Seriously? I know you and I haven't interacted before, but I'm one of your many followers on this site, and I read a lot of the things you post, so I know that you're politically astute enough to know exactly what I'm talking about.
You don't even need to be that interested in politics to recognize that the secular progressive left has been waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity for the last two decades; from the serious issues like Abortion and Marriage Equality, to the trivial, to even the flat out petty (Nativity Scenes on public grounds). Now I'm not saying that Christians don't deserve it in most cases, and I'm certainly not going to get roped into defending religion in general, but let's not act like the left is just overflowing with tolerance for Christianity here.
You don't even need to be that interested in politics to recognize that the secular progressive left has been waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity for the last two decades; from the serious issues like Abortion and Marriage Equality, to the trivial, to even the flat out petty (Nativity Scenes on public grounds). Now I'm not saying that Christians don't deserve it in most cases, and I'm certainly not going to get roped into defending religion in general, but let's not act like the left is just overflowing with tolerance for Christianity here.
Today I learned that enforcing secular law and values that prohibit Christians from discriminating against others is tantamount to declaring war on them. Seriously, if I were to declare war on Christians I'd be building gas chambers and digging mass graves, not reminding people they can worship and believe however they choose but they can't impose their belief or worship on anyone who doesn't want it.
spent the last twenty years actively attacking anything even remotely religious
Then, you were all:
waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity for the last two decades
Before, claiming you don't believe any of this, you’re all:
let's not act like the left is just overflowing with tolerance for Christianity
Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it? Above, you make out as if a thirteen-year-old girl molested by a close male relative is “actively attacking anything even remotely religious” unless she bears her rapist their child. Notice, though, you’re not talking about ‘religion’ as such at all, are you? No.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
Right... because not establishing Christian Dominionism at the outset of this great nation is a terrible injury that’s been done to the great and noble cause of a government by, of, and for a vengeful Old Testament Jehovah.
I asked what you meant because it was vague enough there may've been something to it. Now it’s become clear you were playing Mad Libs, only you claim your answers are on behalf of someone else with convictions you’ll not admit having yourself. Not to put you on the spot, but are you entirely putting yourself in the shoes of a proud, but easily-offended, quick-to-pass-judgement, not-entirely-self-aware part of the body politic? Or are you hesitant to speak for yourself?
Well good for you; it's always great to try and learn something new every day. That said, you've completely missed the entire point of the discussion.
This isn't about whether or not there's a war on Christianity- or even on religion in general. It's about how religious voters came to be aligned with the Conservative Right when traditionally they were much more evenly split between the Republican and Democratic parties. The answer, again, is that in the late '60s the Progressive Left began pushing a social agenda that was completely antithetical to traditional Christian values. I don't care if you agree with Christian values or not, that's not the discussion; this is about political process, not matters of personal faith. The political process was that an increasingly permissive social agenda, pushed for by the Progressive Left, spread through to the entire base of the Democratic Party and forced Christian voters further and further to the Right.
In other words you're saying when the John Birch Society invented the War on Christmas and promoted Christianity as the counter to Communism with everything not Christian getting lumped together with Communism, that's how capitalism was sold to religious conservatives.
Anti-Communism was how everything was sold to everyone back then, there was nothing unique about the JBS exploiting anti-Soviet sentiment in order to grow its membership. The JBS also had very little to do with the eventual shift in religious voters from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. In '59 & '60, Kennedy still had to deal with a Democratic Party that was still largely Christian, so much so that his Catholicism was an issue with the heavily Protestant base. Remember his: "I'm not the Catholic candidate, I'm the Democratic candidate" speech? LBJ made no secret of his religious views, and he relied heavily on Billy Graham for spiritual support during Vietnam. It was in LBJ's second term, when the '60s counterculture movement and the New Left got started for real, that the Democratic Party's platform started to swing further to the left, and it was their influence that drove the Democratic agenda for the next twenty years.
You seem to be claiming that the Democratic Party is not largely Christian today, which would be quite a feat considering that slightly over 70% of the nation is still Christian. What's different about Christians within the Democratic Party versus Christians in the Republican Party is that the Democratic Party Christians don't seem to show approval only to candidates who give lip service to religious ideals.
Secularism isn't something that excludes the religious. It just means you don't allow religion to pervade areas where it's not appropriate, like politics and polite dinner conversations.
Of course, over the last thirty years the Democratic Party has been swinging to the Right to try to keep up with the conservative trend of the nation. Currently we seem to be swinging back toward more liberal thinking, although we'll see how long it takes the Democratic Party leadership to notice.
The Democratic Party certainly isn't swinging as fast to the left as it was in the '60s and '70s, but I don't know that I would categorize that slowing as "swinging to the Right".
Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it?
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought.
First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of r...
Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it?
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought.
First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
You see, as a rational person, I don’t have a problem with kids praying in school if they so choose, or high school football players that want to pray before a game. I have a problem with them being forced to pray. I don’t have a problem with a City/State Government allowing a privately funded nativity scene to be displayed on public grounds at Christmas. I have a problem with them not allowing a privately funded Menorah, or Kinara to be displayed also.
Again: rational thought, not zealotry.
Right... because not establishing Christian Dominionism at the outset of this great nation is a terrible injury that’s been done to the great and noble cause of a government by, of, and for a vengeful Old Testament Jehovah.
I asked what you meant because it was vague enough there may've been something to it. Now it’s become clear you were playing Mad Libs, only you claim your answers are on behalf of someone else with convictions you’ll not admit having yourself. Not to put you on the spot, but are you entirely putting yourself in the shoes of a proud, but easily-offended, quick-to-pass-judgement, not-entirely-self-aware part of the body politic? Or are you hesitant to speak for yourself?
You’re all over the map here; I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to get at with this one. You took a simple statement about the shifting demographics of a political Party, and somehow came up with this rambling, incoherent… nonsense.
Still wondering, then, what justifies language like ‘attacking anything’ and ‘waging a nonstop campaign’ and ‘attacked by the Left’ if, as you so reasonably describe above, change has come in Supreme Court decisions. Unless that language is what you are suggesting the religious right would use about separation of church and state issues like not having nativity scenes, or satanic sacrificial altars, or pit temples of Kali, on government property. Are you using that language, or are you saying others would?
Seriously? I know you and I haven't interacted before, but I'm one of your many followers on this site, and I read a lot of the things you post, so I know that you're politically astute enough to know exactly what I'm talking about.
You don't even need to be that interested in politics to recognize that the secular progressive left has been waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity for the last two decades; from the serious issues like Abortion and Marriage Equality, to the trivial, to even the flat out petty (Nativity Scenes on public grounds). Now I'm not saying that Christians don't deserve it in most cases, and I'm certainly not going to get roped into defending religion in general, but let's not act like the left is just overflowing with tolerance for Christianity here.
Today I learned that enforcing secular law and values that prohibit Christians from discriminating against others is tantamount to declaring war on them. Seriously, if I were to declare war on Christians I'd be building gas chambers and digging mass graves, not reminding people they can worship and believe however they choose but they can't impose their belief or worship on anyone who doesn't want it.
At first, you were all:
Then, you were all:
Before, claiming you don't believe any of this, you’re all:
Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it? Above, you make out as if a thirteen-year-old girl molested by a close male relative is “actively attacking anything even remotely religious” unless she bears her rapist their child. Notice, though, you’re not talking about ‘religion’ as such at all, are you? No.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
Right... because not establishing Christian Dominionism at the outset of this great nation is a terrible injury that’s been done to the great and noble cause of a government by, of, and for a vengeful Old Testament Jehovah.
I asked what you meant because it was vague enough there may've been something to it. Now it’s become clear you were playing Mad Libs, only you claim your answers are on behalf of someone else with convictions you’ll not admit having yourself. Not to put you on the spot, but are you entirely putting yourself in the shoes of a proud, but easily-offended, quick-to-pass-judgement, not-entirely-self-aware part of the body politic? Or are you hesitant to speak for yourself?
Well good for you; it's always great to try and learn something new every day. That said, you've completely missed the entire point of the discussion.
This isn't about whether or not there's a war on Christianity- or even on religion in general. It's about how religious voters came to be aligned with the Conservative Right when traditionally they were much more evenly split between the Republican and Democratic parties. The answer, again, is that in the late '60s the Progressive Left began pushing a social agenda that was completely antithetical to traditional Christian values. I don't care if you agree with Christian values or not, that's not the discussion; this is about political process, not matters of personal faith. The political process was that an increasingly permissive social agenda, pushed for by the Progressive Left, spread through to the entire base of the Democratic Party and forced Christian voters further and further to the Right.
In other words you're saying when the John Birch Society invented the War on Christmas and promoted Christianity as the counter to Communism with everything not Christian getting lumped together with Communism, that's how capitalism was sold to religious conservatives.
Anti-Communism was how everything was sold to everyone back then, there was nothing unique about the JBS exploiting anti-Soviet sentiment in order to grow its membership. The JBS also had very little to do with the eventual shift in religious voters from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. In '59 & '60, Kennedy still had to deal with a Democratic Party that was still largely Christian, so much so that his Catholicism was an issue with the heavily Protestant base. Remember his: "I'm not the Catholic candidate, I'm the Democratic candidate" speech? LBJ made no secret of his religious views, and he relied heavily on Billy Graham for spiritual support during Vietnam. It was in LBJ's second term, when the '60s counterculture movement and the New Left got started for real, that the Democratic Party's platform started to swing further to the left, and it was their influence that drove the Democratic agenda for the next twenty years.
You seem to be claiming that the Democratic Party is not largely Christian today, which would be quite a feat considering that slightly over 70% of the nation is still Christian. What's different about Christians within the Democratic Party versus Christians in the Republican Party is that the Democratic Party Christians don't seem to show approval only to candidates who give lip service to religious ideals.
Secularism isn't something that excludes the religious. It just means you don't allow religion to pervade areas where it's not appropriate, like politics and polite dinner conversations.
Of course, over the last thirty years the Democratic Party has been swinging to the Right to try to keep up with the conservative trend of the nation. Currently we seem to be swinging back toward more liberal thinking, although we'll see how long it takes the Democratic Party leadership to notice.
The Democratic Party isn't "largely Christian" today.
The Democratic Party certainly isn't swinging as fast to the left as it was in the '60s and '70s, but I don't know that I would categorize that slowing as "swinging to the Right".
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought. First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of r...
Read FullIt may be a bot experiment.
Still wondering, then, what justifies language like ‘attacking anything’ and ‘waging a nonstop campaign’ and ‘attacked by the Left’ if, as you so reasonably describe above, change has come in Supreme Court decisions. Unless that language is what you are suggesting the religious right would use about separation of church and state issues like not having nativity scenes, or satanic sacrificial altars, or pit temples of Kali, on government property. Are you using that language, or are you saying others would?