The worst judgement is to leave people to themselves...

Problem with this meme is it's not God, it's mismanagement.

But then... to a democrat... maybe mismanagement = God

eyyy destroying peoples' homes to own the atheists

You make God sound like an asshole, to be honest.

Yeah, “Godless California” as the bottom text would be better.

Bottom text

He kinda is at times.

So you claim.

Christians wrote him out to be one

I love the title. Just wants me to pacify the Germanic Tribes, and conquer the Britons.

they have dead eyes.

eyyy i can always call it art to dodge criticism you're just shallow

No, you can criticise all you want. Please do.That is one of the keys to making art: everybody's a critic!

aight. might not be the best critique, but i'll be frank since you asked for it.

ahem

*in art critic voice*
This piece is elegant and eloquent in every way as it uses beautiful captioning, image organization, and powerful messaging to connect to people with linear-thinking mindsets that a single stuck-up californian elitist is the entire reason that people who may not even know this person are suffering and getting killed like the libtards they probably aren't. What's amazing about this art of joke and meme put together is that being a joke is all it has to stand on, which makes anyone who dares criticize such an object masterpiece for being unfunny clearly unable to take such humor. Not only that, it also makes irrefutable arguments against atheists who don't believe in god and if they dare criticize such a gem, it's clear they're insecure about their disbeliefs in a god. I give this piece an 11/10 because it's so thought-provoking and encourages tremendous (like-minded) discussion about the state of California.

That was a good critique Frank, if you don't recognize the meme as dark humor that is hilarious to some people while being offensive and unfunny to others, which makes it that much funnier to the first group.

How a person self identifies and that claimed identity being consistent with reality are separate issues. I point to our culture's recent gender confusion crisis as a prime example of this.

Yeah, but you can't just go around and say someone is inconsistent with their identity to justify authoritarian political positions.

"You're not X enough, so we're not going to do Y or take Z away from you."

That is basically... the very definition of elitism.

For example, I'm not in favor of taxing churches or any non-profit organizations; but when they financially contribute to political positions or persons, that is a potentially very exploitative of the very reasons why they're suppose to be exempt from being taxed. In some cases you can argue that when an individual beats the system, that's good, but when it becomes a whole organization or class of people? That turns into something else entirely and something should be done about it. But you don't have to do it in such a way that ends with all churches or any non-profits being taxed.

First: Your claim that I am arguing that some one is inconsistent with an identity because I am trying to justify "authoritarian political positions" is begging the question. You would first need to argue that position. All you have done is claim it.

Second" Your comment also commits an appeal to motive logical fallacy. That I - or someone else for that matter - may have ill motives, leading to or concluding, an identity to be dubious, does not counter argue the position that it is.

Third: This is a Red Herring fallacy. The topic was as to whether or not a demographic you're citing as " Christian " can legitimately or justifiably hold that identity, and thus, justify your statistic. Not as to whether or not Christian views are authoritarian or justified in their Church's tax exempt status.

Forth. The argument isn't " You're not X enough, so we're going to do Y or take Z away from you " That is a strawman fallacy. The argument is: What constitutes objective truth, reality, and morality, is the best understanding of our founders intentions as expressed in our founding documents, and what is in the best objective interest of the American people as whole.

Last. I would call your deduction regarding the tax exempt status of Churches, another Red Herring fallacy, but also a little short sighted and shallow. However, I'll address it anyways.

The problem with your analysis, leading to your conclusions, regarding, the 501c3, tax exempt status of Churches, is that it doesn't take into consideration that the moral issues Churches grapple with, and political issues, overlap. This is specially true of issues regarding "gay rights" abortion, and marriage.

Also, the crux of a tax exempt status is that an organization be nonprofit - not that they necessarily be A-political. The A-political stipulation is something added as recently as 1954 by Lyndon Johnson (The Johnson Amendment) A very left leaning president who stood to benefit from such an amendment.

President Trump has talked about rolling back the Amendment. I welcome the day when he does.

Um, it is clearly authoritarian to enforce strict obedience to an idea at the expense of personal freedom. That's the definition of what it means to be authoritarian. I did not suggest ill motives for being authoritarian. It's just authoritarian. You're free to argue that it's otherwise but you're going to have to backtrack on your previous comments in order to do that.

I never said Christian views are authoritarian. Your views on Christian identity are authoritarian. That doesn't make Christian views authoritarian. So the Red Herring fallacy is your own doing. It is also irrelevant how issues regarding "gay rights" abortion, and marriage effect the church. They do not. The church cannot enforce their views politically, otherwise we stand to become a theocracy. Something our founding fathers strictly wanted to avoid.

I said I'm not in favor of taxing churches. Merely in keeping with the Johnson Amendment, you can still punish the individual rather than everyone who do not exploit their tax exempt status. It is irrelevant whether or not Lyndon Johnson benefited from the amendment. It is relevant that Trump would certainly benefit from rolling back that amendment as it would allow him and other politicians that appeal to religious groups more potential campaign funding. That opens the door to potential theocracy and not just Christian organizations but Muslim organizations as well.

It is important that religious organizations remain apolitical as political parties should represent people despite whatever religious ideologies they follow. Strictly or otherwise.

Wipes out the houses, leaves the trees beside the houses. Hell of a fire

But the Buildings were Homosexual?

I live in California and did not even know people were saying to keep god out of ca. Boi I was praying to god to not let the monsters get me 😂

god left the world because the japanese corrupted americans with hentai and high speed trains turned them into millennials, transgender weebs, and autisms

ye. this is the society united states we live in now. so sad