Science and alt religion has been brutal to Christianity and Judaism. Japanese cardinal supports efforts to aid Gaza, but questions plans to bring injured to Japan Sign In John Allen Jr. Staff Categories Videos / Podcast Support Us About Us Contact Us Vance says Trump administration will continue to prioritize religious liberty John Lavenburg By John Lavenburg Feb 6, 2025 | National Correspondent Share Vance says Trump administration will continue to prioritize religious liberty Vice President JD Vance speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington. (Credit: Alex Brandon/AP.) Listen NEW YORK – In touting the accomplishments of the first Trump administration, Vice President JD Vance assured a room full of advocates that the second Trump administration will continue to prioritize advancing religious freedom both domestically and abroad. “You shouldn’t have to leave your faith at the door of your people’s government, and under President Trump’s leadership you won’t have to,” Vance said Feb. 5, noting that the administration “is intent on not just restoring but expanding the achievements of the first four years and certainly of the last two weeks.” Vance, a Catholic, highlighted that in his first term President Donald Trump advanced religious freedom through his foreign policy with China, across Europe, and throughout Africa and the Middle East, including by rescuing persecuted pastors, and bringing relief to faith groups terrorized by ISIS. Domestically, the vice president said that Trump’s first term was “a new high water mark for religious Americans,” with decisive actions to defend religious liberty, combat anti-Semitism, preserve the conscience rights of hospital workers and faith-based ministries as they provided care, and remove barriers for religious organizations and businesses to work with the federal government. As for the current Trump administration, Vance said it has already made important progress through executive orders “to end the weaponization of the federal government against religious Americans,” citing the pardoning of several pro-life protesters who were arrested for blockading abortion entrances, and through an executive order that prevents federal censorship. “Now, our administration believes we must stand for religious freedom not just as a legal principle – as important as that is –but as a lived reality both within our own borders and especially outside of them,” Vance said in a roughly 12 minute long address at the International Religious Freedom Summit, held Feb. 4 and 5 in Washington, D.C. Vance then added that part of protecting religious freedom initiatives means recognizing in foreign policy the difference between the regimes that respect religious freedom and those that do not, which he said the administration stands ready to do. “Both at home and abroad we have much more to do to more fully secure religious liberty for all people of faith,” the vice president concluded. Earlier, Vance spoke about faith as a bedrock of the nation’s culture, noting that it “calls us to treat one another with dignity, to lift up those in need, and to build nations grounded in moral principle.” He also said religious liberty isn’t just about the legal safeguards, but “fostering a culture in which faith can thrive so that men and women can fully appreciate the God given rights of their fellow citizens.” “Church was a place, and still is, where people of different races, different backgrounds, different walks of life came together in commitment to their shared communities, and of course in commitment to their God,” the vice president explained. “It was a place where the CEO of a company and the worker of a company stood equal before their worship of God. It was a place where people united not just in the pews but in acts of service on mission trips, charity drives, and in rallying around one another in times of sickness, or grief, or, of course, in celebration of new life.” “Are these not the kinds of bonds and virtues that lawmakers today should strive to cultivate?” Vance asked. “Well, I’m pleased to say that they certainly were in the first Trump administration, and they will be even more so in the second Trump administration.”
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment