- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the USA today . . .

#21

Every time we get distracted by the latest fearful outcry, perhaps (as in meditation) we can return again to a single, simple idea:

How did you like the last four years -- enough transparency, integrity, fairness and economic efficiency for you?

We can each have a different opinion about that, certainly: but perhaps we should refresh our recollection from time to time, before deciding whether to get back to hand wringing and doom saying.

By the way, I strongly support freedom of and even from religion, even though I'm not at all an atheist.

But the First Amendment and its jurisprudence seem to remain alive and well in the United States. And the title of this thread included the words "in the USA today."

But within the United States I'm truly not afraid somebody's going to force me to attend church -- I'm slightly more worried about being hit with a Molotov cocktail or being caught in a violent protest, perhaps breaking windows or burning down neighborhoods, and designed to tell others what they must or must not think or say, or whom they must or must not support.

Yet, I haven't seen too many Christians protesting violently in the United States. Although I wasn't there, or anywhere near there, I suppose some of the Jan. 6 protestors who got violent may have been Christians, but I don't remember any of them being accused in the press of being violent "for Christianity." I don't support such foolish, unlawful violence for ANY reason, but I don't really suspect their perceived, subjective beef had anything to do with religion.

In the recent past, it's been reported that some dedicated, peaceful Christians HAVE held up some signs, at times, claiming (in essence) that a fetus is a human being. Fortunately, reading that wouldn't scare me much, even though I thought Roe v. Wade presented a reasonable compromise between individual freedom and humanity.

Others may feel differently.

Every time we get distracted by the latest fearful outcry, perhaps (as in meditation) we can return again to a single, simple idea: How did you like the last four years -- enough transparency, integrity, fairness and economic efficiency for you? We can each have a different opinion about that, certainly: but perhaps we should refresh our recollection from time to time, before deciding whether to get back to hand wringing and doom saying. By the way, I strongly support freedom of and even from religion, even though I'm not at all an atheist. But the First Amendment and its jurisprudence seem to remain alive and well in the United States. And the title of this thread included the words "in the USA today." But within the United States I'm truly not afraid somebody's going to force me to attend church -- I'm slightly more worried about being hit with a Molotov cocktail or being caught in a violent protest, perhaps breaking windows or burning down neighborhoods, and designed to tell others what they must or must not think or say, or whom they must or must not support. Yet, I haven't seen too many Christians protesting violently in the United States. Although I wasn't there, or anywhere near there, I suppose some of the Jan. 6 protestors who got violent may have been Christians, but I don't remember any of them being accused in the press of being violent "for Christianity." I don't support such foolish, unlawful violence for ANY reason, but I don't really suspect their perceived, subjective beef had anything to do with religion. In the recent past, it's been reported that some dedicated, peaceful Christians HAVE held up some signs, at times, claiming (in essence) that a fetus is a human being. Fortunately, reading that wouldn't scare me much, even though I thought Roe v. Wade presented a reasonable compromise between individual freedom and humanity. Others may feel differently.
#23

What in particular about them, @greatJaromie ? Have I missed some important news story that you wish to address in the context of my preceding post?

Although I am not gay, I have some very longstanding gay friends, whom I both respect and value. Indeed, I was happy to attend the excellent wedding of two of them. So, I'd certainly never attend a protest by, or even agree with, any who were looking askance upon that friendship or upon those friends or upon their marriage. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My own perception of religion -- and I am decidedly not an atheist -- makes me view other people who observe the law and who go peacefully and honorably about their lives as .... people, without regard to their immutable characteristics or lawful preferences. Good people don't all look, act or think identically.

I generally support the lawful and peaceful exercise of free expression (subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions), even by people with whom I wildly disagree! I think that American First Amendment jurisprudence is generally very wise and well crafted!

I, of course, do NOT personally support violent or otherwise unlawful (or even unfair) behavior, if any there be. There is no contradiction in that.

What in particular about them, @greatJaromie ? Have I missed some important news story that you wish to address in the context of my preceding post? Although I am not gay, I have some very longstanding gay friends, whom I both respect and value. Indeed, I was happy to attend the excellent wedding of two of them. So, I'd certainly never attend a protest by, or even agree with, any who were looking askance upon that friendship or upon those friends or upon their marriage. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure what you're getting at. My own perception of religion -- and I am decidedly not an atheist -- makes me view other people who observe the law and who go peacefully and honorably about their lives as .... people, without regard to their immutable characteristics or lawful preferences. Good people don't all look, act or think identically. I generally support the lawful and peaceful exercise of free expression (subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions), even by people with whom I wildly disagree! I think that American First Amendment jurisprudence is generally very wise and well crafted! I, of course, do NOT personally support violent or otherwise unlawful (or even unfair) behavior, if any there be. There is no contradiction in that.
#24

@Noflaps
Theres nothing peaceful about purposely hateful and inciteful speech. Of course, we all know they aren't acting out of any ideal - but incite violence and have lawyers waiting on the spot so that they can make more money for their church through lawsuits

@Noflaps Theres nothing peaceful about purposely hateful and inciteful speech. Of course, we all know they aren't acting out of any ideal - but incite violence and have lawyers waiting on the spot so that they can make more money for their church through lawsuits
#25

@Decaffeinated said in #17:

  • The "book bans" all just concern what is available in school libraries. We go through these stupid fights in America every single year, with the right calling the left book banners for stuff concerning racial sensitivities, and the left calling us book banners & fascists for removing LGBTQ+ and abortionist stuff.

OK, so now we are getting somewhere. You are clearly identifying yourself as part of the right in this paragraph. The "left" in the USA barely exists in reality in Congress. You have a few socialists (reformists) in the Democratic Party e.g. Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib and there is Bernie Sanders, who I believe sits as an independent. There is an arrangement between the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America that a few socialists can be stand on a Democratic ticket at election times. There is no independent representation of working class people that could remotely be considered the left in the USA - in the same way that there is a (hopelessly compromised) Labour Party in the UK. So what you are calling "the left" are actually pro-capitalist liberals, or centrists. They do not seek to challenge the capitalist system in any way and they are enthusiastically pro-imperialist in foreign affairs (e.g. Ukraine War, Iran, pro-Israel etc). So the argument in the USA is not between capital and labour, but between different wings of the establishment and their vision for American society. Working class people will not generally prosper whichever establishment party is in power I think this is important context for understanding what is going on right now.

  • Replacing democracy with a system rooted in religious extremism? Absolutely laughable. The greatest clampdowns on free speech that Americans have experienced were the bans happening on Big Tech platforms. Trump is getting popular because people are pushing back against the efforts to control the narratives across the board and stifle any kind of criticism of pet social engineering projects of the left.

You think it is laughable, but other people do not. If I was an American citizen, I would be very concerned right now. You seem to be saying "move along, nothing to see here", but there is no doubt that Trump represents a qualitative shift from what has gone before. How influential the religious right eventually becomes is not clear to me but they seem to be very much in the ascendancy.

There is far more reason to accuse the left of creating a soft totalitarian system, a system which is already in place in countries like Britain where you get interrogated by cops for criticizing trans people or saying something "racist," which can now be anything.

Now this is laughable. The "left" have not been in power in Britain, arguably since the 1940s (although Attlee was also pro-imperialist, pro-bomb etc) and they definitely haven't been in power in the 21st century. The Tories have just been chucked out after around 14 years of extremely right-wing government and now we have the odious Keir Starmer and his crew in power. Starmer is not remotely a socialist and he has driven many on the left out of the Labour Party (e.g. Corbyn). The media here is controlled by the corporate oligarchy and the BBC is in the hands of the "liberal" establishment. The left struggles to get any sort of platform at all. To describe the situation in the UK now as "soft totalitarianism of the left" is beyond ridiculous.

We have an actual heritage of free speech - Europeans criticizing Americans about democracy is always rich.

McCarthyism anyone?

I think Trump's concerns about free speech in Europe show exactly why his administration is not a threat to democracy.

Ha-ha-ha!! Very good, very funny.

@Decaffeinated said in #17: > - The "book bans" all just concern what is available in school libraries. We go through these stupid fights in America every single year, with the right calling the left book banners for stuff concerning racial sensitivities, and the left calling us book banners & fascists for removing LGBTQ+ and abortionist stuff. OK, so now we are getting somewhere. You are clearly identifying yourself as part of the right in this paragraph. The "left" in the USA barely exists in reality in Congress. You have a few socialists (reformists) in the Democratic Party e.g. Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib and there is Bernie Sanders, who I believe sits as an independent. There is an arrangement between the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America that a few socialists can be stand on a Democratic ticket at election times. There is no independent representation of working class people that could remotely be considered the left in the USA - in the same way that there is a (hopelessly compromised) Labour Party in the UK. So what you are calling "the left" are actually pro-capitalist liberals, or centrists. They do not seek to challenge the capitalist system in any way and they are enthusiastically pro-imperialist in foreign affairs (e.g. Ukraine War, Iran, pro-Israel etc). So the argument in the USA is not between capital and labour, but between different wings of the establishment and their vision for American society. Working class people will not generally prosper whichever establishment party is in power I think this is important context for understanding what is going on right now. > - Replacing democracy with a system rooted in religious extremism? Absolutely laughable. The greatest clampdowns on free speech that Americans have experienced were the bans happening on Big Tech platforms. Trump is getting popular because people are pushing back against the efforts to control the narratives across the board and stifle any kind of criticism of pet social engineering projects of the left. You think it is laughable, but other people do not. If I was an American citizen, I would be very concerned right now. You seem to be saying "move along, nothing to see here", but there is no doubt that Trump represents a qualitative shift from what has gone before. How influential the religious right eventually becomes is not clear to me but they seem to be very much in the ascendancy. > There is far more reason to accuse the left of creating a soft totalitarian system, a system which is already in place in countries like Britain where you get interrogated by cops for criticizing trans people or saying something "racist," which can now be anything. Now this is laughable. The "left" have not been in power in Britain, arguably since the 1940s (although Attlee was also pro-imperialist, pro-bomb etc) and they definitely haven't been in power in the 21st century. The Tories have just been chucked out after around 14 years of extremely right-wing government and now we have the odious Keir Starmer and his crew in power. Starmer is not remotely a socialist and he has driven many on the left out of the Labour Party (e.g. Corbyn). The media here is controlled by the corporate oligarchy and the BBC is in the hands of the "liberal" establishment. The left struggles to get any sort of platform at all. To describe the situation in the UK now as "soft totalitarianism of the left" is beyond ridiculous. > We have an actual heritage of free speech - Europeans criticizing Americans about democracy is always rich. McCarthyism anyone? > I think Trump's concerns about free speech in Europe show exactly why his administration is not a threat to democracy. Ha-ha-ha!! Very good, very funny.
#27

@Noflaps said in #21:

Yet, I haven't seen too many Christians protesting violently in the United States.

@greatJaromie said in #22:

How about the Westboro baptist church @Noflaps

@Noflaps said in #23:

What in particular about them, @greatJaromie ? Have I missed some important news story that you wish to address in the context of my preceding post?

Damn, you still cann't use wikipedia? Let me take you by the hand and lead you there.
Here sufficient information on how the Westboro Baptist Church regularely produces homophobic violences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_by_Westboro_Baptist_Church#

BTW, are you sure that your gay friends agree to be used as tokens in your arguments? You seem to do so on a regular basis. I doubt it, but even if it were the case, most of their gay friends (and mine, and most gay people in the world actually) find it disgusting.

Noflaps, worst feminist ever.

@Noflaps said in #21: > Yet, I haven't seen too many Christians protesting violently in the United States. @greatJaromie said in #22: > How about the Westboro baptist church @Noflaps @Noflaps said in #23: > What in particular about them, @greatJaromie ? Have I missed some important news story that you wish to address in the context of my preceding post? Damn, you still cann't use wikipedia? Let me take you by the hand and lead you there. Here sufficient information on how the Westboro Baptist Church regularely produces homophobic violences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_by_Westboro_Baptist_Church# BTW, are you sure that your gay friends agree to be used as tokens in your arguments? You seem to do so on a regular basis. I doubt it, but even if it were the case, most of their gay friends (and mine, and most gay people in the world actually) find it disgusting. Noflaps, worst feminist ever.
#28

@stockwellpete said in #25:

To describe the situation in the UK now as "soft totalitarianism of the left" is beyond ridiculous.
And if we formulate it this way: "soft totalitarianism"?
I just looked at one article today. Is this a joke?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-didnt-take-starmer-long-to-morph-into-brezhnev/

@stockwellpete said in #25: > To describe the situation in the UK now as "soft totalitarianism of the left" is beyond ridiculous. And if we formulate it this way: "soft totalitarianism"? I just looked at one article today. Is this a joke? https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-didnt-take-starmer-long-to-morph-into-brezhnev/
#29

@Decaffeinated said in #20:

You could actually say that this is designed to empower the democratically elected President to do what he was elected to do. Many complain that we vote for leaders who cannot implement change and become 'lame ducks,' and that Congress is pitifully corrupt and spineless.

The courts are designed to prevent violations of the civil rights of Americans and to also regulate government. Many feel they have overstepped their bounds lately, where all of the actions of the President addressing the border crisis or even dealing with trade are being undercut.

There is a feeling that the judiciary is actively infringing on executive power.

It is interesting to note that the legislative branch is not acting against Trump here, which implies that there seems to be some agreement in Congress that executive power has been curtailed too far.
The only people that believe that are those who think there should never be any challenge to his agenda whatsoever. And since when has a parties own legislative branch voted against the pres? Usually only 1-2 at most of a whole party.

@Decaffeinated said in #20: > You could actually say that this is designed to empower the democratically elected President to do what he was elected to do. Many complain that we vote for leaders who cannot implement change and become 'lame ducks,' and that Congress is pitifully corrupt and spineless. > > The courts are designed to prevent violations of the civil rights of Americans and to also regulate government. Many feel they have overstepped their bounds lately, where all of the actions of the President addressing the border crisis or even dealing with trade are being undercut. > > There is a feeling that the judiciary is actively infringing on executive power. > > It is interesting to note that the legislative branch is not acting against Trump here, which implies that there seems to be some agreement in Congress that executive power has been curtailed too far. The only people that believe that are those who think there should never be any challenge to his agenda whatsoever. And since when has a parties own legislative branch voted against the pres? Usually only 1-2 at most of a whole party.
#30

It's sad to see such ignorance spread around the world.

It's sad to see such ignorance spread around the world.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.