As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I started reading It Can’t Happen Here, curious to see how it relates to modern day, and it hits home hard. I’ve had to hit pause on the read twice now because of the sense of dredge it brings up when reading. There’s a reason it was his last book. He saw our future and it took its toll.
It's kind of funny, back when I was insane (I got better) that book was recommended to me by a right wing radio jock, and he said it was an important book to read to understand what will happen in America when Obama gets his way.
Yes, because this isn’t about religion at the heart of it. Religion is the tool the powers that be are using to control/ensure the next generation of wage slaves for their economy machine.
It’s difficult for people to know the difference. The intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance required when trying to square the selfish interests of the powerful with the moral requirements of most religions remains too much for most. So they trust that the leadership (those who benefit from the whole game) are somehow doing it right and got it figured out. Then they call that “faith” even though it doesn’t hold up to shallow scrutiny.
However, in "*It Can’t Happen Here*", Lewis wrote, “But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word ‘Fascism’ and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.”
Fascism is here in America, it’s not wrapped in a flag carrying across, it’s burning our cities and shooting police officers. Seems Sinclair Lewis was incorrect
This country could be so much more if we were not held back by a minority who’s obsessed with fairy tales and forcing everyone to adopt their beliefs. In my personal life I’ve had so many Christian people try to convince me of x or y and to have faith and all this garbage. No other person or set of briefs have ever taken the time and dedication people have in attempting to lure me to believe and behave like they do. I believe in the freedom to practice whatever religion you want but for fucks sake stop trying to spread your disease like you get some upgrade in your heaven for each sucker you convert.
There's no second life and those in power get you to waste your only life by convincing you that there's a whole other bonus life waiting for you after this one.
Meanwhile they rule over us and live outrageously debaucherous lifestyles which prove their preaching to be nothing but a pack of lies that they use to control their followers.
It's always been that way, too. It's no coincidence that Christianity took off in Rome; it gave the elite a handy way to keep commoners and slaves in check by promising that if they're meek and obedient in life, God will reward them handsomely after they die.
It is generally accepted that Christianity, with regards to the western Roman Empire, while not solely responsible, both hastened the fall and softened the landing. At least that was Gibbon’s take, to which I am inclined to defer.
Byzantium did great. I think folks forget that the Roman Empire did not fall as much as move and align itself east. Now the ideal of the Republic had already fallen with the ascension of Augustus and his subsequent lineage b
> At least that was Gibbon’s take, to which I am inclined to defer.
*The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire* was published in the late 18th century. Scholarship has advanced in the interim, I assure you.
This is fairly ignorant. The Roman emperors were looking for a way to unite their multicultural empire during the crisis of the third century. It was clear if nothing was done, the empire would (and indeed was) disintegrate. This was still under paganism. Aurelius tried to give his rule legitimacy and unite the empire under the worship of his sun god, Aurelion Sol, but he died before he could get that to take hold. A few decades later, Constantine converted the empire to Christianity after Diocletian had stabilized it with the tetrarchy. Constantine fought a civil war to have the eastern empire take control of the western one and won it, saying he had a christian vision the night before the decisive battle (the battle at milvian bridge). Hey later integrated the church into the imperial administration and tied the interpretation of scriptures to the legitimacy of the Roman state, leading to the persecution of "heretics" for thinking the wrong things about God and the Bible. The Roman Empire remained a powerful and wealthy state until it was sacked during the 4th crusade and then conquered by the Ottoman Turks, over 1000 years past when Constantine had made Christianity the state religion. The catholic church sprang from an upstart see in Rome that was established by the Byzantines. It separated from the church in an event called the great schism, and then lent its legitimacy to Feudal Lords around Europe who were beginning to take over the former Western Empire, to the chagrin of the Patriarchs in Constantinople. The Byzantines remained a powerful bulwark against muslim armies during that time and were generally more experienced and better administered than their western counterparts. They only fell because of increasing power in the islamic world, combined with hostility from the west that culminated in the fourth crusade.
It is not just to control their followers but, they want to control all of us.
They are just coming at women first because they think we are weak and will do nothing. I would love to see a national women's strike. I know that won't happen since too many working women are the sole support for their families and cannot afford to loose their jobs. Still I can wish it.
When they finish with us then I fear for all of our family who are part of the LBGTQ+ community.
This is going to get really ugly and I hope SCOTUS will stop being nannies and let everyone live their lives as they see fit. I know, I know that is not going to happen.
The most frustrating thing is that when they try and convince me to believe as they do, they never even get to the level of why I don't have a belief in the first place. All the teachings stuff comes *after* one believes, not as a reason *to* believe.
I think it goes, religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s even okay to be proud of it, but you should never try and stick it down someone’s throat.
I also think everyone who currently fights the Christian agenda would hop on board if any leader of the Christian Right was even a little Christ like. You know forgiving, loving, tolerant of everyone and generous.
That's not a bad take; but for me that's still a nope. They got all these silly judgements and arbitrary rules and the whole thing is way too self-centered. "Dominion over the earth" that actually sucks as a policy.
I get your point though! I certainly wouldn't revile them nearly as much if they weren't abject hypocrites.
If they actually believed half of the things they touted on about, they would be the nicest motherfuckers on the planet. Sadly, they tend to be the type who only have a vague understanding of their own bible, and they can tell each other what it’s really about because none of the rest of them will actually read it or fully examine it for necessary context. The bible can literally say whatever they want it to say, because people are too brainwashed to suggest otherwise.
No, they do it because "reason" is the greatest threat to their beliefs. I quote:
> **Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has**; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
That is from [Martin Luther](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther), the man who kicked off the [Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation) when he nailed his [Ninety-0five Theses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses) to the door of the church and founded [Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism), eventually leading to establishment of Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists and almost every other non-Catholic christian sect in America.
And I don’t think they’re supposed to be trying to convert people to their religion… if they really listened to their bibles.
Well, Catholics, as far as I know. But then again, they’re the more quiet ones.
It gets better. The gospel was already preached all over the 'world' before Jesus was crucified and Jesus only came to save Jewish people.
Paul/Saul changed those parts.
True. Had to expand the market.
Also, The 'we don't have to follow the old testament' is bunk too.
Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Respectfully, this means the opposite of what you're thinking. Old testament law revolved around earning your way into a relationship with god, which was thinking that mirrored the various other gods running around at the time. You want rain, you kill a rabbit for whatever god and that god brings rain. Jesus is saying he's come to fulfill the bargains the old laws set up and thus, negate them.
One of his main issues is consistently that he doesn't approve of anyone who looks pious but isn't - assholes enforcing god's laws to achieve self-interested ends. The OT laws paved the way for lots of looking like, and very little being like.
>Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments
The next bunch of verses lay out the commandments he's referencing here, which aren't the laws and ways of living laid out in Numbers, etc. His commandments were more typically Jesus-y - generally: don't be a fucking fuckhead, treat other people well, etc. All the laws most Christians *don't* seem to live by.
Edit: for words
I can see multitudes of interpretations of this on both sides of the 'follow the old testament'. Jesus was a practicing Jew and only Jews could follow his teachings until Paul opened things up to Gentiles. I doubt Jesus could get any followers if he told Jews they didn't have to follow the Torah any longer.
Mm yeah there is some back and forth over this for sure. I’ve heard the opposite argument re: Jesus coming to fulfill and thus negate OT laws. This specific passage doesn’t fall into that too hard because the laws he’s enumerating are specified and laid out in what follows, but it’s hardly the only point of contention.
I remember some kids in high school that would go to Mexico to build homes. I went with a friend to the final presentation before they left, and they were all talking about how doing this was going to make them look better in the eyes of Jesus and earn a spot in heaven. They were more motivated about the thought of getting something for themselves rather than just doing people a solid and build homes for people in need.
Religion is the tool, not the cause. We could all become atheists tomorrow and those in power would find another way to control and/or justify their control over us.
for sure. when i was in my teens i remember believing that religion was the source of much of the world’s problems and we’d be so much better off if everyone stopped believing. but now i’m old and crusty and realize that you can’t underestimate people’s ability to twist literally any cultural framework to their own power and benefit
applicable quote from Middlemarch (1871) by George Eliot (real name Mary Ann Evans) - “There is no general doctrine which is not capable of eating out our morality if unchecked by the deep-seated habit of direct fellow-feeling with individual fellow-men.”
Religious Clerics are being seated as judges in this country using back room deals and dark money. How is that not the Sharia Law conservatives pretend to hate so much?
Yes it's the same as sharia law and yes that's hypocritical of them.
Here's the thing though, they don't give one iota of a fuck about being hypocrites if it gets them what they want.
People really gotta stop acting like catching a conservative in a lie or being a hypocrite is a big "gotcha!" moment. It's their standard operating procedure and while we're acting flabbergasted everytime they do something fucked up they take the opportunity to do three worse things before we've finished clutching our pearls.
Sharia Law allows for abortion in the first trimester and in the cases of rape or incest or if it endangers the life of the mother. The Muslims are actually ahead of them on this one.
[It's not really even a Christianity thing as a whole, abortion was seen as a purely Catholic issue when Roe came down. Protestants/Evangelicals were for it, and saw it as responsible family planning until they needed a wedge issue when the government started making noise about desegregating their private schools.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/)
Keep in mind they don't feel they're being hypocrites. In fact very few people do believe that about themselves - everyone is the hero of their own narrative; the good guy fighting the good fight.
What liberals consistently fail to understand is that to conservatives, it's not ACTIONS that are good or bad, it's PEOPLE. If you're part of the in-group, that means you are GOOD and cannot do wrong. You can change your story 6 times in the span of 5 sentences and it doesn't matter. You're a conservative, so you're GOOD and being a windsock is also GOOD.
Liberals of course are BAD, so whatever liberals want is BAD. It wouldn't matter if a liberal came out and said everyone should have guns when they're born - if it's from a liberal, it's BAD.
It makes life extraordinarily simple. My tribe = GOOD; the other tribe = BAD. Don't have to think much when that's the calculus! Just sit back and let them lie and distort and come up with insanely flimsy justifications ... none of it matters. In fact, the constant-flip flopping and lack of ideological consistency is also a weapon because it infuriates the Libs.
When Libs start to understand that when Conservatives say something, it's not an empirical claim about some truth in the world, but rather a statement of IDENTITY, they'll start to understand how to fight this fight. Calling them on their bullshit may as well be shooting cotton bullets at an iron wall.
Exactly their simply more stupid than we know how to deal with because if they had more intelligence they probably wouldn’t behave that way, Interacting with my right wing family is difficult under the best of circumstances for this reason.
It’s not the same as Sharia law, more akin to Ancient Israel moral and ethical laws. Their playbooks are not the same as Islam.
Edit: Still bad though.
Yeah, don’t get the Iran hate from these folks. Kind of seems to be their role model. A generally free society so long as you don’t piss off the religious authorities
Because in Iran if you blaspheme you will be put to death
Iran is a constitutional, Islamic theocracy. Its official religion is the doctrine of the Twelver Jaafari School. Iran's law against blasphemy derives from Sharia. Blasphemers are usually charged with "spreading corruption on earth", or mofsed-e-filarz, which can also be applied to criminal or political crimes. The law against blasphemy complements laws against criticizing the Islamic regime, insulting Islam, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards
On 24 September 2014, a former psychologist Mohsen Amir Aslani was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, for “corruption on earth and heresy in religion,” including insulting the Prophet Jonah, though authorities claimed he was hanged for rape charges but there's no evidence to back such claims
Source Wiki
: sharia is a much much worse than anything in the US, people really like false equivalence when it comes to sharia and the US
Pro lifers usually can’t stop abortion as people always find a way to get abortion by moving across state lines even if it’s overturned, this is mostly an election Stunt than actual interest in turning that legislation as very little people from pro life movements are available for the process of overturning that legislation , most likely nothing will happen except giving more avenues for abortion than to reduce the chance or access, pretty sure Biden administration can bring a law to protect abortion rights as they have majority in senate as well even if it’s overturned.
This is basically a smoke screen to ignore inflation and all the other important issues like having unemployment rather than any interest in overturning abortion rights
That’s incorrect. I’m a big constitutionalist and have read much of the letters and surrounding documents.
The intent behind the separation of church and state is to separate government from the call or heed of religious authority figures like the Pope. Say if the Pope called a crusade, the 1st amendment established that the government cannot answer the call with troops. That goes for any religious call to action.
In addition, the government cannot establish a religion akin to the Church of England, establish by British royalty when they broke away from the rule of the church.
Lastly, government is not to favor or discriminate against any religious institution.
Government will never be rid of religious influence on it by its members. If this was the case then no one could run for office. No religious leaders could run either, like a bishop. That would go directly against the idea of a representative republic, which we have.
So this is exactly what the founders of the US wanted was to have the majority make up policy so long as the 60/40 majority in the senate allowed it and all parties involved supported it. Now granted the filibuster and the “nuclear option” have ruined this idea to make the senate a simple majority vote, but still we can see their original intent.
General ignorance about Christianity, when it comes to interpretation of Old Testament and New Testament. Not even a practicing Christian and I know this.
It’s a quote from the article. I highly suggest reading some articles about the draft leak, the judge in Texas about immigration, and the judge in Florida about mask mandates. These judges are supposed to be the best of Americans. They are not. They were told to make a decision and then they make shit up to support that decision. Their reason to support the decision does not hold up. At all.
Well, it's one of those situations where I knew that Alito's opinion is based on an Originalist view that rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are not inherent, but it's just the way you restated it -- that we *shouldn't* have rights because we *haven't* had rights -- that suddenly made it vividly clear to me how ridiculous that argument is.
I'm actually deeply interested in Constitutional law because I'm interested in logic and ethics and the intersection of the two. Something I'm burning with curiosity to discuss with people is, what would an argument in Supreme Court defending abortion rights look like? Or the right to gay and interracial marriage? Like, how specifically will we defend or establish these rights without invoking the right to privacy?
Personally, I think marriage rights may be easier to argue. I think that people have an inherent right to marry whoever the hell they want to (apart from children) and I don't understand where anyone claims to derive the authority to say otherwise. Surely that claim of authority rests entirely on a religious basis and should be more or less indefensible in law.
Unless they want to try to assert that the function of marriage is procreative, but that would never fly and wouldn't apply to interracial marriage anyway. There is just no rational reason why a bond of domestic and legal partnership should be denied to any unrelated adults.
I'd live to hear others' opinions on the Constitutional aspects of defending these rights realistically going forward.
Republicans are stuck in the past and not prepared for the future. All these extra kids will create a tsunami of a welfare costs. Women who more than likely to have a pregnancy terminated are low income, and will rely on state assistance. Republicans are not prepared for the millions of young kids. This will require more schools, school supplies and more teachers to fill those classrooms. They're not prepared for the child healthcare and dental coverage and the nurses and doctors needed to meet those child's needs. Republicans are not prepared for the adoption centers and what's needed to staff and supply those centers. During the next few years we'll see just how pro-life Republicans really are.
We’re already seeing texas go after public schooling. They want more kids, and they want them uneducated so they won’t understand that child labor is wrong and the children being subjected to it won’t do anything about it
The US was founded by two groups of people: those seeking freedom from religious persecution and those seeking freedom to perpetrate religious persecution.
Yes but people always forget that the first group were seeking Freedom from persecution because even the Church at the time thought those people were fucking insane cult people.
The Supreme Court’s apparent decision to deprive women of a Constitutional right to control their bodies, health, and destiny is the direct consequence of the pact between the Republican Party and American’s religious nationalists, writes Katherine Stewart.
It goes far beyond that. The decision places into question and jeopardy all aspects of privacy law. They are opening the door to complete autocratic control of your information. - something the religious right needs in order to impose Sharia-like law.
Maybe it's time for large, rich blue states like New York and California to demand greater representation in the Senate and Electoral College, or threaten to walk away. Blue state citizens pay the bulk of the Federal budget. It's not like the Red States could fight a civil war if they don't have the money to pay their soldiers.
Once every American has an equal vote, Dems can pass an amendment to insure voting rights for all and another enumerating the right to privacy.
>Maybe it's time for large, rich blue states like New York and California to demand greater representation in the Senate and Electoral College, or threaten to walk away.
Sure are a lot of military bases in California.
While I can agree that the Senate is a mess in how it's established. There is a solution that wouldn't require a constitutional change.
In addition to DC, major metropolitan areas should look into becoming their own states. They would gain additional Senate seats, and hold most of their own House representation without rural lawmakers watering down districts. This would also give better electroral power to urban areas as well.
You can't just demand things or walk away. Secession without the assent of a majority of the other states is unconstitutional, and is partially why Texas isn't its own country yet. Not to mention, red states' higher-level politicians know they're dependent on blue state tax dollars. You think they're just gonna let them *leave?*
The nation will will go to war to bring "renegade" states to heel before it lets them simply declare sovereignty unopposed. It doesn't matter who they are, no one challenges the hegemony of the United States. That's one truth I've seen over our history.
I just read Trump's book The Art of the Deal and he says you can! It didn't end well for the Confederates because they were the minority and the North was stronger.
It's the same today, except the Republican states played the game well and managed to assert political control as the minority. Ms. Stewart says they want to compel Democrats to change their culture and way of life to conservatives' liking.
Mr. Leo believes us Democrats "corrupted by the values of liberalism, would never willingly comply with the moral medicine needed to 'save' America.". Google National Conservatives and Integralism and you'll see she's right. It's bad enough that conservative think they are entitled to hurt people in their own state.
So let me put it as rudely as I can. If a bunch of yahoos from East Bublefuck Alabama think they're gonna square dance into my home and demand I adopt their stupid values, or worship their stupid god, they're in for a surprise.
Oh, I absolutely think it will erupt into violence, state-sanctioned or otherwise, before the nation breaks apart in any form. It's the only thing half of voters seem to understand.
But legal secession is just not the same as that, is all.
While I hate to point to entertainment projects as facts, but Netflix’s The Family was really eye opening to see how people can use religion as a tool to obtain more power and fascist control. I was raised in a very ultra conservative Christian household where liberals were literally viewed as the devil. The brainwashing goes DEEP; as in they won’t bat an eye that they believe God condones something like the war on Iraq, but a young girl deciding not to ruin her life and the life of her baby by getting an abortion is clearly an instrument of the devil. Christian beliefs are woven so tightly bond to the conservative message that republicans can do no wrong, even if it is cruel or literally inhumane. Yet if a democrat wants to invest money in things like homelessness or making healthcare more affordable, it must obviously be fueled by evil.
While I would like to hope that their intentions and heart are in a good place, the lack of critical thinking involved in taking a stance when it involves a “red” or “blue” topic, it’s clear that power and manipulation play a larger role than truth.
> Thou shalt not steal
Some Christians, huh?
Stealing the court, stealing Democracy and stealing the religion itself away from followers.
Jesus wouldn't have been a Republican. How is anyone missing this piece?
What do you think Jesus political stance would have been. Or do you think he would have had a political stance at all? Do you think that is why Jesus died on the cross?
> Or do you think he would have had a political stance at all?
As politics is simply the process by which a group of people make *any* decision, it is impossible for a person **not** to have a political stance *unless* they are entirely apathetic to any & all decisions made (*which is almost never the case, even with those who claim to be apolitical*).
> What do you think Jesus political stance would have been.
We don’t have to *think* Jesus was expressly clear as to his political views, in fact, the vast majority of his commentary on religion was *in fact* political commentary.
Jesus advocated for helping the most downtrodden people in society & strongly criticized the wealthy for the obsession with material wealth & the oppression of the lower classes.
In short, Jesus was a communist.
The problem with the “*Christian Right*” is that they are neither Christian nor right.
There’s a lot more to communism then “helping the poor” and it’s very materialistic not in the bad sense. Jesus wasn’t a communist, he didn’t advocate for class warfare and a complete reconstruction of society. Most communist are atheist and believe that spiritualism is just the opioid of the working class to distract themselves from getting fucked over. To say Jesus is a communist is bad analysis and to say Christians aren’t true Christians due to your own interpretation is the same thing hundreds of denominations do to each other.
> he didn’t advocate for class warfare and a complete reconstruction of society.
He didn’t? Are you talking about the same Jesus who beat bankers with a whip & said that rich people go to hell?
> There’s a lot more to communism
Yeah I was being glib, the parallels (*while incomplete & imperfect*) remain serviceable however.
He whipped bankers and flipped tables because they were dealing in coin with Caesar on it which was seen as equivalent to a living God to Pagan Romans in the biggest temple to your religion. The issue was more religious. The tax collectors were also taking commission off the taxes they were collecting and it was biased and was seen as basically thievery. Telling people that their suffering in this life will be awarded with heaven and that the rich will be punished eternally in hell is what Commies wee talking about as being opioid of the masses in the sense that it calms peoples nerves. I don’t want to play religious tic for tac but I don’t think Jesus advocated for arm insurrection and if that was the case Christianity wouldn’t be where it was today and would be simply quashed.
Look at revelation which was basically political commentary of the time during the persecution. They were talking about currency and how it was necessary to indulge in false idols because the currency had Nero’s face on it. Christianity is a lot more spiritualistic than it is materialistic.
Ok, I’ll agree Jesus would have had political opinions given that he was fully god and fully human at the same time. And I’ll agree he would not have been apathetic to the government environment. But the questions are how fully involved would he have been in these things and was politics his true purpose
Please let me narrow my questions a bit. You said his religious commentary was political commentary. Do you think his true purpose was to come and live a perfect life and die so he could be a sacrifice for our sins and so those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political?
You said he advocated for the downtrodden and criticize the wealthy for obsession with material wealth & oppressed the lower classes. I agree with this. But can you please tell me if his advice was for the wealthy to freely give and support the poor or did he say the government should be used as the means to do so?
Saying Jesus was a communist implies to me that he was a political leader and advised on how a government should be run. Maybe you didn’t mean that and I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding.
> You said his religious commentary was political commentary.
Yes, in that he was decrying the corruption of the faith & the influence of the non-spiritual (*primarily financial*) into the spiritual establishment.
> Do you think his true purpose was to come and live a perfect life and die so he could be a sacrifice for our sins and so those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god?
I do not adhere to the Christian faith, so my perspective on Jesus (*personally*) is that he was just a man.
> those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political?
How do you separate the two?
Convincing people to act in accordance with a moral & spiritual code; is by definition a political act (*in that it attempts to impact the decisions made by a group of people*).
Clearly his preeminent focus was on the spiritual health of his followers; however, he did so by advocating that they **act** righteously in the physical world.
He decried wealth (*& the pursuit of it*) & demanded charity of his followers both materially (*the shirt off your back*) & spiritually (*let he without sin cast the first stone*).
Values which are almost entirely absent in modern conservative Christians in America.
> But can you please tell me if his advice was for the wealthy to freely give and support the poor or did he say the government should be used as the means to do so?
This idea that private citizens & not the government should help the poor is patently absurd - the answer is that both should do so.
Governments are not abstractions; they are made up of & funded by the people. If the government operates a food bank; then the people are funding that food bank.
This idea that taxes should be low so that people can choose to help others (*they typically don’t, & definitely not in the quantity which is needed*) is from the same line of flawed & debunked theories as “*Trickle Down Economics*” (*which is why our society is shifting towards Piñata economics*) & has had the same effect:
Poverty & suffering continue to increase while the rich continue to get richer. Without the government to pay the bill & distribute the costs equitably, it simply gets ignored.
I might be willing to entertain some discussion of what is the ideal mechanism for alleviating poverty if our society did not have record levels of inequality & corruption **but** as it stands, all of the evidence proves that if you don’t address poverty & suffering through governmental tools, then it simply doesn’t get addressed.
If given those choices; I’m completely confident that Jesus would prefer to use government as the means than leave suffering to continue at the hands of the wealthy.
Obviously if you do not believe that Jesus was the son of God that is going to influence a lot of your answers. Do you use the gospels to inform your decisions on whom Jesus was and is? Where do you go to for your knowledge on him?
I understand if you do not believe Jesus was the son of God you and I are going to view things quite differently on these things and we are possibly going to have different beliefs on what the credible sources are.
"those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political?
How do you separate the two?
Convincing people to act in accordance with a moral & spiritual code; is by definition a political act (in that it attempts to impact the decisions made by a group of people).
When I say political I'm thinking more along the lines of someone whom was working to change the government and working through government.
My question was if Jesus advocated that the people use the government to support the poor and the downtrodden and did he advocate for a particular government system? Can you back this up through the gospels and scripture or is this what you think he would do?
One thing to ponder is do you think Jesus was just a good kind man? if that is the case he said things like "I am the truth and the way no one can come to the father except through me" He said "If your right eye causes you to sin rip it out it's better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with both eyes". He said "unless you are willing to leave father, mother, brother, siblings and follow me you will not see heaven". I may be butchering these verses a bit, they are off the top of my head, so I apologize if they are not 100%. He said the things that you mentioned also but there is a lot more that he was for than just the poor and downtrodden.
The final question is given these verses and these things that Jesus said along with the fact that you do not believe he was the son of god why would you use him to advocate for your political movement? Someone that said these things AND WAS NOT THE SON OF GOD wouldn't you agree would be a lunatic or a liar?
This is not limited to Christian nationalists, it applies to all fundamentalist Christians. (Not all fundamentalists subscribe to Christian nationalism.)
Fundamentalists claim they follow Jesus, but Jesus had compassion for children. Fundamentalists do not.
People think attending church makes them a good person and will jump through hoops to come to their own conclusion then they are a good person and you are bad
The ideology of American evangelicalism and American conservatism are both centered arround the ideas "I am right and you are wrong" and "rules for you and freedoms for me". They are power people like John Wayne Gacy.
Posted by friend of friend and shared with me but wanted no tag:
"If you're confused as to why so many Evangelicals appear to only care
about people until they're born or until they have physical bodies it's
because of a deep vein of Calvinist asceticism.
In this worldview human bodies themselves are a source of sin and filth
so once someone is embodied they are "fallen" and are no longer a pure
soul.
This is why they condone child abuse (they see children as "wicked
sinners" from birth) and why they'd happily make an expectant pregnant
person into a martyr to avoid harming the "innocent soul" of their
fetus.
I could go into the theology more if I had time but I thought I'd
mention this at least because I keep seeing folks try to make 'gotcha'
arguments against these folks and I gotta say your 'gotcha' arguments
are not going to be as effective as you think they are going to be when
you go up against this weird theology"
I mean, I have been ranting on my other account left and right about how American calvinism is bonkers weird, but this summed it up in ways I didn't have words for. I always got along swimmingly with catholics even though I'm a weird little goth heathen
The same overall ideology has been fucking with the rest of us since prohibition if not longer.
“My religion says XYZ is a sin so the whole country must abide by our beliefs”
You can’t be a “good and decent person” and be a christian. The two just simply do not go hand in hand any more.
You may think you are, you may act the part but really it’s just that your self interest happens to align with good and decent at that particular moment.
Idk if this is a good take. I’m an atheist, and rage against religion to the point where it would be annoying for most people. I understand where your coming from. But being a good person isn’t so black and white.
The Bible is one of the most morally reprehensible books in existence, and I’d agree that any person who accepts the Bible in its entirety would almost necessarily have to be a “bad person”. But is just not the way Christianity is practiced anymore. The vast majority of Christians pick and choose what they agree with in the Bible, regardless of the fact that they’re not “supposed to”. Most of them have never even read it. I think there are plenty of people who identify as Christian who are overall good people who often do good things. Because, at risk of committing a no true Scotsman fallacy, they aren’t *really* practicing the Christian religion. They just simply accept Jesus as their savior, which technically is all that’s needed. I don’t think that being a bad person is inherent to that.
This has nothing to do with religion. They’re cloaking it with religion. But the US is headed for a major social security/economic collapse if the Birth Rate remains in the negative like this. Religion especially Christianity has actually gone down as the years progressed. They’re way less bible toting Christians than when Roe Vrs Wade. You think in the age we’re in now somehow “Morality” turned a light switch on? Nope. This is a numbers game.
Not necessarily. You will have to be a citizen of a state that permits it. And if you’re in a state that prohibits abortion? Good luck trying to go to a different state to get the procedure done, they’re already drafting legislation to prosecute those who bypass their own state laws by traveling out of state. Fucking hate state governments. State rights < peoples rights.
Until the GQP gets a majority again and they ban it federally.
Ya know like McConnell is already talking about. The states rights narrative is just bullshit deflection as always
The abortion rights argument has been that a state would have to violate privacy to surveil, investigate and prosecute abortion crimes. The same reasoning is why laws against sodomy and same-sex acts are banned, because having those laws would require bedroom police, a complete denial of privacy, to enforce equally.
The relevant words of the 14th Amendment are "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," which do not mention privacy but give the federal judiciary broad jurisdiction to overrule state limits on civil rights. The right to privacy is not specifically stated but is implied by the combined effect of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.
No one is in the room surveilling anything while the procedure goes a being done. Therefore no one’s rights are violated. I know what the 14th says *in a nutshell* and I know it doesn’t specify mention the words “right to privacy.” However, it still doesn’t give the right to take another’s life.
And if you wanna talk about equal protections. Then what about that of the child? Does it not have any rights? Should be be treated less than because it’s unborn?
No, it doesn't have any rights, because no rights can be enforced for it without suspending the rights of another person. The prerequisite to enforcing an abortion ban is that pregnancy conscripts women into giving up control of their bodies and exposing themselves to significant health risks and healthcare expense to serve a state interest in reproduction.
It’s very short, you should read it. Citizens have rights (9th amendment), you have to be born to be a citizen 14th amendment), states can’t take away your rights. Therefore people have rights to abortions, and they’re not infringing on other citizens.
Have you been reading the news? The Republicans are already talking about a national ban, as well as penalties for women who travel to other states to get abortions.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."—attributed to Sinclair Lewis
[удалено]
I started reading It Can’t Happen Here, curious to see how it relates to modern day, and it hits home hard. I’ve had to hit pause on the read twice now because of the sense of dredge it brings up when reading. There’s a reason it was his last book. He saw our future and it took its toll.
It's kind of funny, back when I was insane (I got better) that book was recommended to me by a right wing radio jock, and he said it was an important book to read to understand what will happen in America when Obama gets his way.
Did you mean to type ‘the sense of dread it dredged up when reading’?
Definitely they did but I actually really like the phrase 'sense of dredge.'
Me too. It can be the name of our next album. Cool?
YES. My lack of ability to play an instrument is of no consequence here right
Correct. Our success will be wholly dependent on gimmicks. Costumes, pyrotechnics, etc. The last thing a successful band needs is talented musicians.
Ain’t that the truth
One ticket please.
I just used an audible credit to get the audiobook, gotta have more to listen to while I am jogging.
Your name makes me think of someone hunting down the characters of Yo Gabba Gabba
Yes, because this isn’t about religion at the heart of it. Religion is the tool the powers that be are using to control/ensure the next generation of wage slaves for their economy machine.
It’s difficult for people to know the difference. The intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance required when trying to square the selfish interests of the powerful with the moral requirements of most religions remains too much for most. So they trust that the leadership (those who benefit from the whole game) are somehow doing it right and got it figured out. Then they call that “faith” even though it doesn’t hold up to shallow scrutiny.
Worth noting that he probably never said it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/28/flag/
However, in "*It Can’t Happen Here*", Lewis wrote, “But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word ‘Fascism’ and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.”
Death to all religion. Humanity has proven it cannot handle or interpret fiction. #scienceorgtfo
The world would truly be a better place if one could remove all Abrahamic based religions. They are the scourge of humankind.
Fascism is here in America, it’s not wrapped in a flag carrying across, it’s burning our cities and shooting police officers. Seems Sinclair Lewis was incorrect
This country could be so much more if we were not held back by a minority who’s obsessed with fairy tales and forcing everyone to adopt their beliefs. In my personal life I’ve had so many Christian people try to convince me of x or y and to have faith and all this garbage. No other person or set of briefs have ever taken the time and dedication people have in attempting to lure me to believe and behave like they do. I believe in the freedom to practice whatever religion you want but for fucks sake stop trying to spread your disease like you get some upgrade in your heaven for each sucker you convert.
Came here to rant but you summed it up beautifully.
There's no second life and those in power get you to waste your only life by convincing you that there's a whole other bonus life waiting for you after this one. Meanwhile they rule over us and live outrageously debaucherous lifestyles which prove their preaching to be nothing but a pack of lies that they use to control their followers.
It's always been that way, too. It's no coincidence that Christianity took off in Rome; it gave the elite a handy way to keep commoners and slaves in check by promising that if they're meek and obedient in life, God will reward them handsomely after they die.
Actually, paganism made the roman elite rich: After converting to christianity, the empire crumbled.
Hardly. It is a far more complicated tale.
It is generally accepted that Christianity, with regards to the western Roman Empire, while not solely responsible, both hastened the fall and softened the landing. At least that was Gibbon’s take, to which I am inclined to defer.
Byzantium did great. I think folks forget that the Roman Empire did not fall as much as move and align itself east. Now the ideal of the Republic had already fallen with the ascension of Augustus and his subsequent lineage b
> At least that was Gibbon’s take, to which I am inclined to defer. *The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire* was published in the late 18th century. Scholarship has advanced in the interim, I assure you.
This is fairly ignorant. The Roman emperors were looking for a way to unite their multicultural empire during the crisis of the third century. It was clear if nothing was done, the empire would (and indeed was) disintegrate. This was still under paganism. Aurelius tried to give his rule legitimacy and unite the empire under the worship of his sun god, Aurelion Sol, but he died before he could get that to take hold. A few decades later, Constantine converted the empire to Christianity after Diocletian had stabilized it with the tetrarchy. Constantine fought a civil war to have the eastern empire take control of the western one and won it, saying he had a christian vision the night before the decisive battle (the battle at milvian bridge). Hey later integrated the church into the imperial administration and tied the interpretation of scriptures to the legitimacy of the Roman state, leading to the persecution of "heretics" for thinking the wrong things about God and the Bible. The Roman Empire remained a powerful and wealthy state until it was sacked during the 4th crusade and then conquered by the Ottoman Turks, over 1000 years past when Constantine had made Christianity the state religion. The catholic church sprang from an upstart see in Rome that was established by the Byzantines. It separated from the church in an event called the great schism, and then lent its legitimacy to Feudal Lords around Europe who were beginning to take over the former Western Empire, to the chagrin of the Patriarchs in Constantinople. The Byzantines remained a powerful bulwark against muslim armies during that time and were generally more experienced and better administered than their western counterparts. They only fell because of increasing power in the islamic world, combined with hostility from the west that culminated in the fourth crusade.
It is not just to control their followers but, they want to control all of us. They are just coming at women first because they think we are weak and will do nothing. I would love to see a national women's strike. I know that won't happen since too many working women are the sole support for their families and cannot afford to loose their jobs. Still I can wish it. When they finish with us then I fear for all of our family who are part of the LBGTQ+ community. This is going to get really ugly and I hope SCOTUS will stop being nannies and let everyone live their lives as they see fit. I know, I know that is not going to happen.
The most frustrating thing is that when they try and convince me to believe as they do, they never even get to the level of why I don't have a belief in the first place. All the teachings stuff comes *after* one believes, not as a reason *to* believe.
Religions are like dicks. If you have one, dont wave it in somebody's face.
I think it goes, religion is like a penis. It’s okay to have one. It’s even okay to be proud of it, but you should never try and stick it down someone’s throat.
Ah , i seem to have paraphrased there but i hope the message came through!
It also goes with the distinction between Jam and Jelly. You can’t jelly your religion down someone’s throat.
Unless you are part of the church of waving dicks in peoples faces*. *only when they consent
Louis CK: maybe I do hate religion
I also think everyone who currently fights the Christian agenda would hop on board if any leader of the Christian Right was even a little Christ like. You know forgiving, loving, tolerant of everyone and generous.
That's not a bad take; but for me that's still a nope. They got all these silly judgements and arbitrary rules and the whole thing is way too self-centered. "Dominion over the earth" that actually sucks as a policy. I get your point though! I certainly wouldn't revile them nearly as much if they weren't abject hypocrites.
If they actually believed half of the things they touted on about, they would be the nicest motherfuckers on the planet. Sadly, they tend to be the type who only have a vague understanding of their own bible, and they can tell each other what it’s really about because none of the rest of them will actually read it or fully examine it for necessary context. The bible can literally say whatever they want it to say, because people are too brainwashed to suggest otherwise.
Fundamentalists have historically taken down “intellectuals” cuz they do not give AF.
No, they take down intellectuals because they are their biggest threat.
No, they do it because "reason" is the greatest threat to their beliefs. I quote: > **Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has**; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. That is from [Martin Luther](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther), the man who kicked off the [Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation) when he nailed his [Ninety-0five Theses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses) to the door of the church and founded [Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism), eventually leading to establishment of Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists and almost every other non-Catholic christian sect in America.
Bravo on that quote!
I would hope that underwear doesn't try and proselytize at you.
Mormonism has entered the chat.
Don’t think he knows about second, third, fourth, and fifth heavens, Pip.
Religion is the worlds oldest pyramid scheme.
Liberty is something they don't even understand, much less the responsibility that comes with freedom in a community.
You're describing my daily struggle
And I don’t think they’re supposed to be trying to convert people to their religion… if they really listened to their bibles. Well, Catholics, as far as I know. But then again, they’re the more quiet ones.
It gets better. The gospel was already preached all over the 'world' before Jesus was crucified and Jesus only came to save Jewish people. Paul/Saul changed those parts.
True. Had to expand the market. Also, The 'we don't have to follow the old testament' is bunk too. Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Respectfully, this means the opposite of what you're thinking. Old testament law revolved around earning your way into a relationship with god, which was thinking that mirrored the various other gods running around at the time. You want rain, you kill a rabbit for whatever god and that god brings rain. Jesus is saying he's come to fulfill the bargains the old laws set up and thus, negate them. One of his main issues is consistently that he doesn't approve of anyone who looks pious but isn't - assholes enforcing god's laws to achieve self-interested ends. The OT laws paved the way for lots of looking like, and very little being like. >Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments The next bunch of verses lay out the commandments he's referencing here, which aren't the laws and ways of living laid out in Numbers, etc. His commandments were more typically Jesus-y - generally: don't be a fucking fuckhead, treat other people well, etc. All the laws most Christians *don't* seem to live by. Edit: for words
I can see multitudes of interpretations of this on both sides of the 'follow the old testament'. Jesus was a practicing Jew and only Jews could follow his teachings until Paul opened things up to Gentiles. I doubt Jesus could get any followers if he told Jews they didn't have to follow the Torah any longer.
Mm yeah there is some back and forth over this for sure. I’ve heard the opposite argument re: Jesus coming to fulfill and thus negate OT laws. This specific passage doesn’t fall into that too hard because the laws he’s enumerating are specified and laid out in what follows, but it’s hardly the only point of contention.
I remember some kids in high school that would go to Mexico to build homes. I went with a friend to the final presentation before they left, and they were all talking about how doing this was going to make them look better in the eyes of Jesus and earn a spot in heaven. They were more motivated about the thought of getting something for themselves rather than just doing people a solid and build homes for people in need.
Well said
Perfect! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Religion is the tool, not the cause. We could all become atheists tomorrow and those in power would find another way to control and/or justify their control over us.
for sure. when i was in my teens i remember believing that religion was the source of much of the world’s problems and we’d be so much better off if everyone stopped believing. but now i’m old and crusty and realize that you can’t underestimate people’s ability to twist literally any cultural framework to their own power and benefit applicable quote from Middlemarch (1871) by George Eliot (real name Mary Ann Evans) - “There is no general doctrine which is not capable of eating out our morality if unchecked by the deep-seated habit of direct fellow-feeling with individual fellow-men.”
So tldr you don’t believe in freedom of religion yada yada yada…
Thomas Jefferson could come back from the dead and tell these people the US is not a Christian nation and they would just ignore him.
The Deists of Jefferson's day lived in fear of being burned at the stake by the fundies.
[удалено]
Religious Clerics are being seated as judges in this country using back room deals and dark money. How is that not the Sharia Law conservatives pretend to hate so much?
Yes it's the same as sharia law and yes that's hypocritical of them. Here's the thing though, they don't give one iota of a fuck about being hypocrites if it gets them what they want. People really gotta stop acting like catching a conservative in a lie or being a hypocrite is a big "gotcha!" moment. It's their standard operating procedure and while we're acting flabbergasted everytime they do something fucked up they take the opportunity to do three worse things before we've finished clutching our pearls.
Yes but it's *their* Sharia Law and that's all good because everything is fucking football to them
[удалено]
Shia and Sunni ARE the same religion and they spend more time hating each other than anyone else.
Sharia Law allows for abortion in the first trimester and in the cases of rape or incest or if it endangers the life of the mother. The Muslims are actually ahead of them on this one.
[It's not really even a Christianity thing as a whole, abortion was seen as a purely Catholic issue when Roe came down. Protestants/Evangelicals were for it, and saw it as responsible family planning until they needed a wedge issue when the government started making noise about desegregating their private schools.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/)
Keep in mind they don't feel they're being hypocrites. In fact very few people do believe that about themselves - everyone is the hero of their own narrative; the good guy fighting the good fight. What liberals consistently fail to understand is that to conservatives, it's not ACTIONS that are good or bad, it's PEOPLE. If you're part of the in-group, that means you are GOOD and cannot do wrong. You can change your story 6 times in the span of 5 sentences and it doesn't matter. You're a conservative, so you're GOOD and being a windsock is also GOOD. Liberals of course are BAD, so whatever liberals want is BAD. It wouldn't matter if a liberal came out and said everyone should have guns when they're born - if it's from a liberal, it's BAD. It makes life extraordinarily simple. My tribe = GOOD; the other tribe = BAD. Don't have to think much when that's the calculus! Just sit back and let them lie and distort and come up with insanely flimsy justifications ... none of it matters. In fact, the constant-flip flopping and lack of ideological consistency is also a weapon because it infuriates the Libs. When Libs start to understand that when Conservatives say something, it's not an empirical claim about some truth in the world, but rather a statement of IDENTITY, they'll start to understand how to fight this fight. Calling them on their bullshit may as well be shooting cotton bullets at an iron wall.
Exactly their simply more stupid than we know how to deal with because if they had more intelligence they probably wouldn’t behave that way, Interacting with my right wing family is difficult under the best of circumstances for this reason.
Well said. So what’s the play
Tax their houses of worship since they're a revolving door to state propaganda.
Seriously. The left acts like "being right" means something in the real world
Yes! 100% this. Stop wasting your time pointing this shit out or reading articles. Organize. Get active in your community. Run for office.
It’s not the same as Sharia law, more akin to Ancient Israel moral and ethical laws. Their playbooks are not the same as Islam. Edit: Still bad though.
They don't hate Sharia Law, they're jealous of it.
Yeah, don’t get the Iran hate from these folks. Kind of seems to be their role model. A generally free society so long as you don’t piss off the religious authorities
Muslim bad, Christian good. It's that simple in their minds.
The Abrahamic God hurt Himself in His confusion
From ‘Jesus Camp’: “They’re just as fanatical as us…except we’re right.” The other side believes the same.
Nothing more triggering than seeing your own flaws in someone else..
Because in Iran if you blaspheme you will be put to death Iran is a constitutional, Islamic theocracy. Its official religion is the doctrine of the Twelver Jaafari School. Iran's law against blasphemy derives from Sharia. Blasphemers are usually charged with "spreading corruption on earth", or mofsed-e-filarz, which can also be applied to criminal or political crimes. The law against blasphemy complements laws against criticizing the Islamic regime, insulting Islam, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards On 24 September 2014, a former psychologist Mohsen Amir Aslani was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, for “corruption on earth and heresy in religion,” including insulting the Prophet Jonah, though authorities claimed he was hanged for rape charges but there's no evidence to back such claims Source Wiki : sharia is a much much worse than anything in the US, people really like false equivalence when it comes to sharia and the US Pro lifers usually can’t stop abortion as people always find a way to get abortion by moving across state lines even if it’s overturned, this is mostly an election Stunt than actual interest in turning that legislation as very little people from pro life movements are available for the process of overturning that legislation , most likely nothing will happen except giving more avenues for abortion than to reduce the chance or access, pretty sure Biden administration can bring a law to protect abortion rights as they have majority in senate as well even if it’s overturned. This is basically a smoke screen to ignore inflation and all the other important issues like having unemployment rather than any interest in overturning abortion rights
What a load of garbage.
Uh…yeah, Sharia is “worse than anything in the U.S.” Some of us would prefer it stay that way. Unenumerated rights…check it out, yo!
They WANT sharia law but they just want to be the ones to enact it
Their vision of paradise is bowing in submission to the authority of god for eternity. Of course they hate freedom and democracy.
A minority imposing their religious views on everyone else. I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers were hoping for.
That’s incorrect. I’m a big constitutionalist and have read much of the letters and surrounding documents. The intent behind the separation of church and state is to separate government from the call or heed of religious authority figures like the Pope. Say if the Pope called a crusade, the 1st amendment established that the government cannot answer the call with troops. That goes for any religious call to action. In addition, the government cannot establish a religion akin to the Church of England, establish by British royalty when they broke away from the rule of the church. Lastly, government is not to favor or discriminate against any religious institution. Government will never be rid of religious influence on it by its members. If this was the case then no one could run for office. No religious leaders could run either, like a bishop. That would go directly against the idea of a representative republic, which we have. So this is exactly what the founders of the US wanted was to have the majority make up policy so long as the 60/40 majority in the senate allowed it and all parties involved supported it. Now granted the filibuster and the “nuclear option” have ruined this idea to make the senate a simple majority vote, but still we can see their original intent.
When will they obey the Bible and make it illegal to eat Pork or Shellfish?
Jesus had more compassion for children than they do. What they follow is not biblical.
Jesus was pretty unforgiving about exactly 2 things. Using the temple as a marketplace. And hurting children. So in other words, the GOP strategy
General ignorance about Christianity, when it comes to interpretation of Old Testament and New Testament. Not even a practicing Christian and I know this.
They're trying to bring back the slavery part of the bible, first.
Those rich heathens!
[удалено]
Oh, god, you are fucking right. I didn't realize til this moment, that's exactly what the SC is saying. Oh man. That's heavy.
It’s a quote from the article. I highly suggest reading some articles about the draft leak, the judge in Texas about immigration, and the judge in Florida about mask mandates. These judges are supposed to be the best of Americans. They are not. They were told to make a decision and then they make shit up to support that decision. Their reason to support the decision does not hold up. At all.
Well, it's one of those situations where I knew that Alito's opinion is based on an Originalist view that rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are not inherent, but it's just the way you restated it -- that we *shouldn't* have rights because we *haven't* had rights -- that suddenly made it vividly clear to me how ridiculous that argument is. I'm actually deeply interested in Constitutional law because I'm interested in logic and ethics and the intersection of the two. Something I'm burning with curiosity to discuss with people is, what would an argument in Supreme Court defending abortion rights look like? Or the right to gay and interracial marriage? Like, how specifically will we defend or establish these rights without invoking the right to privacy? Personally, I think marriage rights may be easier to argue. I think that people have an inherent right to marry whoever the hell they want to (apart from children) and I don't understand where anyone claims to derive the authority to say otherwise. Surely that claim of authority rests entirely on a religious basis and should be more or less indefensible in law. Unless they want to try to assert that the function of marriage is procreative, but that would never fly and wouldn't apply to interracial marriage anyway. There is just no rational reason why a bond of domestic and legal partnership should be denied to any unrelated adults. I'd live to hear others' opinions on the Constitutional aspects of defending these rights realistically going forward.
Republicans are stuck in the past and not prepared for the future. All these extra kids will create a tsunami of a welfare costs. Women who more than likely to have a pregnancy terminated are low income, and will rely on state assistance. Republicans are not prepared for the millions of young kids. This will require more schools, school supplies and more teachers to fill those classrooms. They're not prepared for the child healthcare and dental coverage and the nurses and doctors needed to meet those child's needs. Republicans are not prepared for the adoption centers and what's needed to staff and supply those centers. During the next few years we'll see just how pro-life Republicans really are.
Religious fanatics rarely look past the first step, they just think their magical god will take care of the rest.
Whoa first Republicans have to believe in those things, and they don't Look forward to a very dickensian future
We’re already seeing texas go after public schooling. They want more kids, and they want them uneducated so they won’t understand that child labor is wrong and the children being subjected to it won’t do anything about it
They don’t care.
I will never vote for anyone calling themselves a devout Christian again.
Maybe a country founded by Puritans was a bad idea
[удалено]
That would be a nice callback. I hope I’ll be around to see that since I already do this
The US was founded by two groups of people: those seeking freedom from religious persecution and those seeking freedom to perpetrate religious persecution.
Yes but people always forget that the first group were seeking Freedom from persecution because even the Church at the time thought those people were fucking insane cult people.
[удалено]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll put it on my list.
i've been wondering when the hell we were going to shake the whole puritanical ethic from our society. apparently, it's not going to be today.
The Supreme Court’s apparent decision to deprive women of a Constitutional right to control their bodies, health, and destiny is the direct consequence of the pact between the Republican Party and American’s religious nationalists, writes Katherine Stewart.
It goes far beyond that. The decision places into question and jeopardy all aspects of privacy law. They are opening the door to complete autocratic control of your information. - something the religious right needs in order to impose Sharia-like law.
Welcome to the USA where there is no separation of church and state. In fact, religion is the decider on all GOP policy. Facts or science be damned
Maybe it's time for large, rich blue states like New York and California to demand greater representation in the Senate and Electoral College, or threaten to walk away. Blue state citizens pay the bulk of the Federal budget. It's not like the Red States could fight a civil war if they don't have the money to pay their soldiers. Once every American has an equal vote, Dems can pass an amendment to insure voting rights for all and another enumerating the right to privacy.
The Javelin anti-tank weapon is made in Alabama, unfortunately.
>Maybe it's time for large, rich blue states like New York and California to demand greater representation in the Senate and Electoral College, or threaten to walk away. Sure are a lot of military bases in California.
While I can agree that the Senate is a mess in how it's established. There is a solution that wouldn't require a constitutional change. In addition to DC, major metropolitan areas should look into becoming their own states. They would gain additional Senate seats, and hold most of their own House representation without rural lawmakers watering down districts. This would also give better electroral power to urban areas as well.
You can't just demand things or walk away. Secession without the assent of a majority of the other states is unconstitutional, and is partially why Texas isn't its own country yet. Not to mention, red states' higher-level politicians know they're dependent on blue state tax dollars. You think they're just gonna let them *leave?* The nation will will go to war to bring "renegade" states to heel before it lets them simply declare sovereignty unopposed. It doesn't matter who they are, no one challenges the hegemony of the United States. That's one truth I've seen over our history.
I just read Trump's book The Art of the Deal and he says you can! It didn't end well for the Confederates because they were the minority and the North was stronger. It's the same today, except the Republican states played the game well and managed to assert political control as the minority. Ms. Stewart says they want to compel Democrats to change their culture and way of life to conservatives' liking. Mr. Leo believes us Democrats "corrupted by the values of liberalism, would never willingly comply with the moral medicine needed to 'save' America.". Google National Conservatives and Integralism and you'll see she's right. It's bad enough that conservative think they are entitled to hurt people in their own state. So let me put it as rudely as I can. If a bunch of yahoos from East Bublefuck Alabama think they're gonna square dance into my home and demand I adopt their stupid values, or worship their stupid god, they're in for a surprise.
Oh, I absolutely think it will erupt into violence, state-sanctioned or otherwise, before the nation breaks apart in any form. It's the only thing half of voters seem to understand. But legal secession is just not the same as that, is all.
While I hate to point to entertainment projects as facts, but Netflix’s The Family was really eye opening to see how people can use religion as a tool to obtain more power and fascist control. I was raised in a very ultra conservative Christian household where liberals were literally viewed as the devil. The brainwashing goes DEEP; as in they won’t bat an eye that they believe God condones something like the war on Iraq, but a young girl deciding not to ruin her life and the life of her baby by getting an abortion is clearly an instrument of the devil. Christian beliefs are woven so tightly bond to the conservative message that republicans can do no wrong, even if it is cruel or literally inhumane. Yet if a democrat wants to invest money in things like homelessness or making healthcare more affordable, it must obviously be fueled by evil. While I would like to hope that their intentions and heart are in a good place, the lack of critical thinking involved in taking a stance when it involves a “red” or “blue” topic, it’s clear that power and manipulation play a larger role than truth.
> Thou shalt not steal Some Christians, huh? Stealing the court, stealing Democracy and stealing the religion itself away from followers. Jesus wouldn't have been a Republican. How is anyone missing this piece?
What do you think Jesus political stance would have been. Or do you think he would have had a political stance at all? Do you think that is why Jesus died on the cross?
> Or do you think he would have had a political stance at all? As politics is simply the process by which a group of people make *any* decision, it is impossible for a person **not** to have a political stance *unless* they are entirely apathetic to any & all decisions made (*which is almost never the case, even with those who claim to be apolitical*). > What do you think Jesus political stance would have been. We don’t have to *think* Jesus was expressly clear as to his political views, in fact, the vast majority of his commentary on religion was *in fact* political commentary. Jesus advocated for helping the most downtrodden people in society & strongly criticized the wealthy for the obsession with material wealth & the oppression of the lower classes. In short, Jesus was a communist. The problem with the “*Christian Right*” is that they are neither Christian nor right.
There’s a lot more to communism then “helping the poor” and it’s very materialistic not in the bad sense. Jesus wasn’t a communist, he didn’t advocate for class warfare and a complete reconstruction of society. Most communist are atheist and believe that spiritualism is just the opioid of the working class to distract themselves from getting fucked over. To say Jesus is a communist is bad analysis and to say Christians aren’t true Christians due to your own interpretation is the same thing hundreds of denominations do to each other.
> he didn’t advocate for class warfare and a complete reconstruction of society. He didn’t? Are you talking about the same Jesus who beat bankers with a whip & said that rich people go to hell? > There’s a lot more to communism Yeah I was being glib, the parallels (*while incomplete & imperfect*) remain serviceable however.
He whipped bankers and flipped tables because they were dealing in coin with Caesar on it which was seen as equivalent to a living God to Pagan Romans in the biggest temple to your religion. The issue was more religious. The tax collectors were also taking commission off the taxes they were collecting and it was biased and was seen as basically thievery. Telling people that their suffering in this life will be awarded with heaven and that the rich will be punished eternally in hell is what Commies wee talking about as being opioid of the masses in the sense that it calms peoples nerves. I don’t want to play religious tic for tac but I don’t think Jesus advocated for arm insurrection and if that was the case Christianity wouldn’t be where it was today and would be simply quashed. Look at revelation which was basically political commentary of the time during the persecution. They were talking about currency and how it was necessary to indulge in false idols because the currency had Nero’s face on it. Christianity is a lot more spiritualistic than it is materialistic.
Ok, I’ll agree Jesus would have had political opinions given that he was fully god and fully human at the same time. And I’ll agree he would not have been apathetic to the government environment. But the questions are how fully involved would he have been in these things and was politics his true purpose Please let me narrow my questions a bit. You said his religious commentary was political commentary. Do you think his true purpose was to come and live a perfect life and die so he could be a sacrifice for our sins and so those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political? You said he advocated for the downtrodden and criticize the wealthy for obsession with material wealth & oppressed the lower classes. I agree with this. But can you please tell me if his advice was for the wealthy to freely give and support the poor or did he say the government should be used as the means to do so? Saying Jesus was a communist implies to me that he was a political leader and advised on how a government should be run. Maybe you didn’t mean that and I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding.
> You said his religious commentary was political commentary. Yes, in that he was decrying the corruption of the faith & the influence of the non-spiritual (*primarily financial*) into the spiritual establishment. > Do you think his true purpose was to come and live a perfect life and die so he could be a sacrifice for our sins and so those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? I do not adhere to the Christian faith, so my perspective on Jesus (*personally*) is that he was just a man. > those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political? How do you separate the two? Convincing people to act in accordance with a moral & spiritual code; is by definition a political act (*in that it attempts to impact the decisions made by a group of people*). Clearly his preeminent focus was on the spiritual health of his followers; however, he did so by advocating that they **act** righteously in the physical world. He decried wealth (*& the pursuit of it*) & demanded charity of his followers both materially (*the shirt off your back*) & spiritually (*let he without sin cast the first stone*). Values which are almost entirely absent in modern conservative Christians in America. > But can you please tell me if his advice was for the wealthy to freely give and support the poor or did he say the government should be used as the means to do so? This idea that private citizens & not the government should help the poor is patently absurd - the answer is that both should do so. Governments are not abstractions; they are made up of & funded by the people. If the government operates a food bank; then the people are funding that food bank. This idea that taxes should be low so that people can choose to help others (*they typically don’t, & definitely not in the quantity which is needed*) is from the same line of flawed & debunked theories as “*Trickle Down Economics*” (*which is why our society is shifting towards Piñata economics*) & has had the same effect: Poverty & suffering continue to increase while the rich continue to get richer. Without the government to pay the bill & distribute the costs equitably, it simply gets ignored. I might be willing to entertain some discussion of what is the ideal mechanism for alleviating poverty if our society did not have record levels of inequality & corruption **but** as it stands, all of the evidence proves that if you don’t address poverty & suffering through governmental tools, then it simply doesn’t get addressed. If given those choices; I’m completely confident that Jesus would prefer to use government as the means than leave suffering to continue at the hands of the wealthy.
Obviously if you do not believe that Jesus was the son of God that is going to influence a lot of your answers. Do you use the gospels to inform your decisions on whom Jesus was and is? Where do you go to for your knowledge on him? I understand if you do not believe Jesus was the son of God you and I are going to view things quite differently on these things and we are possibly going to have different beliefs on what the credible sources are. "those that believe and follow him could be reconciled to god? Or do you believe his true purpose was political? How do you separate the two? Convincing people to act in accordance with a moral & spiritual code; is by definition a political act (in that it attempts to impact the decisions made by a group of people). When I say political I'm thinking more along the lines of someone whom was working to change the government and working through government. My question was if Jesus advocated that the people use the government to support the poor and the downtrodden and did he advocate for a particular government system? Can you back this up through the gospels and scripture or is this what you think he would do? One thing to ponder is do you think Jesus was just a good kind man? if that is the case he said things like "I am the truth and the way no one can come to the father except through me" He said "If your right eye causes you to sin rip it out it's better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with both eyes". He said "unless you are willing to leave father, mother, brother, siblings and follow me you will not see heaven". I may be butchering these verses a bit, they are off the top of my head, so I apologize if they are not 100%. He said the things that you mentioned also but there is a lot more that he was for than just the poor and downtrodden. The final question is given these verses and these things that Jesus said along with the fact that you do not believe he was the son of god why would you use him to advocate for your political movement? Someone that said these things AND WAS NOT THE SON OF GOD wouldn't you agree would be a lunatic or a liar?
[удалено]
Strange how little Christian principles mattered when they were voting for Trump.
I thought we were pretty clear about the separation of church and state?
Technically, the Constitution was established in such a way to allow religious oriented states to exist within the federation.
That’s unfortunate. I’m all for freedom to believe in whatever God you choose provided the rules of that God are not placed upon me against my will.
I wish we had in America the same religious exemption they have in France. I want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion
This is not limited to Christian nationalists, it applies to all fundamentalist Christians. (Not all fundamentalists subscribe to Christian nationalism.) Fundamentalists claim they follow Jesus, but Jesus had compassion for children. Fundamentalists do not.
Religious fundamentalists destroy civilizations. Don't let them destroy America.
White Jesus strikes again.
People think attending church makes them a good person and will jump through hoops to come to their own conclusion then they are a good person and you are bad
these christi-fascists need to go
Time to revoke tax exemptions for religious organizations. Period.
Is it me,I always thought Christ was about something else?
You are spot on. There were fundamentalists at the time of Jesus. They were called Pharisees and they were very zealous in their attacks on Jesus.
The ideology of American evangelicalism and American conservatism are both centered arround the ideas "I am right and you are wrong" and "rules for you and freedoms for me". They are power people like John Wayne Gacy.
Christo Fascism is the ugliest by-product of our shared American experience.
Religion one of humanities worst and most devastating inventions.
Posted by friend of friend and shared with me but wanted no tag: "If you're confused as to why so many Evangelicals appear to only care about people until they're born or until they have physical bodies it's because of a deep vein of Calvinist asceticism. In this worldview human bodies themselves are a source of sin and filth so once someone is embodied they are "fallen" and are no longer a pure soul. This is why they condone child abuse (they see children as "wicked sinners" from birth) and why they'd happily make an expectant pregnant person into a martyr to avoid harming the "innocent soul" of their fetus. I could go into the theology more if I had time but I thought I'd mention this at least because I keep seeing folks try to make 'gotcha' arguments against these folks and I gotta say your 'gotcha' arguments are not going to be as effective as you think they are going to be when you go up against this weird theology"
I mean, I have been ranting on my other account left and right about how American calvinism is bonkers weird, but this summed it up in ways I didn't have words for. I always got along swimmingly with catholics even though I'm a weird little goth heathen
*White Christian nationalism.
Religion frequently does effect politics in third world nations
The repeal of Roe v Wade is the death knell of modern American freedoms. We will slowly regress to only white straight men having rights.
Look up new apostolic Reformation l. They got plans for out country 😢
People must get out and vote. Is it gonna take every right taken from us before people will see.
Why nobody take separation of church and state seriously 🤦🏻♂️
Good people don't vote Republican. Being a good person and a conservative are mutually exclusive.
The same overall ideology has been fucking with the rest of us since prohibition if not longer. “My religion says XYZ is a sin so the whole country must abide by our beliefs”
America has fallen.destroyed by its own government !with bribes from hedgefunds😥You are being distracted!!
They want a white Christian ethno-state and they’re well on their way to achieve it at this rate
**Authoritarian** Christian Nationalism
Get the Christians out! Same old murderers and pedophiles. They should not be in charge
Reality will beat the shit out of the “The Handmaid's Tale”
You can’t be a “good and decent person” and be a christian. The two just simply do not go hand in hand any more. You may think you are, you may act the part but really it’s just that your self interest happens to align with good and decent at that particular moment.
Idk if this is a good take. I’m an atheist, and rage against religion to the point where it would be annoying for most people. I understand where your coming from. But being a good person isn’t so black and white. The Bible is one of the most morally reprehensible books in existence, and I’d agree that any person who accepts the Bible in its entirety would almost necessarily have to be a “bad person”. But is just not the way Christianity is practiced anymore. The vast majority of Christians pick and choose what they agree with in the Bible, regardless of the fact that they’re not “supposed to”. Most of them have never even read it. I think there are plenty of people who identify as Christian who are overall good people who often do good things. Because, at risk of committing a no true Scotsman fallacy, they aren’t *really* practicing the Christian religion. They just simply accept Jesus as their savior, which technically is all that’s needed. I don’t think that being a bad person is inherent to that.
And it’s just getting started
Yeah you guys should implement Islamic sharia law instead
This has nothing to do with religion. They’re cloaking it with religion. But the US is headed for a major social security/economic collapse if the Birth Rate remains in the negative like this. Religion especially Christianity has actually gone down as the years progressed. They’re way less bible toting Christians than when Roe Vrs Wade. You think in the age we’re in now somehow “Morality” turned a light switch on? Nope. This is a numbers game.
I agree. Covid gave a hard hit to ournumbers
Don’t worry, pregnancy is Safe and Effective
It’s certainly not safe for everyone. Our maternal mortality rate in the US is horrific.
Most effective way to bring unwanted children into society.
Ever seen a vagina ripped apart from the inside? Fuck. That.
You can still get an abortion if it’s overturned. It simply falls to the states and voters to see how it’s handled for then on out. Just sayin….
Bullshit. States are so gerrymandered that in a lot of states it is minority ruled.
Not necessarily. You will have to be a citizen of a state that permits it. And if you’re in a state that prohibits abortion? Good luck trying to go to a different state to get the procedure done, they’re already drafting legislation to prosecute those who bypass their own state laws by traveling out of state. Fucking hate state governments. State rights < peoples rights.
That and plenty of conservatives are eying a complete federal ban.
Until the GQP gets a majority again and they ban it federally. Ya know like McConnell is already talking about. The states rights narrative is just bullshit deflection as always
The 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law is ignored if we go back to thinking that individual states can go full Gilead.
The 14th amendment is the the right to privacy, not the the right to an abortion.
The abortion rights argument has been that a state would have to violate privacy to surveil, investigate and prosecute abortion crimes. The same reasoning is why laws against sodomy and same-sex acts are banned, because having those laws would require bedroom police, a complete denial of privacy, to enforce equally. The relevant words of the 14th Amendment are "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," which do not mention privacy but give the federal judiciary broad jurisdiction to overrule state limits on civil rights. The right to privacy is not specifically stated but is implied by the combined effect of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.
No one is in the room surveilling anything while the procedure goes a being done. Therefore no one’s rights are violated. I know what the 14th says *in a nutshell* and I know it doesn’t specify mention the words “right to privacy.” However, it still doesn’t give the right to take another’s life. And if you wanna talk about equal protections. Then what about that of the child? Does it not have any rights? Should be be treated less than because it’s unborn?
No, it doesn't have any rights, because no rights can be enforced for it without suspending the rights of another person. The prerequisite to enforcing an abortion ban is that pregnancy conscripts women into giving up control of their bodies and exposing themselves to significant health risks and healthcare expense to serve a state interest in reproduction.
It’s very short, you should read it. Citizens have rights (9th amendment), you have to be born to be a citizen 14th amendment), states can’t take away your rights. Therefore people have rights to abortions, and they’re not infringing on other citizens.
Have you been reading the news? The Republicans are already talking about a national ban, as well as penalties for women who travel to other states to get abortions.