Starseeker

I don’t understand the context of this statement.
What does it mean for abstract concepts to be “downstream” of each other?

Jesus was NOT liberal.

Jesus espoused liberalistic concepts, but on an entirely voluntary basis.
Jesus espoused that individuals feed the hungry.
Jesus espoused that individuals clothe the naked.
Jesus espoused that individuals visit the imprisoned.

The sermon about “Give to Caesar” had nothing to do with taxes, but to expose the hypocrisy of the Hebrew clergy. The Commandment says to “Take unto yourself no graven images”. Caesar had coins engraved in his image that he gave to his most staunch of allies. As a man who thought of himself as a “god”, giving a tribute to Caesar was tantamount to acknowledging Caesar as a god, which is a violation of the Commandment to “…have no other gods before me.”

Jesus certainly never espoused paying other people (government) to steal resources (aka taxes) from other people to give to people not willing to work (welfare junkies) to better themselves. Jesus espoused giving to the poor as a voluntary anonymous practice.

Jesus never cared about politics. Jesus was not conservative. Jesus was not liberal. But if anything, I believe Jesus most likely held views most consistent with libertarianism. But, moral behavior was individual and voluntary moral behavior.

Jesus was not conservative, liberal, or otherwise political. Jesus was moral.

Men are physically tougher than women.
Women are internally tougher than men.

If you don’t believe this, ask a man to bear children.

Social status seems to me to be more linked with political philosophy.

Corporations are liberal.
The media is liberal.
Celebrities are liberal.
Social media moderators are liberal.

Conservatives get blackballed from the entertainment industry.
Conservative commenters on social media get Facebook jailed or banned from posting on media platforms.
Social justice rioters get away with riots and violence, while peaceful conservative protests and gatherings get criminalized.

The list goes on and on, but it seems that in today’s divisive culture of liberal hate and intolerance of anything not liberally charged, that political philosophy has a larger bearing on social status.

This question needs clarification.

There is a difference between what actual separation of church and state is, and what the public perceives the separation of church and state to be.

Most typically, the people (and primarily atheists) se the separation of church and state as being a total banning of any expression of theological belief anywhere in public. No crosses, no “Merry Christmas”, no Ten Commandments, no representation of a religion anywhere in public, in shopping malls, government buildings, or private property, anywhere where they can be seen by the public.

True separation of church and state means that the government divorces itself from any consideration of mandating or banning anything with regards to religious expression. The government must allow any expression of any religion in any public venue, so long no one is being stolen from, abused, or physically harmed in any way. Government cannot mandate a religious practice. Government cannot ban any religious practice. Government cannot force someone to act against their moral compass. Government must divorce itself from any consideration to mandate or ban any practice, so long as it does not harm or steal from another person, and so long as the religious expression does not interfere with another’s constitutional rights.

I agree with this second definition of the “Separation of Church and State”, but not the anti-theist definition of it.

So, this question needs specific clarification of the terms, before I can answer my perspective in all good conscience.

Male circumcision at birth: legal.
Female circumcision: voluntary only.
Male circumcision after childhood: voluntary only.

This question needs context.

Are we talking about oppenness about sex and nudity in general, the way European and Japanese societies are open about them?
Are we talking about allowing art and nudity in public venues, such as art, self expression, or entertainment?
Are we talking about the “Free the Nipple” movement?
Or, are we talking about imposing transgenderism and LGBTQ on very young minds still learning traditional gender roles, thus confusing them before they can even understand, let alone make personal and long-lasting decisions?

Here’s where this vague question has me confused.

I can agree with a more open approach to sexuality and nudity in art and entertainment in public.
I can agree with openness of sexuality and nudity as a form of self-expression and gender fairness, as in the case of “Free the Nipple”, although I would caution against the wisdom of it considering the targets on would paint on themselves, and the unwanted attention it would draw.
But, I disagree with confusing our young children by imposing complicated sexual concepts on them, when they don’t fully understand traditional gender roles, yet.

I can’t really answer this question, unless it has more specific context.

I don’t understand what “STEM representation” is.

I am neutral on this because “Civility” in this question lacks context. Are we talking about avoiding logical fallacies and sticking to the facts? Are we talking about not “offending” someone who merely disagrees with you? Are we talking about simply not using vulgarity?

I support any form of communication, whether vulgar or not, that a person can understand the intended meaning. Many people have a very limited and low vocabulary, yet can still communicate a viable point (some people only grew up talking a certain way, and that’s all they know), so vulgarity and inarticulate speech does not necessarily offend me. I support using facts and rational concepts in communicating a point, but it can become aggravating when an opponent spends the entire debate pointing out logical fallacies and showcasing their mastery of Latin. It can also be equally annoying when an opponent resorts to insults and personal attacks in a discussion of a debated topic.

Before I can choose a more definitive stance on this question, “Civility” needs to be defined in specific terms within the context of the conversation.