In Orthodox worship, the priest does not just perform a religious function or act as a community leader. During the Divine Liturgy, the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Orthodox Priests wear vestments which are designed to hide the individual man so that Christ can be seen. It's less about dressing up as Christ, and more about stripping away the priest's personal identity, flaws, and ego. Its like a form of trying to let Christ work within you so you can appropriately handle the flock.

The argument is that since Jesus Christ became incarnate specifically as a man, the person who stands at the altar representing Him in that specific sacramental role must also be male to maintain the integrity of that icon. Protestant's don't actually have this same claim because they rejected the Orthodox (and Catholic) view of the priesthood and the sacraments. The argument that a minister must physically mirror Christ's incarnation as a male completely loses its theological footing in Protestantism.

This is actually why we're seeing it become rampant in mainline Protestantism. The most senior bishop in the Church of England is a woke female. You're gonna start seeing it in non denominational churches eventually: they're already effectively preaching during hillsong worship music, I've seen it myself.

Doc Holliday said:

---

In Orthodox worship, the priest does not just perform a religious function or act as a community leader. During the Divine Liturgy, the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Orthodox Priests wear vestments which are designed to hide the individual man so that Christ can be seen. It's less about dressing up as Christ, and more about stripping away the priest's personal identity, flaws, and ego. Its like a form of trying to let Christ work within you so you can appropriately handle the flock.

The argument is that since Jesus Christ became incarnate specifically as a man, the person who stands at the altar representing Him in that specific sacramental role must also be male to maintain the integrity of that icon. Protestant's don't actually have this same claim because they rejected the Orthodox (and Catholic) view of the priesthood and the sacraments. The argument that a minister must physically mirror Christ's incarnation as a male completely loses its theological footing in Protestantism.

This is actually why we're seeing it become rampant in mainline Protestantism. The most senior bishop in the Church of England is a woke female. You're gonna start seeing it in non denominational churches eventually: they're already effectively preaching during hillsong worship music, I've seen it myself.

---

I was at mass yesterday and there were 3 women who read or lead hymns(all in head coverings). They are not in charge of the church but are allowed to be a part as it should be.. Paul said women are to pray and prophesy which means speaking isnt as restricted as the passage about not speaking says, especially when taken out of context.

Women have always played a large role in Gods work..

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

In Orthodox worship, the priest does not just perform a religious function or act as a community leader. During the Divine Liturgy, the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Orthodox Priests wear vestments which are designed to hide the individual man so that Christ can be seen. It's less about dressing up as Christ, and more about stripping away the priest's personal identity, flaws, and ego. Its like a form of trying to let Christ work within you so you can appropriately handle the flock.

The argument is that since Jesus Christ became incarnate specifically as a man, the person who stands at the altar representing Him in that specific sacramental role must also be male to maintain the integrity of that icon. Protestant's don't actually have this same claim because they rejected the Orthodox (and Catholic) view of the priesthood and the sacraments. The argument that a minister must physically mirror Christ's incarnation as a male completely loses its theological footing in Protestantism.

This is actually why we're seeing it become rampant in mainline Protestantism. The most senior bishop in the Church of England is a woke female. You're gonna start seeing it in non denominational churches eventually: they're already effectively preaching during hillsong worship music, I've seen it myself.

---

I was at mass yesterday and there were 3 women who read or lead hymns(all in head coverings). They are not in charge of the church but are allowed to be a part as it should be.. Paul said women are to pray and prophesy which means speaking isnt as restricted as the passage about not speaking says, especially when taken out of context.

Women have always played a large role in Gods work..

---

Mass is Roman Catholic, but Orthodoxy has the same.

Lectors and cantors aren't claiming to act in the person of Christ. Orthodoxy has never denied women pray, prophesy, read Scripture, lead hymnody etc. In Orthodox worship, when a woman chants, reads the Epistle, or leads hymnody, she is functioning as a voice of the Church's fixed liturgical text, she's not generating content, exhorting, exegeting, or applying Scripture with personal authority. The words aren't hers: she's a vessel for something already authored and approved by the Church

The actual argument is "women can't be priests/pastors", not "women can't have roles in worship". What I'm talking about in non denominations that I've seen is authoritative teaching by women dressed up as "worship leading". Spontaneous exhortation between songs, scripture application, prophetic declarations over the congregation, sometimes literal preaching framed as "a word": that's a homiletical/pastoral function delivered with authority over the gathered body.

D said:

---

The actual argument is "women can't be priests/pastors", not "women can't have roles in worship". What I'm talking about in non denominations that I've seen is authoritative teaching by women dressed up as "worship leading". Spontaneous exhortation between songs, scripture application, prophetic declarations over the congregation, sometimes literal preaching framed as "a word": that's a homiletical/pastoral function delivered with authority over the gathered body.

---

Part of the reason I ended up shifting my view on women in ministry is the obvious inconsistency churches trying to use the I Timothy passage end up with. If women are to be silent, then they shouldn't be doing any of these kinds of things. They also shouldn't be teaching high school boys -- because Paul would have seen any male over the age of 12 as a man. They probably also shouldn't evangelize men. That would certainly give them authority over the man, at least for a short time.

When Baptists first started singing hymns, there were some who argued that hymn singing was against good church order because it meant that women weren't being silent in church. There really is no way to consistently follow the I Timothy injunction without doing all kinds of mental gymnastics.


Jesus was intentionally broad in the way he defined the church's mission. Go make disciples. He didn't try to micromanage how things went. Paul addressed situations that he faced in his culture. He even takes different approaches. How can women prophesy in church and be silent in church?


And using "husband of one wife" (which I realize you didn't do Historian) is just sophistry. If that was Paul's point, then he and Timothy would be excluded--since neither were married. And Paul also used that toward deacons -- and then explained what women deacons should be like. That was so embarrassing to the KJV translators that they translated it as "their wives" instead of admitting that it was simply the same Greek word with the feminine ending. It's pretty similar to why we have the word "baptize" instead of "immerse" -- which is what the Greek word actually means.

TechDawgMc said:

---

D said:

---

The actual argument is "women can't be priests/pastors", not "women can't have roles in worship". What I'm talking about in non denominations that I've seen is authoritative teaching by women dressed up as "worship leading". Spontaneous exhortation between songs, scripture application, prophetic declarations over the congregation, sometimes literal preaching framed as "a word": that's a homiletical/pastoral function delivered with authority over the gathered body.

---

Part of the reason I ended up shifting my view on women in ministry is the obvious inconsistency churches trying to use the I Timothy passage end up with. If women are to be silent, then they shouldn't be doing any of these kinds of things. They also shouldn't be teaching high school boys -- because Paul would have seen any male over the age of 12 as a man. They probably also shouldn't evangelize men. That would certainly give them authority over the man, at least for a short time.

When Baptists first started singing hymns, there were some who argued that hymn singing was against good church order because it meant that women weren't being silent in church. There really is no way to consistently follow the I Timothy injunction without doing all kinds of mental gymnastics.


Jesus was intentionally broad in the way he defined the church's mission. Go make disciples. He didn't try to micromanage how things went. Paul addressed situations that he faced in his culture. He even takes different approaches. How can women prophesy in church and be silent in church?


And using "husband of one wife" (which I realize you didn't do Historian) is just sophistry. If that was Paul's point, then he and Timothy would be excluded--since neither were married. And Paul also used that toward deacons -- and then explained what women deacons should be like. That was so embarrassing to the KJV translators that they translated it as "their wives" instead of admitting that it was simply the same Greek word with the feminine ending. It's pretty similar to why we have the word "baptize" instead of "immerse" -- which is what the Greek word actually means.

---

This only bites if you're reading 1 Tim 2:12 as "women must be totally silent in all speech everywhere," which isn't even the patristic or Orthodox reading.

A woman catechizing a teenager 1 on 1, or evangelizing a coworker, isn't exercising office over the assembled church the way a bishop or priest teaching does.

On "Jesus was broad, Paul was situational", I push back hard on this one. It treats apostolic instruction on church order as basically Paul's culturally conditioned opinion rather than as part of what the Church received and handed down as binding.
It's kind of an argument for which parts of Scripture get to count as binding once they're inconvenient.

Orthodoxy has always had an order of deaconesses tracing back to the time of Christ. The deaconess was never a presbyter, and never functioned at the altar offering the Eucharist. The deaconess was not a deacon in the male sense and didn't have the same authority.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

D said:

---

The actual argument is "women can't be priests/pastors", not "women can't have roles in worship". What I'm talking about in non denominations that I've seen is authoritative teaching by women dressed up as "worship leading". Spontaneous exhortation between songs, scripture application, prophetic declarations over the congregation, sometimes literal preaching framed as "a word": that's a homiletical/pastoral function delivered with authority over the gathered body.

---

Part of the reason I ended up shifting my view on women in ministry is the obvious inconsistency churches trying to use the I Timothy passage end up with. If women are to be silent, then they shouldn't be doing any of these kinds of things. They also shouldn't be teaching high school boys -- because Paul would have seen any male over the age of 12 as a man. They probably also shouldn't evangelize men. That would certainly give them authority over the man, at least for a short time.

When Baptists first started singing hymns, there were some who argued that hymn singing was against good church order because it meant that women weren't being silent in church. There really is no way to consistently follow the I Timothy injunction without doing all kinds of mental gymnastics.


Jesus was intentionally broad in the way he defined the church's mission. Go make disciples. He didn't try to micromanage how things went. Paul addressed situations that he faced in his culture. He even takes different approaches. How can women prophesy in church and be silent in church?


And using "husband of one wife" (which I realize you didn't do Historian) is just sophistry. If that was Paul's point, then he and Timothy would be excluded--since neither were married. And Paul also used that toward deacons -- and then explained what women deacons should be like. That was so embarrassing to the KJV translators that they translated it as "their wives" instead of admitting that it was simply the same Greek word with the feminine ending. It's pretty similar to why we have the word "baptize" instead of "immerse" -- which is what the Greek word actually means.

---

This only bites if you're reading 1 Tim 2:12 as "women must be totally silent in all speech everywhere," which isn't even the patristic or Orthodox reading.

A woman catechizing a teenager 1 on 1, or evangelizing a coworker, isn't exercising office over the assembled church the way a bishop or priest teaching does.

On "Jesus was broad, Paul was situational", I push back hard on this one. It treats apostolic instruction on church order as basically Paul's culturally conditioned opinion rather than as part of what the Church received and handed down as binding.
It's kind of an argument for which parts of Scripture get to count as binding once they're inconvenient.

Orthodoxy has always had an order of deaconesses tracing back to the time of Christ. The deaconess was never a presbyter, and never functioned at the altar offering the Eucharist. The deaconess was not a deacon in the male sense and didn't have the same authority.

Apostolic instructions do not supersede the teachings of Jesus. Jesus alone is our ultimate authority and guide. When we look to his life and ministry, we see that he welcomed women as disciples, entrusted them with proclaiming the good news, and treated them as full participants in God's work.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Apostolic instructions do not supersede the teachings of Jesus. Jesus alone is our ultimate authority and guide. When we look to his life and ministry, we see that he welcomed women as disciples, entrusted them with proclaiming the good news, and treated them as full participants in God's work.

---

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

These are the words of Christ talking about Paul. Why then should we not accept Paul's writing as scripture especially if Peter did in 2 Peter 3:16? Also, Paul said he was imitating Christ in 1 Cor 11:1- Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

My experience is progressive Christians have to diminish Paul to hold onto certain beliefs. But where do we see Jesus do that? If we are going to claim Paul was lying, we have greater problems. And if we are claiming certain letters of Paul's are not his, we have serious conflict with the early church who closer to their lives disagrees with you.

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people just looking for a better life. Just like the general population, very few of them are criminals.

I guess that's why you and your fellow progressives advocate raising minimum wage.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

SBC decline is because so many of their members have switched over to non denominational churches.
Usually mega churches.

---

Yeah, that accounts for a lot of it. There are some pretty good statistics out there on this.

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

That's the 1980s GOP argument for mass immigration: "Doing the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do."

The reality is that Labor is a market, just like any other market. If a specific job isn't being filled, the terms of employment have to improve until there is someone willing to fill it.

Mass immigration is a subsidy, a form of corporate welfare - the worst form - that destabilizes society at large.

---

Oh please, I worked out in the cotton fields with immigrants working the fields adjacent to us. They took way more breaks than I did. They shift worked, some on, some resting in the shade, rotating out. Except for a lunch break I worked the entire day just stopping at the end of rows to drink water for a few moments.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

The SBC decline is largely due to the white, male Baptist preachers acting like stereotypical Baptist preachers from the mid-20th century. They've undermined a lot of really good pastors who are also good "preachers".

drahthaar said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

Th SBC decline is largely due to the white, male Baptist preachers acting like stereotypical Baptist preachers from the mid-20th century. They've undermined a lot of really good pastors who are also good "preachers".

---

Lol this isn't true

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people….

---

Again,

Some of those immigrants are…and some are not

You keep talking about "immigrants" like that are one monolithic group

Some contribute…and some take far more than they contribute

60% plus of all Haitians are on welfare in the USA

While almost no Lebanese Christians in the USA are on welfare.

I just want to remind everyone that migrants come with a lot of federal money and that's why states want them. 65% of Haitians are on welfare.

What Americans don't know is that the federal Government picks up the costs for TPS protected migrants and have been for 30 years. https://t.co/93WwsXo07D pic.twitter.com/LCpeA91dqw

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) June 28, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people….

---

Again,

Some of those immigrants are…and some are not

You keep talking about "immigrants" like that are one monolithic group

Some contribute…and some take far more than they contribute

60% plus of all Haitians are on welfare in the USA

While almost no Lebanese Christians in the USA are on welfare.

I just want to remind everyone that migrants come with a lot of federal money and that's why states want them. 65% of Haitians are on welfare.

What Americans don't know is that the federal Government picks up the costs for TPS protected migrants and have been for 30 years. https://t.co/93WwsXo07D pic.twitter.com/LCpeA91dqw

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) June 28, 2026

---

They're a heterogenic group. That's why Trump, Steve Miller, and DHS shouldn't treat them as homogenic monolithic.

DAC said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

Th SBC decline is largely due to the white, male Baptist preachers acting like stereotypical Baptist preachers from the mid-20th century. They've undermined a lot of really good pastors who are also good "preachers".

---

Lol this isn't true

---

And your proof?

Despite the rapid growth of non-denominational churches and their increasing share of the religious landscape, experts note that overall church attendance continues to decline, and the cultural influence of faith is diminishing across nearly every demographic. Much of the growth in non-denominational churches appears to come not from a large influx of new believers, but from Christians transferring from denominational congregations. In other words, the trend is largely a reshuffling of existing believers rather than a significant expansion of the overall Christian population.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people….

---

Again,

Some of those immigrants are…and some are not

You keep talking about "immigrants" like that are one monolithic group

Some contribute…and some take far more than they contribute

60% plus of all Haitians are on welfare in the USA

While almost no Lebanese Christians in the USA are on welfare.

I just want to remind everyone that migrants come with a lot of federal money and that's why states want them. 65% of Haitians are on welfare.

What Americans don't know is that the federal Government picks up the costs for TPS protected migrants and have been for 30 years. https://t.co/93WwsXo07D pic.twitter.com/LCpeA91dqw

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) June 28, 2026

---

They're a heterogenic group. That's why Trump, Steve Miller, and DHS shouldn't treat them as homogenic monolithic.

---

They are not in fact treating them as a monolith

But they are treating those who break the law....as law breakers.....that of course is a legal classification

All non-drivers are not a monolith....but all of them are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle without a license and car insurance.

No one (from whatever place or whatever economic contribution level) is allowed to be in the USA without authorization.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

SBC decline is because so many of their members have switched over to non denominational churches.
Usually mega churches.

---

The trend seems to be many leaving the SBC for networks like 9Marks, G3 Network, or the Pillar Network. These are like decentralized megachurches: they try to cap the amount of people per location, but under one umbrella they're effectively an enormous megachurch with centralized power.

They're not on the same page theologically: I remember at the church I used to attend, one elder was a hardcore calvinst, while the pastor was basically anti calvinst. They had two different concepts of the gospel.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The reason for United Methodist decline very much varied. Women are not the cause.

---

Then preventing women from being Pastors is not the reason for SBC decline (it's very much varied)

---

SBC decline is because so many of their members have switched over to non denominational churches.
Usually mega churches.

---

The trend seems to be many leaving the SBC for networks like 9Marks, G3 Network, or the Pillar Network. These are like decentralized megachurches: they try to cap the amount of people per location, but under one umbrella they're effectively an enormous megachurch with centralized power.

They're not on the same page theologically: I remember at the church I used to attend, one elder was a hardcore calvinst, while the pastor was basically anti calvinst. They had two different concepts of the gospel.

---

What 9mark, g3 and the pillar

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people….

---

Again,

Some of those immigrants are…and some are not

You keep talking about "immigrants" like that are one monolithic group

Some contribute…and some take far more than they contribute

60% plus of all Haitians are on welfare in the USA

While almost no Lebanese Christians in the USA are on welfare.

I just want to remind everyone that migrants come with a lot of federal money and that's why states want them. 65% of Haitians are on welfare.

What Americans don't know is that the federal Government picks up the costs for TPS protected migrants and have been for 30 years. https://t.co/93WwsXo07D pic.twitter.com/LCpeA91dqw

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) June 28, 2026

---

They're a heterogenic group. That's why Trump, Steve Miller, and DHS shouldn't treat them as homogenic monolithic.

---

They are not in fact treating them as a monolith

But they are treating those who break the law....as law breakers.....that of course is a legal classification

All non-drivers are not a monolith....but all of them are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle without a license and car insurance.

No one (from whatever place or whatever economic contribution level) is allowed to be in the USA without authorization.

---

They've been going after those who are legally here also, including US citizens. That's pretty monolithic.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yall Baptists are some weird mofos. Does yall wives cook, clean barefoot and spit out babies. Where have you people been living?

---

Gotta keep the quiver full.

---

Would be nice if someone in America was having kids....unfortunately birth rates/fertility rates keep crashing


[U.S. general fertility rate reached a historic low of 53 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (1544) in early 2026, and the total fertility rate is projected to be around 1.58 births per woman. Both metrics remain significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain the population.]

---

Controlled immigration is part of the solution.

---

As long as those immigrants have skills and high IQ and good community values...sure it can help.

But nothing beats just getting your own people/citizens to have enough kids to maintain the population.

Its whole lot easier than sending out for a whole new group of imported people(s)....

PS

Those new folks almost immediately have fertility collapse as soon as they get to the modern developed world.

It does not fix the long term problem

A shocking chart that shows how most immigrants assimilate to the ultra-low fertility norms of receiving countries almost immediately.

Immigration doesn't fix low birthrates.

(Sources: Canadian long-form census, Yue Teng)
1/3 https://t.co/ELfEFzCe2d pic.twitter.com/fyrcA4DNUH

— More Births (@MoreBirths) July 1, 2026

---

Yes, but you're not going to get people to have kids when they aren't interested, for many reasons, including they don't believe it is financially viable. It's not something that can be forced. Most immigrants that come here that I've come across have good values and simply are trying to make a better life. They fill the niche in the workforce that others are unwilling to fill.

---

Some immigrants have good values

Some do NOT

You continue to romanticize immigrants….many are good…but many are in fact not good people with horrible values

In Denmark, the immigrant groups costing taxpayers the most in welfare are the same ones dramatically overrepresented in rape convictions.

From a purely economic standpoint, it would seem like the Danes are paying immigrants to rape them. pic.twitter.com/XUUwjPT21K

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) June 14, 2026

P.S.

There are not "niche" areas of the market that American workers won't fill if you pay them enough

Why do progressives feel we need semi-slave labor?

---

I just realize they are important and have been important to the growth of our country, and that most of them are hardworking people….

---

Again,

Some of those immigrants are…and some are not

You keep talking about "immigrants" like that are one monolithic group

Some contribute…and some take far more than they contribute

60% plus of all Haitians are on welfare in the USA

While almost no Lebanese Christians in the USA are on welfare.

I just want to remind everyone that migrants come with a lot of federal money and that's why states want them. 65% of Haitians are on welfare.

What Americans don't know is that the federal Government picks up the costs for TPS protected migrants and have been for 30 years. https://t.co/93WwsXo07D pic.twitter.com/LCpeA91dqw

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) June 28, 2026

---

They're a heterogenic group. That's why Trump, Steve Miller, and DHS shouldn't treat them as homogenic monolithic.

---

They are not in fact treating them as a monolith

But they are treating those who break the law....as law breakers.....that of course is a legal classification

All non-drivers are not a monolith....but all of them are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle without a license and car insurance.

No one (from whatever place or whatever economic contribution level) is allowed to be in the USA without authorization.

---

They've been going after those who are legally here also, including US citizens. That's pretty monolithic.

---

What US citizens have been deported?

Yes, U.S. citizens have been mistakenly detained or deported by immigration enforcement due to administrative errors, profiling, or failure to verify citizenship. Federal data from a Government Accountability Office report documented that ICE arrested hundreds of potential U.S. citizens and deported roughly 70 over a five-year period. [1, 2]

Reasons and Incidents

• Administrative Mistakes: Agents sometimes ignore or fail to verify a person's verbal or documented claims of U.S. citizenship during aggressive enforcement sweeps. [1]
• Collateral Detentions: U.S.-born minor children who hold legal citizenship have occasionally been removed alongside their undocumented parents during rapid deportation proceedings. [1, 2]
• Systemic Errors: Studies from legal advocacy groups show that hundreds of American citizens end up facing wrongful detention or deportation proceedings annually due to database or identity mismatches. [1]

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes, U.S. citizens have been mistakenly detained or deported by immigration enforcement due to administrative errors, profiling, or failure to verify citizenship. Federal data from a Government Accountability Office report documented that ICE arrested hundreds of potential U.S. citizens and deported roughly 70 over a five-year period. [1, 2]

Reasons and Incidents

• Administrative Mistakes: Agents sometimes ignore or fail to verify a person's verbal or documented claims of U.S. citizenship during aggressive enforcement sweeps. [1]
• Collateral Detentions: U.S.-born minor children who hold legal citizenship have occasionally been removed alongside their undocumented parents during rapid deportation proceedings. [1, 2]
• Systemic Errors: Studies from legal advocacy groups show that hundreds of American citizens end up facing wrongful detention or deportation proceedings annually due to database or identity mismatches. [1]

---

How many have been falsely deported?

Is it dozens? Hundreds?

Compared to how many millions of illegal Aliens?

And if those who have been unfortunately deported/detained….are they prevented from recovering their right to return and citizenship?