stevevw said:

Thats interesting. So with that in mind that as society moves away from God more. Do you think it will become increasingly harder for Christians to preach or stand on their beliefs and values without causing conflicts or triggering others in western nations that are suppose to be where Christianity came from.

Click to expand...

Yes, for sure. While Trump fixed some things the government was doing, like spying on Christians and labeling them as "extremists" via the FBI, I think that isn't going to stop the people behind that from picking it back up once Trump is out of office. Then you have the idea where Christians are hated for being against some lifestyles because scripture says it's wrong. We're seeing a rise in that too and then let's not forget the rise in extreme Muslim thinking too that is leading to attacks against Jews and Christians in western countries. England is getting it the worst right now. So absolutely, I think it's only going to get worse as people get more brazen.

stevevw said:

I agree that it depends on where its happening. Obviously preaching in a church or among Christians is different. But I remember times when say street preaching was almost a special vocation and even the bad guys use to look up to them as they saw some hope. Or got a free coffee lol. But there was more respect and tolerance.

Click to expand...

I agree! My aunt was a street preacher before she died when I was little. The fact that a woman could do it alone back in the 70's and 80's vs today just essentially says all that needs to be said lol.

stevevw said:

But even in a work situation you could express your Christian views and it was respected. Now you have to be careful as it may offend someone. Certainly you have to be very careful on social media. Say the wrong thing and all hell breaks loose lol.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! That's another issue as well depending on where you work.

I think much of the objections come from the idea that the Catholic church was the church that ended up putting the bible together. But if it wasn't the CC it would have been a church that grew out of the early church after Christ.

I think its silly to say that the Gospels and letters are just added centuries later. We know that extracts of the bible were floating around because Clement in 88AD cits some of it. The Didache also aligns with the bible written in 70AD. THen theres Pauls letters.

But basically the New Testament is the Gospel and everyone knew that. Paul was assaulted for testifying it. The disciples were executed for it. Many Christians were persecuted for it. Theres heaps of evidence of early Christian references in archeology.

Its unreal to think that nothing was written down during and soon after Christ. Though much was oral. Pauls letters are dealing with matters in the early church and are what we would expect for that time. Clements letters to the early church and later Ignatius are exactly what we would expect for that time.

All the CC did was put together what was already circulating and all was written within the first century. You can't leave any of it out as these are the disciples of Christ and the disciples of the disciples.

In fact never mind all the modern rationalisations and conspiracies. Everything we need to know is in the bible including how Christians and the church are to live and be ordered under Christ. When all else fails return to the drawing board and original instructions lol.

For all those Christ died His death exclusively for them acquired:

Deliverance

from the hand of our enemies, Luke 1:71-74

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

This has to do with Spiritual enemies, what the carnal jews didn't understand. Jesus is a Horn of Salvation Vs 69

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

By His Death He becomes the Captain of our Salvation ! This also fulfills the promise of Matt 1:21

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins 9

Phil G said:

South on a flat earth would be anywhere you like. Because there is no south other than any direction away from north.

Click to expand...

Cor - Your learning.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

Click to expand...

That won't fly. Too many people are aware that the present system does not effectively serve the remaining 92%

HIM said:

You are trying to explain Galatians without even quoting Galatians. You quoted one verse and then ignored the surrounding text that show the context.

Click to expand...

I don't "ignore" any verse written in the Holy Scriptures, Ever! Please stop doing the exact same thing you accuse and complain about others doing to you.

How can a man understand who was bewitching the Galatians, if he doesn't understand or believe what Jesus said about those who were bewitching the Galatians? Galatians by itself, doesn't define the "Jews Religion" that the Pharisees promoted. You can't separate Galatians from the rest of the Bible, and understand what the "Jews Religion" was. A man needs the "Context" of these things Paul is talking about.

The Gospel Paul taught, was found in the Law and Prophets, as he teaches in Romans 1. The same Gospel was given to the Israelites, and they rejected it, not mixing the "hearing" with believing. How can a man understand the Gospel Paul taught, by reading Galatians alone. Paul doesn't define the Gospel of Christ in Galatians.

Paul speaks of "another Jesus", different than the Jesus "of the Bible". How can you separate Galatians from the rest of the Bible, and understand who Jesus was by the words in Galatians alone? A man must read the Law and Prophets, and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus to know what His Sayings were, and who HE was. Paul doesn't define for us the Sayings of the Christ in Galatians. And yet, only the houses of those who are "doers" of Christ's Sayings will stand in the end.

I don't believe a man can, in fact, I know that a man can not understand Galatians without first understanding who Paul was contending with, what the "Jews Religion was" and what "works of the Law" they promoted for justification, and what the Gospel that was preached to every creature under heaven, that Paul was also made a minister of.

NONE of this information is defined in the Book of Galatians. To understand these things a man must seek to understand them, in the other Holy Scriptures where they are defined. In my post to you, I answered some of these questions by going to the source, I posted the relevant Scriptures, for our discussion, and you accused me of Ignoring Scriptures.

But such is the heart of man, and I don't care about your names or accusations. I care about you. So please consider the reason for my post, and the source of my understanding. And point out where you think I am Scripturally wrong. Not just where I disagree with your philosophy, but where I diverge from what is actually written.

HIM said:

Paul mentions Circumcision, not living as the Gentiles live but as do the Jews, and being separate from those who are not Jews in chapter 2 of Galatians.

Click to expand...

Yes, Paul calls the Pharisees, "The Circumcision". He also said he was once Zealous for the "Jews Religion", Wherein in time past he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:." How can I understand what the "Jews Religion" is, by reading Galatians alone? Was the "Jews Religion" a religion that lived by and promoted God's Laws? No, Him, it was not, at least according to EVERY WORD Jesus spoke defining them. It was a religion that full well rejected God's Laws, and taught for doctrines the Commandments of men. It was a religion that was "Partial in the Law", and Omitted the weightier matters of the Law. It was a religion Pharisees placed on the necks of men, a Yoke of bondage that neither the Disciples nor their fathers could bear. A burden they placed on the backs of men they wouldn't lift with even one finger to carry. At least according to the Jesus of the Bible.

Paul said himself he was once zealous for the "Jews religion", and as touching the Law, "A Pharisee".

All this is the documented and undeniable Biblical Truth. But how can we know these things, if we separate Galatians from the rest of the bible, then create doctrines based on it's words alone? You can't my friend, well, you can, and many do. But such an endeavor with not bring about God's Truth.

So how was Peter "Living like a Jew"? If I adopt the popular religious philosophy of this world, that means Peter was rejecting the Law of Moses when he was eating with Faithful Gentiles, but "turned again" to the worthless and beggarly Elements of God, as soon as the Jews Came.

That seems to also be your position here based on the context of this reply.

But according to Paul and EVERY WORD the Jesus, "of the Bible" spoke to define the Pharisees, the "Jews religion" full well rejected God's Commandments, persecuted God's Church and taught for doctrines the commandments of men. NOT GOD as you imply Paul is teaching to the Galatians. And they were ignorant of God's Righteousness, and went about establishing their own righteousness refusing the submit to the Righteousness of God, that was revealed to them in the Law and Prophets, according to Paul's own teaching in Romans 1.

So when Peter withdrew from the Faithful Gentiles in fear of the "Jews".

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they (Jews) were come, he withdrew and separated himself, "fearing them" which were "of the circumcision".

What are you teaching he was afraid of? "God's Laws"? Or the Commandments of Men they promoted which condemned Jesus and Stephen to death right in front of him, as they declared publicly, "We have a Law, and by our Law they should die"??


The Gentiles in Galatians Paul was speaking to, that Peter was eating with, had already repented, they had already turned to God and were bringing forth "works" worthy of repentance, as Paul teaches, Yes? They were already part of the Body of Christ, is this not true? Wasn't Peter then living as the Faithful Gentiles, and not as the rebellious Jews, being part of the Body of Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile??

Surly you aren't teaching that "these Gentiles" Peter was eating with, that Paul said had received the Holy Spirit, were still worshipping pagan gods, drinking Blood, fornicating and eating animals that were strangled to death, contrary to the Law of Moses?

If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Isn't Paul saying, if Peter, a natural born Jew, was living as these Faithful Gentiles in the Body of Christ, and not after the "Jews Religion", then why would he compel these Faithful Gentiles to adopt the "Jews Religion" and be carried away with their dissimulation.?

And what LAW did the "Circumcision" teach for doctrines? The Commandments of men, or Commandments of God?

HIM said:

All of these things are laws within the Book of the Law that is mentioned in verse 3:10. Ergo the law mentioned that does not justify is the Book of the Law.

Click to expand...

NO HIM! The "Book of the Law" defines Sin, it doesn't forgive or justify sin. It was never written to do so.

Duet. 27: 9 And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God. 10 Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the LORD thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes, which I command thee this day.

But the "LAW" of the Pharisees, who had corrupted the Priesthood, taught that the "Works of the LAW" justified them. What were the "Works of the Law" Paul speaks to here and in Romans 3, that the Pharisees were promoting? I showed you in detail, the "ADDED" Law, but you didn't even acknowledge the Scriptures.

Please, I beseech thee, Read Isaiah 1 and please consider that it is showing you the "Jews Religion". Here are the Pharisees, the "Circumcision" 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint."

If you can't accept that this is the "Jews religion" Paul tells you about in Gal. 1, or the Pharisees religion Jesus Speaks to over and over and over and over, then this entire conversation in a vanity and a waste of time. But I'm not convinced you are that blind, given your understanding of the Spirit of Christ speaking in David and those who place their trust in Him, "Lo, here I come to do thy will, Oh Lord". So just Please listen to God through Isaiah, as Paul did, as HE defines for you the "Jews Religion".

IS. 1: 10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

My Brother, here are the Pharisees, living in complete rejection of God's Laws, "children of the devil" as Jesus calls them. Promoting a man made religion, clear as a bell.

Yet EVERY WEEK they gather before GOD with their Offering of the Blood of an innocent being, according to the LAW, to justify them of their sins. But these "Works of the LAW" did not Justify their willful rebellion, because the Flesh is not Justified by "Works of the Law". But the Pharisees would say, these Galatians Gentiles have sinned, and Moses said "if a man sins he shall bring a goat to us, the Priests of the Temple, and he is only justified, if HE is cleansed by "US", according to the LAW.

Paul is explaining to them that Abraham was Justified apart from this Law. Levi wasn't even born in Abraham's Time. This LAW wasn't even ADDED until 430 years after Abraham, and that, because God showed them Mercy in the wake of the golden calf. And it was a temporary priesthood from the very beginning, at it's conception, as Moses tells us.

Duet. 18: 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

It was never God's Gospel or Law, to despise His Judgments, pollute His Sabbaths, reject His commandments, then show up once a week with the Blood of and Innocent Being, to justify a man of his willful sins.

And yet, this is exactly the "Jews Religion" being promoted to the Galatians. And it's the religion of our world as well.

In closing, it is written for my admonition, for my sake no doubt, about this world's preachers:

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one "that walketh after the imagination of his own heart", No evil shall come upon you. (Thou shall surely not die)

We are taught by this world's religions since our youth, that if we call Jesus Lord, Lord, and admit we sin, that God gives us His Holy Spirit, and writes the Laws in our hearts that HE wants us to keep, and helps us keep them. This way, every person's lifestyle is justified because they just say, "God's Spirit directed me to reject this Judgment, or Commandment, or Statutes. As it turns out, each preacher who "Transforms themselves into Apostles of Christ" had different Laws written on their hearts. That is pretty much what the Holy One of Israel is warning about in Jeremiah.

But when I read what is actually written in Scriptures, God gives His Holy spirit to those who "Obey Him". Those who "deny themselves", pick up their life's experiences, and follows Him. Those who Repent of their own free will, and "Yield themselves" unto God.

Acts 5: 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given "to them that obey him".

But in this world, many of God's Laws are taught to be against Jesus, Paul and the Body of Christ. That the Pharisees were obeying God's Laws, and God rejected them for it.

That is the prism you are seeing Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians through.

I am hoping an honest, unbiased discussion of the Scriptures might shed some light on this topic, and that God might be Glorified "AS God", "as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

Click to expand...

ACA is on the verge of failing because of the costs of insurance. VA and Medicare are in a sense single-payer systems. Put that all together and the for-profit insurance model doesnt come out looking so great.

rambot said:

Nobody has a bias against blue collar workers. You would actually find that everyone you purport to be angry with for being a "socialist" would FAR father see your wages increase. We are angry you get paid so little when owners get so much more

Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second that you would be interested in increasing my wages. If I make between 280 and 300k per year, do you still want to increase my wages? or do you actually want to lower them?

I bet the latter. And that's why I cannot support socialism or democratic socialism, because more likely than not, you do not *actually* support the hard working middle class, but rather, the poor exclusively.

durangodawood said:

I mostly blame traditional authorities. Theyve been moral laggards and often simply corrupt and self serving. I dont blame the public for its declining regard for traditional authority.

Click to expand...

To an extent, but it's been a long, slow, process towards an increasingly fractured society.

durangodawood said:

For sure some of the alternatives to traditional authority have been really bad. But this sometimes failed searching seems like a phase the culture just has to go through. I dont see a realistic alternative. Traditional authority made itself irrelevant, as happens over and over in human history. We'll get to the other side of this, potential catastrophes notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we're seeing a shift towards more peer-based control systems and a shame-paradigm rather than a guilt one that traditional authorities made their bread and butter. In regard to religiosity, Christianity in particular, it calls for a re-contextualization of the gospel message away from the traditional guilt and punishment, to one that emphasizes the freedom from shame and the endurance of public humiliation Jesus went through on the cross. But too many of the religious authorities are either trying to abandon all principles and bend to public sentiments, or embracing a self-image that explains public irrelevance and dwindling church attendance as part of the cost of dicipleship.

rjs330 said:

Yeah. I dont think the left cares all that much. They know there is nothing there.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

A known trafficker of young girls has Trump's email over 1600 times; he's been talking out of two sides of his mouth for YEARS on this topic.

Of course there's nothing....that is the logical conclusion.

rjs330 said:

They are just happy to sow chaos. They love it when the Republicans are fighting. Just like we love it when the Democrats are fighting.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Democrats are fighting about:
Democrat leadership is entrenched in old ways of thinking and don't support common people.


The Republicans are fighting about:

Should we release a list of child rapists
...and some of you guys are saying "no".

We don't "love" the republicans are fighting...well, I don't. Frankly, I find it sad and pathetic you guys are fighting. I find it morally represensible and a blight against America that there is a fight over this at all.

rjs330 said:

I mean seriously. I mean what are you going to do when you find out foreign dignitaries were involved? Demand They all be arrested? You think thats going to happen?

Click to expand...

What is going on?!? Are you now suggesting that individuals who raped girls should NOT be arrested or at LEAST pursued to the full extent the law allows?


What happenned to the American right? You guys were bulldogs at "protecting kids" from trans book readings. Now you are suggesting we shouldn't bother releasing a list of child rapists?


When you guys reflect on this, doesn't it seem weird how your opinion on this issue has morphed so much?

David Lamb said:

This has already been explained. The satellites are positioned above the equator, so satellite dishes in the northern hemisphere must point south, towards the equator.

Click to expand...

You mean towards Antarctica where there are giant fixed relay sat dishes, or sat dishes in the south towards the Arctic.

Postvieww said:

promote the general Welfare,

Click to expand...

what do you suppose this means?

Fervent said:

The decay extends far beyond religion, and is a general decay of traditional authority as the public catches up with the post modern movement and it's post-truth, solipsistic turn. Everyone fancies themselves their own master, failing to recognize that there is no real freedom in that only chains that are comfortable. As for the political element, I think that's a bogeyman you're jumping at rather than an accurate assessment of what people have been saying in this thread.

Click to expand...

I mostly blame traditional authorities. Theyve been moral laggards and often simply corrupt and self serving. I dont blame the public for its declining regard for traditional authority.

For sure some of the alternatives to traditional authority have been really bad. But this sometimes failed searching seems like a phase the culture just has to go through. I dont see a realistic alternative. Traditional authority made itself irrelevant, as happens over and over in human history. We'll get to the other side of this, potential catastrophes notwithstanding.

Job 33:6 said:

The primary objectives of universal health care are to ensure that every person has access to essential medical services without financial hardship, to control overall healthcare costs, and to improve public health outcomes.

And many nations have already accomplished this ahead of the US. France, Germany, the UK, Canada, and Japan, are examples of universal healthcare systems that have much cheaper and affordable healthcare with better health outcomes and longer average lifespans for the public.

Click to expand...

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

Quilting Party March

BCP1928 said:

Sounds like two different issues.

Click to expand...

Not at all, it's a symptom of hyper-individualism

BCP1928 said:

Yet the malevolent force that the decline in religiosity is being attributed to is painted as being uniquely embodied in Democrats and the Democratic party.

Click to expand...

That's not how I'm reading most of the discussion, as the two don't seem to be being linked directly by anyone but you. The discussion of the ills of the democrats/democratic party has mostly been a response to blanket statements about conservatives/Republicans. It's not blaming them for a decline in religiosity, as that would be the tail wagging the dog.

Hentenza said:

Socialism is yet to work anywhere.

Click to expand...

Depends on what type of Socialism.

Hentenza said:

At the end of the day it’s just about using someone else’s money and that is always bound to run out. Even Scandinavian countries that claim democratic socialism are highly capitalistic.

Click to expand...

Most of these countries are really Social Democracies.

rjs330 said:

We don't need or want more citizens.

Click to expand...

Then you are anti-immigration. It’s that simple.

I say we do want and need more citizens. What makes your opinion more valid than mine, as an American?

rjs330 said:

We have enough right now.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We need more.

rjs330 said:

We especially don't need more citizens from 3rd world countries who are coming here and transforming areas into where they came from.

Click to expand...

We especially need more from the 3rd world as wealthy people from modern countries don’t have a need to seek a better life.

essentialsaltes said:

‘Humbly, I’m sorry’: Marjorie Taylor Greene says she’s turning a new leaf after years of divisive comments​

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Sunday she will stop using “toxic” rhetoric, marking what would be a dramatic shift in a political brand hallmarked by derogatory comments.

“The most hurtful thing (Trump) said, which is absolutely untrue, is he called me a traitor, and that is so extremely wrong,” Greene said, “and those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger.”

When pressed by Bash on why she didn’t speak out against Trump using such rhetoric until it was directed at her, Greene conceded that it was “fair criticism.”

Greene said she realized that she has participated in or supported heated rhetoric that has resulted in threats toward others, a point of reflection for her.

Click to expand...

Are Dem pols gonna start campaigning with her now? Liz Cheney wasn't enough? lol

eleos1954 said:

No ... just saying they both gave pardons and that some on both sides are questionable ... at least Trumps pardons weren't signed with an auto pen ... to me that fact is highly suspicious

Click to expand...

MarkSB said:

While I agree that absolute pardon power is something presidents should not have, and that there is a long list of pardons from Biden that appear questionable

Click to expand...

You guys keep saying that some of Biden's pardons are sketchy, but you haven't named a single one.

Why not? Is it easier to just make claims rather than to do any actual reading?

The list has already been posted and it isn't big. It only took me a couple minutes to look over. The vast majority are for offenses that occurred 15+ years ago. The only recent-ish one that got me to raise an eyebrow was Geral Lundgarden. The other recent-ish ones were blanket pardons for people likely to be punitatively targeted by the incoming Trump administration (e.g. Biden family members, Mark Milley, Dr Fauci). You could probably argue that the pardons for his son and brother are questionable, but that's all I'm seeing. How is this in any way comparable to what Trump's done?

iluvatar5150 said:

Yeah, I love how the ones constantly decrying the abuse and scorn directed at "the working man" are also the ones who scoff at minimum wage hikes, union rights, workplace protections, expanded health insurance coverage, and mandatory sick time and parental leave. No socialism for them! It's gotta be pure every-man-is-an-island capitalism, forgetting that, in the free market, they're not the titans. They're just the fodder.

Click to expand...

It's interesting.

Millionaires have learned to work together. Billionaires have learned to work together. Working class dumb dumbs keep fighting against each other. They don't recognize the power we would have if we stopped doing that.

PloverWing said:

For years, I have bought my Christmas cards from Conception Abbey: Christmas Cards . (They used to call their shop "Printery House"; now it's called "Altar + Home".) They also sell cards for Easter and other holidays, along with cards for occasions like baptism and confirmation.

As to the OP: A few of my friends still send cards, but it doesn't seem to be as common a practice as it used to be. Too bad -- it's a nice custom.

Click to expand...

I never thought of buying Christmas cards from a church, thanks.

It's why there is a push to make AI take over mundane and white-collar jobs.

Fervent said:

The decay extends far beyond religion, and is a general decay of traditional authority as the public catches up with the post modern movement and it's post-truth, solipsistic turn.

Click to expand...

Sounds like two different issues.

Fervent said:

Everyone fancies themselves their own master, failing to recognize that there is no real freedom in that only chains that are comfortable. As for the political element, I think that's a bogeyman you're jumping at rather than an accurate assessment of what people have been saying in this thread.

Click to expand...

Yet the malevolent force that the decline in religiosity is being attributed to is painted as being uniquely embodied in Democrats and the Democratic party.