>>9466087

You're becoming more and more like the virtue-signalling libtards, Q. You share the same notion that anything desirable such as love and unity and peace can be brought into existence by command and wishful thinking. You never talk about the necessity for a common cause; unity doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is the result of a shared belief/purpose. What is it that you propose should be the unifying cause around which citizens can unite? It used to be the inalienable rights granted by our Creator and ratified in the Constitution. But since a large percentage of the population no longer believes in a Creator, they dismiss the very concept of Creator-derived, inalienable rights and instead propose government donated rights. How do you propose the country unites around such opposing beliefs?

>>9466591

Bless you, brother.

>>9466696

>Q is marginally religious, a progressive one if that,

Yes, I tend to agree, hence my post.

>>9466925

>Most of your post is gibberish,

I take this as an admission of poor comprehension on your part.

Furthermore, belief in "a god" as you put it, is not the same as belief in an almighty, Creator God who is necessarily singular and unique. Nor have you addressed the logical disconnect between upholding a Constitution based on Creator-derived, inalienable rights and disbelief in such a Creator.