Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:48:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit  (Read 5767 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2017, 07:51:09 AM »

Meanwhile, liberal hypocrites in Hollywood lecture us on ''women's rights'' and the evils of Trump while their industry is chock full of sexual predators. Where is your criticism of their hypocrisy? These people routinely help finance liberal campaigns, so you can't say they have no significant political influence.

1. When the news about Weinstein came out, everyone in Hollywood disowned him quickly, and he disappeared. Compare that with the Access Hollywood tape, where Republicans dropped Trump for a week and then came rushing back to defend him, and still love him.

2. Republicans who are gleeful about Weinstein like it's the Democratic AH tape (wtf? He's not a politician) are absolutely clueless how bad their behavior makes them look because it just reminds everyone about President Pussygrabber's bragging and behavior. You've been buying the Republican applause line that "Hollywood is the Democratic party" that you missed that it's not actually true.

By by all means, people like Donald Trump, Jr. and Tucker Carlson should continue to express outrage about Weinstein, it just gives more opportunities to remind America what they support and make apologies for in their own leader. 
Logged
kyc0705
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,744


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2017, 10:27:23 AM »

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2017, 10:54:56 AM »

Meanwhile, liberal hypocrites in Hollywood lecture us on ''women's rights'' and the evils of Trump while their industry is chock full of sexual predators. Where is your criticism of their hypocrisy? These people routinely help finance liberal campaigns, so you can't say they have no significant political influence.

  

if they are really only tolerating him to essentially milk what they can policy-wise, why are they going out of their way to be so supportive?
[/quote]

Many people have personal behavior inconsistent with their stated beliefs. Hypocrisy is far more the norm than the exception in human nature. We all fall short of moral perfection. In Christian terms, this is sin. But unpleasant as hypocrisy is, I can think of worse. The hypocrite at least recognizes the validity of behavioral standards higher than his own. A thoroughly evil person might recognize no such standards at all.

"Hollywood" has been infamous as a moral cesspool since the silent-picture era. But such has been the reputation of the stage, where money relates more to the expression of talent than to the production of tangible output like bread or steel. Command and control as is possible in manufacturing, corporate farming, or government agencies is far more difficult to maintain in entertainment. If you are 'Wanda Houston' and you work in a food-processing plant, then you can't get away with much in your personal life and must make hard choices on what you do without. If you are Whitney Houston you can get away with all sorts of indulgence, including cocaine, until the cocaine kills you. If you are 'Howard Weinstein' and you are a manager of a fast-food restaurant, then you can't get away with a 'casting couch' at your place of work. If you are Harvey Weinstein you could exploit your control over which actresses get parts in your usual cinematic successes.

We did not know this stuff until it was disclosed on news media.  But so it is with a politician who rails at abortion and then is found having tried to convince a mistress heavy with child to have an abortion (now that is hypocrisy) or a gay-baiter who is caught soliciting gay sex (likewise). And don't forget the money scandals that have nothing to do with hypocrisy, as with bribe-taking.

One of the few reliable markers that distinguishes the entire Right from the entire Left is optimism in human nature in general. Liberals, democratic socialists, leftists, and Commies alike believe that goodness is the norm in human nature. They expect leaders (including themselves) to be morally better than  the average because human goodness is essential to good leadership. They reject the idea that the best hope for Humanity is everyone for himself. In contrast, conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists believe that people are motivated solely by primal drives; success excuses anything. Humanity is 'fallen' or depraved, and we might as well see the world as does the pickpocket in Casablanca: that the world is full of vipers.

People on the Right, including the Religious Right, expect to get burned in business deals, marital and family relationships, and bureaucratic dealings... and are quick to see themselves as helpless victims. People on the Left are more likely to look unsympathetically upon anyone who falls short of clear standards of decency. So it is with the trigger-happy cop, the tax cheat, the dealer on inside information, the spouse-beater, the bribe-taker or donor, and the sexual abuser of children.      

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were plenty of warnings. The "grab her by the (crotch)" quote is practically an admission of sexual assault. Staffers beating up people who heckled him was another warning. (You turn to the cops to bust people for disorderly conduct). Ideological inconsistency applies to fools  liars. At the level at which he operates in business or politics, those who say one thing to a crowd in San Francisco and its opposite in Amarillo are lying in one place or the other.  Truth is not a convenience; it is all that we can reliably work with.

Donald Trump is a demagogue, and upon taking office a demagogue who has proved an electoral success must decide which promises to betray and hence which voters to betray. Of course we should have all known that a real estate tycoon was unlikely to govern against his obvious class interest. His business model depends upon getting rents as high as possible and costs (including school taxes) as low as possible in order to get maximal profits. He sold out the masses  for plutocrats similarly egregious in putting their gain, indulgence, and power above everything else. This is a real-life J R Ewing, a cutthroat who wants to be loved by people who don't really know him.

But if he is a demagogue, he is a symptom of social depravity and not the worst of it. Complex as human relationships have gotten due to some wondrous technologies and lives that no longer fit the crude master-and-servant pattern, we need to make some adjustments. Does anyone still think K-12 education adequate for preparing people for dealing with human diversity, for making wise choices with time, for not making political decisions that blow up in their faces, for not falling with sophisticated con artists. When people could reliably expect to live satisfying lives as sharecroppers and industrial laborers in times of very low expectations, people could be satisfied with 'solid eighth-grade educations'. Today, mere K-12 education is inadequate for anything more than rigid functioning in jobs that allow only animal-level survival.

So we need some formal logic (philosophy), some basic understanding of the techniques of behavioral manipulation (psychology), and the reality of trade-offs (economics).  People need to know that one gets no good results from overt contradictions, the dirty tricks of hstlers, and that there is no such thing as a free lunch.   Philosophy, psychology, and economics are typically survey courses in the first two years of college. High school? I would not rush them.          
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2017, 11:25:59 AM »

There is no reason that the "Religious Right" shouldn't be pleased with Donald Trump.  The "Religious Right" is a POLITICAL movement.  They seek to bring public policy more in line with Biblical standards.

In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office.  The policy wins in this area are significant because (A) society, left and right, is more secularized now than in 1980, and (B) we are a far less "Christianized" society than we were in 1980.  "Religious Right" folks see Trump as a President that (A) doesn't try to dismiss them or blow them off, and (B) actually expends some political capital on behalf of their objectives.  Why shouldn't they be happy with Trump for those reasons?

I do think that Christians are wrong if they present Trump as a Godly example of a Christian man.  He's not been that.  Lots of Christians I know say that Trump is a 'baby Christian" who has recently been saved.  I see no evidence of Trump making the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation; if he has, I've either missed it, or it's not been said publicly.  Christians compromise their testimony and obscure the Gospel when they do this.  But to call them hypocrites is ridiculous.  Some in the crowd may be, but what, then, do we say of feminist icons who have yet to criticize Bill Clinton? 

Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2017, 11:30:07 AM »


In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office. 


What wins has he delivered on?
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2017, 11:44:21 AM »


In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office. 


What wins has he delivered on?

The judiciary is Mcconnell's win, not Trump's. There's literally no executive order that any other Republican president wouldnt have done.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2017, 02:41:21 PM »


In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office. 


What wins has he delivered on?


Consider the following:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of this will make Trump a candidate for being a Pastor or get him into Heaven.  But he has done what he said he'll do, and many Republicans haven't done that, as far as Religious Conservatives go.

Trump also vigorously, and without apology, defends religious conservatives, not only against attacks of liberals, but attacks against other Republicans.  Trump may, or may not, be Saved, but he does, indeed, understand the real benefits all Americans derive from the Godly work of Christians and their churches in America.  He gets it that out there, millions of Christians are being Salt and Light, keeping America Good, in that it may deserve greatness.  In this, I unapoligetically support Trump.  It is not Christians that owe apologies to Secular America.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2017, 02:51:17 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2017, 02:59:21 PM »

Did someone actually report that?  Christ what a child.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2017, 04:08:01 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2017, 05:28:34 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2017, 10:40:07 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2017, 10:58:34 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

No, it's very much possible to accept the views of Christians and be skeptical of the influence they have on domestic policy. Frankly, it'd be extremely boring and I'd want to kill myself if everyone in the world was a "woke" latte liberal who wanted no restrictions at all on abortion and wanted to force small business owners to serve everyone (because frankly, if a closet self-loathing homosexual bakery owner doesn't want to serve his fellow gays a cake, that's his prerogative, and he should let the entire world know of his bitterness rather than being forced to serve a cake by the government). So, I WANT some people like Mike Pence and Ted Cruz in our legislative bodies. Just not running the country under their world view. Because who knows how many pregnant women who would otherwise elect to get an abortion would be throwing themselves down stair cases or taking out a pair of tweezers or coat hangers to get the job done if President Pence proclaimed America abortion-free with no exceptions.

It's your right to not want Mike Pences and Ted Cruzes in the majority.  But they have the right to be in the majority if their kind is elected.

The right to run for office implies the right to have your ideas prevail if enough like-minded folks are elected with you.  They can't vote to impose mandatory Church attendance, but they can vote to defund PP.  I dread a majority of Hillary Clintons and Barbara Boxers in any legislative body, but if that's what folks choose, well, they have the right to prevail.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2017, 10:59:32 PM »

I don't hate Christians; I am a Christian. I just don't see what's Christian in the least bit about what Trump has done. And yes, feminists who defend Bill Clinton over his philandering and sexual escapades are hypocrites - that's why I've always criticized him over his sexual behavior, even though I think he was a good president otherwise. But religious Christians who condone Trump's frankly hostile and frightening actions towards defenseless people are also hypocrites. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." I'm no Catholic, but frankly this Pope has a better handle on Christian principles than the president.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2017, 11:17:07 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2017, 11:32:36 PM »

I don't hate Christians; I am a Christian. I just don't see what's Christian in the least bit about what Trump has done. And yes, feminists who defend Bill Clinton over his philandering and sexual escapades are hypocrites - that's why I've always criticized him over his sexual behavior, even though I think he was a good president otherwise. But religious Christians who condone Trump's frankly hostile and frightening actions towards defenseless people are also hypocrites. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." I'm no Catholic, but frankly this Pope has a better handle on Christian principles than the president.

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes.  
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2017, 11:42:16 PM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2017, 12:10:38 AM »
« Edited: October 15, 2017, 12:16:12 AM by Senator Scott, PPT🍂 »

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes. 

That comment was obviously a joke.  Hillary Clinton is clearly far more devout than Donald Trump is (assuming he's even a believer and not just appeasing conservative Christians the way Putin appeases the Orthodox Church) and said earlier this year she's considered joining the ministry.  Hardly "anti-Christian."

Why would liberals "infiltrate" the Catholic Church to push doctrinal change?  It's not like you get to vote.  That's not how the Catholic Church works.  That's why most progressive Christians are in mainline Protestant denominations.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2017, 12:19:38 AM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2017, 12:22:32 AM »

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes. 

That comment was obviously a joke.  Hillary Clinton is clearly far more devout than Donald Trump is (assuming he's even a believer and not just appeasing conservative Christians the way Putin appeases the Orthodox Church) and said earlier this year she's considered joining the ministry.  Hardly "anti-Christian."

Why would liberals "infiltrate" the Catholic Church to push doctrinal change?  It's not like you get to vote.  That's not how the Catholic Church works.  That's why most progressive Christians are in mainline Protestant denominations.

A joke?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2017, 12:25:52 AM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs
Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2017, 12:32:33 AM »

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes. 

That comment was obviously a joke.  Hillary Clinton is clearly far more devout than Donald Trump is (assuming he's even a believer and not just appeasing conservative Christians the way Putin appeases the Orthodox Church) and said earlier this year she's considered joining the ministry.  Hardly "anti-Christian."

Why would liberals "infiltrate" the Catholic Church to push doctrinal change?  It's not like you get to vote.  That's not how the Catholic Church works.  That's why most progressive Christians are in mainline Protestant denominations.

A joke?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The phrase "Catholic Spring" is a joke, and she didn't say that liberals should become Catholics and demand change, only that American Catholics (most of whom use and support birth control) should demand change from their bishops.

Which isn't something that can actually happen, and the author acknowledges her lack of understanding of how the church works in that email to John Podesta, who himself is Catholic.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2017, 12:38:36 AM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs
Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio
Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2017, 12:45:24 AM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs
Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio
Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one
But if life is the most fundamental of rights, and if human life begins at conception (as I believe it does, logically and Biblically), a pro-choice country submits my fundamental rights to popular vote and the whims of others, does it not?

No one is "forced to not have an abortion". 

And there are secular arguments for being pro-life and defunding PP. 
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2017, 12:51:06 AM »

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.
Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others
I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.
Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"
If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.
Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs
Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio
Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one
But if life is the most fundamental of rights, and if human life begins at conception (as I believe it does, logically and Biblically), a pro-choice country submits my fundamental rights to popular vote and the whims of others, does it not?

No one is "forced to not have an abortion". 

And there are secular arguments for being pro-life and defunding PP. 
Then don't di it in your own personal life! God why does this point keep not getting through to you that society shouldnt be forced to conform to your views on such a hot button issue?!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 12 queries.