Forgive me my failings. Or don't. I'll forgive, love and pray for you either way ;)

Well, those are a lot of half-truths, omissions, and biased frames. You assume that the South remained as racist as it had been when your buddies were in charge. I live in Georgia. You are mistaken. You think the GOP used "coded language" to tell racists that it was okay to be racist. Funny that only Democrats can decode that. Republicans don't hear it that way. They were also against segregation, so to say that they used code to hide their support for it is... unsound. Republicans saw peaceful protests against segregation (which they were already against and the first President to do anything about it was... a Republican) being responded to with attack dogs and firehoses. Now, I wasn't alive for that, but my parents described their horror when they saw it.

Oh, and yes, Democrats have always been the party of racism. When FDR bragged about having tons of friends in the KKK, what was that? Yeah, he got black votes, but he was giving away free money. He got tons of votes. Blacks knew he hated them, but he was already making them dependent on his party. Truman didn't like them either. Eisenhower knew better and had to call out the National Guard to stop Democrats from keeping schools segregated.

No, the only change is in how Democrats use their racism. Now, it's "the GOP is so racist you have to vote for us". It's all just a way to keep blacks down. Democrats run almost every major city and every major city's education system. Do their policies educate black children? No, the numbers show that is not the case. Do black people do better in places run by Democrats? Only if they join the party and then work for the government. Maxine Waters is rich as hell now, but are the people she represents any better off for her corruption?

Basically, you're seeing the aftermath of decades of paid loyalty, internalized oppression, and corruption, and mistaking it for a sign that Democrats must not be racist.

But the number one reason Democrats are the party of racism is that they are the ones who keep using it as a wedge issue. Republicans don't talk about race, they don't want it to be an issue because it shouldn't be one. Democrats need it to be an issue because they don't know how to use anything else. Democrats actively want to treat people differently on the basis of their race. That's racist. They seem to think that black people need white people to help them. That's racist. They treat black people like they can't think for themselves, and that's racist.

Yeah, but think how much fun it will be when we're the type 2 civilization!

No, you absolutely are defending Hamas. You're repeating their talking points without even knowing it.

The "refugees" in Gaza did not flee war, they started one and lost. And while you can say that Gaza exists as it does because of the creation of Israel, that's like saying a murderer is in prison because someone they hated wouldn't stop being alive. Which is really the problem. They hate Jews and don't want them to exist. The Jews got a nation, and they don't want it to exist. They won't accept any situation in which Isreal continues to exist, which they regularly demonstrate.

And you are utterly, pathetically, wrong about "from the river to the sea". They aren't talking about a change in government; they're talking about ethnic cleansing and everyone knows it. Hamas lied to you about what it means, and you believed them. I won't speculate as to why.

I never suggested they operated in the same way. I had hoped to communicate my point that part of the problem is that each side expects the other to operate as it does.

I also remember an instance where people thought they had their science right, and rather than admit that it was wrong in the face of clear evidence, they let millions of people die. Turns out that wheat simply will not grow in Siberia.
Marxism maintains the pretense of being "scientific history" that accurately predicts the future. Yet even though it failed to do so, or do anything other than cause the deaths of tens of millions of people (including those I just mentioned) and some of the most horrific events in human history, it still exists, and people still insist it's good.
So, are you sure that mass murder is an example of a difference? Or is it that when people have their beliefs challenged, they often react poorly, regardless of what sort of belief it is?

And with that, we aren't talking about science or religion anymore, just human frailty. Give humans any thing and some will use it for good, some for evil, and if you're lucky, one or two might even recognize which is which.

Forgive me a minor typo. I didn't notice until I had already hit submit.

Though I can't help but notice your response is a bit hostile. Amusing, given that to which you respond.

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant in the context of your bit about truth and accuracy, where you seem to be saying that - and I'm going to reverse how you used the words - a thing can be true, but not accurate without some necessary context. Hmm, I don't like the terms in that order either. Let's drop it in favor of "misleading". A statement can be true, but misleading without the necessary context.

As for the news industry being crap, I can't argue there.

What, I can't have a conversation with my buddy from Oregon? What's your beef?

I'm sorry if you thought that was funny or poignant.

No, the wall is created by your line of reasoning and its inverse on the other side. That's my point. It is imagined into being by flawed reasoning nobody wants to deal with. It's like sitting around all day trying to screw in a nail. By the end of the day, you're so frustrated that you give up and say "Nails are bullshit! They don't work - you just spend all day scraping the head and ruining screwdrivers." Step back a bit, relax, and maybe you'll realize that what you've been trying to drive into the wood is in fact a coat hanger that was exactly where it was meant to be.

I think you'll be surprised should you read some of Augustine's work. No telescope was needed to raise questions about the Genesis narrative. And he was a bright fellow who foresaw how our knowledge would expand.

Maybe it would help to look at it from another direction. That is, from the direction of questions, not answers. There are mysteries. Scripture illuminates mysteries in the natural world and we are driven to find answers (that's where science came from). Science illuminates mysteries in scripture we would not know existed otherwise. If what we observe of the natural world tells us it was not created in six literal days, that doesn't mean the scripture is wrong, it means we don't know what it meant. So, what did it mean? That thanks to time dilation and universal expansion there could be a point in the universe from where 14 billion years in another part could appear to have been only a week?

Or here's a fun one - why do we see 3+1 dimensions but scripture says there are 10+1? Know of any field of physics that might agree with 10+1? How does the New Testament begin with an encoding of e 1600 years before we knew about it?

Okay, no. First off, it is misleading to say they were forced out of their homes, they are the remnants of the dead-enders who refused to accept the formation of the Nation of Israel, took up arms against it, and lost. That's why they left (forcibly or otherwise). More ethnic Arabs stayed than left, and the ones who stayed became Israeli citizens with full rights. They are also not the same people as in the West Bank, which is a different situation entirely and is not run by Hamas.

On multiple occasions, all of Israel's neighbors launched simultaneous invasions. War changes borders. Having parts of Jordan and Syria on the West side of the Jordan River became an unacceptable threat, so Israel seized those territories. Having Egypt in Gaza was too great a threat. When you're surrounded by mortal enemies, you act accordingly or die.

As for the West Bank settlements, you are not being accurate in your portrayal. That is an active controversy in Israel, with angry politicians on both sides. The ones you're talking about are in the minority and are now mostly pissed at Netanyahu for tearing settlements down.

As for evidence, you're not speaking the truth. Hamas has explicitly stated that its goal is the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people. "From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for ethnic cleansing. They were the people who did not want Israel to exist in the first place, did not want Jews alive in the region, and have never changed their minds. Israel has been forced to defend itself from them for almost eighty years now, and I don't blame them for trying to eradicate Hamas. Not the people who live in Gaza, Hamas. Therefore, not a genocide.

Stop regurgitating the talking points of f-ing terrorists. Hamas is evil. They murder children. They throw gays off of rooftops, and stone women for dressing wrong. The world is better off without them. Gaza is better off without them.

I think you misread my point. I'm not talking about the oft-misrepresented "separation of church and state", I'm talking about a wall between two approaches to finding truth that prevents either from succeeding.

It is strange to see you demonstrate my point without understanding it.

Are you going to tell me that the Democrat party is not overtly hostile towards Christianity?

I'm sorry, but I don't have any good vegetarian recipes. Sautéing some Brassica Oleracea cultivars and garlic bulbs in olive oil, then topping with salt, pepper and parmesan is as close as I can get.

Why isn't it depressing to anyone else that only by accident of birth (cf. Rawls' veil of ignorance) we weren't born in Gaza?

Why would that be depressing? You won the birthplace lotto. Wouldn't it make more sense to be grateful, not depressed? Heck, I'm going to go ahead and recommend gratitude generally. It's hard to be both grateful and depressed at the same time.