The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anti-intellectualism is nothing new in America, but it has definitely reached a deeply disturbing extreme, in that often a majority of the members of a political party believe many things which are easily proven to be false. It's undeniably true that one party is more at fault than the other (sorry, "both sides do it" folks.) A majority of Republicans (not Democrats) believe many things which are easily proven to be false. And Republicans who don't buy into "alternate facts" still often turn a blind eye to the magnitude of this problem on the right, and simply point out isolated instances of ignorance on the left, to "prove" that it's not worse among Republicans.

However, I don't think that the Republican Party is the only factor here. I think that our society as a whole has become much more isolated, and the prevalence of the internet and technology makes it easier for people to live in bubbles, and only receive and search for information which supports their world view. Many don't even do research anymore. They reach a conclusion based on gut feelings (or what they want to be true), and specifically search for evidence that backs up their beliefs, and dismiss any evidence which doesn't support their beliefs.

I will say, however, that "elitist" definitely is nothing more than an ad hominem attack used when someone has no counter-argument or evidence of the contrary that holds any water. And while there have always been ignorant people who refuse to accept that some people know more than them, this ideology now has more political power than ever before. Right now, it's like confirmation bias on steroids.

I also agree with the article's claim that it's absurd that smugness is seen as worse than ignorance. Not saying smugness is a good thing or that it should be tolerated. There are many smug academics, and it's incredibly grating and off-putting. But that's pretty much the extent of smugness. It's unpleasant and you come across as an ass. Ignorance, on the other hand, can have disastrous consequences if not addressed, and it's legitimately concerning how stubborn people have gotten in their ignorance. While smug people ought to get off the high horse, people who are ignorant of basic history and science need to swallow their pride, accept that they don't know everything and aren't always right, and actually educate themselves. I'm not suggesting that we mock and degrade ignorant people, but we should not be tolerant of ignorance as a concept, and should, as a society collectively search for the truth, rather than what we want to believe or what makes us feel good/smart.

tl;dr Many Republicans embrace anti-intellectualism (more so than Democrats), there are other factors too, ignorance is worse than smugness.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Movement conservatism (as opposed to the old pro-business, socially-nostalgic conservatism that promoted thrift and other forms of self-restraint as founts of prosperity) is a wealth cult in the sense that many Protestant churches are. In those churches you make allegedly-pious sacrifices (lots of tithing) and you will be able to get the bounties of American life. With easy credit just about anyone can get overpriced stuff at rent-to-own (when it is obsolete or broken-down trash) emporiums and slightly fewer can buy a spiffy Cadillac that someone cast off. If such fails, then the fault is with the backsliding schmuck who lacks faith. It is magical thinking, something questionable.

So what, I say. Proof of your wisdom is that you saved up for much the same stuff and have gotten a good credit rating so that you need not deal with shysters. If you must save for what you get, then you will recognize that going into savings to buy something means a real good-for-good transaction. Maybe you will do comparison-shopping. But this has no aura of religiosity. Not attributing economic success to any deities, I see no market magic in the formula. Back in the old days, pro-business conservatives never pretended that there was any magic in the free market.

Today it is different. The Right has abandoned thrift as a virtue for the common man. Get him in debt so that his fecal credit rating leads him to rent-to-own places and so that, if he has a college degree, he will take just about any job offer short of leaving the Big City to do ill-paid farm labor. (Let me say some good things about thrift stores -- we have a tile floor at our house, and anything ceramic breaks if it falls onto it. I have had to replace chinaware, and at times I have gotten better stuff than what broke -- dirt cheap).

The Hard Right has entwined itself with evangelical Christianity to push the idea that human suffering of the masses creates prosperity, and the greater the pain, the greater that society prospers. Of course the elites of ownership and management first get theirs -- and not surprisingly (as is so for amoral elites) they keep asking for more. They demand that people accept economic inequality characteristic of a fascistic regime if not a plantation, harsh management, and the destruction of the decencies of a liberal society so that in return for growth from which most people see no benefit that the elites get to live lives of ostentatious display -- and that the rest of us get vicarious delight from seeing people connected to the elites frolic in the few times that we get to see them.

As is so with other absurd ideologies, people need only a bare minimum of learning -- enough so that they can read propaganda, technical manuals, advertising, road maps, and warning signs... and do basic math. To learn more would be to do something inimical to monarchical despotism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Ba'athism, Iranian-style theocracy, ISIS, evangelical wealth cults, and the ideology behind Trump: critical thought. People fitting such an ideology accept the promises but don't complain when the elites fail to make the promises work. Democracy works when people hold elected officials accountable for failure and success.

Yes, there are authoritarian religions such as Roman Catholicism that strongly promote secular learning. Learning may be a double-edged sword, as the very Church that promotes secular learning to allow people technical success that allows people to put more into collection plates and to study source materials also allows people the means to access of critical material.  Critical thought that allows people to condemn corrupt government and shady business dealings keeps business and government more honest than otherwise, whether because people be too moral to do bad things to people who did nothing wrong or because as good and intelligent people they demand fair play.

A healthy community recognizes well-honed learning as a necessity for learning. The more widespread that high-quality learning is, the less special it is. That is a good thing. Where learning is rare, people with even modest amounts of formal learning who care capable of exploiting that privilege in commerce and bureaucracies. It is better that we have a few million people who can do differential equations and see little special about such. A healthy economy depends upon widespread prosperity -- which I define as savings accounts, insurance policies, and savings bonds. (OK, so perhaps you are 'in' the stock market as a buy-and-hold investor because interest rates are ridiculously low, and dividends alone are bigger than interest on a savings account).  Remember: it is thrift that makes real prosperity possible.    

Movement conservatism suggests that in return for monopolistic gouging, environmental ruin, poor public services (including educational under-funding), and privatization of the public sector to crony capitalists that prosperity will emerge. Of course it will -- and only for some tiny economic elites. People capable of critical thought recognize such as the fraud that it is. But that contradicts the idea that ignorance is strength.. or bliss. The fictional Oceania of George Orwell's 1984 turns language into a means of destroying thought by turning even words themselves into lies. A 'joy-camp' awaits anyone who shows signs of ideological backsliding, like recognizing the deterioration of life as something other than progress.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Again, if we progressives demand Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity go for the odious things they have said, we must demand that that employees at progressives institutions like MSNBC and the New York Times also go for those same reasons.

This post was enough to make me revise my opinion of NewYorkExpress from an HP to an FF!   

[Fuzzy Bear]

Absolutely not.

I honestly don't care about the legal status of same-sex marriage.  What bothers me is that it's been elevated to the level of the black civil rights movement.  As a history buff who spends much of my free time reading (and someone with a history degree) I can't fathom why anyone would make that comparison.  The treatment of African-Americans was even worse than what you hear about in history class.  This is also before taking into account the fact that the black civil rights movement (as well as its forerunner, the abolitionist movement) was highly religious.  I don't think any group of people in North America, with the possible exception of Native Americans, was as unjustly treated as African-Americans.  I'm not denying that bigotry against homosexuals exists, or that those who commit violence against LGBT people shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I've called people out for hating homosexuals on right-wing forums.

Of course, comparing one's movement to the 1960s black civil rights struggle is good politics.  But what it means is that your opponents have to be the equivalent of the KKK.  This was actually a documented strategy:

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/01/?m=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One problem with comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is that it leaves no defense against polygamy, which is something that absolutely needs to remain illegal.  Obergefell v. Hodges was essentially an emotional decision.  It declared that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman was bigoted against people who are attracted to the same sex.  By the exact same logic the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is discriminatory against men who are attracted to more than one woman.  Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down because they perpetuated white supremacy.  White people passed laws against interracial marriage because they hated black people and wanted to keep them away from white society.  Do men hate men?  Do women hate women?  Think about it, the comparison doesn't make sense.  If gay marriage had been legalized by the states on personal liberty rather than civil rights grounds, we wouldn't be having any of these issues.

As for the discussion of religion, Fuzzy Bear explained it well with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that this is a forum that is mostly about Democrats and Republicans, this is important.  The Republicans and Democrats have been around since 1854 and 1828 respectively.  And over the years the parties have changed positions on countless issues.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to pick and choose which parts of the party platforms you agree with, they are the results of fallible humans.  In contrast the Bible has stayed the same for nearly two thousand years.  It is divinely inspired.  This is something that Christians universally agreed upon until the modern era when it became unfashionable to continue doing so.

A plain reading of scripture suggests that homosexual relationships are wrong and that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  People might argue over the meaning of the Greek, but the fact is that the early Christians (who understood Koine Greek better than we can) condemned same-sex relationships.  Some have argued that they were bringing their own cultural biases to the text, but this is complete nonsense.  Greco-Roman culture celebrated gay love and the early Christians rebelled against the dominant culture.  When Christians came to power they would ban same-sex marriages.  SSM was only able to make a comeback when the power of Christianity over society was weakened.  The Greek and Roman converts would have found Biblical support for continuing their lifestyle, if there was any support to be found.

I wish I could express myself this well.  This sums the whole issue up perfectly.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

I understand the opposite point of view, but the above really does illustrate the nature of the divide.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

Both part of this statement are assertions.  Not facts.

When people assert this, I would ask them to ask just exactly what sort of right and wrong standards governmental policy and law should reflect, and just exactly why those particular standards should hold sway over others.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, Hillary was perceived by many WWC voters as "taking their votes for granted".

Just like any other demographic in the US, Voters want to their elected Political Representatives to at least rhetorically show that they are fighters for marginalized communities encompassing a wide array of constituencies, and are at least talking about fundamental core issues and changing economic environments over the past 30+ Years of American History.

Dukakis got it enough in '88, even as Technocrat and lost by large margins mainly because of suburban Anglos, and not WWC Voters (Gephardt anyone )

Bush Sr, didn't get it in '92 and suddenly Ross Perot emerges out of nowhere to fill the vacuum.

Clinton '96 got it, and was able to both minimize 'Pub margins among suburban Anglos, and keep down Perot numbers against the lackluster 'Pub Bob Dole.

Gore '00 got it, and was able to perform pretty well among both WWC constituencies, while also starting to create massive swings among Knowledge Sector Workers (That still voted 'Pub).

Kerry '04 got it, but "kinder gentler Republican met swift-boat at a time where the Iraq War was starting to move front and center.

Obama '08/'12 got it and was able to minimize Dem losses and swing a significant number of George W. '00/'04 WWC voters.

HRC '16 was a total bust....

She appeared completely tone deaf to the legitimate concerns about generations of WWC voters, when it came to the "hot button" items of "off-shoring" of American Manufacturing jobs, where both the Democratic and Republican Parties alike are perceived by many as having "sold American workers down the river" and hiding behind the sacred altar of free trade that started with MFN with China after Tiananmen Square, NAFTA in the mid '90s, etc....

I come from a relatively rural and heavily manufacturing producing region of Oregon, and this isn't a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Green/Pink/Purple issue....

HRC did not directly address an issue at the forefront of many voters minds in '16, and instead you have a vacuum filled by Trump that promises to "bring jobs back to America"....

I have walked the line, worked the line, with tons of different political, social, economic backgrounds in a Manufacturing environments, and despite our roles and job titles, we have seen the failures of Democratic and Republican Presidential Administrations alike, when it comes to how various administrations appear more interested in the bottom lines of Wall Street than they do in investing and reinvesting in the American workforce.

I work in Fortune 50 Tech Sector Company, and although it is heavily Democratic leaning in terms of the employee population, we all know the real deal about how the CEOs sold us down the river to maximize quarterly earnings, shift jobs overseas to maximize profits, etc.... (Hence extremely high % of 3rd Party Votes in '16 in many parts of Oregon)

HRC's numbers cratered even harder in the Union Strongholds of the Midwest....

Trump did not win solely based upon xenophobia, but despite his hate speech....

"Rich People" (Not very many of them out there from my perspective as a % of population), had an extremely small electoral impact, and "Upper Middle-Class Voters", depending upon how one defines that by MHI / States / Metro Areas / Education Levels swung hard Dem, but ultimately, even there weren't enough to swing the Electoral College....

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lastly, this sort of attitude indicates a failure to take Evangelical concerns around abortion and religious liberty issues seriously. Even if you think our positions our wrong, try to see things from our point of view. If the Candidate A, wants to fund baby killers, and make you betray your conscience to be in the wedding business, you'll be willing to accept a lot of crap from Candidate B, and criticism about "family values" from Candidate A's supporters will ring hollow.

I wish there was a way for Democrats to reach pro-life voters, but from a pro-choice perspective I really don't get how that is to be done without neglecting pro-choice voters. This particular issue really seems to be one or the other, unless you count simply not pushing abortion policy at all a choice, which I find hard because pro-life groups are constantly pushing the GOP to restrict abortion in extremely novel ways 365 days a year, which demands pushback from liberals.

I should state that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that for someone who prides themselves in Christian values, their principles, and so on, to support Trump - let alone support him so deeply like many do, means you are sacrificing a part of your convictions. There is no way you can have both with Trump. Like I said, he is so objectively awul in almost every way that there is just no way to reconcile the two. I can get how people would choose him to get pro-life judges for instance, but it doesn't change anything else. They know who Trump is, what he's done and what he says on a daily basis, so it's just one of those choices people have to make and they have to live with that.

* edit: by "you" i don't literally mean you specifically

What part of my principles would I have sacrificed for supporting Hillary Clinton, who advocates policies that are, indeed, anti-Scriptural?  Voting for Hillary requires more of a sacrifice of those principles, quite frankly.  And it's not like Hillary Clinton is oszing decency on a personal level, either. 

Hillary Clinton advocates PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION.  She's OK with it, in terms of public policy.  Honestly, tell me why voting for someone who is OK with that as a matter of public policy i less of a sellout of "Christian Values", or less of a compromise with Scripture than voting for someone whose moral failings and his persona are countered by advocacy of policies that, from a Christian perspective, are more reflective of Scripture?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

Not once have you disproved something I presented as fact. Just because you feel attacked by some members, doesn't mean you can clump them all together and characterize them as the same people. Moreover, if YOU think that I have violated the TOS, please go ahead and show it to the mods or zip it.

I once tried treating you as best I could even as you looked down on me every chance you had, and all you did was continue to disrespect me by condescending towards me to the point that you even implied that I don't have a job as a leaving quip in our first major argument on this forum. (And before you say I'm lying, here's the quote).

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

Go have your pity party somewhere else. The fact that I proved you wrong with time stamps and all, and yet you refuse to recant your initial slander of my decency based on previous perceptions is proof enough that you've gone beyond the land of reasonability. The only way I could be decent to you is to either agree with what you say or praise you for what you do, and neither of those are happening.

There are a number of folks whom are decent who neither agree with me nor praise me.  Those people don't misrepresent my statements.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A bit more radical than I would prefer, but encouraging. Gender isn't an opinion. There are two sexes and one's sex is determined by biology. Some people are trans and should be recognized as the other sex once they have undergone surgery.

And a transwoman that is taking hormones but is pre-op?  We are welcome to discriminate against her?  But that stops once she goes under the knife?  Your logic here is inconsistent as usual.

You gonna hide behind the moderate hero position od “look folks, I don’t wanna see those people discriminated against just like anyone else but it is up to congress to decide.  Now scuse me while I support candidates and parties that want to discriminate against them!”?

If this were about gay men or Jews you’d be having a conniption fit.

I still wonder why people think I feel the need to "hide behind" anything. I've always spoken my mind, it's not as if I've shied away from being politically incorrect, have I? I think trans people are legitimate. But these people are only truly of a different sex once they have changed their "equipment". In daily life of course everyone should feel free to present the way they like, and I will always use the pronouns and names one prefers (as long as it's him/her and not xir/zer). Live and let live.

But for the government to actually start recognizing this is a different matter. Government recognition for every "feeling" about gender essentially serves to delegitimize the idea that men and women are different, to promote the idea that gender is just a feeling and there might be 848 genders, who knows, bigot? I am absolutely appalled and disgusted with this development and with the diabolization of all critics of this development, and for that reason I view the Trump administration's measure as perhaps a bit too heavy-handed, but nonetheless finally a step in the right direction, which is very refreshing in a world that only seems to be walking in the wrong direction on issues like these.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can only speak for myself here. I like REAL moderate Republicans because they are driven by pragmatism and common sense and not that much by ideology. That allows them to be practical problem solvers who can reach a broader consensus among various intrests. Nelson Rockefeller for example never saw himself as an ideologue, instead he thought of himself to be a practical problem solver (he was liberal on some issues, more moderate or conservative on others, and even that changed over time). Moderate Republicans in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller or George Romney are not destructive to the welfare state, instead they focus on economic growth and opportunity for everyone while being socially liberal and pro-environment. They support law enforcement but civil rights as well. All noble goals.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is one reason no one references Atlas forum posts from other threads in their discussion.

Because ultimately, it is full of subjective opinion that even the people posting realise is ultimately garbage and can only be supported by someone else having either:

(a) the same opinion; or
(b) an opposing insult to the opposite argument (more common on Atlas).

Politics is a difficult one to discuss using an online platform. We have not set up a very level playing field, because if you post something that is objective, chances are that someone will be offended because it contrasts with their subjective view of how they want to live their life.

The 'easily offended' have taken over.

For example, everyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a right wing fascist at Atlas.

Some really dumbass analysis that you dont even have to argue against get's spewed out. It's self-evident that it is dross. And that is why it is never referenced in future discussions.

Objectivity in this place is not going to happen.

The forum is subjective analysis of a very subjective topic.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The other day I saw a thread about Missouri, and why Republicans are so successful there.  A poster claimed that part of the reason was Southern Baptists, and how they are basically stupid.  I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited.  People just assume that Evangelicals are stupid, and our culture reinforces that belief.  And they've been doing this at least the 1920s, when they performed character assassination on William Jennings Bryan.

I am basically an Atlas unicorn.  I am an Evangelical from the Bible Belt who did not vote for Trump despite the fact that I did vote for Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and other Republicans at the local level.  My family also refused to vote for Trump.  I had many reasons why I didn't vote for Trump, but if he hadn't been an inspiration to racists across the country, I probably would have held my nose and voted for him.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/no-the-majority-of-american-evangelicals-did-not-vote-for-trump/

I actually was not born into an Evangelical family.  My parents were moderate Lutherans when I was born (I think it was Missouri Synod, but I don't remember, it might have been ELCA).  When I was very young, my family temporarily moved to the UK, and my parents became Evangelical Christians.  They appreciated how British Evangelicals rarely talked about politics.  Despite the fact that they didn't preach about abortion, my mother was convicted that it was immoral from reading the Bible.  This was in the late '90s.

At that time, I was a very young child.  I have been attending Evangelical churches most of my life, often Southern Baptist churches.  During that time, the pastors didn't talk about politics very often, and I was never told how to vote.  The only times I remember hearing about politics were on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and a few messages around the time of Obergefell v. Hodges.  IIRC these were Sunday school messages, not regular sermons.  My most recent church in Kentucky doesn't preach politics at all, and the preacher condemns racism just as often as he condemns abortion (maybe even more often).  The main theme of his sermons are always the gospel, though.

Many people act as if Evangelical Christianity was invented by Jerry Falwell to get Christians to vote Republican.  It wasn't.  We've been around long before the Republican Party and we'll be here after the GOP dissolves.  We exist on all Continents and speak many different languages.  Don't let your hatred for the GOP tarnish your view of a diverse international religious movement.

[Fuzzy Bear]

First thing is that we need to acknowledge the problem on a national level and treat it as something that needs to be combated. This seems to be the actual sticking point more than any other issues of law enforcement.

Second we need to combat the narrative these guys get in their heads that these sorts of attacks will achieve any kind of political aim. Stop posting their names and pictures. Treat them like any other criminal, and not some sort of mastermind who is the last line of defense before the destruction of white people. We also need to counter the foreign-based online propaganda that feeds these narratives in order to further the interests of those countries on the international stage.

We further need to expose some of these white nationalist groups for the grift that they are, and show just how little the major figures in these groups care about their footsoldiers. Vanguard America refusing to align itself with the Charlottesville attacker, for example, despite his membership in their group.

Third is eliminating the ability to conduct these sorts of attacks. I don't think increased restrictions on guns are in the cards right now, although that's really what we would need to do.

Fourthly, we need to reform the police system so that we aren't hiring people who sympathize with the agenda of these terrorists, and may be turning a blind eye to their exploits. While I think the problems with police in the US are larger than "just a few bad apples," I'm not sure how much of a problem the particular issue of actual white supremacist infiltration of police departments is, so we might just need to start out with an audit of our police force to see just how bad the problem is.

I don't agree with the gun control part, but the first, second, and fourth points are an absolute must.

[Fuzzy Bear]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

It's completely fair and equal to say that no one can be forced to provide a non-necessary service they don't agree with.   

The idea of criticizing me for a lack of empathy is a joke.  The point of threads like this is not to show empathy for anyone involved in this situation, who is never going to read this thread.  It's to say that the political "other" is bad and dangerous and so we should restrict traditional freedoms in order to punish them.

You're the kind of person who would say that black people in the 1950s should just continue driving from motel to motel all night long until they finally find one that allows blacks, and that that is a perfectly reasonable and sustainable way of doing things.

If you're in business, you provide your service to anyone who can pay, period. Conservatives love to talk about how businesses have no responsibility other than to generate profits for their owners - fine, then this woman should leave her feelings and beliefs at home and focus on generating profit, which she is not doing if she's turning away paying customers for being the wrong color.

Since I see that 14 posters "recommended" this uninformed strawmanning I suppose I should respond to it.

"You're the kind of person...." Gotta love these historically illiterate baseless personal attacks!  Do you know what a "public accommodation" means according to the Civil Rights Act? 
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations

Since the CRA listed specific places where discrimination should be illegal, don't you think that maybe many people at that time did not take an all-or-nothing approach?  Isn't it possible that discrimination is more of an injustice in some contexts than in others?   

An authentically conservative philosophy is inconsistent with such a fragmented instrumentalist worldview that would proclaim profit as the only thing that matters in the world of business. One should not neglect any true moral principle simply because one has entered a place of work.  Someone who runs a business has a duty to act with integrity in all their work to the best of their lights.  Racial discrimination is wrong because of the nature of the human person, not because it affects the bottom line or even because it might make things awkward on the job.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, we would. That's the difference between us and the so-called party of personal responsibility.

I'll hold you to that once the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut's investigation into the origins of the Russia probe are complete, too.

And I'm sure that you wouldn't want to get bogged down in a debate about impeachment as you call it. That would just prove that you are Republican first and American second. And you're crying and whining and moaning and simpering about but the Democrats would do it to just makes you seem pathetic. Pathetic.

This whole idea that if you oppose impeachment you're not an American is pure, unadulterated BS. Sorry. This isn't a dictatorship where anything but the Badger way (a.k.a. the Democratic party way) is "un-American." Funny how dissent from the Democratic party line is never "patriotic" - but "un-American" or racist or some other ist, and Republicans can't be Americans, too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's hilarious how much Atlas doesn't know about the KoC to be labelling Kamala as anti-catholic for being concerned about the group. It's old, it's white, it's conservative, and super religious (duh) I would be concerned about it as well because it may affect their votes on abortion and other social issues. Oh btw, I'm catholic.

To answer this stupid and pointless question: none of them.

#AtlasGreatestHits

I know plenty about the KoC, thanks. Like the Church it is aligned with, the national KoC organization holds conservative views on abortion and some other issues.

However, individual chapters and members of those chapters serve primarily as charitable and community betterment organizations for older men of the parishes. Going after someone for being a member is ignorant, petty, and anti-Catholic.

I hope we would hold up the same standard if, say, a Republican judge were to go after a Muslim judge on this basis.

I'm a Knight. I have plenty of problems with the people running the national efforts in New Haven, and that is a pretty common sentiment. The one major event I look back on and regret is that the Knights spent a lot of money campaigning for Prop 8.

However, nobody, not a single person, joins the Knights of Columbus because they want to be told how to live their lives by Supreme Council. The Knights of Columbus were founded to take care of the needs of parish widows and orphans. Today that has evolved into supporting the needs of the parish and community; that if any project or drive needs manpower, its the Knights who step in. They run the fish frys. They hold the intellectual disabilities drive. They raise money for and volunteer at the Special Olympics. That is what happens at the local level.

Not every practicing Catholic male chooses to be a Knight. But if you are an actively practicing Catholic, and you want to volunteer and help out around your parish, joining the Knights is something that just happens and don't think twice about.

So when two prominent Democratic senators argue that this nominee should be disqualified for his position based on his membership, not even what he has said or done in the context of being a Knight, that looks really bad to practicing Catholics who know and see what being a Knight means in their parish and community. I see no difference to that and saying JFK shouldn't be president because he would be a pawn to the Pope. Thinking that the judge would be bound to the Knights' influence when ruling in his courtroom would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[Fuzzy Bear]

When only one solution is required.

Send in The Fuzz.

Awww, c'mon, that's QUALITY!

[Fuzzy Bear]

MB is easily the FF of the Month!

Pull funding from rural Virginia until they comply. Richmond and NoVa literally pay for everything and they represent the interests of the majority of Virginians.

Don't let a bunch of cornfields hold back progress.

hmm I wonder what the reason for this is....?

Rural areas are the past. The suburbs are the future. States like Pennsylvania in the 2018 governor's race show just how irrelevant Dem losses are in flyover country as long as we make gains in the suburbs.

It's not just part of America that needs help...it's all of it. And gains in cities and suburbs are great (it helps Democrats win after all) but ignoring a part of the country just cause they didn't vote for you is a pretty bad attitude.

The highlighting of the last part is mine.  This is a post the vast majority of Atlas needs to read and take to heart.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.