Religious People Join the Deplorables Club
Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 12 months ago to Politics
Democrats in the House create an act that praises the non-religious and backhand slaps the faithful of all organized religions.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Bravo! Keep up the good work hypocrites.
I am an atheist. Think that is religiously unaffiliated. However, I don’t share almost any of the DNC values.
That excludes some conservative religious evangelists and anti-abortion crusaders who are shameful, but there is a rising movement of the religious left that takes its altruism and irrationalism very seriously and is promoting it in politics https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...
[/sarcasm]
Think it already comes from pretend-unaffiliates who worship dead women and obfuscation.
The things you listed either are also religions (e.g. baal, moloch, gaia) or are the secular descendants of religious ideas (e.g. communism, environmentalism are just modern and more consistent versions of Christianity).
In other words, unless you are anti-religious, you can't be anti-any of the things you've listed.
You already agree with them on all the fundamentals.
In other words, they are people of mixed premises.
Needless to say the Bachelors degrees that should fill my heart with their joy of accomplishment is tainted by the prospect of my having added to the nations cancer. Depressing, but as a parent you have to try.
Incidentally, I had a $1000 no questions asked deal with my son for any black eye, far lip, or knocked out tooth of any punk who tried to intimidated or his sister. He never took advantage but I have had summits with every teacher, guidance councelor and principal to put them in their place. My children were never victims. One lesson that did take was that being a victim was a personal choice fed by fear. Unacceptable.
Jan :>)
Then again, some 30% of America is stupid enough to go along with this...
Oh, well, the more outspokenly radical those idiots become, the more me dino thinks Trump will have a landslide victory for a reelection.
What may happen four years later worries me, though.
Here is a write up of their “Inclusive Bible” which is much much more politically correct,
“While this new Bible is certainly an inclusive-language translation, it is much more: it is a re-imagining of the scriptures and our relationship to them. Not merely replacing male pronouns, the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths. The Inclusive Bible is a fresh, dynamic translation into modern English, carefully crafted to let the power and poetry of the language shine forth”
https://eewc.com/the-inclusive-bible/
will become something 'woke enough to be taught in junior school.
This is a serious case of unresolved contradictions.
A deep flaw for Objectivists but not of concern to the post-modernists/leftists/progressivistas who now control education and mass media.
The problem with conservative groups is that they have been so unfriendly to gay, minority, feminist, and non-normative groups that those groups have had no alternative but to adhere to the Democratic party vote. Conservative organizations need to have a blue-collar and religious plus techie, and non-normative "ya'll come on in here" sort of attitude. The only thing that matters is whether the individual believes in freedom and responsibility.
I guess I am saying that it is nice to see the opposition say something really stupid, but we need to clean house ourselves - and then capitalize on it.
Jan
The NRA forcefully supports the right of minorities to defend themselves by force of arms if necessary. It's liberal city officials that make self defense nearly impossible in urban areas.
Evangelical Christians risk their lives in dangerous parts of the minority world here and overseas to relieve pain and suffering. I think you've bought into the image of conservatives sold by the Democrat-media cabal.
You and I and many others have friends who are gay and/or Wiccan, but the very first post (olduglycarl) equates witchcraft with communism and, if you read down the list, you can easily see what the reception these people would get in our Gulch...and we are probably more broad minded than the Republicans are.
All of these people do not want to be 'liberals', but if the liberals are the only people who will accept them, then that is where they will go.
Objectively speaking, what does someone's religion or sexual preferences have to do with valuing freedom and responsibility? Nothing, in my mind. So why do we slander them and make sure that anyone in those categories knows not to hang out with us?
Jan
I had a black friend who was physically disabled and had worked his way through two PhDs. He was fascinated with how black representatives who represented poor districts seemed to be able to mount expensive reelection campaigns. His research discovered that they were backed by real estate investment trusts (REITs) that invested in prisons and low cost housing. His conclusion was that these backers needed to keep those minorities poor and criminal.
What initiated this discussion was the Democrats making a statement that would alienate anyone who was religious. If 'we' (for some value of 'we') make a point of accepting people who are religious, people who are not, people who are gay, pagan, whatever as long as they believe in freedom and responsibility then we will have a strategic advantage.
Then I looked at the comments on this very list...and realized that we had to take the beam from our eye before the mote from another's (to also quote the Bible as an agnostic).
Jan
The difference is that the number of media agents that tell a coherent message about conservatives being more tolerant and charitable is small, compared to the bulk of left wing propaganda machines broadcasting a very negative image of conservatives without letup. It's true that some people fit the description, but I've found conservatives in general to be much more kind and tolerant than their progressive counterparts, from personal experience.
I agree that this is a Big part of the problem - possibly more than half. (eg I have been told by some liberal friends that I cannot possibly be a Republican because I don't belong to a born-again religion,) But I have been among Conservatives at home and in the military, and many of them are decades behind liberals socially.
Race: Almost everyone, conservative and liberal, thinks that racial profiling has no place at work or in public life. We are, as a culture, finally looking at laying this bugaboo to rest.
Gender. Many many Conservatives are still struggling with the concept that a woman should not build her identity around 'husband and family'. Women are still pressured by their families into having children, so that they can be 'happy and fulfilled'. And they mean it.
Homosexuality. Most conservatives have reluctantly come to accept that homosexuals exist, and that they may not be sick or evil. That is about the best I can say for conservatives on this point - I know a lot of gay people who have to deal with this. (One of the reasons the SCA has a lot of gays is our enthusiastic acceptance of gays, as far back as the 1970s. Now we also have Trans.)
Religion. This is humorous. I do SCA -medieval reenactment. Each person gets to chose a 'persona' from before 1650. It is difficult to tell the Episcopal minister who happens to have a 'viking' persona from the genuine neopagan who has a viking persona.
I had forgotten about the walkaway movement - thank you for reminding me, DrZ. It is wonderful and hopeful.
Jan
The Log Cabin Republicans have been around for quite a while as gays who support the constitution, and they get their worst treatment from the LGBT community, that considers them turncoats. Not everything is peaceful in the LGBT crowd, as "Mayor Pete" is taking flak from lesbians, who believe its more important to elect the first female president than the first gay.
They are tying to promote themselves as the voice of science and reason but don't dare attack the religious as such because of their own religious left driving their altruist moral appeals. Where would Al Sharpton go? "Liberation Theology"? The viro nature worshipers and their alliance with Pope Francis? The militant religionists who forcibly occupied Sen. Collins office demanding higher taxes on the rich?
Search on "religious left" and you find an ugly trend that is on the rise and being heavily promoted as part of the spread of irrationalism, such as https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...
It stands for everything people hold important to their existence: Honor, love of country, love of your neighbor, honesty, sacrifice, all the things that are missing from the agenda of the left.
People who love America - I am excluding the left, Omar, Tlaib, Lemongrass etc who are not Americans by principle. They may have been born in this country as they like to boast about it but that is immaterial to what they represent.
Atheism is necessarily one of the first steps a rational mind takes and without it you cannot built the philosophical foundations required to achieve a proper understanding of ethics or politics.
By tying something so fundamental to their values they are making a play for the support of rational people.
This is something the religious left (ie conservative movement) has no counter to.
The Democrats, while trying to attract secular humanists, should have avoided any statements about religion altogether. As it is, they now can't avoid the perception they are antireligious, potentially alienating the majority of voters. I'd say this was a dumb, unnecessary statement that will only have a negative effect.
Once again- Atheism is the absence of belief in theism.
Not having a defined belief is not the same as having a belief.
A machine that does not have any widgets is not the same as it having a type of widget.
No- to telling others not just what they believe but what they should do.
Regarding those who want to attack feverishly, exhibit passion, or regard anything with indifference, they have that freedom.
Whatever floats your boat.
Communism is not based on atheism. One cannot base a social system on not believing in the supernatural. The communists have their own mysticism and appeals to altruism. The Soviet Union was ripe for that because it remained heavily religious.
It's about being rational or not.
And rational people are atheists. As a starting point. Everything else follows from that.
But there are plenty of atheists who then get everything else wrong and are as completely irrational or more so, than religious people.
Leaving people alone to live their own personal lives does not mean that it doesn't matter what others believe at all. Fundamental premises that cause the nature of a society had better be of concern, especially when irrational ideas are being proselytized. It matters that the militantly religious are trying to ban abortion, for example.
People who don't know what to believe don't tend to be passionate about anything. That is not an argument for agnostics.
At least religious people are trying to have certainty about something, wrong though it may be. Agnostics are rejecting even having in wrong knowledge.
It can be rational, it says the person is too lazy, or too busy, or lacks the intellectual heft to form an opinion, or dare not speak against orthodoxy.
Agnostics are actively evading these facts and are therefore even more immoral than actual religious people.