How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived

[whosyourwally]

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. That is accurate. What Jefferson’s letter was all about was protecting the Church from the State. Not vice versa. The Church definitely impacted the State with regards to our laws and such - look at our Constitution and dollar bills. The intent was not to have a theocracy and not have the clergy/pastors in the Church hold both religious and political position at the same time. Need to think what the definition of “separation” and the intent of Jefferson’s comment regarding who it was to protect.

I said I was going to tap out, but I can’t quit. By literal definition, theocracy was a poor word choice. So please tell me what you would like the relationship between the church and the federal government to look like.

Should we legislate the oppression of groups of people the Bible condemns and should we ban behaviors that Bible forbids, even where we have data to say these things improve quality of life? (I.E., the rights of same sex couples?)

I’m just really bummed that such a large group of opportunistic people are happy to see incursions by the church on individual rights and freedoms. I’m losing hope that we can reconcile the Americas we want for our children.

[whosyourwally]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

Almost everything in this post is 'projection'. Not really worth addressing at all...

Let me give you an example. The Freedom Riders and the violence they incurred during the civil rights moment, as well as the deaths of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

Charlie Kirk had this to say:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
“We created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.”

Identity politics, yes? Or no, because diversify, equity, and inclusion justifiably terrify the American white man?
(Picture the hyenas shuttering at the mention of the word “Mufasa”.)

On the two quotes above, please let me know if those are a single assertion or separate. I'll also ask you to come with more than a sound bite quote. Please provide source and full context. I'll also ask you to read (or listen to) the full context prior to posting. it may give you some clarity in what was actually being said.

Identity politics? Please clarify what a yes or no answer would indicate. I'll say this if it helps, the now illegal practice of affirmative action was racist policy. DEI expands that to other beneficiaries of identity politics. Some DEI goals may be achieved without changing qualifications, but often require lowering of the bar to be met. DEI policies prejudice identity over merit. Apply DEI policy to the NBA and get back to me. Thank you though for introducing me to a new phobia... DEIphobia.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/identity-politics

And take comfort in knowing that I did listen to his entire bit on the Civil Rights movement and still felt the need to share those bitter little sound bites.

My favorite part about this:
We’re lobbing contradictory Charlie Kirk quotes at each other and acting like one side is right and the other is wrong…
What if…. And I’m just spitballing here…. He was a contradiction of a human being. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth and letting his views “evolve” as new opportunities for fame and fortune presented themselves?

[Phalanx]

Wow, what a letdown. You started with this:

Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.

and now I find that there was nothing behind this show of self-assurance but ignorant gibberish. I took the time to craft responses as if I was in an adult conversation on a serious topic and now I feel kind of dumb expecting serious interaction on a football website. Oh well. I got to read a few chapters in Revelation, so it's not all a waste.

Go Ducks, I guess.

[duckpoint]

Duckpoint, Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for limited government, individual rights, and a free-market economy. Is that what you meant, or are you claiming longer standing progressive values have, in a vacuum, shifted toward identity politics?

If the former, I’d agree that liberalism/neo-liberalism has given way to MAGA’s version of identity politics.
Example #1 - Kirk’s countless comments on Islam, the LGTBQ community, immigrant communities, people of color.
Example #2 - Every single DJT tweet.

Division and fear are useful tools when your goal is to control the masses. Hegelian dialectics.

Order of operation - there is no movement without a cause or a need. No one would have pushed for women’s suffrage if there wasn’t codified resistance to women voting. It’s the same with gay marriage, etc. When the ruling party targets specific groups of people, those groups of people and their allies coalesce. Thus, the dawn of identity politics.

Almost everything in this post is 'projection'. Not really worth addressing at all...

Let me give you an example. The Freedom Riders and the violence they incurred during the civil rights moment, as well as the deaths of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

Charlie Kirk had this to say:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
“We created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.”

Identity politics, yes? Or no, because diversify, equity, and inclusion justifiably terrify the American white man?
(Picture the hyenas shuttering at the mention of the word “Mufasa”.)

On the two quotes above, please let me know if those are a single assertion or separate. I'll also ask you to come with more than a sound bite quote. Please provide source and full context. I'll also ask you to read (or listen to) the full context prior to posting. it may give you some clarity in what was actually being said.

Identity politics? Please clarify what a yes or no answer would indicate. I'll say this if it helps, the now illegal practice of affirmative action was racist policy. DEI expands that to other beneficiaries of identity politics. Some DEI goals may be achieved without changing qualifications, but often require lowering of the bar to be met. DEI policies prejudice identity over merit. Apply DEI policy to the NBA and get back to me. Thank you though for introducing me to a new phobia... DEIphobia.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/identity-politics

And take comfort in knowing that I did listen to his entire bit on the Civil Rights movement and still felt the need to share those bitter little sound bites.

My favorite part about this:
We’re lobbing contradictory Charlie Kirk quotes at each other and acting like one side is right and the other is wrong…
What if…. And I’m just spitballing here…. He was a contradiction of a human being. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth and letting his views “evolve” as new opportunities for fame and fortune presented themselves?

I don't need a definition. The way you asked your question was unclear to me what answering yes or no was in agreement or dissent with.

I disagree with that assertion. We can agree to disagree and move on, especially since we've circled back to what was already debated.

There's literally thousands of hours of CK content out there. Most of it is repetition of a few dozen topics. If you can't find the evidence that Charlie wanted all the best for black individuals and communities, it's because you don't want to find it.

[GDuck]

“Wrapping this up — For me, it’s way less about reinterpreting the Bible to make it fit alongside my woke-ass agenda, and way more about keeping it out of policy all together.”

There is no way you can do this - the US is based on the Bible. I like how Ben Shapiro put it recently - you are already on 3rd base. The morals and laws already have the Bible engrained in It.

[whosyourwally]

Wow, what a letdown. You started with this:

Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.

and now I find that there was nothing behind this show of self-assurance but ignorant gibberish. I took the time to craft responses as if I was in an adult conversation on a serious topic and now I feel kind of dumb expecting serious interaction on a football website. Oh well. I got to read a few chapters in Revelation, so it's not all a waste.

Go Ducks, I guess.

I’ll clarify, and then I promise I’m done grandstanding. This wasn’t as cathartic as I naively imagined.

I spent two years in a Master’s of Divinity program and left for reasons that I imagine are pretty apparent at this point. Clearly a little rusty on self-referential Bible banter. Prior to that, I spent about about a year in Central America working for a faith-based NP, and had been spending about a month each winter at a church-run orphanage in Haiti before it became a death sentence to set foot on Haitian soil…. Hoping to find my way back there sooner than later.

I still, in a completely non-ironic way, help run a Christian summer camp for foster kids.

I have no issue with the core beliefs of Christianity until they’re weaponized for profit and/or to harm others. This growing sentiment y’all are pushing that one can’t both be a progressive and a devout Christian… that’s a big part of why I threw my name in the transfer portal. My faith is at the core of who I am, I just had to step outside of the “It’s true because it benefits me” mindset and let God show… themself (wink wink) to me as… they (wink wink) saw fit. Spiritually healthier now than I’ve ever been.

And so we don’t agree on much. I assume it’s because you’re dumb and I’m smart, and you assume the opposite (I say this in jest). All part of being human. I’m good with all of that. Just be good to people, yeah? All people.

And… yeah, go Ducks, I guess.

[duckpoint]

This is the statement I set out to disprove:

"'honoring' recently slain political and social commentator Charlie Kirk would be an opportunity for a public university to generate 'unity,' to which I responded that it was inappropriate and cited Charlie Kirk's stances on different topics that directly flew in the face of unity."

I doubt I accomplished that with those I would say can't be moved even if some of the debunking comes from a young gay black man who credits Charlie with being a great influence on his life.

I'll just say that I'm curious to see if there is any gesture made at the game on Saturday. It would be a bad look to ignore this if he wasn't a fan, and a horrible look considering the fact that he was!

Go Ducks!

[dd10snoop28]

Dang, this was an awful thread to read. Two pages arguing with a guy who claimed to be a Christian , and capitalized the "Word of God" and "Gospel", and then subsequently quotes verses stripped of all context to support his disdain for God and the Bible.

Read the Bible. Therein lies the answers to humanities greatest enemy: death. One of Charlie's last tweets was the following: “Yeshua (Jes*us*) defeated death so you can live.”

[whosyourwally]

Dang, this was an awful thread to read. Two pages arguing with a guy who claimed to be a Christian , and capitalized the "Word of God" and "Gospel", and then subsequently quotes verses stripped of all context to support his disdain for God and the Bible.

Read the Bible. Therein lies the answers to humanities greatest enemy: death. One of Charlie's last tweets was the following: “Yeshua (Jes*us*) defeated death so you can live.”

You just didn’t like the context I provided. Self-referential logic is a circle jerk and it’s how large sects of Christianity have justified violence/genocide/bigotry throughout history. Y’all are smart and empathetic free thinkers in so many spaces in your life, but where your televangelist tells you to jump, you jump.

Jésus stopped a woman from being stoned and spoke countless times on forgiveness, but yet many of you call for Charlie Kirk’s killer to be executed. Go ahead and spin that some way that justifies your unwillingness to forgive.

And call me a pretend a Christian if it helps you sleep at night. I couldn’t want your brand of Christianity any less.

[Duck07]

Remember, this is NOT a racist or hateful individual but someone who is the embodiment of Geez both in virtue, word and civic service and we should rename Autzen after him. Am I doing right now?

Embedded Tweet

Edited to add that the Board won't even let us type in J e s u s apparently and it switches it to Geez.

[duckpoint]

Dang, this was an awful thread to read. Two pages arguing with a guy who claimed to be a Christian , and capitalized the "Word of God" and "Gospel", and then subsequently quotes verses stripped of all context to support his disdain for God and the Bible.

Read the Bible. Therein lies the answers to humanities greatest enemy: death. One of Charlie's last tweets was the following: “Yeshua (Jes*us*) defeated death so you can live.”

The Revelations quote was a misfire, but regarding the rest, you just didn’t like the context I provided. Self-referential logic is a circle jerk and it’s how large sects of Christianity have justified violence/genocide/bigotry throughout history. Y’all are smart and empathetic free thinkers in so many spaces in your life, but where your televangelist tells you to jump, you jump.

Jésus stopped a woman from being stoned and spoke countless times on forgiveness, but yet many of you call for Charlie Kirk’s killer to be executed. Go ahead and spin that some way that justifies your unwillingness to forgive.

And call me a pretend a Christian if it helps you sleep at night. I couldn’t want your brand of Christianity any less.

I've got some popcorn popping so I can be a spectator while others respond to your accusation that Christians that disagree with you are lead by televangelists!

Once again you have made another false claim, "yet many of you call for Charlie Kirk’s killer to be executed". Please point out where that happened in this thread or anywhere that can be ascribed to us as the proverbial 'you' in case I missed it.

False claims, out of context soundbites, projection & deflection is all you got. You really need to quit while your behind.

[whosyourwally]

My bad. I skipped a step. If found guilty, do you support the death penalty for Tyler Robinson?

If not, I love that. I’ll need a bigger box to put you in, but if I was tech savvy enough to create a poll, I’d put every dollar I own on that you represent but a small minority among individuals who’ve adopted a conservative Christian ideology.

[duckpoint]

My bad. I skipped a step. If found guilty, do you support the death penalty for Tyler Robinson?

If not, I love that. I’ll need a bigger box to put you in, but if I was tech savvy enough to create a poll, I’d put every dollar I own on that you represent but a small minority among individuals who’ve adopted a conservative Christian ideology.

Now we are getting somewhere and it is a good thing you are not tech savvy as you would lose every dollar you own!

Personally I would indeed support the death penalty if convicted, (I never made that part of the debate) but I'm not a Christian. That's why I stayed out of the Christian debate only making some observations and asking some questions. Other than that, I simply said I accepted that Charlies beliefs were rooted in his faith.

With your help, this has been a learning experience for me though. I know there are some distinctions in the specific tenets of the various denominations, but I never directly associated those differences with political ideology. I find it very interesting that there seems to be some correlation in the evolution of 'liberal' Christian values and the evolution of neo-liberal platforms. It makes me curious as to what the future holds in that regard.

[duckpoint]

Remember, this is NOT a racist or hateful individual but someone who is the embodiment of Geez both in virtue, word and civic service and we should rename Autzen after him. Am I doing right now?

Embedded Tweet

Edited to add that the Board won't even let us type in J e s u s apparently and it switches it to Geez.

Being that Gaza seems to be your favorite non duck's topic, it is not surprising that you view Charlie's too soon dark humor as insensitive to the perpetrators of the October 7, 2023 massacre.

I'm sure you don't care, but the basic premise of his comment (the first part) was used more than once to illustrate the complete lunacy of the 'Gays for Gaza' protests.

Overview of "Gays for Gaza" Protests

The phrase "Gays for Gaza" (or variations like "Queers for Palestine") refers to a slogan and movement within pro-Palestinian activism, where LGBTQ+ individuals and allies express solidarity with Palestinians amid the Israel-Hamas war that escalated after October 7, 2023. It emerged prominently in Western protests, often at Pride events or anti-war rallies, to highlight perceived intersections between queer liberation and anti-colonialism/anti-occupation struggles. Critics, including Israeli officials and conservative commentators, mock it as ironic or self-defeating, citing severe persecution of LGBTQ+ people in Gaza under Hamas rule (e.g., up to 10 years imprisonment for same-sex acts, torture, and executions). Supporters argue it's about opposing genocide and pinkwashing—Israel's promotion of its LGBTQ+ friendliness to deflect criticism of its policies toward Palestinians.

The movement gained traction in 2023–2025, with thousands of LGBTQ+ Americans signing petitions for a Gaza ceasefire and attending protests. It's not a formal organization but a grassroots tactic, often clashing with Pride marches or drawing backlash for perceived naivety about Gaza's realities. In September 2024, a U.S. group (New Tolerance Campaign) offered $1 million for a Pride parade in Gaza as satire to challenge the slogan.

[Duck07]

WWJD? - Support the murder of innocent children and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and make jokes about it. He'd also definitely support the illegal occupation of that land and the terrible atrocities commited against those people every day prior to Oct 7th too.

There seems to be a giant moral reason I might be constantly bring it up. I find your (and others) repeated attempts to diminish anything that Israel does (and sometimes outright deny irrefutable evidence) in conjunction with your desire to elevate Charlie Kirk and his pedantic, sophomoric behavior and any attempt to diminish him in any way to be completely incongruent with the whole WWJD mantra.