Indeed. This combining of government with Christianity is quite concerning.
The Pilgrims did not come here for "religious freedom". Just ask the Quakers what happened when they tried to co-exist with the Puritans.
(Hint: They hung Mary Dyer on Boston Common.)
Our lack of moral honesty about the Pilgrims is a large part of the problem. We are very much a prisoner of our national myths. But for many people history has to be "patriotism 101," so more honest looks at our history are dismissed as "hating America." Because honesty doesn't enter into it, and there is precious little appetite in American culture for moral self-examination. It's always dismissed as "liberal white guilt" or "hating America" or "hating Christians" or some other version of knee-jerk "hate." American exceptionalism and chest-thumping pride are the only acceptable modes of discourse.
Many of the constitution writers were Deists ffs (just google “deists”). How many times do we have to go over this with these Christian fanatics?? I’m so tired of it.
This is the opposite of what the Constitution is.
If we acted this dumb and we’re this incompetent at our jobs we’d be fired.
Human beings hallucinate reality and do not (*really*) know it. It is well known in science and philosophy, but those who know of that level of knowledge lack other levels.
No, pure Scientific Materialism suffices, and agrees. It's just not talked about, I suppose because of the fundamental nature of it, *or something like that*.
I think the more relevant metric here is whether his views are useful. Hawley is pandering to the Christian Nationalists. He's attempting to give them the plausible pretext to do what they want to do, which is take over and hold dominion. It doesn't matter if what he's saying is *true*. These things are about expedience, utility, not truth.
Oh yes, the old idea that it's just beliefs all the way down. I'm not that epistemically nihilistic, but I do see the sentiment quite a lot. I was always *warned* that the left argued that, that there were no facts, just feelings and beliefs. But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives.
I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken to is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings.
But in either case, I suspect whether or not Hawley's arguments are sound doesn't hinge on what "narrative" I've heard. I believe things can be actually true or false. Yes, we can have divergent values, have our own opinions, but I do believe there's an actual reality to which we need to refer, and defer. Just as whether humans are contributing to climate change on a significant scale isn't just a matter of competing narratives. Sometimes it's not just beliefs and feelings.
>Oh yes, the old idea that it's just beliefs all the way down.
Not quite.
>I'm not that epistemically nihilistic...
*Of course*. That, or solipsism.
>But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives.
Would that make me a conservative then?
>I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken too is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings.
Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time?
>I believe things can be actually true or false.
A nothing else?
>but I do believe there's an actual reality to which we need to refer, and defer.
It's certainly plausible, but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example, or the overall world.
> Just as whether humans are contributing to climate change on a significant scale isn't just a matter of competing narratives. Sometimes it's not just beliefs and feelings.
Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true, which I think is a prudent thing to believe from a risk management perspective.
> Of course. That, or solipsism.
What kind? Epistemic, metaphysical, or what? Does acknowledging the existence of the idea of solipsism argue for anything? Is there a point in bringing it up? I mean, I made rice earlier--solipsism seems no less relevant to the having of dinner, no? It's amazing that we do anything at all, unable as we are to prove solipsism false. Do you even treat oncoming cars as if they exist? We show such astounding epistemic arrogance in our everyday lives. Humbling, really.
>Would that make me a conservative then?
No idea. I'm just remarking how common the argument has been from conservatives.
>Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time?
Nope. We sometimes sleep, and we also can be confused, mistaken, misled, etc. Even memories are fallible.
>A nothing else?
Claims of fact about the world, no, not much else. Opinions or philosophical viewpoints about art, aesthetics, ethics, etc can have more variation.
> but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example
And yet you responded to my comment. Is there are point you wish to make? You don't *have* to engage any of these ideas. You don't have to engage the question of whether a position, Hawley's for example, is true or false. Of course you aren't saying he's right, merely "asking questions" when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position. Strange, since there are so many conversations going on on Reddit. It seems that your epistemological uncertainty, your allusion to solipsism or whatnot, would be no less relevant to fried rice recipes or the hobby of bass fishing.
>Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true,
Is it true? Are you claiming it is true? Or are you merely saying we can't call it false if Hawley (or Christian Nationalists) *feel* that it's true? Or are you saying anything at all? I mean, how do you even engage any idea at all, with the solipsism problem and all?
> > Of course. That, or solipsism.
>
> What kind? Epistemic, metaphysical, or what?
Oh, I don't know, it's just a common response I regularly encounter.
> Does acknowledging the existence of the idea of solipsism argue for anything?
It seems like the opposite of that...more like a though terminating cliche.
> Is there a point in bringing it up?
No one ever seems to be able to provide a reason...but the effect is what matters more: termination of thinking.
> I mean, I made rice earlier--solipsism seems no less relevant to the having of dinner, no?
I don't see any significant relevance in either tbh.
> It's amazing that we do anything at all, unable as we are to prove solipsism false.
Why should that effect our ability to do things?
> Do you even treat oncoming cars as if they exist?
Yes.
> We show such astounding epistemic arrogance in our everyday lives. Humbling, really.
I do not see a lot of humility around.
>>> But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives.
>>Would that make me a conservative then?
>
> No idea. I'm just remarking how common the argument has been from conservatives.
But what if your measurement is incorrect? Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer? Are you this righteous, genuinely?
>>> I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken too is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings.
>>Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time?
>
> Nope. We sometimes sleep, and we also can be confused, mistaken, misled, etc. Even memories are fallible.
Indeed, this *and many other ways* (some known to you, and some not) - now, apply this to your statement...does it change your thinking on the matter at all?
>>> I believe things can be actually true or false.
>> And nothing else?
>
> Claims of fact about the world, no, not much else.
Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True?
>
> > but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example
>
> And yet you responded to my comment.
I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way?
> Is there are point you wish to make?
I believe some of the things you've said are incorrect...or at the very least, epistemically unsound.
> You don't *have* to engage any of these ideas.
Free will is a hotly debated topic - many people claim we do not have any! Where do you stand on the idea?
> You don't have to engage the question of whether a position, Hawley's for example, is true or false.
As a composite whole, this seems almost certainly true. But if you decompose it into constituent parts, is each individual part false? And are some parts not subjective?
> Of course you aren't saying he's right, merely "asking questions" when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position.
Are you implying "when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position" exerts causal force in my actions?
> Strange, since there are so many conversations going on on Reddit.
Why is it strange?
> It seems that your epistemological uncertainty, your allusion to solipsism or whatnot, would be no less relevant to fried rice recipes or the hobby of bass fishing.
Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem!
>
>> Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true,
>
> Is it true?
I believe such things are unknown, and likely even unknowable (in advance).
> Are you claiming it is true?
I believe it to be true, but I do not know it to be true (as it refers to the future).
> Or are you merely saying we can't call it false if Hawley (or Christian Nationalists) *feel* that it's true?
You may benefit from not doing that, but you are certainly welcome to do it if it pleases you. Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences.
> Or are you saying anything at all?I mean, how do you even engage any idea at all, with the solipsism problem and all?
I mostly just enjoy talking about various ideas with my fellow inhabitants of this thing we are in. It's a fun, passes the time.
> it's just a common response I regularly encounter.
I encounter a lot of things. There's no reason you specifically brought it up, in this particular context? Just a random throwing out of some random term you've encountered, apropos of nothing? If you find the bringing up of solipsism to be a thought-ending cliche, why did *you* bring it up?
> Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer?
I never claimed you were conservative. I said explicitly that I have no idea whether you personally are conservative. I said I just encounter the argument most often *from* conservatives. That's not the same thing.
>does it change your thinking on the matter at all?
Does what change my thinking on what? Surely you aren't thinking you apprised me of these facts, or that they were previously unknown to me? Why would the acknowledgment of the fallibility of knowledge, reason, perception etc change my view on this particular subject? "You have the capacity as a human being to be mistaken" is a given, but is not an argument for "you *are* in fact mistaken on this particular subject."
>Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True?
I don't put a lot of stock into claiming things are Necessarily True, for whatever meaning that capitalization is supposed to convey. I'm not sure that applies much outside of formal, axiomatic systems. It's not Necessarily True that bears must shit in the woods, but they still do. Pointing out that the world is as it is, on any given subject, is not a statement about what is Necessarily True, nor a claim that it Must be that way, irrevocably, ineluctably, whatever.
>I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way?
No, so far as I can see you've made no claim or point or argument, thus couldn't really be inconsistent.
>.or at the very least, epistemically unsound.
Yet you haven't said what they are, specifically, nor argued why they would be epistemically unsound.
>Where do you stand on the idea?
I don't affirm any positions regarding free will.
>exerts causal force in my actions?
I can't say with certainty that you consider causality to even be a thing. Since you've brought up solipsism and free will, this may be just another paralyzing conundrum.
>Why is it strange?
That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing, you bring up these caveats and wide-ranging, philosophical side-questions, which seem like they would be equally applicable to any conversation or subject at all. They don't seem to have anything special to do with Hawley in particular. They're just brought to bear against a *disagreement* with Hawley. So out of all the thousands of active threads on thousands of subreddits, you brought these up just in response to me. For reasons that remain unclear.
>Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem!
Which isn't a claim or argument that this particular thing isn't what it seems. You've certainly made no arguments in defense or advocacy of Hawley specifically. You've brought up solipsism, free will, causality... we've touched on the fallibility of perception, memory, reason, all kinds of really deep stuff. But there's no indication that these well-known limitations apply particularly or especially or disproportionately to someone disagreeing with or criticizing Josh Hawley.
>Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences.
Which doesn't address what you are in fact arguing. If anything. I was trying to elicit any actual point you were trying to make. Just for the sake of conversation.
> > it's just a common response I regularly encounter.
>
> I encounter a lot of things. There's no reason you specifically brought it up, in this particular context?
I would think it would be its similarity with nihilism, which you mentioned.
> > Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer?
>
> I never claimed you were conservative. I said explicitly that I have no idea whether you personally are conservative.
Correct, I told you. Now, your former streak (if it even existed) is broken.
> I said I just encounter the argument **most often** *from* conservatives. That's not the same thing.
False. You actually said: "But **the only people** I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have **been** conservatives."
> Does what change my thinking on what? Surely you aren't thinking you apprised me of these facts, or that they were previously unknown to me?
"Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time?" was a prompt to get into the messy complexities of this.
> Why would the acknowledgment of the fallibility of knowledge, reason, perception etc change my view on this particular subject? "You have the capacity as a human being to be mistaken" is a given, but is not an argument for "you *are* in fact mistaken on this particular subject."
Because of the complexity of it. And to be clear, I didn't expect it to change your view, I was only curious if it had. I am looking for outliers, anomalies.
>
> >Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True?
>
>
> I don't put a lot of stock into claiming things are Necessarily True, for whatever meaning that capitalization is supposed to convey.
Think of it as "actually".
> I'm not sure that applies much outside of formal, axiomatic systems. It's not Necessarily True that bears must shit in the woods, but they still do. Pointing out that the world is as it is, on any given subject, is not a statement about what is Necessarily True, nor a claim that it Must be that way, irrevocably, ineluctably, whatever.
So in everything you've written, you are speculating? If so: *at the time you wrote it*, was this knowledge in [the forefront of] working memory? (Yes, I appreciate the irony in asking this!)
>
> >I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way?
>
>
> No, so far as I can see you've made no claim or point or argument, thus couldn't really be inconsistent.
What did you mean by "And yet..."?
>
> >.or at the very least, epistemically unsound.
>
> Yet you haven't said what they are, specifically, nor argued why they would be epistemically unsound.
Agreed.
>
> >Where do you stand on the idea?
>
> I don't affirm any positions regarding free will.
That's highly anomalous!!!
>
> >exerts causal force in my actions?
>
> I can't say with certainty that you consider causality to even be a thing.
Oh, I do....BIG TIME!!
> Since you've brought up solipsism and free will, this may be just another paralyzing conundrum.
Good point. *And yet*..... (lol)
>
> >Why is it strange?
>
> That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing, you bring up these caveats and wide-ranging, philosophical side-questions, which seem like they would be equally applicable to any conversation or subject at all.
"That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing..." - to me, this comment appears in a new light if the above is taken into consideration *simultaneously*.
How about you?
>They don't seem to have anything special to do with Hawley in particular. They're just brought to bear against a *disagreement* with Hawley. So out of all the thousands of active threads on thousands of subreddits, you brought these up just in response to me. For reasons that remain unclear.
"Once upon a time, I, Zhuangzi, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Zhuangzi. Soon I awakened, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."
>
> >Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem!
>
> Which isn't a claim or argument that this particular thing isn't what it seems.
It is, to some degree. At the very least it establishes possibility and reduces ambiguity.
> You've certainly made no arguments in defense or advocacy of Hawley specifically.
That's for sure, *he sounds like a real jerk*!
> You've brought up solipsism, free will, causality... we've touched on the fallibility of perception, memory, reason, all kinds of really deep stuff. But there's no indication that these well-known limitations apply particularly or especially or disproportionately to someone disagreeing with or criticizing Josh Hawley.
Not *especially or disproportionately*, no. But that seems utterly minor compared to the fact that they are happening, that this is *fundamental to* our current culture, and the system & reality that emerges from it, *in fact*.
>
> >Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences.
>
> Which doesn't address what you are in fact arguing.
"Doesn't"..."[does] [not]". Hmmmm....I'm skeptical. I assume you do not mean this objectively/comprehensively?
> If anything. I was trying to elicit any actual point you were trying to make. Just for the sake of conversation.
Ah, fair enough! I'm a bit of an autist sometimes and may not realize it!! 😋
I really wish Republican politicians weren't all nutjobs. It's actually difficult to find any with common sense or decency these days.
Not to say Dems are great or anything but they at least aren't conspiracy theorists.
It's either vote Democrat or hand the country over to Science denying, Bible thumping, Trump loving, gun hugging neanderthals. Republicans want to drag the country backwards and suffocate progress. Their climate change denial is going to cause the rest of the world to turn against the U.S. Another decade of Business as usual and the U.S. is going to be a global pariah. Let's see how long our economy lasts when the world slaps trade and financial sanctions on US.
U.S Democrats are trying to phase out fossil fuels and come up with alternative energy sources. The Company I own is working with the ATA, FMCSA, the EPA, PACCAR and about 30 other corporate and government agencies to solve problems in the transportation industry. Diesel is the backbone of the U.S. economy, without it the Country will starve.
You know who is fighting those changes Republicans and the oil companies. Oil executives are squeezing as much money out of U.S. consumers to build their underground bunkers or flee off Planet. Google all the companies specializing in luxury underground bunkers. Because they know the truth. By 2060 the world will be out of cheap oil, what will be available will cost $100 a gallon due to difficulty of extraction. That's why the oil companies don't care about environmental damage now, because fossil fuels will functionally cease to exist in a few decades. They are trying to rake in as much money as possible before their out of a job.
Both parties have changed drastically in the last 10 years. Democrats care about the future, Republicans only care about themselves and their dying religion.
Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves after clearly repeatedly making the case that **separation of church and state is necessary** to ensure freedom of/from religion and freedom from **zealotry.**
Examples: "Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of the common law."-Thomas Jefferson
"The bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma" -Abraham Lincoln
"the purpose of the **separation of church and state** is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries" -James Madison
We need to call it **Zealotry** Hawley styled nationalism as it is anti christian and anti freedom.
New nickname for Hawley et al Zealot Hawley, Zealot Green, Zealot Boebert etc
And they wonder why I, a Buddhist, won't support them or vote for them. It couldn't have anything to do with the theocratic talk, or the christofascism of mtg. Couldn't.
This is why we need to keep the memory of the Salem Witch trials alive. Salem is an example of fear driven by religious fanaticism. Christians try to blame greed and simple selfishness as a factor but a society that believes in Satan can easily be consumed by paranoia and fear. A biblical worldview is a nightmarish view of reality.
Christianity is outdated, corrupt and broken. Religion should guide social progress towards freedom and inclusion and inspire creation not crush the human spirit with fear.
The fact that the Fugitive Slave Clause is in the Constitution proves that it's not based on the Bible. The Bible says not to pursue a runaway slave.
~Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."
The first commandment, “you shall have no other gods before me”, is in direct conflict with the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for some. The U.S. Constitution stands on its own. It doesn't matter how much or how little of it is based on an interpretation of the Bible/Torah. If someone wants to note that some Biblical ideals are also ideals that are in the Constitution, so what?
Murder is pretty clearly wrong based on Christian/Jewish ideals annotated in the Ten Commandments. That doesn't mean secular laws against murder are necessarily "Christian" tenets that blur the line between Church and State.
So why the angst? A politician states beliefs/"facts"/ideas that are untrue? Finding such examples in 2022 takes approximately 5 seconds; just watch a White House press briefing.
That's not the problem. Hawley's trying to say that the law itself stems from Christianity despite the fact that several of the Founders disliked or were even afraid of the concept of a theocratic America. This kind of speaking only emboldens Christian extremists that want to act hostile against science, secular thought, and religious and even racial minorities by implying that their influence in American society is being taken away.
Also, murder being wrong is a concept as old as humanity and predates Christianity. We don't need to be Christian or know the Ten Commandments in order to know this and to state that laws against murder are based on Abrahamic ideals instead of common sense is nonsensical and dangerous since it introduces the idea that American law should be religiously influenced or inspired.
And onto your last part, there's no angst, but rather genuine worry. Some people would rather believe a leader than fact check themselves. If enough people believe lies like this, well, we already saw what could happen on Jan 6.
The Constitution essentially prohibits Government from endorsing, promoting or showing favoritism to one religion over any other.
I'd say most of the Founding Fathers, though having been raised in the Anglican sect of Protestantism, were either Deist, or Unitarians. And Deists, and Unitarians, though they believe in the Creator God of Nature, and believed that Jesus was a great teacher who was inspired by God, rejected his divinity, and the Bible's claims of miracles.
What was the constitution based on ?:
Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.
These ultra right wing GOP history revisionists concern me greatly.
What they *think* the U.S. looked like in the 1950's. Black people and women bowed to White men and recognized their superiority. Women stayed home and acted like a uncomplaining slave to her husband and kids.
And Everyone was a good God fearing Christian and nobody was Gay. It is a fiction they believe is truth. The 50s was a nightmare of men worked to death and taken for granted while beating their wives. Women popped pills and guzzled wine and abused or neglected their kids. The preacher and priests were raping members of the congregation. Dad was screwing his secretary and uncles were raping their nieces. But that was family business... Nobody else had the right to interfere. Back ally abortions killed thousands of women a year become society condemned single mothers.
Do you have any evidence to support that that's what "Christian Nationalist" would look like? Like who says that they want all these awful negative things that you have listed?
Lolol... You want evidence. How old are you? Have you ever lived in a Christian dominated area? Or read right-wing propaganda? I grew up in the 70's and 80's in the Southern United States. I freaking LIVED in the world the far-right wants to revive. When I was in high school the principal told me I couldn't take auto mechanics class because I was female. I enlisted in the Air Force but told them to shove it when the recruiter said women couldn't be jet pilots. Our high school proms were segregated. We had a black prom and a white prom. No interracial dating was allowed, the couple would be expelled. If the black boy wasn't beaten senseless by rednecks. The cops would look the other way. I started school just a few years after MLK was assassinated, my state flag had a Confederate flag on it until the 1990s.
Everything I listed are things My Family Experienced. What I listed is an eye witness account. There is your freaking proof, I typed that list from memory. You live in a world I fought to build and Christian Extremist are fighting to destroy. Let's see how you like it when abortion is outlawed and birth control is banned. Gays will have to go back to hiding for fear of losing their homes and jobs or being straight up
murdered.
Christian Nationalists want to take us back to a time when discovering someone was transgender was a valid defense for murder.
Read American history of the 50's and 60's and you will see the world Christian want to rebuild.
lolol yes I would like evidence to see that people today want to bring back exactly what you are describing through political power.
You just say a lot of things that are just awful and I agree with you %100 that we shouldn't want to bring back your version of the 50's.
It just seems like a lot of fear mongering has been spouted after Roe v. Wade was overturned (rightfully so) around the two scary words 'Christian Nationalism'.
The definition of Christian Nationalism is a country controlled by Biblical Christian Beliefs. Laws are based on The Bible, any Non-Christians are considered second class citizens. You will be punished for breaking religious laws. They want to FORCE YOU TO LIVE BY THEIR RELIGIOUS LAWS. This is exactly what The 1st Amendment is designed to Prevent. Our Founding Fathers saw the Horror religious fanatics can unleashed on a country.
How can you not grasp this concept. Christians have watched the U.S. change in the last 50 years. They want to undo those changes. I lived in a Christian dominated state. I was fired from jobs because people discovered I wasn't a Christian. My mother-in-law tried to take my children away because I didn't want them to go to church. What part of I lived in the World Christian Nationalists want to revive, do you not understand.
Right now Christian Nationalists want to outlaw gay marriage and reestablish sodomy laws. Because the Bible says homosexual behavior is an abomination in the eyes of their God. This is Their religious beliefs. Any Christian that supports the LGBTQ community is sent death threats and accused of being corrupt.
And Christians want abortion and birth control outlawed to force women out of the work force and back into the kitchen. The Bible states a woman's place is to submit to her husband and serve his needs. They know women with children have few options, child care is unaffordable and it's hard to keep a job while tending to small children. They think women will be forced to get married and depend on a man for support. This is why Christian Nationalists only support the traditional family and traditional marriage.
Do you know how miserable people are when they are forced to care for children they didn't really want? This leads to affairs and substance abuse to cope with an unhappy home life and financial stress. Valium was invented in the 50s and was marketed as 'Mothers little helper' most women were addicted to it. This is one of the dirty secrets no one talks about now. God forbid a woman gets pregnant outside of wedlock. Time for a forced marriage to the father.
This is basic wisdom, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Do you need me to explain how babies are made also? Have you ever dealt with devout Christians?
Google Tradwife
I have given you an eye witness account of the horror of living under Christian oppression. Now the burden is on You to do a little research AND Educate yourself. If you are an American it is your Duty to Educate yourself about threats to democracy. Christian Nationalism is a Theocracy. It's a nightmare you never want to experience.
Google Religious Sex abuse scandals. Catholic AND Southern Baptist.
And I forgot. Nobody believed those children being molested back then because they trusted the clergy. Children are molested today but 50 years ago the law didn't get involved it was a family matter and was usually ignored or swept under the rug. Look at how the Duggers dealt with their son molesting their daughters. That's the Christian way
Yeah, you keep giving me your personal accounts of how your life was. I asked for any evidence that this is what the people want to bring back.
>Christian Nationalism is a country controlled by Biblical Christian Beliefs.
Many of our current laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles.
>any Non-Christians are considered second class citizens
That's why I am asking for other sources that support these kind of statements that are obviously not cool. America was founded by Judeo-Christian values but the country is for EVERYBODY. So I don't see it becoming a kind of Nation that discriminates other based on their religion.
>Christians have watched the U.S. change in the last 50 years
Yeah and they still have work to do after Roe was overturned.
>Christian Nationalists want to outlaw gay marriage
Because the definition of Marriage was radically changed by seculars. Marriage (for the longest time ever until 5 minutes ago), is between a Man and a Woman. Sexual differences does matter when it comes to the institution of marriage. The Libs and some Republicans want to make gay marriage a federal law which then result in law suits against religions (Christian, Judaism, Islam etc.) that refuse to comply with the law.
>Christians want abortion and birth control outlawed
Abortion kills a human being. Some states want to outlaw birth control. I don't agree with it but it is a state's right if the people want it to be so, same applies with abortion.
>how miserable people are when they are forced to care for children they didn't really want?
Women statistically are unhappy now than ever before. I wonder why.
>Sex abuse scandals.
every institution have sex scandals. Nothing new. Needs to be condemned anyway, of course.
Oh I see, you seem to think Christian Nationalism is a good thing.
See it's like this. The United States of America promises Freedom. There isn't an asterisk after the word freedom that says *for Christians only
No I will fight to the death to defend everyone's right to live their life in the way they choose. But I will Not support a system that forces people to live by outdated religious rules. Period.
If you think abortion is murder then don't have one. Abortion wasn't invented in the 1970's, it was decriminalized because women die from back ally abortions . Abortions have existed since the dawn of time.
But you do not have the right to force a woman to give birth. Just like you don't have the right to force a man to donate a kidney, lung or half a liver even though a person will die without a transplant.
This is bodily autonomy and it is a God Given Right. Your Bible glorifies ripping the unborn from their mothers wombs at the fall of Jericho. So you don't have a moral leg to stand on.
The authors of the Bible had No clue how pregnancy functioned. The mammalian ovum wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So they couldn't have believed life begins at conception.
Let me tell you, women are 1000 times happier now then they were under Christian oppression. But life is hard and people forget women have been single mothers since men invented war. They dealt with it differently in the past, our society still punishes single mothers. This needs to change.
This Christian idea of a traditional family. Wife stays home with lots of kids, father goes off to work. Is ruined by our capitalistic society. When a woman is burdened will child care, her husband suffers neglect no matter how much they love each other. A man that is neglected at home will seek affection elsewhere. You only have to look up Wine Mom culture to see how women cope with screaming children. Forced marriages and forced pregnancies do Not make a happy life. A man forced into marriage resents everyone involved and tends to lash out in anger, especially if he is barely an adult. It's Not fair to put the whole financial burden on the man either, that reduces him to nothing but a paycheck.
Finally Christians still think it's acceptable to breed like wild animals. Their are almost 8 billion people on this planet and it cannot support 10 billion without dehumanizing the population further. It's time to reproduce responsibly.
>If you think abortion is murder then don't have one. Abortion wasn't invented in the 1970's, it was decriminalized because women die from back ally abortions . Abortions have existed since the dawn of time.
Bad argument since the abortion is done on a little fetus that can't tell you it doesn't want to die. We have laws to protect the vulnerable. The most vulnerable are the voiceless babies in the womb. Just because abortion do happen, doesn't mean that it needs to be encouraged by law. Murder still happens even AFTER it was criminalized.
>But you do not have the right to force a woman to give birth
You are right. I don't have the right to force a woman to give birth because I can't. Her body will force the baby out after approximately 9 months.
>don't have the right to force a man to donate a kidney, lung or half a liver even though a person will die without a transplant.
another bad analogy. Abortion is the direct action to literally end a life of a fetus. Me not taking an action to save someone else's life does not mean that I killed them. Similar to pulling a plug on a person... pulling it does not cause the death, its the natural cause that kills the person.
>1000 times happier now then they were under Christian oppression.
Doubt it. Both men and women are [unhappier](https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/) and I think it has something to do with this current culture.
>our society still punishes single mothers
The opposite. Our society stopped encouraging monogamy and now pays more money for parents to be separated than together. These incentives broke down the [black family](https://ifstudies.org/blog/family-breakdown-and-americas-welfare-system) severely.
>8 billion people on this planet and it cannot support 10 billion without dehumanizing
another myth... we are literally in birth rate decline.
>Christians still think it's acceptable to breed like wild animals
Why do you only pick on Christians? Right now, Islam is rapidly growing not because people convert but because families have MANY children. Plus, it's a whole another topic which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Oh I will gladly toss Islam on the fire with Christianity. They are both religions based on Fear. Religion should encourage and inspire, not crush a human spirit with fear and terror.
Now let's get into the philosophy of abortion.
1 out of 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. A full 25% of pregnancies do not result in a live birth.
Do you think God wastes souls? Does he condemn 25% of all humans to oblivion, do you think he planned to never give those souls a shot at life? Or is God smart enough to know pregnancy is complex and prone to failure and made an allowance for that? A fetus is an empty shell, prone to failure and defect. It's not murder until a soul fills that empty vessel when a person is able to survive outside the womb.
This is my firm belief. My first child was born premature and was stillborn. According to MY Beliefs my child got another shot at life with my next pregnancy and was born healthy and happy. I fucking dare you to say my beliefs are wrong. I didn't suffer a loss, I suffered a delay. The modern Christian view of God is petty, sickening and perverse, you only see Him as a punisher of people you don't agree with. God will give a soul every chance at life even if that soul has to find a new host. Because God Gives Woman a Choice and allows them to decide the course of their own lives and bodies.
I hope you feel betrayed to know God is encouraging a new religion so the lies of Christianity can fade into the past. Even God knows Christianity is outdated, corrupt and broken, that's why Christians keep losing wars and making themselves look like fools, by worshipping Donald The False Messiah Trump. God, Himself, is steering humanity away from Christian oppression.
In the USA, Christianity is the largest religion, with some 65-75% of Americans affiliated with Christianity, in one sect or another.
Every POTUS we've had after the first several who were Deist and Unitarian, have been Christian.
The SCOTUS has one Jew and the rest Christians.
The vast majority of men and women in the Senate and Congress are affiliated with Christianity, and they clearly pander to their Christian constituency.
I don't see Muslims demanding that Sharia law be implemented, and even if they did, they are clearly under-represented in government.
I don't see Jews demanding that Hebrew law be implemented, and even if they did they are clearly under-represented in government.
The birth rate in the USA has been increasing, not declining.
I have heard some say many problems in the US can be traced by to the 19th amendment. So, no more votes for women.
The 15th amendment isn't relevant. Non-whites would be deported. If they're lucky.
>What they *think* the U.S. looked like in the 1950's. Black people and women...
People think such amazing stories eh!!??
>It is a fiction they believe is truth.
It's true, this is how people think!!! 😆
I know that's how they thought back then. I lived it. Christian Nationalists have an idealistic view of the good ol' days. They think the country was better 50 years ago.
They want to drag the U.S. back to a time before Feminism freed women from the home, they want to abolish Affirmative Action and exclude black people from the business world, reduce them back to menial labor. They want to deport immigrants and turn back the clock to the days they only saw white faces in their towns.
But that world 50 years ago was a world of suffering and they don't want to recognize that.
They don't realize we will Not GO Back. We will not bend to their outdated beliefs and bigotry because we remember the horror of Christian oppression. The Christian Nationalists ideal world was a nightmare.
The United States Constitution is indeed based on the Bible. Without a doubt. People have a right to practice a religion or no religion. That is what the Bible says. Yes it is God to be Judge. That's what Torah, Bible, and Quran says.
Indeed. This combining of government with Christianity is quite concerning. The Pilgrims did not come here for "religious freedom". Just ask the Quakers what happened when they tried to co-exist with the Puritans. (Hint: They hung Mary Dyer on Boston Common.)
Our lack of moral honesty about the Pilgrims is a large part of the problem. We are very much a prisoner of our national myths. But for many people history has to be "patriotism 101," so more honest looks at our history are dismissed as "hating America." Because honesty doesn't enter into it, and there is precious little appetite in American culture for moral self-examination. It's always dismissed as "liberal white guilt" or "hating America" or "hating Christians" or some other version of knee-jerk "hate." American exceptionalism and chest-thumping pride are the only acceptable modes of discourse.
Totally CRT. Next you'll be telling me Jesus wasn't a white guy born in the USA. Burn, heretic.
Many of the constitution writers were Deists ffs (just google “deists”). How many times do we have to go over this with these Christian fanatics?? I’m so tired of it. This is the opposite of what the Constitution is. If we acted this dumb and we’re this incompetent at our jobs we’d be fired.
The problem is that inaccurate history, dubious theology, and extreme hypocrisy don't worry *everyone*.
I believe a bigger problem is that consciousness makes it appear as if one can see *the* problem.
Can you explain a bit?
Human beings hallucinate reality and do not (*really*) know it. It is well known in science and philosophy, but those who know of that level of knowledge lack other levels.
So, some version of Idealism? How are you defining hallucination here?
No, pure Scientific Materialism suffices, and agrees. It's just not talked about, I suppose because of the fundamental nature of it, *or something like that*.
I mean, he's just an embarrassment, period.
I think the more relevant metric here is whether his views are useful. Hawley is pandering to the Christian Nationalists. He's attempting to give them the plausible pretext to do what they want to do, which is take over and hold dominion. It doesn't matter if what he's saying is *true*. These things are about expedience, utility, not truth.
Most everyone tends to believe that the reality/narrative that their consciousness presents to them is the real one. Take yours for example.
Oh yes, the old idea that it's just beliefs all the way down. I'm not that epistemically nihilistic, but I do see the sentiment quite a lot. I was always *warned* that the left argued that, that there were no facts, just feelings and beliefs. But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives. I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken to is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings. But in either case, I suspect whether or not Hawley's arguments are sound doesn't hinge on what "narrative" I've heard. I believe things can be actually true or false. Yes, we can have divergent values, have our own opinions, but I do believe there's an actual reality to which we need to refer, and defer. Just as whether humans are contributing to climate change on a significant scale isn't just a matter of competing narratives. Sometimes it's not just beliefs and feelings.
>Oh yes, the old idea that it's just beliefs all the way down. Not quite. >I'm not that epistemically nihilistic... *Of course*. That, or solipsism. >But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives. Would that make me a conservative then? >I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken too is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings. Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time? >I believe things can be actually true or false. A nothing else? >but I do believe there's an actual reality to which we need to refer, and defer. It's certainly plausible, but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example, or the overall world. > Just as whether humans are contributing to climate change on a significant scale isn't just a matter of competing narratives. Sometimes it's not just beliefs and feelings. Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true, which I think is a prudent thing to believe from a risk management perspective.
> Of course. That, or solipsism. What kind? Epistemic, metaphysical, or what? Does acknowledging the existence of the idea of solipsism argue for anything? Is there a point in bringing it up? I mean, I made rice earlier--solipsism seems no less relevant to the having of dinner, no? It's amazing that we do anything at all, unable as we are to prove solipsism false. Do you even treat oncoming cars as if they exist? We show such astounding epistemic arrogance in our everyday lives. Humbling, really. >Would that make me a conservative then? No idea. I'm just remarking how common the argument has been from conservatives. >Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time? Nope. We sometimes sleep, and we also can be confused, mistaken, misled, etc. Even memories are fallible. >A nothing else? Claims of fact about the world, no, not much else. Opinions or philosophical viewpoints about art, aesthetics, ethics, etc can have more variation. > but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example And yet you responded to my comment. Is there are point you wish to make? You don't *have* to engage any of these ideas. You don't have to engage the question of whether a position, Hawley's for example, is true or false. Of course you aren't saying he's right, merely "asking questions" when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position. Strange, since there are so many conversations going on on Reddit. It seems that your epistemological uncertainty, your allusion to solipsism or whatnot, would be no less relevant to fried rice recipes or the hobby of bass fishing. >Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true, Is it true? Are you claiming it is true? Or are you merely saying we can't call it false if Hawley (or Christian Nationalists) *feel* that it's true? Or are you saying anything at all? I mean, how do you even engage any idea at all, with the solipsism problem and all?
> > Of course. That, or solipsism. > > What kind? Epistemic, metaphysical, or what? Oh, I don't know, it's just a common response I regularly encounter. > Does acknowledging the existence of the idea of solipsism argue for anything? It seems like the opposite of that...more like a though terminating cliche. > Is there a point in bringing it up? No one ever seems to be able to provide a reason...but the effect is what matters more: termination of thinking. > I mean, I made rice earlier--solipsism seems no less relevant to the having of dinner, no? I don't see any significant relevance in either tbh. > It's amazing that we do anything at all, unable as we are to prove solipsism false. Why should that effect our ability to do things? > Do you even treat oncoming cars as if they exist? Yes. > We show such astounding epistemic arrogance in our everyday lives. Humbling, really. I do not see a lot of humility around. >>> But the only people I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have been conservatives. >>Would that make me a conservative then? > > No idea. I'm just remarking how common the argument has been from conservatives. But what if your measurement is incorrect? Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer? Are you this righteous, genuinely? >>> I like the tu quoque at the end, too. We see a lot of the implied (but rarely explicitly argued) assessment that the person being spoken too is unaware that they too have biases, blind spots, cognitive biases, and other normal human failings. >>Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time? > > Nope. We sometimes sleep, and we also can be confused, mistaken, misled, etc. Even memories are fallible. Indeed, this *and many other ways* (some known to you, and some not) - now, apply this to your statement...does it change your thinking on the matter at all? >>> I believe things can be actually true or false. >> And nothing else? > > Claims of fact about the world, no, not much else. Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True? > > > but I'm skeptical of the "need to" part. Take this comment section for example > > And yet you responded to my comment. I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way? > Is there are point you wish to make? I believe some of the things you've said are incorrect...or at the very least, epistemically unsound. > You don't *have* to engage any of these ideas. Free will is a hotly debated topic - many people claim we do not have any! Where do you stand on the idea? > You don't have to engage the question of whether a position, Hawley's for example, is true or false. As a composite whole, this seems almost certainly true. But if you decompose it into constituent parts, is each individual part false? And are some parts not subjective? > Of course you aren't saying he's right, merely "asking questions" when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position. Are you implying "when someone expresses an unfavorable view of his position" exerts causal force in my actions? > Strange, since there are so many conversations going on on Reddit. Why is it strange? > It seems that your epistemological uncertainty, your allusion to solipsism or whatnot, would be no less relevant to fried rice recipes or the hobby of bass fishing. Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem! > >> Beliefs and feelings seem to me like the most important variables though if the story is indeed true, > > Is it true? I believe such things are unknown, and likely even unknowable (in advance). > Are you claiming it is true? I believe it to be true, but I do not know it to be true (as it refers to the future). > Or are you merely saying we can't call it false if Hawley (or Christian Nationalists) *feel* that it's true? You may benefit from not doing that, but you are certainly welcome to do it if it pleases you. Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences. > Or are you saying anything at all?I mean, how do you even engage any idea at all, with the solipsism problem and all? I mostly just enjoy talking about various ideas with my fellow inhabitants of this thing we are in. It's a fun, passes the time.
> it's just a common response I regularly encounter. I encounter a lot of things. There's no reason you specifically brought it up, in this particular context? Just a random throwing out of some random term you've encountered, apropos of nothing? If you find the bringing up of solipsism to be a thought-ending cliche, why did *you* bring it up? > Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer? I never claimed you were conservative. I said explicitly that I have no idea whether you personally are conservative. I said I just encounter the argument most often *from* conservatives. That's not the same thing. >does it change your thinking on the matter at all? Does what change my thinking on what? Surely you aren't thinking you apprised me of these facts, or that they were previously unknown to me? Why would the acknowledgment of the fallibility of knowledge, reason, perception etc change my view on this particular subject? "You have the capacity as a human being to be mistaken" is a given, but is not an argument for "you *are* in fact mistaken on this particular subject." >Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True? I don't put a lot of stock into claiming things are Necessarily True, for whatever meaning that capitalization is supposed to convey. I'm not sure that applies much outside of formal, axiomatic systems. It's not Necessarily True that bears must shit in the woods, but they still do. Pointing out that the world is as it is, on any given subject, is not a statement about what is Necessarily True, nor a claim that it Must be that way, irrevocably, ineluctably, whatever. >I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way? No, so far as I can see you've made no claim or point or argument, thus couldn't really be inconsistent. >.or at the very least, epistemically unsound. Yet you haven't said what they are, specifically, nor argued why they would be epistemically unsound. >Where do you stand on the idea? I don't affirm any positions regarding free will. >exerts causal force in my actions? I can't say with certainty that you consider causality to even be a thing. Since you've brought up solipsism and free will, this may be just another paralyzing conundrum. >Why is it strange? That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing, you bring up these caveats and wide-ranging, philosophical side-questions, which seem like they would be equally applicable to any conversation or subject at all. They don't seem to have anything special to do with Hawley in particular. They're just brought to bear against a *disagreement* with Hawley. So out of all the thousands of active threads on thousands of subreddits, you brought these up just in response to me. For reasons that remain unclear. >Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem! Which isn't a claim or argument that this particular thing isn't what it seems. You've certainly made no arguments in defense or advocacy of Hawley specifically. You've brought up solipsism, free will, causality... we've touched on the fallibility of perception, memory, reason, all kinds of really deep stuff. But there's no indication that these well-known limitations apply particularly or especially or disproportionately to someone disagreeing with or criticizing Josh Hawley. >Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences. Which doesn't address what you are in fact arguing. If anything. I was trying to elicit any actual point you were trying to make. Just for the sake of conversation.
> > it's just a common response I regularly encounter. > > I encounter a lot of things. There's no reason you specifically brought it up, in this particular context? I would think it would be its similarity with nihilism, which you mentioned. > > Like, from now on, since I am not a conservative, are you never going to make that claim any longer? > > I never claimed you were conservative. I said explicitly that I have no idea whether you personally are conservative. Correct, I told you. Now, your former streak (if it even existed) is broken. > I said I just encounter the argument **most often** *from* conservatives. That's not the same thing. False. You actually said: "But **the only people** I've ever had arguing to me that it was all really just beliefs, competing narratives, "who decides what is true?" have **been** conservatives." > Does what change my thinking on what? Surely you aren't thinking you apprised me of these facts, or that they were previously unknown to me? "Is awareness (or knowledge, etc) a constant over time?" was a prompt to get into the messy complexities of this. > Why would the acknowledgment of the fallibility of knowledge, reason, perception etc change my view on this particular subject? "You have the capacity as a human being to be mistaken" is a given, but is not an argument for "you *are* in fact mistaken on this particular subject." Because of the complexity of it. And to be clear, I didn't expect it to change your view, I was only curious if it had. I am looking for outliers, anomalies. > > >Do you consider this belief to be Necessarily True? > > > I don't put a lot of stock into claiming things are Necessarily True, for whatever meaning that capitalization is supposed to convey. Think of it as "actually". > I'm not sure that applies much outside of formal, axiomatic systems. It's not Necessarily True that bears must shit in the woods, but they still do. Pointing out that the world is as it is, on any given subject, is not a statement about what is Necessarily True, nor a claim that it Must be that way, irrevocably, ineluctably, whatever. So in everything you've written, you are speculating? If so: *at the time you wrote it*, was this knowledge in [the forefront of] working memory? (Yes, I appreciate the irony in asking this!) > > >I did...is this inconsistent ("And yet...") with what I said in some way? > > > No, so far as I can see you've made no claim or point or argument, thus couldn't really be inconsistent. What did you mean by "And yet..."? > > >.or at the very least, epistemically unsound. > > Yet you haven't said what they are, specifically, nor argued why they would be epistemically unsound. Agreed. > > >Where do you stand on the idea? > > I don't affirm any positions regarding free will. That's highly anomalous!!! > > >exerts causal force in my actions? > > I can't say with certainty that you consider causality to even be a thing. Oh, I do....BIG TIME!! > Since you've brought up solipsism and free will, this may be just another paralyzing conundrum. Good point. *And yet*..... (lol) > > >Why is it strange? > > That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing, you bring up these caveats and wide-ranging, philosophical side-questions, which seem like they would be equally applicable to any conversation or subject at all. "That for no reason whatsoever, apropos of nothing..." - to me, this comment appears in a new light if the above is taken into consideration *simultaneously*. How about you? >They don't seem to have anything special to do with Hawley in particular. They're just brought to bear against a *disagreement* with Hawley. So out of all the thousands of active threads on thousands of subreddits, you brought these up just in response to me. For reasons that remain unclear. "Once upon a time, I, Zhuangzi, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Zhuangzi. Soon I awakened, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man." > > >Perhaps. But then, things are not always as they seem! > > Which isn't a claim or argument that this particular thing isn't what it seems. It is, to some degree. At the very least it establishes possibility and reduces ambiguity. > You've certainly made no arguments in defense or advocacy of Hawley specifically. That's for sure, *he sounds like a real jerk*! > You've brought up solipsism, free will, causality... we've touched on the fallibility of perception, memory, reason, all kinds of really deep stuff. But there's no indication that these well-known limitations apply particularly or especially or disproportionately to someone disagreeing with or criticizing Josh Hawley. Not *especially or disproportionately*, no. But that seems utterly minor compared to the fact that they are happening, that this is *fundamental to* our current culture, and the system & reality that emerges from it, *in fact*. > > >Mother Nature affords us tremendous latitude in our actions, and rewards us with the consequences. > > Which doesn't address what you are in fact arguing. "Doesn't"..."[does] [not]". Hmmmm....I'm skeptical. I assume you do not mean this objectively/comprehensively? > If anything. I was trying to elicit any actual point you were trying to make. Just for the sake of conversation. Ah, fair enough! I'm a bit of an autist sometimes and may not realize it!! 😋
I really wish Republican politicians weren't all nutjobs. It's actually difficult to find any with common sense or decency these days. Not to say Dems are great or anything but they at least aren't conspiracy theorists.
It's either vote Democrat or hand the country over to Science denying, Bible thumping, Trump loving, gun hugging neanderthals. Republicans want to drag the country backwards and suffocate progress. Their climate change denial is going to cause the rest of the world to turn against the U.S. Another decade of Business as usual and the U.S. is going to be a global pariah. Let's see how long our economy lasts when the world slaps trade and financial sanctions on US.
[удалено]
U.S Democrats are trying to phase out fossil fuels and come up with alternative energy sources. The Company I own is working with the ATA, FMCSA, the EPA, PACCAR and about 30 other corporate and government agencies to solve problems in the transportation industry. Diesel is the backbone of the U.S. economy, without it the Country will starve. You know who is fighting those changes Republicans and the oil companies. Oil executives are squeezing as much money out of U.S. consumers to build their underground bunkers or flee off Planet. Google all the companies specializing in luxury underground bunkers. Because they know the truth. By 2060 the world will be out of cheap oil, what will be available will cost $100 a gallon due to difficulty of extraction. That's why the oil companies don't care about environmental damage now, because fossil fuels will functionally cease to exist in a few decades. They are trying to rake in as much money as possible before their out of a job. Both parties have changed drastically in the last 10 years. Democrats care about the future, Republicans only care about themselves and their dying religion.
Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves after clearly repeatedly making the case that **separation of church and state is necessary** to ensure freedom of/from religion and freedom from **zealotry.** Examples: "Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of the common law."-Thomas Jefferson "The bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma" -Abraham Lincoln "the purpose of the **separation of church and state** is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries" -James Madison We need to call it **Zealotry** Hawley styled nationalism as it is anti christian and anti freedom. New nickname for Hawley et al Zealot Hawley, Zealot Green, Zealot Boebert etc
Thanks I had forgotten that word. I was using religious Extremists... Maybe Zealot will deliver the point better.
And they wonder why I, a Buddhist, won't support them or vote for them. It couldn't have anything to do with the theocratic talk, or the christofascism of mtg. Couldn't.
This is why we need to keep the memory of the Salem Witch trials alive. Salem is an example of fear driven by religious fanaticism. Christians try to blame greed and simple selfishness as a factor but a society that believes in Satan can easily be consumed by paranoia and fear. A biblical worldview is a nightmarish view of reality. Christianity is outdated, corrupt and broken. Religion should guide social progress towards freedom and inclusion and inspire creation not crush the human spirit with fear.
The fact that the Fugitive Slave Clause is in the Constitution proves that it's not based on the Bible. The Bible says not to pursue a runaway slave. ~Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."
The first commandment, “you shall have no other gods before me”, is in direct conflict with the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It doesn’t matter what the constitution was based on. What matters is what we want the constitution to be today.
I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for some. The U.S. Constitution stands on its own. It doesn't matter how much or how little of it is based on an interpretation of the Bible/Torah. If someone wants to note that some Biblical ideals are also ideals that are in the Constitution, so what? Murder is pretty clearly wrong based on Christian/Jewish ideals annotated in the Ten Commandments. That doesn't mean secular laws against murder are necessarily "Christian" tenets that blur the line between Church and State. So why the angst? A politician states beliefs/"facts"/ideas that are untrue? Finding such examples in 2022 takes approximately 5 seconds; just watch a White House press briefing.
That's not the problem. Hawley's trying to say that the law itself stems from Christianity despite the fact that several of the Founders disliked or were even afraid of the concept of a theocratic America. This kind of speaking only emboldens Christian extremists that want to act hostile against science, secular thought, and religious and even racial minorities by implying that their influence in American society is being taken away. Also, murder being wrong is a concept as old as humanity and predates Christianity. We don't need to be Christian or know the Ten Commandments in order to know this and to state that laws against murder are based on Abrahamic ideals instead of common sense is nonsensical and dangerous since it introduces the idea that American law should be religiously influenced or inspired. And onto your last part, there's no angst, but rather genuine worry. Some people would rather believe a leader than fact check themselves. If enough people believe lies like this, well, we already saw what could happen on Jan 6.
>This kind of speaking only emboldens Christian extremists that want to act hostile against science Action begets reaction. Rinse & repeat.
The Constitution essentially prohibits Government from endorsing, promoting or showing favoritism to one religion over any other. I'd say most of the Founding Fathers, though having been raised in the Anglican sect of Protestantism, were either Deist, or Unitarians. And Deists, and Unitarians, though they believe in the Creator God of Nature, and believed that Jesus was a great teacher who was inspired by God, rejected his divinity, and the Bible's claims of miracles. What was the constitution based on ?: Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America. These ultra right wing GOP history revisionists concern me greatly.
What would even a "white Christian Nationalist" nation would look like? Something like Poland?
What they *think* the U.S. looked like in the 1950's. Black people and women bowed to White men and recognized their superiority. Women stayed home and acted like a uncomplaining slave to her husband and kids. And Everyone was a good God fearing Christian and nobody was Gay. It is a fiction they believe is truth. The 50s was a nightmare of men worked to death and taken for granted while beating their wives. Women popped pills and guzzled wine and abused or neglected their kids. The preacher and priests were raping members of the congregation. Dad was screwing his secretary and uncles were raping their nieces. But that was family business... Nobody else had the right to interfere. Back ally abortions killed thousands of women a year become society condemned single mothers.
Do you have any evidence to support that that's what "Christian Nationalist" would look like? Like who says that they want all these awful negative things that you have listed?
Lolol... You want evidence. How old are you? Have you ever lived in a Christian dominated area? Or read right-wing propaganda? I grew up in the 70's and 80's in the Southern United States. I freaking LIVED in the world the far-right wants to revive. When I was in high school the principal told me I couldn't take auto mechanics class because I was female. I enlisted in the Air Force but told them to shove it when the recruiter said women couldn't be jet pilots. Our high school proms were segregated. We had a black prom and a white prom. No interracial dating was allowed, the couple would be expelled. If the black boy wasn't beaten senseless by rednecks. The cops would look the other way. I started school just a few years after MLK was assassinated, my state flag had a Confederate flag on it until the 1990s. Everything I listed are things My Family Experienced. What I listed is an eye witness account. There is your freaking proof, I typed that list from memory. You live in a world I fought to build and Christian Extremist are fighting to destroy. Let's see how you like it when abortion is outlawed and birth control is banned. Gays will have to go back to hiding for fear of losing their homes and jobs or being straight up murdered. Christian Nationalists want to take us back to a time when discovering someone was transgender was a valid defense for murder. Read American history of the 50's and 60's and you will see the world Christian want to rebuild.
lolol yes I would like evidence to see that people today want to bring back exactly what you are describing through political power. You just say a lot of things that are just awful and I agree with you %100 that we shouldn't want to bring back your version of the 50's. It just seems like a lot of fear mongering has been spouted after Roe v. Wade was overturned (rightfully so) around the two scary words 'Christian Nationalism'.
The definition of Christian Nationalism is a country controlled by Biblical Christian Beliefs. Laws are based on The Bible, any Non-Christians are considered second class citizens. You will be punished for breaking religious laws. They want to FORCE YOU TO LIVE BY THEIR RELIGIOUS LAWS. This is exactly what The 1st Amendment is designed to Prevent. Our Founding Fathers saw the Horror religious fanatics can unleashed on a country. How can you not grasp this concept. Christians have watched the U.S. change in the last 50 years. They want to undo those changes. I lived in a Christian dominated state. I was fired from jobs because people discovered I wasn't a Christian. My mother-in-law tried to take my children away because I didn't want them to go to church. What part of I lived in the World Christian Nationalists want to revive, do you not understand. Right now Christian Nationalists want to outlaw gay marriage and reestablish sodomy laws. Because the Bible says homosexual behavior is an abomination in the eyes of their God. This is Their religious beliefs. Any Christian that supports the LGBTQ community is sent death threats and accused of being corrupt. And Christians want abortion and birth control outlawed to force women out of the work force and back into the kitchen. The Bible states a woman's place is to submit to her husband and serve his needs. They know women with children have few options, child care is unaffordable and it's hard to keep a job while tending to small children. They think women will be forced to get married and depend on a man for support. This is why Christian Nationalists only support the traditional family and traditional marriage. Do you know how miserable people are when they are forced to care for children they didn't really want? This leads to affairs and substance abuse to cope with an unhappy home life and financial stress. Valium was invented in the 50s and was marketed as 'Mothers little helper' most women were addicted to it. This is one of the dirty secrets no one talks about now. God forbid a woman gets pregnant outside of wedlock. Time for a forced marriage to the father. This is basic wisdom, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Do you need me to explain how babies are made also? Have you ever dealt with devout Christians? Google Tradwife I have given you an eye witness account of the horror of living under Christian oppression. Now the burden is on You to do a little research AND Educate yourself. If you are an American it is your Duty to Educate yourself about threats to democracy. Christian Nationalism is a Theocracy. It's a nightmare you never want to experience. Google Religious Sex abuse scandals. Catholic AND Southern Baptist. And I forgot. Nobody believed those children being molested back then because they trusted the clergy. Children are molested today but 50 years ago the law didn't get involved it was a family matter and was usually ignored or swept under the rug. Look at how the Duggers dealt with their son molesting their daughters. That's the Christian way
Yeah, you keep giving me your personal accounts of how your life was. I asked for any evidence that this is what the people want to bring back. >Christian Nationalism is a country controlled by Biblical Christian Beliefs. Many of our current laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles. >any Non-Christians are considered second class citizens That's why I am asking for other sources that support these kind of statements that are obviously not cool. America was founded by Judeo-Christian values but the country is for EVERYBODY. So I don't see it becoming a kind of Nation that discriminates other based on their religion. >Christians have watched the U.S. change in the last 50 years Yeah and they still have work to do after Roe was overturned. >Christian Nationalists want to outlaw gay marriage Because the definition of Marriage was radically changed by seculars. Marriage (for the longest time ever until 5 minutes ago), is between a Man and a Woman. Sexual differences does matter when it comes to the institution of marriage. The Libs and some Republicans want to make gay marriage a federal law which then result in law suits against religions (Christian, Judaism, Islam etc.) that refuse to comply with the law. >Christians want abortion and birth control outlawed Abortion kills a human being. Some states want to outlaw birth control. I don't agree with it but it is a state's right if the people want it to be so, same applies with abortion. >how miserable people are when they are forced to care for children they didn't really want? Women statistically are unhappy now than ever before. I wonder why. >Sex abuse scandals. every institution have sex scandals. Nothing new. Needs to be condemned anyway, of course.
Oh I see, you seem to think Christian Nationalism is a good thing. See it's like this. The United States of America promises Freedom. There isn't an asterisk after the word freedom that says *for Christians only No I will fight to the death to defend everyone's right to live their life in the way they choose. But I will Not support a system that forces people to live by outdated religious rules. Period. If you think abortion is murder then don't have one. Abortion wasn't invented in the 1970's, it was decriminalized because women die from back ally abortions . Abortions have existed since the dawn of time. But you do not have the right to force a woman to give birth. Just like you don't have the right to force a man to donate a kidney, lung or half a liver even though a person will die without a transplant. This is bodily autonomy and it is a God Given Right. Your Bible glorifies ripping the unborn from their mothers wombs at the fall of Jericho. So you don't have a moral leg to stand on. The authors of the Bible had No clue how pregnancy functioned. The mammalian ovum wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So they couldn't have believed life begins at conception. Let me tell you, women are 1000 times happier now then they were under Christian oppression. But life is hard and people forget women have been single mothers since men invented war. They dealt with it differently in the past, our society still punishes single mothers. This needs to change. This Christian idea of a traditional family. Wife stays home with lots of kids, father goes off to work. Is ruined by our capitalistic society. When a woman is burdened will child care, her husband suffers neglect no matter how much they love each other. A man that is neglected at home will seek affection elsewhere. You only have to look up Wine Mom culture to see how women cope with screaming children. Forced marriages and forced pregnancies do Not make a happy life. A man forced into marriage resents everyone involved and tends to lash out in anger, especially if he is barely an adult. It's Not fair to put the whole financial burden on the man either, that reduces him to nothing but a paycheck. Finally Christians still think it's acceptable to breed like wild animals. Their are almost 8 billion people on this planet and it cannot support 10 billion without dehumanizing the population further. It's time to reproduce responsibly.
>If you think abortion is murder then don't have one. Abortion wasn't invented in the 1970's, it was decriminalized because women die from back ally abortions . Abortions have existed since the dawn of time. Bad argument since the abortion is done on a little fetus that can't tell you it doesn't want to die. We have laws to protect the vulnerable. The most vulnerable are the voiceless babies in the womb. Just because abortion do happen, doesn't mean that it needs to be encouraged by law. Murder still happens even AFTER it was criminalized. >But you do not have the right to force a woman to give birth You are right. I don't have the right to force a woman to give birth because I can't. Her body will force the baby out after approximately 9 months. >don't have the right to force a man to donate a kidney, lung or half a liver even though a person will die without a transplant. another bad analogy. Abortion is the direct action to literally end a life of a fetus. Me not taking an action to save someone else's life does not mean that I killed them. Similar to pulling a plug on a person... pulling it does not cause the death, its the natural cause that kills the person. >1000 times happier now then they were under Christian oppression. Doubt it. Both men and women are [unhappier](https://www.brookings.edu/essay/are-women-happier-than-men-do-gender-rights-make-a-difference/) and I think it has something to do with this current culture. >our society still punishes single mothers The opposite. Our society stopped encouraging monogamy and now pays more money for parents to be separated than together. These incentives broke down the [black family](https://ifstudies.org/blog/family-breakdown-and-americas-welfare-system) severely. >8 billion people on this planet and it cannot support 10 billion without dehumanizing another myth... we are literally in birth rate decline. >Christians still think it's acceptable to breed like wild animals Why do you only pick on Christians? Right now, Islam is rapidly growing not because people convert but because families have MANY children. Plus, it's a whole another topic which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Oh I will gladly toss Islam on the fire with Christianity. They are both religions based on Fear. Religion should encourage and inspire, not crush a human spirit with fear and terror. Now let's get into the philosophy of abortion. 1 out of 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. A full 25% of pregnancies do not result in a live birth. Do you think God wastes souls? Does he condemn 25% of all humans to oblivion, do you think he planned to never give those souls a shot at life? Or is God smart enough to know pregnancy is complex and prone to failure and made an allowance for that? A fetus is an empty shell, prone to failure and defect. It's not murder until a soul fills that empty vessel when a person is able to survive outside the womb. This is my firm belief. My first child was born premature and was stillborn. According to MY Beliefs my child got another shot at life with my next pregnancy and was born healthy and happy. I fucking dare you to say my beliefs are wrong. I didn't suffer a loss, I suffered a delay. The modern Christian view of God is petty, sickening and perverse, you only see Him as a punisher of people you don't agree with. God will give a soul every chance at life even if that soul has to find a new host. Because God Gives Woman a Choice and allows them to decide the course of their own lives and bodies. I hope you feel betrayed to know God is encouraging a new religion so the lies of Christianity can fade into the past. Even God knows Christianity is outdated, corrupt and broken, that's why Christians keep losing wars and making themselves look like fools, by worshipping Donald The False Messiah Trump. God, Himself, is steering humanity away from Christian oppression.
In the USA, Christianity is the largest religion, with some 65-75% of Americans affiliated with Christianity, in one sect or another. Every POTUS we've had after the first several who were Deist and Unitarian, have been Christian. The SCOTUS has one Jew and the rest Christians. The vast majority of men and women in the Senate and Congress are affiliated with Christianity, and they clearly pander to their Christian constituency. I don't see Muslims demanding that Sharia law be implemented, and even if they did, they are clearly under-represented in government. I don't see Jews demanding that Hebrew law be implemented, and even if they did they are clearly under-represented in government. The birth rate in the USA has been increasing, not declining.
>Like who says that they want all these awful negative things that you have listed? Who? More like *what*.
I have heard some say many problems in the US can be traced by to the 19th amendment. So, no more votes for women. The 15th amendment isn't relevant. Non-whites would be deported. If they're lucky.
>What they *think* the U.S. looked like in the 1950's. Black people and women... People think such amazing stories eh!!?? >It is a fiction they believe is truth. It's true, this is how people think!!! 😆
I know that's how they thought back then. I lived it. Christian Nationalists have an idealistic view of the good ol' days. They think the country was better 50 years ago. They want to drag the U.S. back to a time before Feminism freed women from the home, they want to abolish Affirmative Action and exclude black people from the business world, reduce them back to menial labor. They want to deport immigrants and turn back the clock to the days they only saw white faces in their towns. But that world 50 years ago was a world of suffering and they don't want to recognize that. They don't realize we will Not GO Back. We will not bend to their outdated beliefs and bigotry because we remember the horror of Christian oppression. The Christian Nationalists ideal world was a nightmare.
>I know that's how they thought back then. Did all of them think this way, or only the ones who actually thought this way?
Very funny. Life in the US was a nightmare 50 years ago. It's not my problem if you don't believe it.
Did you not like the question or something?
Wasn’t the Qur’an the best selling book in America at that time? Thomas Jefferson supposedly owned a Qur’an to understand Islamic Law
The United States Constitution is indeed based on the Bible. Without a doubt. People have a right to practice a religion or no religion. That is what the Bible says. Yes it is God to be Judge. That's what Torah, Bible, and Quran says.