I think that I've often encouraged people to use caution when associating the views of the extreme left to the moderate left. I get very frustrated when posters here suggest that all liberals want to do 'x', 'y', and 'z' because that is the thing that the most extreme far left people are pushing for.

While I sympathize with a lot of your frustrations, I think its only fair to make sure we aren't guilty of the same unfair associations. Specifically, the far right does not represent all of the right. And the hardcore Christian nationalists do not represent all of Christianity. There are 200 million Christians in this country and I think a lot of them reject parts of the far right agenda. They may vote Republican because they fear the far left agenda more than they fear the far right agenda, but I don't believe that counts as wholesale endorsement of say. . . Project 2025.

The worrisome thing for me is that I think we have a 'tail wagging the dog' scenario (probably on both sides of the political spectrum). And by that I mean that I think we have witnessed a smaller population of far right politicians that are driving policy and dragging a larger population of moderate conservatives toward the extreme with them.

Appealing to people on extreme ends of the spectrum is difficult. But, appealing to the moderates is more worthwhile. It is my experience of perception of Christians in this country that most do not wish to see their religion reduced to political fodder. And on behalf of those Christians, I feel uncomfortable when politicians play these stupid games with laws that are obvious virtue signaling.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that I've often encouraged people to use caution when associating the views of the extreme left to the moderate left. I get very frustrated when posters here suggest that all liberals want to do 'x', 'y', and 'z' because that is the thing that the most extreme far left people are pushing for.

---

Well I can certainly agree with this. I've grown to dislike American Liberals (TM) so I don't like when I (an independent who holds largely liberal and progressive beliefs but am turned off by the useless virtue signaling and lack of principles of the Democratic Party) am lumped in with them. So yeah, I get annoyed when people think I want to police people's pronouns, when I'm much more concerned about workers getting fair pay and having better access to healthcare.

Quote:

---

While I sympathize with a lot of your frustrations, I think its only fair to make sure we aren't guilty of the same unfair associations. Specifically, the far right does not represent all of the right. And the hardcore Christian nationalists do not represent all of Christianity. There are 200 million Christians in this country and I think a lot of them reject parts of the far right agenda. They may vote Republican because they fear the far left agenda more than they fear the far right agenda, but I don't believe that counts as wholesale endorsement of say. . . Project 2025.

The worrisome thing for me is that I think we have a 'tail wagging the dog' scenario (probably on both sides of the political spectrum). And by that I mean that I think we have witnessed a smaller population of far right politicians that are driving policy and dragging a larger population of moderate conservatives toward the extreme with them.

---

Certainly. And the polling data reflects this. For example, Americans overwhelmingly disfavor complete abortion bans without exceptions, favor legal MJ, and favor SSM. But may still vote for Republicans because at the end of the day they align more with them than the Democrats. Which I griped about earlier in this thread--how awful the two party system is.

And I am cautious when I speak about Christians as a whole, knowing you cant lump all of them into this category. The vast majority of Christians I know are decent people who aren't all that different from me. I think what we have now is a consequence of a very divided country. the "you're either with us or against us" mentality. And when we get there, the loudest and most extreme voices are in the driver's seat.

Quote:

---

Appealing to people on extreme ends of the spectrum is difficult. But, appealing to the moderates is more worthwhile. It is my experience of perception of Christians in this country that most do not wish to see their religion reduced to political fodder. And on behalf of those Christians, I feel uncomfortable when politicians play these stupid games with laws that are obvious virtue signaling.

---

I think a lot of this is based on shame. Politicians and far right Christian leaders shame these Christians into siding with them. "You say you're a Christian but are you REALLY if you believe X?" Or even worse, when we get into very divisive and dangerous rhetoric like "WE ARE AT WAR WITH EVIL" or "the other side wants to steal your money, sexually abuse your children, and burn your churches down." (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Green, Trump and his sons, Lauren Boebert). These people aren't just crazy goofballs in government, they are a very dangerous force.

i would agree that the majority of Christians are decent people who don't subscribe to such extreme beliefs, but I am increasingly troubled by the shift of the Overton window that allows this type of discourse.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I agree except that teaching the historical and cultural impact of the Bible on Western Civilization isn't "religious studies". It's straight up fundamental to history, art, law, government, and literature. From 400 AD to 1700 AD it was pretty much the only document that mattered in Western thought, and since then it is still is all 10 of the top 10 documents that matter in Western thought. Western civilization from 400 AD to now makes no sense if you don't understand the Bible. It would be like trying to teach history of Arab culture and never mentioning the Koran. Or teaching the history of Jewish culture and never mentioning the Tanakh. Yes there are lot of secular Arabs and Jews, and there are a lot of secular societies created by Arabs and Jews. But even then, understanding the impact of those works on those societies is essential. It's the same with the Bible and Western civilization. Treating the Bible as taboo in American schools is just dumb and counterproductive.

As an aside, we already have very good laws about the establishment of state religion, and anyone would agree that using the Bible for religious instruction directly violates those laws. We'd also get into the messy situation of exactly who is teaching the Bible and how, and that has no good answers. But in my mind, the pendulum has swung way too far the other way. We completely ignore the Bible when teaching about our civilization and culture, and without it we can't even understand how we got here

---

I think we are generally in agreement here. I tried to make a distinction between different types of 'teaching' because I think it is relevant to what I was responding to. Like I said before, I am all for teaching a general understanding of Christianity and the Bible, basic tenants, history, culture, etc.

Recall that my original post in this thread came on the heels of, and in response to, Blu saying that he would be in favor of posting the 10 Commandments in public schools. I am taking the position that the intentions behind posting the 10 Commandments in every classroom is not in line with the Christian / Biblical curriculum you and I are both in favor of. Do you agree / disagree?

---

Yeah, putting the 10 Commandments front and center in a school has nothing to do with teaching the importance of the Bible to Western culture, and I think the intent is evangelism more than anything

Serviam said:

---

I'm not going into the disastrous night had been the Democrats last night, nor how sad it is that as the greatest country in the world, we have Donald Trump and Joe Biden to choose from.

I want to mainly focus on the moral conundrum Catholics face with voting for a candidate who is solidly pro-choice (Donald Trump) and one who is solidly pro-abortion (Joe Biden). From a moral standpoint this case reminds me of the issue faced at the beginning of Covid, where you had vaccines that were initially developed or tested using the aborted remains of children, BUT were not used in the subsequent manufacturing of the vaccines. Given that an evil has been done or is a foregone conclusion, can a Christian morally vote for a pro-choice candidate like Donald Trump? I have zero questions about whether a Catholic can morally vote for President Biden, that answer is "no"

I am unsure to be honest. The principle of Double Effect states that an action can be morally permissible even if it leads to or permits evil provided that certain conditions are met. I'm paraphrasing but the conditions are usually that the action itself is no worse than morally neutral, that the bad result not be a direct intention, that the good result not be a direct cause of the possible bad result, and that the good outweighs any possible bad that could arise.

Trump stated pretty clearly last night that he wants abortion to be left up to the states, he made some hemming and hawing about politicians "having to say that to get elected" but I do not delude myself into thinking that Donald Trump is a pro-life advocate, except as it suits him.

My question is: Is giving people the decision to do a great evil a morally neutral act? You're not intending the evil be done, you're merely giving people the opportunity to vote on whether an evil is legal. This in and of itself would not be a morally neutral act, except when compared to the alternative which is a gross expansion of abortion everywhere and in areas where it is currently illegal (as championed by President Biden). The good would outweigh any possible bad, because you'd be forced to choose between the current number of abortions; or more abortions, with fewer abortions obviously being preferable.

Interested to see your thoughts.

---

What in the world does this mean?