Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Liberty Politics Discussion

4.3k members • Free

9 contributions to Liberty Politics Discussion
Iran Checkmated - Keeping the Republic
This piece was written by a buddy of mine, Joe Andrews, and I think it does a great job explaining this war to Americans. Iran Checkmated - Keeping the Republic https://keepingtherepublicblog.com/iran-checkmated/
1 like • 1d
@Daniel Bell I certainly hope that happens. That would be a victory for the world.
0 likes • 1d
@Daniel Bell Yes... I understand you're not a fan of the administration and he a staunch supporter. What don't you like about it? I'm interested.
It Started With Marriage
On April 1st, 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in human history to legalize same-sex marriage. Years later, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court likewise declared marriage a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Rose Garden, declared "love is love" as he celebrated the ruling as "a victory for America." And most Americans seem to agree. A gallop poll suggests that approximately 88% of democrats and nearly 50% of Republicans support gay marriage. So it seems the debate is over. But should it be? In 2007, an Assumptionist priest by the name of Barry Bercier wrote in his book, Skies of Babylon, that if traditional marriage were re-defined to include same sex couples, "the result would be nothing less than the end of the world of man." Sound dramatic? Well -- what is marriage? If marriage were merely a proclamation of love, and if the fundamental purpose of marriage were to reward people who love each other, then gay marriage should be legal. But society does not give certain legal rights, financial benefits and tax breaks to people simply because they fall in love. At least, until two decades ago, that's not how it worked. Barry Bercier defines marriage as "the public and legal recognition of the pre-political duality of the sexes and the significance of the duality for human beings and the social and political order." In other words, marriage -- traditional marriage as it existed across every civilization for nearly all of human history, is the recognition of a unique relationship that pre-exists law and human constructs. That is, the institution of marriage - from Mesopotamia, to Egypt, China, Rome and every Western nation until 2001 -- recognized the duality of the sexes through law because the duality is the nucleus from which life emerges. The relationship between male and female -- man and woman -- whether you are gay, straight, black, white, bisexual, asexual, rich or poor, is our beginning; our source. For every human being, the duality of the sexes is our 'sine qua non' -- without it, life would not exist.
0 likes • 2d
@Oscar Paez Hi. I didn’t say if you allow same-sex marriage you must allow polygamy. I asked, if we support same-sex marriage, what is the limiting principle that limits marriage to two individuals? And then I suggested that there is no limiting principle, which by default leads us to polygamy. That's different than saying if we allow same-sex marriage we "must" allow polygamy. "Must" implies a reason or principle. I am saying that void of a reason, there is nothing that prevents the movement toward polygamy. And that movement is happening. And no... it has nothing to do with disapproval. I laid forth the reason. And it is only one reason, but I think it is a good one. Do you believe that every civilization until 2001 was motivated by bigotry against gay people? Was there no intuitive and rationale reason to form marriage around the sexes? Marriage has always been centered around the sexes. It's always been between male and female -- that has never changed until 2001. And that change, unwittingly, transforms the institution.
0 likes • 1d
@Oscar Paez I am not conflating the two. You're not recognizing how the current re-defined definition of marriage opens the door to polygamy. The law has to have a rational justification or basis in order for it to hold. If it doesn't, it will change. So the question is, why limit marriage to two people? Polyamory "rights" advocates who seek recognition under the law don't see good reason to limit to two. They argue for legal recognition on the grounds of "personal choice," "dignity (e.g. "love is love"), and equality. We're going in circles on your last claim. Yes... to some extent, marriage has changed (e.g. polygamy), but it has always been an institution in recognition of the sexes. While same-sex relationships were common, same-sex marriage was never legal in any civilization in all of human history until 2001. And so marriage was fundamentally transformed for the first time in 2001 by removing sex from the definition of marriage.
Trump Vs the Pope
As a Catholic, I wish more members of the clergy would speak sense into the Vatican. Lately, those elected to the position of Pontiff -- namely, Pope Leo and Pope Francis -- have demonstrated what seems to be such a stunning level of ignorance that gives one cause to suspect something nefarious is happening at high levels in the church. Pope Francis, while living in a city surrounded by a 39 foot wall, criticized Trump for building a wall along its southern border to stop a flood of illegal immigration. Now, Pope Leo, with his criticisms of the Trump administration, undermines a just war against an evil regime that brings to life hell on earth for people who wish to live freely and in peace. Pursue "peace" the Pope says, like a 5-year old. He says so like a child blind to the realities of the world and the nature of the enemy that aims to impose its evil will on the world. He ignores the cheers of the Iranian people who plea for American support, the recent murder of tens of thousands of those people, and justifies the ignorance and simplicity of his message by simply pointing to the gospel. The Bible warns us to be careful about we what we teach because teachers will be judged more harshly if they lead people astray, so I will preface carefully that it is my understanding that the message of the gospel speaks to you and me as neighbors -- but it does not command nations to lay down in front of an enemy that wishes to destroy it. Nations have the responsibility to protect their people against evil and, one might argue, to fight evil in the world. Lately, the moral leadership the Pope provides is not leadership. It is like the words of a child, blind to reality and danger; misguidance or something worse. The Catholic church supports just wars. In fact, it has criteria to determine wars that are just and wars that are not. Why does this Pope not see this war as just? Why does he not mention the thousands of innocent Iranians murdered in the streets? The Catholic church believes in the doctrine of infallibility. The misconception is that any words the Pope utters are considered by Catholics to be infallibile. The reality is that for the Pope's position on an issue of morality to be considered infallibile, the Pope must explicitly exercise the doctrine. The doctrine of infallibility has only be exercised once during the entire existence of the Catholic church.
The Bond (between Christians and Jews)
My old teacher and friend, a Catholic priest, recently published this book called "The Bond." At a time when far-right "America first" nonsense calls for separation from the Jews, Fr. Barry Bercier offers serious insight with real depth and understanding on the bond between Christianity and Judaism and its role in preserving Western Civilization. "For a very long part of their history, Christians were commonly taught that the New Covenant had replaced the Covenant of the Jews. By the time of the Second Vatican Council, this teaching was fading from view as a new understanding arose, effectively affirming that the Covenant of the Jews is in fact living and valid. This shift concerns not a peripheral dimension of Christian self-understanding, but a matter of the very origins of Christianity, and therefore, of its essential character. The little book you find here aims to suggest the theological extent, depth, and consequences of that shift as Christians and Jews find themselves bound together in the midst of the crisis of the West, the civilization which they have so profoundly influenced, by which they are now threatened, and in the face of which they are called to stand and respond." https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GCCDP214#
"Where is Bibi?" My Desperate Plea to Israel on Ynet News
I went on Ynet, Israel's largest news outlet, to deliver a critical message from the Iranian people as the regime attempts to hide a massacre under a total internet blackout. With reports of over 12,000 dead in just two days, the situation on the ground is catastrophic, yet Iranians are still taking to the streets and calling for the return of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. In this interview, I remind Prime Minister Netanyahu of his promise to stand with us, explaining that the Iranian people are Israel's most vital allies in the region, and that while the Islamic Republic is on the brink of collapse, we need immediate support to stop the slaughter and secure a future of peace and friendship between our two nations.
"Where is Bibi?" My Desperate Plea to Israel on Ynet News
2 likes • Jan 14
Great job.
1-9 of 9
Greg Penta
3
24points to level up
@greg-penta-9796
Here to connect, share ideas and learn from others in the group.

Active 6h ago
Joined Nov 29, 2025
Powered by