of the transatlantic slave trade. From the 16th century onward, European traders became integral to this process, shipping millions of enslaved Africans across the Atlantic. While it’s true that Europeans didn’t start the market, their involvement transformed it into an international, industrialized system that would last for centuries. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, Europeans, particularly from the British, Portuguese, and Spanish empires, took the largest share of the enslaved population.

Though the United States did not receive the largest number of enslaved Africans, the impact of slavery in America was profound. By the time of the Civil War, the U.S. had become home to nearly 4 million enslaved people. The deep moral and social consequences of this institution left a lasting legacy in American history and society, influencing movements for civil rights, equality, and justice.

It’s also crucial to understand that slavery was legally recognized in many societies, both African and European for centuries. Its legalization does not make it morally right, but it does highlight how deeply entrenched this system was in global economies and cultures. While Western nations are often criticized for their role in the slave trade, we must also recognize that slavery was part of a global system of exploitation that spanned across cultures, continents, and centuries.

While slavery was widespread, it’s a testament to humanity’s progress that Western nations, including the U.S., were among the first to abolish slavery, beginning in the early 19th century. The actions of abolitionists, both within and outside of these societies, played an instrumental role in ending the transatlantic slave trade and challenging the moral assumptions that underpinned it.

Understanding the history of slavery requires us to consider the complexities of various players involved the African traders, the European empires, and the global system that perpetuated human suffering. By approaching this history with nuance and compassion, we honor the memory of those who suffered and acknowledge the many efforts made to secure freedom for all people. The legacy of slavery remains with us, but so does the legacy of abolition and the fight for human dignity.

[libertyechelon]

I genuinely want to know, (respectfully without slander or insults from whatever side) why Pro-Palestine people are in favor of Hamas? I don’t want an emotional response, but a logical one explaining the reasoning. I am genuinely curious.

[libertyechelon]

It’s fascinating how quickly public opinion can shift based on political signals. At one point, many on the progressive side strongly supported electric vehicles, praising innovators like Elon Musk. Now, because of political disagreements, some of those same individuals are turning against the very technology they once championed.

This isn’t necessarily about EVs or Elon, but it’s about how easily public sentiment can be swayed by political leaders. And when efforts are made to reduce federal spending or increase efficiency, particular politicians resist because it disrupts systems they benefit from.

The real challenge is helping people see when they’re being used as pawns in a larger game. Emotional reactions are powerful, but stepping back to ask why we’re being told to love or hate something can reveal a lot more than the headlines ever will.

Going against something just because someone you don’t like endorses it, is very childish and lacks reasoning and logic in the decision process.

[libertyechelon]

There is nothing wrong with protecting the rights of personal belief and freedom of religion of any group. We should not enforce them upon others by law as we have seen many lose their jobs and public dignity for not appealing to WOKE ideologies. Not everyone believes a man can be a woman and vice-versa, that children should undergo gender-affirming care or that gender is a spectrum, among other things that are debated today.

We have to call it as it really is, it is a faith-based movement, and there is nothing wrong with calling it that. The point is that we have to give the same treatment and political power to Wokeness as we do to the belief system of another religion.

[libertyechelon]

Think for Yourself and Don’t Let Others Do It for You!

It is very easy to get caught up in headlines and opinions, but real wisdom comes from asking why things happen, not just reacting to what happens. If we take everything at face value without looking deeper, we risk letting others do our thinking for us.

Lets look into immigration policies, for example (I am a legal immigrant from Mexico, which makes this topic I am familiarized with because it runs often in my family. This is something I have studied a lot and wrote essays on this for college). This debate often focuses on emotional arguments, like many claim that enforcing border laws is xenophobic or racist. But instead of getting caught up in labels, let’s ask why border enforcement matters.

The government spends, on average, $9,000 per year per undocumented immigrant on healthcare and financial assistance. In the past four years, nearly 9 million undocumented immigrants have entered the country, amounting to a fiscal impact of $81 billion annually, which is money that isn’t being paid back in taxes. (This is not counting also the people that came before them).

Now, many of these individuals seek a better life, and America has always been a land of opportunity. But there are legal paths for this, like work visas and asylum programs, they exist for this reason. When people bypass these systems, the burden shifts onto American taxpayers. Additionally, in 2023, Mexico identified 467 human trafficking victims, with 213 in sex trafficking and 154 in labor trafficking. In 2022, U.S. authorities encountered 152,000 unaccompanied minors at the border, many at risk of sexual exploitation and forced labor. In fiscal year 2024, CBP seized over 27,000 pounds of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid driving overdose deaths. Mexican drug trafficking organizations exploit high-traffic border crossings, fueling a multi-billion-dollar illicit industry.

A strong nation needs both compassion and accountability. Enforcing immigration laws isn’t about rejecting people, but it’s about ensuring everyone contributes fairly so we can build a better future together. Before jumping to conclusions, step back and ask if you are seeing the full picture.

[libertyechelon]

Name calling and insulting are terrible debating skills. These shouldnt even be considered skills since they do not foster any real progress or understanding in an argument.

If you simply cannot support your argument with facts and respect or keep the argument on topic without presenting a red herring to the hearer, it will be very hard for anyone to take the argument, or you seriously. A loud voice of thunderings will only harden proud hearts and dull the ears of those who seek to understand.

14 "...Warn them... against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen" -2 Timothy 2

Nobody will ever listen to you or change, even when you are right if you can't follow these principles.

[libertyechelon]

5 posts!

My goal is to respectifully stand firm to what I believe is true and give informed answers to those I speak with. All while refraining from name-calling, insults and slander.

This is the way Jesus wants me to do it.

[libertyechelon]

Gender identity, at its core, is not something that can be empirically proven. It is deeply personal and is how an individual sees themselves and the feel that what they believe brings them happiness. In that sense, gender identity is a belief about oneself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

As a believer in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, my faith shapes my understanding of truth and reality. This too cannot be proven empirically. The Gospel brings me joy, and I hold it as the foundation of what I believe to be true. Just as my beliefs are deeply meaningful to me, these too are beliefs about myself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

Secular law is built upon objective principles, things that can be broadly agreed upon to create a fair and functional society. Laws have changed over time to reflect evolving understandings of equality, such as women’s suffrage and civil rights. These changes were made to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, sex, and other characteristics, ensuring a more just society.

While I may not personally agree with every aspect of how the LGBTQ+ choose to live, I do believe in treating all people with kindness and respect. Coexistence is not about agreement, but about maintaining boundaries that allow for both personal beliefs and social harmony. Our legal system, particularly the First Amendment, ensures that we can hold different beliefs while respecting each other’s freedoms.

However, concerns arise when workplaces, legal systems, and media enforce gender identity as an objective truth that all must publicly affirm. When individuals face professional or legal consequences for declining to endorse a belief they do not hold, it raises serious questions about freedom of thought and speech. If my faith were imposed on others in a way that demanded their verbal or behavioral conformity, it would be seen as coercion. The same principle applies in reverse.

Consider this: If an atheist were required, under legal threat, to use specific pronouns based on someone’s self-perception despite not sharing that belief, it would be a violation of their rights. The First Amendment exists to prevent such coercion.

History provides cautionary examples. In medieval Europe or parts of the Middle East, religious or ideological conformity was and is in some places still enforced under threat of severe punishment. When subjective beliefs are mandated by law, freedom is at risk.

Ultimately, everyone has the right to believe as they choose so long as those beliefs do not infringe on others rights. I can respect individuals for who they are without being compelled to affirm beliefs I do not share. This is not an issue of fear or intolerance, it is a matter of maintaining the freedoms that allow me to be happy and live free.

[thewhimsofchange]

While I generally agree with you as a Christian, they have a very solid reason for having put so much emphasis on gaining legal protection for themselves.

It's because their community has seen a political party platform on both the freedom of religion and the importance of Christian values before.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. 

It ended with them in concentration camps.

^ This is the symbol they were forced to wear, displayed Monday on the TruthSocial account of a man who platformed on the importance of protecting the religion you and I believe in.

This symbol isn't being is to condemn the use of Nazi imagery, it is being used to applaud that the army is no longer trying to recruit the people the symbol represents.

The vast, vast majority of articles mentioning LGTBQ+ people do not use symbols created by a group openly attempting to eradicate God's people. If the people claiming to "protect" our religion genuinely intended to do so, then God would not have influenced them to choose the one that did.

[libertyechelon]

While I appreciate the time you took in writing that, I don't see how this contributes to the main argument im trying to make about people weaponizing their made up pronouns against others and trying to have the "offenders" act upon their own subjective beliefs.

Addressing what you said about the article that Trump shared. Though that image of the pink triangle was truly a poor choice of imagery, the whole article starts with letting us know that it is an opinion editorial from someone else. That person controlled what imagery was posted on there, it was not a government or personal declaration of Trump's opinion or intention to execute or put LGBTQ+ in concentration camps.

I actually went ahead to check it out because you had me so intrigued and what the point the article was trying to express makes sense.

This person highlights that the U.S. military is undergoing a major shift under President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, refocusing on combat strength and readiness instead of social activism. They got rid of the recruitment ads centered on diversity and LGBTQ+ identity, and now, soldiers are shown lifting heavy weights, firing machine guns, and training for real combat. One ad declares, "Stronger people are harder to kill."

And to be honest it’s working. Recruitment is at its highest in over a decade, with daily enlistments surging. Even Biden-era officials admitted that shifting the message away from activism helped bring recruits back. Under Trump, the military’s mission is clear: deter, fight, and win wars. The days of DEI training and climate policies in the military are over.

Some critics argue this excludes LGBTQ+ troops, but the reality is that America’s military must have the goal of being strong, and lethal. War isn’t about identity politics. It’s about winning. This does not mention religion or even religious beliefs, just objective stats of how the military is being strengthened with a better focus on its strength. This strength allows us to help other countries in the world and protect our own families in the U.S.

[libertyechelon]

As a legal immigrant from Mexico, I believe we all want the same thing, which is to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, regardless of our background. We live in a country that, while not perfect, offers incredible opportunities for anyone willing to pursue them. History has had its share of injustices, but we have the power today to shape a future built on unity, not division.

When we talk about race, it’s important to approach the conversation with fairness. We all dislike being unfairly judged based on the actions of others. If someone assumed the worst about you because of something done by people who looked like you generations ago, it wouldn’t feel right. That’s because character is personal, not inherited.

The Lord teaches that "...he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female..." (2 Nephi 26:33)

We all have a shared identity, not just as individuals of different races, but as law abiding Americans, and more importantly, as children of God. That’s a powerful truth that lifts us beyond fear and division.

History shows that struggles are not unique to any one group. For instance, slavery existed in many cultures long before America was founded, yet we rarely discuss the complexities of this history. Rather than focusing on blame, we can focus on solutions and on building each other up, rather than separating into opposing sides.

We live in a time where success is not limited by race. Just look at inspiring figures like Carl Sagan, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, Thurgood Marshall, and Daymond John. They did not let anyone define their limits for them. If someone tells you that you can’t succeed without outside help because of your race, consider this: Are they empowering you, or are they keeping you dependent?

The most influential people throughout history have not been those who divide, but those who unite. When we lift each other up, we create a world where everyone has the freedom to reach their highest potential. And that’s something truly worth working together on. Lets not be bitter and lets do something for ourselves, something productive and praiseworthy.

[libertyechelon]

A disagreement between a white person and someone of a different race or ethnicity concerning something is not automatically a result of racism. Same goes with homophobia, transphobia and sexism.

If we can't see that there can be a difference between a normal disagreement and discrimination, our society will be dominated by victim mentality, self-righteous acts of violence, and surpressing of the freedom of speech.

Not everything is about a problem rooted in race and/or sex. Disagreement isn’t oppression. Debate isn’t hate. If we keep blurring the lines, we’ll lose the freedom to think at all.

[libertyechelon]

The first thing that God honors in His dealings with us His children, is the right of letting us choose for ourselves what we believe and what we want to do while also letting us receive the consequences of those things.

That same God-given right is one I am proud of having in the U.S. Constitution, which is the freedom to believe and the freedom to not believe. No one can force you to believe in "their truth" as much as you cannot force anyone to either. I cannot prove to you the existence of God but I can help you find Him through Christ so you can receive that witness from Him. In the end you have a choice to make and no one has the right to take that choice from you, not even God takes this choice from us.

No one has the right to force you to believe or follow their truth claims.

This is a precious God-given constitutional right, and we should all protect that.