Presidential Election

60,930 Views | 1209 Replies | Last: 26 days ago by Tswizsle
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

it all keeps boiling back to the same thing: you want government endorsement of Christianity, which carries with it special treatment of Christianity.

My complaints are not with Christians, but with Christian Nationalists, which are not the same.


You keep saying special treatment. What special treatment am I asking for? All I'm saying at the end of the day is that you can't remove Christian influences from society and expect it to resemble something most people want to live in.

You can't dissociate the formation of habits and people's behavior from the philosophy that undergirds them.

Let's say we did remove all Christian influences from society. Completely and totally. I think we're getting a taste of what that looks like but, is that appealing to you?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

The type of society that Sapper proposes, for example, I find extremely offensive. It is an imposition of his moral values on me and my children. His proposal is to allow only secular views and the relativistic moral values that are incorporated in secularism


What I'm proposing is equal rights under the law regardless of beliefs. You can raise your children how you like. You shouldn't get to tell me how I have to raise my children.


This doesn't exist; laws by their nature limit practice of belief. No one actually wants it anyways: surely you don't want child brides married off in smaller mormon sects, for example. Hence the idea of 'neutral' preferences non-theists when they propose it.


At least you admit you want me to have fewer rights than you.


It's a zero sum game bud. Christians that are middle aged have grown up knowing that. The irony is that you feel the same way but you keep calling it 'neutral'.


It's not zero sum unless you intrinsically believe me having equal rights is a harm to you. In which case, representative government is not what you believe in.

What rights of yours would be taken away?



In a state that privileges your faith, my ability to pursue happiness no longer becomes whether it harms another but rather whether it offends your specific moral code.
Okay. So what Christian moral code would take away rights that laws already do?

Do you want to be able to commit adultery, steal, lie, murder, etc.?
Do you think that code is unique to Christianity?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

The type of society that Sapper proposes, for example, I find extremely offensive. It is an imposition of his moral values on me and my children. His proposal is to allow only secular views and the relativistic moral values that are incorporated in secularism


What I'm proposing is equal rights under the law regardless of beliefs. You can raise your children how you like. You shouldn't get to tell me how I have to raise my children.


This doesn't exist; laws by their nature limit practice of belief. No one actually wants it anyways: surely you don't want child brides married off in smaller mormon sects, for example. Hence the idea of 'neutral' preferences non-theists when they propose it.


At least you admit you want me to have fewer rights than you.


It's a zero sum game bud. Christians that are middle aged have grown up knowing that. The irony is that you feel the same way but you keep calling it 'neutral'.


It's not zero sum unless you intrinsically believe me having equal rights is a harm to you. In which case, representative government is not what you believe in.

What rights of yours would be taken away?



In a state that privileges your faith, my ability to pursue happiness no longer becomes whether it harms another but rather whether it offends your specific moral code.
Okay. So what Christian moral code would take away rights that laws already do?

Do you want to be able to commit adultery, steal, lie, murder, etc.?
Do you think that code is unique to Christianity?
Not at all and that is the point I was making. Christian morals are in line with all moral codes.

That is why I said it always comes down to abortion and LGBT.

So what rights of yours are being taken away?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:

barbacoa taco said:

it all keeps boiling back to the same thing: you want government endorsement of Christianity, which carries with it special treatment of Christianity.
All I'm saying at the end of the day is that you can't remove Christian influences from society and expect it to resemble something most people want to live in.

You can't dissociate the formation of habits and people's behavior from the philosophy that undergirds them.


The first statement suggests that exclusive Christian influence is the only way to build a society that most people would want to live in. I don't think that is what you necessarily mean, but obviously people get to decide what society they want to live in. And people's preferences change over time and across cultures.

We have seen a shift away from certain Christian influences, but not all Christian influences and values. My fear is that Christians recoil and reject societal changes in such a way that they decide its better to either fully retreat from society or to dig their heels in even deeper rather than 'permit' people to change their minds and preferences. There is a sort of 'all or nothing' feel to some Christians. And by that I mean, I think there is an attitude that Christian influences and values must be entirely embraced by the population or else we live in an anti-Christian society and one that is actively antagonistic toward Christianity. This is apparent in the discussion about non-Christian being anti-Christian. If my non-Christianity is the same as an active malevolence toward you and your faith, then the only way you've permitted us to coexist is for me to abandon all of my personal beliefs to appease you.

If you leave no room for common ground and compromise, then there will be none. And I don't mean compromise in that you should compromise you own beliefs and values. But compromise in the sense that you are willing to live and coexist and have mutual respect with people of different beliefs. And if coexisting and having respect for other beliefs is a compromise of your faith, then we are back to square one - there can be no compromise and coexisting.

I would actually modify taco's quote above to say: Christians want explicit societal recognition and respect toward their religion, while offering zero recognition or respect to any other religion. Your post above is about cause and effect. So, as society continues to change, what do you think will be the effect of Christians refusing to recognize or respect other beliefs?

I look around the country and our world and I see big problems. Rampant political and economic corruption and greed, rampant misinformation, homelessness, poverty, war, hyper-partisanship that has clearly morphed into hatred, human trafficking, and sex trafficking. And I recognize that Christians oppose these things and do actively work against [some of] these things. But, this isn't what gets discussed - certainly not publicly. The thing Christians care about today and the war they've declared today is the war against wokeness . . . whatever that means. Today the the Christian call to arms is for the fight against gay people and trans kids to tell them what they are supposed to do with their bodies.

We had a discussion on another thread where we used an analogy. 60 degrees is an exact temperature. But some people will find that hot and wish for a beer and some people will find that cold and wish for a blanket. The way we serve our neighbor is by asking them what they need rather than forcing them to conform to your subjective experience of 60 degrees. We have no shortage of people in this world that need a beer or need a blanket. And rather than serve them, we are all obsessed with demanding that those with beers are wrong and that everyone must take the blanket.

So, yes. Society is changing and there are less Christian influences. That doesn't mean there is no room for Christianity in society. It just means you have to share the space. And if you aren't willing to, then you aren't will to.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Bob Lee said:

barbacoa taco said:

it all keeps boiling back to the same thing: you want government endorsement of Christianity, which carries with it special treatment of Christianity.
All I'm saying at the end of the day is that you can't remove Christian influences from society and expect it to resemble something most people want to live in.

You can't dissociate the formation of habits and people's behavior from the philosophy that undergirds them.


The first statement suggests that exclusive Christian influence is the only way to build a society that most people would want to live in. I don't think that is what you necessarily mean, but obviously people get to decide what society they want to live in. And people's preferences change over time and across cultures.

No that's not it. I'm saying the mechanism though which basic universal truths and morality have been understood in the west is Christianity. It makes sense then that people's grasp on objective reality has become tenuous during the same time we've replaced Christianity with Secularism in the public square.

We have seen a shift away from certain Christian influences, but not all Christian influences and values. My fear is that Christians recoil and reject societal changes in such a way that they decide its better to either fully retreat from society or to dig their heels in even deeper rather than 'permit' people to change their minds and preferences. There is a sort of 'all or nothing' feel to some Christians. And by that I mean, I think there is an attitude that Christian influences and values must be entirely embraced by the population or else we live in an anti-Christian society and one that is actively antagonistic toward Christianity. This is apparent in the discussion about non-Christian being anti-Christian. If my non-Christianity is the same as an active malevolence toward you and your faith, then the only way you've permitted us to coexist is for me to abandon all of my personal beliefs to appease you.

This is basically right. Not that Christianity as such needs to be embraced. Its values and influences. Can you name a Christian value that makes society a worse place for everyone to coexist? (that's actually inherently Christian - in other words, not something that pervades the Church, or the fruits of some cultural mania that the people within the Church have glommed onto in error). If you don't acknowledge that the alternative is secular values and influence that beget the litany of things I mentioned earlier, we aren't going to make any headway.

As for our decision to recoil, yeah it's concerning. Because it exacerbates and accelerates the deterioration of society. Using my family as a microcosm, I mentioned my wife left her public school teaching job. She had just been named teacher of the year, and was the most requested teacher by parents at that school, especially for children whose parents were teachers. I suspect most of the ones requesting her for their children would agree with you that Christianity can't be in the schools. It's not YOUR non-Christianity. It's your aversion to Christianity in public spaces. You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".
Is it possible to have a society you participate in that does not force others to accept your values and beliefs? If not, that's a 'you' issue. Not a society issue.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".
Is it possible to have a society you participate in that does not force others to accept your values and beliefs? If not, that's a 'you' issue. Not a society issue.


Please tell me about these societies that exist where beliefs are not forced on the people living in them. I'll hang up and wait.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".
Is it possible to have a society you participate in that does not force others to accept your values and beliefs? If not, that's a 'you' issue. Not a society issue.
What beliefs and values (except for abortion and LGBT) would be forced on you?

You keep talking about your rights being taken away and you never answer the question of which rights?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Cynic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

. Today the the Christian call to arms is for the fight against gay people and trans kids to tell them what they are supposed to do with their bodies.


Haha. That would be called a "reaction" to the current climate.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".
Is it possible to have a society you participate in that does not force others to accept your values and beliefs? If not, that's a 'you' issue. Not a society issue.


I participate in society to the point my faith allows me to participate in it.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:

kurt vonnegut said:


This is basically right. Not that Christianity as such needs to be embraced. Its values and influences. Can you name a Christian value that makes society a worse place for everyone to coexist? (that's actually inherently Christian - in other words, not something that pervades the Church, or the fruits of some cultural mania that the people within the Church have glommed onto in error). If you don't acknowledge that the alternative is secular values and influence that beget the litany of things I mentioned earlier, we aren't going to make any headway.

I think we would first have to clarify what are examples of Christian values and what are examples of secular values. If Christian values are love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, integrity, honesty, justice, generosity, patience. Then yes, those values absolutely make the society better in my opinion. But, these are all values that overlap with the values of secular Americans. There is not a debate over whether honesty is better than dishonesty or if hate is better than love

The foundations of values and source of authority of those values are different, but I feel like there is more room for compatibility than perhaps you give credit for.

If Christian values extends to the idea of Christian exceptionalism, then I would argue this is the exactly the thing that does not make society better or aid in coexistence. If traditional marriage is a Christian value, then, if imposed, it is a value that makes life worse for people that don't share that value. If opposition to IVF is a Christian value, then, if imposed, I would argue it is a value that makes life worse for some people. In my mind, the compromise is this: You can have your traditional marriage and not use IVF. And someone else gets to have a less traditional marriage and use IVF. Neither side gets to tell the other what to do.

So, I think we need to define what you mean by Christian values. You've come out against open theocracy, so whatever the Christian values that are a positive for society that you are talking about, I would expect it excludes the idea that everyone must be forced to follow Christian morality


Quote:

As for our decision to recoil, yeah it's concerning. Because it exacerbates and accelerates the deterioration of society. Using my family as a microcosm, I mentioned my wife left her public school teaching job. She had just been named teacher of the year, and was the most requested teacher by parents at that school, especially for children whose parents were teachers. I suspect most of the ones requesting her for their children would agree with you that Christianity can't be in the schools. It's not YOUR non-Christianity. It's your aversion to Christianity in public spaces. You can't see or refuse to see how it's incoherent to my ears to say "I want you to participate in the public square, I just want to exclude everything you identify with from there".

I want you to understand that I do not want to exclude you from the public square. And I don't want you to forego your faith or identity. My entire position on this thread is that I want you to participate in the public square and I want you to allow everyone else equal opportunity to participate in the public square.

As it relates to schools. If we decide that religion and Christianity and Christian morality belong in school . . . then I am fine with that. But, what that MUST also mean is that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Secularism, Satanism, and any other religion also belongs there. Next to the 10 Commandments, lets stick up a poster from the religion of any other student or parent who wishes to equally participate in this public square. If you want children to have access to age-appropriate materials that represent Christianity and Christian tradition in a school library, then fine! We must then give equal access to age-appropriate materials of other value systems.

There is a pattern in this country whereby some jurisdiction comes in to build a Christian statue in front of a courthouse or open up a public preceding to a Christian prayer. Next, the FFRF or Satanists come in and ask for the same opportunity, and then the Christians lose their damn minds. It goes to the courts and after all the dust settles, the jurisdiction goes back to not allowing any religious symbolism or prayers or whatever. I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that Christians are NOT willing to share the public square. Maybe you are willing and I've overgeneralized. I'm sorry if that is the case.

Like I said, I want Christianity in the public square. But only if Christians are willing to sit down and give everyone else the same equal 1/3,000,000 voice. This means not asking for special treatment in schools or public buildings that you aren't willing to give others. And it means not whining every time a private corporation or television studio promotes an idea that isn't compatible with Christianity. Private companies are allowed to support LGBTQ persons if they want. Private companies are allowed to support traditional marriage if they want. And we as consumers can decide how to react without acting out in righteous indignation when someone dares disagree with us. The same goes for TV, and shows on TV, and movies, and flags in front of a business, or a private home yard sign.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your vision of society is a forum that you moderate. It's not a real ecosystem where people live out what they believe, unless it's your belief. You're not really all that different than the rest of us.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with most of what you say, as usual, but I have a few points.

Quote:

I think we would first have to clarify what are examples of Christian values and what are examples of secular values. If Christian values are love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, integrity, honesty, justice, generosity, patience. Then yes, those values absolutely make the society better in my opinion. But, these are all values that overlap with the values of secular Americans. There is not a debate over whether honesty is better than dishonesty or if hate is better than love
I think the Christian foundation of secular morality is horribly underestimated by Western non-religious people. The reason love, compassion, forgiveness, humlity, integrity, honestry, justice, generosity, and patience are held in high regard on a society-wide level is due to millenia of Christian influence. You only need to go to southern Africa, rural India or China to see that this is not a universal system of morality. China has to have a social credit system, because they won't help strangers dying in the street or report fatal car accidents. Much of India has a caste system where some people are fundamentally better than others and deserving of more rights and dignity. There are all sorts of cultures the world over that prize deception and trickery or brute strength over justice or virtue.

Quote:

As it relates to schools. If we decide that religion and Christianity and Christian morality belong in school . . . then I am fine with that. But, what that MUST also mean is that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Secularism, Satanism, and any other religion also belongs there.
This hits me when I think about communities. Imagine 100,000 devout Catholics get together to start a community. They want that Catholic faith to be part of everything. They settle in a barren area and start a township. They collect taxes, start a school, build a courthouse, and open a hospital. The schools are overtly Catholic, the courthouse is Catholic in nature, and the hospitals follow Catholic teachings. It's a small refuge from the modern world, similar to what you see among the Amish, Muslims or the Orthodox Jews. I don't see any problem with that at all. Nothing wrong with a small homogenous community living by it's own standards. In the US now, though, a single atheist can move into that community and wreak havoc. They can demand that all prayers and icons be taken out of schools, demand they receive an abortion at the hospital, and demand that the courthouse grant them a divorce. Just acting like that specifically grown and dedicated community is the same as anywhere else. To me, that's the very mark of tyranny. A single person demanding that 100,000 people follow their views and wishes even though that person could easily move to a thousand other cities and get all that without conflict. Why can't like minded people get together and build a community together without interference? Why should the vast majority be beholden to the individual?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

I agree with most of what you say, as usual, but I have a few points.

Quote:

I think we would first have to clarify what are examples of Christian values and what are examples of secular values. If Christian values are love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, integrity, honesty, justice, generosity, patience. Then yes, those values absolutely make the society better in my opinion. But, these are all values that overlap with the values of secular Americans. There is not a debate over whether honesty is better than dishonesty or if hate is better than love
I think the Christian foundation of secular morality is horribly underestimated by Western non-religious people. The reason love, compassion, forgiveness, humlity, integrity, honestry, justice, generosity, and patience are held in high regard on a society-wide level is due to millenia of Christian influence. You only need to go to southern Africa, rural India or China to see that this is not a universal system of morality. China has to have a social credit system, because they won't help strangers dying in the street or report fatal car accidents. Much of India has a caste system where some people are fundamentally better than others and deserving of more rights and dignity. There are all sorts of cultures the world over that prize deception and trickery or brute strength over justice or virtue.

Quote:

As it relates to schools. If we decide that religion and Christianity and Christian morality belong in school . . . then I am fine with that. But, what that MUST also mean is that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Secularism, Satanism, and any other religion also belongs there.
This hits me when I think about communities. Imagine 100,000 devout Catholics get together to start a community. They want that Catholic faith to be part of everything. They settle in a barren area and start a township. They collect taxes, start a school, build a courthouse, and open a hospital. The schools are overtly Catholic, the courthouse is Catholic in nature, and the hospitals follow Catholic teachings. It's a small refuge from the modern world, similar to what you see among the Amish, Muslims or the Orthodox Jews. I don't see any problem with that at all. Nothing wrong with a small homogenous community living by it's own standards. In the US now, though, a single atheist can move into that community and wreak havoc. They can demand that all prayers and icons be taken out of schools, demand they receive an abortion at the hospital, and demand that the courthouse grant them a divorce. Just acting like that specifically grown and dedicated community is the same as anywhere else. To me, that's the very mark of tyranny. A single person demanding that 100,000 people follow their views and wishes even though that person could easily move to a thousand other cities and get all that without conflict. Why can't like minded people get together and build a community together without interference? Why should the vast majority be beholden to the individual?
Great post.

I am still trying to figure what rights of a non Christian would be taken away, except for maybe abortion and LGBT, with a Christian based government.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A complete infringement and overhaul of people's individual freedom and rights. I already explained in an earlier post that Christian Nationalism elevates the USA to some godlike entity to be worshipped. It also identifies an "out" group to be controlled, this group being non Christians, or even Christians who aren't part of the controlling denomination.

So here are some examples of what that would look like

- ending no fault divorce (has the effect of forcing people to stay in abusive marriages)
- complete disregard and undermining of the establishment clause (religious teaching in schools)
- crafting of voting rights to continuously favor preferred groups (white Christians, rich people, rural voters) while disadvantaging others (low income people, urban voters), such as ridiculous gerrymandering, voter intimidation, making mail in voting pretty much obsolete
- defunding public schools and directing tax dollars to religious private schools, hurting poor communities and guaranteeing poor education for those kids
- not just abortion rights, but gutting reproductive rights (banning mifepristone, IVF, birth control)
- complete rolling back of all progress on LGBT rights, and aggressive discrimination against LGBT people
- watering down school curricula and banning any teaching of anything that Christian Nationalists find offensive (e.g. pretty much all of the ugly parts of US history because talking poorly of the USA is blasphemy)
- discrimination of Jews, Muslims, nonreligious people in the public sphere becoming more acceptable
- and yes, January 6 was in part a result of Christian Nationalism. That being, a bunch of white Christian Nationalists though the country was "being taken from them" and attempted a coup to overthrow the government to install their preferred candidate who is pushing a Christian Nationalist agenda

Make no mistake, Christian Nationalism is a direct threat to democracy and religious freedom. It's a deeply anti-American movement at its core.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

A complete infringement and overhaul of people's individual freedom and rights. I already explained in an earlier post that Christian Nationalism elevates the USA to some godlike entity to be worshipped. It also identifies an "out" group to be controlled, this group being non Christians, or even Christians who aren't part of the controlling denomination.

So here are some examples of what that would look like

- ending no fault divorce (has the effect of forcing people to stay in abusive marriages)
- complete disregard and undermining of the establishment clause (religious teaching in schools)
- crafting of voting rights to continuously favor preferred groups (white Christians, rich people, rural voters) while disadvantaging others (low income people, urban voters), such as ridiculous gerrymandering, voter intimidation, making mail in voting pretty much obsolete
- defunding public schools and directing tax dollars to religious private schools, hurting poor communities and guaranteeing poor education for those kids
- not just abortion rights, but gutting reproductive rights (banning mifepristone, IVF, birth control)
- complete rolling back of all progress on LGBT rights, and aggressive discrimination against LGBT people
- watering down school curricula and banning any teaching of anything that Christian Nationalists find offensive (e.g. pretty much all of the ugly parts of US history because talking poorly of the USA is blasphemy)
- discrimination of Jews, Muslims, nonreligious people in the public sphere becoming more acceptable
- and yes, January 6 was in part a result of Christian Nationalism. That being, a bunch of white Christian Nationalists though the country was "being taken from them" and attempted a coup to overthrow the government to install their preferred candidate who is pushing a Christian Nationalist agenda

Make no mistake, Christian Nationalism is a direct threat to democracy and religious freedom. It's a deeply anti-American movement at its core.
I disagree that would be the result of a Christian based government.

And I would say that whatever we are doing now is not working.

Also would say that I feel the same way about your side's policies. And I feel they are being forced on me.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why bother? He doesn't even know what 'no fault' divorce is but it's point number one. The list doesn't get much better from there.

Edit: quick googling shows there's a cnn article from this summer you may have read. I see where it comes from.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Why bother? He doesn't even know what 'no fault' divorce is but it's point number one. The list doesn't get much better from there.

Edit: quick googling shows there's a cnn article from this summer you may have read. I see where it comes from.
Taco is a she. I respect her views just disagree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

AGC said:

Why bother? He doesn't even know what 'no fault' divorce is but it's point number one. The list doesn't get much better from there.

Edit: quick googling shows there's a cnn article from this summer you may have read. I see where it comes from.
Taco is a she. I respect her views just disagree.


That would explain a lot.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im not a she, I was just called a she by a few 12 year olds on F16 a few times
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

dermdoc said:

AGC said:

Why bother? He doesn't even know what 'no fault' divorce is but it's point number one. The list doesn't get much better from there.

Edit: quick googling shows there's a cnn article from this summer you may have read. I see where it comes from.
Taco is a she. I respect her views just disagree.


That would explain a lot.

I guess you're one of those 12 year olds
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

Im not a she, I was just called a she by a few 12 year olds on F16 a few times
Sorry.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can disagree all you want. We're already seeing a lot of this in some red states like Texas. All of our statewide leaders are pretty staunch Christian nationalists.

I'm guessing you disagree (and AGC mocks) because you are from the exact class of people least affected by these things.

I'll admit, I am too. I'm a white male who makes a decent income. But it's hard to look at P2025 and think anything other than it being un American and awful for both democracy and religious freedom
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

I think we would first have to clarify what are examples of Christian values and what are examples of secular values. If Christian values are love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, integrity, honesty, justice, generosity, patience. Then yes, those values absolutely make the society better in my opinion. But, these are all values that overlap with the values of secular Americans. There is not a debate over whether honesty is better than dishonesty or if hate is better than love

These are meaningless colloquialisms. I don't think there's much overlap. Love is the synthesis of all God requires of us. But the word is used to convey people's disordered appetites more often than not.

Justice insinuates the proper ordering and understanding of the other cardinal virtues. Rendering to people what they're owed requires an understanding of rights, the obligations opposite them, and their source. If someone says he has the right to healthcare, it has to mean someone has an obligation to provide it to him. No one bothers to answer the question of who THAT guy is. We declare other rights for ourselves to things that are scarce. If there are two of us, and we've determined we both have the right to a whole apple, what's a just resolution if there's only one apple? Justice might be the most *******ized word in the dictionary. It's used to describe a lot of things that have nothing to do with it. Social Justice, Environmental Justice, Racial Justice.

Quote:

If Christian values extends to the idea of Christian exceptionalism, then I would argue this is the exactly the thing that does not make society better or aid in coexistence. If traditional marriage is a Christian value, then, if imposed, it is a value that makes life worse for people that don't share that value. If opposition to IVF is a Christian value, then, if imposed, I would argue it is a value that makes life worse for some people. In my mind, the compromise is this: You can have your traditional marriage and not use IVF. And someone else gets to have a less traditional marriage and use IVF. Neither side gets to tell the other what to do.


What I'll say on IVF is that it's not a good argument that if something will result in a desirable outcome, then it's good, and vice versa. If I don't rob a bank (and get away with it), my life won't be as good. Opposition to IVF isn't a Christian value per se. All Christians won't even agree on IVF. But the pro-IVF stance is incoherent from a Christian values perspective.

Quote:

I want you to understand that I do not want to exclude you from the public square. And I don't want you to forego your faith or identity. My entire position on this thread is that I want you to participate in the public square and I want you to allow everyone else equal opportunity to participate in the public square.

I do understand. I don't think you want to exclude me. If there's nothing FOR me in the public square, it makes the most sense to opt out. We have different thresholds for things we'll tolerate. But there are things you wouldn't tolerate. That's the point at which people will start to call you fascist, or Christofascist, or Christian Nationalist. To shut you up.

Quote:

There is a pattern in this country whereby some jurisdiction comes in to build a Christian statue in front of a courthouse or open up a public preceding to a Christian prayer. Next, the FFRF or Satanists come in and ask for the same opportunity, and then the Christians lose their damn minds. It goes to the courts and after all the dust settles, the jurisdiction goes back to not allowing any religious symbolism or prayers or whatever. I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that Christians are NOT willing to share the public square. Maybe you are willing and I've overgeneralized. I'm sorry if that is the case.
I don't think you can ever have philosophies that are mutually exclusive of each other, coexist. That's where liberalism fails. One or the other of them are going to at the very least, be marginalized. If no one changes their mind, someone's will has to be imposed on the other.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

You can disagree all you want. We're already seeing a lot of this in some red states like Texas. All of our statewide leaders are pretty staunch Christian nationalists.

I'm guessing you disagree (and AGC mocks) because you are from the exact class of people least affected by these things.

I'll admit, I am too. I'm a white male who makes a decent income. But it's hard to look at P2025 and think anything other than it being un American and awful for both democracy and religious freedom
That is below you my friend. The victim mentality does not work.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How is what I said victim mentality? Wtf?

I'm saying it's really hard to defend any of this stuff if you claim to believe in freedom and democracy. It's an insanely extreme agenda.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

How is what I said victim mentality? Wtf?

I'm saying it's really hard to defend any of this stuff if you claim to believe in freedom and democracy. It's an insanely extreme agenda.


Disagree. And I believe Kamala's agenda is extreme.

I believe in freedom. We are not a democracy and have never been.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not even talking about Kamala. Not everything is a dichotomy.

The USA is not a PURE democracy. There haven't been any pure democracies in centuries. The USA is a a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. And the fact that so many conservatives and Christian nationalists are so hostile toward the idea of democracy (and increasingly warm toward fascism) is deeply troubling.

And no, if you believe in Christian nationalism and P2025, you don't believe in freedom at all. You believe in freedom for yourself and aggressively controlling everyone else.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

I'm not even talking about Kamala. Not everything is a dichotomy.

The USA is not a PURE democracy. There haven't been any pure democracies in centuries. The USA is a a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. And the fact that so many conservatives and Christian nationalists are so hostile toward the idea of democracy (and increasingly warm toward fascism) is deeply troubling.

And no, if you believe in Christian nationalism and P2025, you don't believe in freedom at all. You believe in freedom for yourself and aggressively controlling everyone else.

Wow. Project much?

And we are a republic. Not a representative democracy. That is mob rule basically. And I hate fascism. And do not want to control anyone.

And as far as fascism goes, who is funding Kamala?

Do you not understand her views are as offensive to me as Trump's are to you?

And her tax policies want to control me. Would you agree?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd like to register as a Christian Nationalist and join Project 2025.
I think - I mean I'm not really sure what those things are other than
how they are described by their detractors on this site.
Otherwise, I've never been contacted by them or even met
a person who claimed to be attached to either group.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So fewer divorces and abortions is a bad thing?

Romans 1 comes to mind.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fine. The House of Representatives is a representative democracy. The Senate is a republic. My point is your side continuously attacks the very principle of democracy and acts like it is not a factor in how we govern. It is, it's just not our pure form of government.

I'm not sure why you're invoking Kamala Harris right now. That's not what this thread is about. Especially because there have historically been conservative administration that did not endorse Christian nationalism.

The USA has never had a far left president. US politics have always been closer to the right than the left. P2025 just pushes things very very far to the right.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Banning no fault divorce is problematic because it forces people to stay in abusive or otherwise unhealthy marriages. Those would likely not qualify as sufficient reasons for ending a marriage because they wouldn't be breach of marital contract. It's just a way of controlling people.

As for abortion, I could write an essay as to why the laws you support are both horrific and counterproductive. And again, it's less of a law made to benefit people as it is meant to control people, given how no exceptions are allowed. I do find it funny though. The same people who tell me I'm a baby killer and say that rape victims must be forced to give birth, also call me a communist for saying that we should provide free school lunches for low income kids. What a crazy world we live in.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

Banning no fault divorce is problematic because it forces people to stay in abusive or otherwise unhealthy marriages. Those would likely not qualify as sufficient reasons for ending a marriage because they wouldn't be breach of marital contract. It's just a way of controlling people.

As for abortion, I could write an essay as to why the laws you support are both horrific and counterproductive. And again, it's less of a law made to benefit people as it is meant to control people, given how no exceptions are allowed. I do find it funny though. The same people who tell me I'm a baby killer and say that rape victims must be forced to give birth, also call me a communist for saying that we should provide free school lunches for low income kids. What a crazy world we live in.
No fault divorce and abortion takes away consequences for bad decisions and encourages no personal responsibility.

And that leads to moral decay as the Bible clearly teaches.

I give my own money to charities and the poor. I do not use the government to force other people to do the same.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Neither of those things do that at all.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.