Defending cultural backlash against other people achieving basic rights is functionally the same as telling your 5-year old son it's perfectly reasonable for him to hate his new baby sister because he will no longer be the sole center of attention. That's acceptable for a week, not 20 or 30 years. Why are certain segments of the population excused or even praised for living in perpetual state of emotional arrested development??
Well, let's see, they elected a Christian extremist who believes in violence to reform the state to represent them and who has very strong sentiments on abortion and gay marriage. I think, without any further examination, we can come to a number of pretty reasonable conclusions as to what objections they may have, what they are angry about, and what things they are forced to accept that they otherwise wouldn't. I think a plausible theory based only on this information goes something like this: This has been a Christian region for a long time, many generations, and the community clearly has built a strong consensus around what they do and do not find acceptable in their community. They see federal power taking away more and more of their ability to live the way they want away from them, to force what they see as evil into their lives. Seeing no other alternative, they elect the man who promises to fight for them.
I don't care how right you think you are and how wrong you think they are. They don't care either. I don't believe you or anyone should be able to tell them how to set up their own towns and communities except in the extreme cases, examples being violations of due process rights in criminal courts.
State rights need to be taken seriously again. If someone wants to live in a Christian town that promotes only Christian values they should have a right to it, just like someone who wants to live in a gay-friendly town should have the right to it. People will eventually self-segregate to where they want to be. If they don't have the power to make decisions in their own communities no matter how strong a majority or consensus they simply aren't free.
So. Predominantly white neighbourhood can refuse to have a black family move into their community and they can do this by placing a burning cross on their new neighbours home and hanging noises from a tree?
That’s the messaging I am getting when you say “This has been a Christian region for a long time, many generations, and the community clearly has built a strong consensus around what they do and do not find acceptable in their community.”
If this is the reasoning, then these people are not true christians. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ of they’d rather judge and condemn people for their sins and temptation instead of offering love and compassion. They are using Christianity to hide behind their bigotry and it is a deplorable thing to do.
And remember, this idiot wasn’t charged by waging a “holy war” in his community. He was waging it in places out of state, so this whole “states rights/community building BS is just that.
I'll agree there is a type of "cold Civil War" in this country, but that's not really new. What I see increasingly is that some don't just disagree with people like me, they think we deserve to be killed. They'll tell you so in any Youtube comment section.
Defending cultural backlash against other people achieving basic rights is functionally the same as telling your 5-year old son it's perfectly reasonable for him to hate his new baby sister because he will no longer be the sole center of attention. That's acceptable for a week, not 20 or 30 years. Why are certain segments of the population excused or even praised for living in perpetual state of emotional arrested development??
The issue though is how you define basic rights and mediate between conflicting ones. You may perceive that having someone gay living next door has no impact on a Christian conservative and hence they should have no say in that. However, the Christian may not agree with you about that ...
Personally I suspect our views on what constitutes basic rights are very similar. I recognize though that lots of people don't share the same views and it's not surprising there are ongoing struggles in this area on how best to judge between competing rights (like the cake baking cases, or the long-running protests by mainly Muslim parents in Birmingham protesting about children being taught about LGTB).
Defending cultural backlash against other people achieving basic rights is functionally the same as telling your 5-year old son it's perfectly reasonable for him to hate his new baby sister because he will no longer be the sole center of attention. That's acceptable for a week, not 20 or 30 years. Why are certain segments of the population excused or even praised for living in perpetual state of emotional arrested development??
The issue though is how you define basic rights and mediate between conflicting ones. You may perceive that having someone gay living next door has no impact on a Christian conservative and hence they should have no say in that. However, the Christian may not agree with you about that ...
Personally I suspect our views on what constitutes basic rights are very similar. I recognize though that lots of people don't share the same views and it's not surprising there are ongoing struggles in this area on how best to judge between competing rights (like the cake baking cases, or the long-running protests by mainly Muslim parents in Birmingham protesting about children being taught about LGTB).
I'm fine if they don't bake the cake as long as they don't say word one when someone else denies them service for being Christian. But I don't just SUSPECT they'd raise holy hell if that ever happened to them, I know it for a fact. And our Supreme Court would side with them. The problem is they are perfectly fine discriminating against gay people and wouldn't sit still for a single second if it was turned on then regarding their religion. They are searching high and low for any reason to nail themselves to a cross.
The idea Christianity, of all things, is under assult in this country is what is patently absurd. The reason less people are religious year after year is because the most outspoken religious voices in this country are astounding hypocrites at best and outright bigots at worst. They've done it to themselves.
I don't understand where people get the idea that Christians are being forced to change the way they live. There are no rules, whether legal or even informal, that prevent a Christian person from practicing their faith at home, in public, or in their church. My religious family continues to practice their faith. No one is stopping them. What, then, is the act of oppression that is supposedly provoking people into supporting violence?
I will take a stab in the air: It is the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and our demand to be treated as equals. If that is not the provocation, I do not know what is, because I've never heard anyone specify what they felt was an act of oppression.
But equality is not a violation of Christian doctrine. And me being treated as a human being doesn't mean a transphobic person is being denied their rights. If they don't believe it's okay to be trans, then they don't have to be trans. I am reminded of the Charlie Hebdo controversy, and the one argument I felt was impossible to argue with: "Islam may forbid depicting the prophet Muhammad, but non-Muslims can't be punished for violating another person's religion."
Some folks believe in a religion that forbids transgender identities. That's not my religion, though. I'm not bound by that rule any more than a French cartoonist is bound by sharia law.
And thank God for that. The United States isn't Pakistan or Iran. We don't have blasphemy laws or national dress codes.
But let's get back to the question of what it means that Shea was elected with 58% of the vote: I am not convinced that this means 58% of that Washington state population agrees with, or is even remotely okay with, the idea that political violence is acceptable in this country. People vote based on multiple different priorities, and it wouldn't surprise me if a large number of those votes were cast by folks who weren't aware of Shea's extremism.
Unless there is some other evidence that many Washington residents support political violence, my guess is that ignorance is the more likely reason why an extremist was able to take office.
Defending cultural backlash against other people achieving basic rights is functionally the same as telling your 5-year old son it's perfectly reasonable for him to hate his new baby sister because he will no longer be the sole center of attention. That's acceptable for a week, not 20 or 30 years. Why are certain segments of the population excused or even praised for living in perpetual state of emotional arrested development??
The issue though is how you define basic rights and mediate between conflicting ones. You may perceive that having someone gay living next door has no impact on a Christian conservative and hence they should have no say in that. However, the Christian may not agree with you about that ...
I disagree.
Because I can say one word that’d shut them up about having a gay person living next door impacting them, and their personal beliefs:
How?
And why should the “Christian” belief (once again, this is not the teaching of Jesus Christ) outweigh any other belief of other individuals?
Defending cultural backlash against other people achieving basic rights is functionally the same as telling your 5-year old son it's perfectly reasonable for him to hate his new baby sister because he will no longer be the sole center of attention. That's acceptable for a week, not 20 or 30 years. Why are certain segments of the population excused or even praised for living in perpetual state of emotional arrested development??
The issue though is how you define basic rights and mediate between conflicting ones. You may perceive that having someone gay living next door has no impact on a Christian conservative and hence they should have no say in that. However, the Christian may not agree with you about that ...
I disagree.
Because I can say one word that’d shut them up about having a gay person living next door impacting them, and their personal beliefs:
How?
And why should the “Christian” belief (once again, this is not the teaching of Jesus Christ) outweigh any other belief of other individuals?
I agree with you, but I think it's pretty obvious there's not universal agreement on that. One of the problems of a more fundamentalist approach to religion is that it defines not only what is good for you, but also what is good for everyone else. That allows (or in some cases even requires) the believer to dictate what you should do "for your own good".
To some degree that also applies to more extreme conservative views generally. As was briefly covered in the recent discussion on moral impulses, conservatives tend to give more weight to in group loyalty and codes of behavior that define how you should act to support the community are part of that.
I have never in my wildest dreams known where these people get off about homosexuality and thinking their religion can dictate the lives of 10% of the population. Even if we give in and grant them that EVERYTHING about there religion is true, here is a list of things every single Christian in the world ignores on a daily basis that is prohibited in the Bible:
1.) Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God
2.) Eating fat
3.) Letting your hair become unkempt
4.) Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof
5.) Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy
6.) Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl
7.) Having sex with a woman during her period
8.) Mixing fabrics in clothing
9.) Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it
10.) Trimming your beard
11.) Cutting your hair at the sides
12.) Getting tattoos
13.) Not standing in the presence of the elderly
and my absolute favorite
14.) Mistreating foreigners
Yet, somehow, someway, there is exactly ONE thing society is supposed to legislate from the Bible, which is homosexuality. We can ignore EVERY other one, mostly because if we didn't society would fucking collapse on itself within 48 hours. No one should take any of this seriously for a split second, much less LEGISLATE it into law. The evangelical/religious right opposition to gay rights has NOTHING to do with religion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Religion is the cudgel they use as plausible deniability for their own hatred. It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. It will be bullshit til the sun engulfs the planet. Until I see religious opponents of gay marriage raiding their closets and starting a bonfire of their clothing that is only 50% wool, and refusing to eat basically any fruit whatsoever, they are exposed as charlatans. We're either gonna live by Biblical law, or we aren't. So if that's the road we're going down, let's go whole hog. Oh wait, we can't go whole hog.......that would be in direct violation of #4.
A trans friend of mine and I got into a long talk with a group of old conservative women about LGBTQ issues the other day. These women had accidentally crashed a party for the LGBT Chamber of Commerce--they had no idea what the event was; they just wandered in out of curiosity--and they started up a conversation with my friend.
It was a really positive and interesting discussion overall. They seemed really thankful to hear about trans issues (they had never heard a trans person talk to them about it before) and by the end we were hugging and taking pictures and stuff. It was very sweet.
One of the women had a lot of trouble with a gay nephew of hers. She stressed that she was fully accepting of his orientation, but she was upset that he came out to his uncle, because his uncle was really upset by it. Mexican culture is generally not okay with homosexuality or femininity in men (my friend has complained about machismo in the past), and the uncle was very uncomfortable with the concept. This woman felt it was disrespectful for her nephew to come out, because that orientation clashed with the family's culture.
One of her friends very strongly disagreed with her. It was not an act of disrespect simply to be different from one's family; her nephew was just living his own life. My friend did a lot of probing to figure out where the first woman was coming from, and what it boiled down to was kind of simple: because one family member was uncomfortable with homosexuality, that meant it was wrong for others to be gay and out of the closet. She repeatedly emphasized the family's culture, but the real issue for her was that it bothered the uncle, and she felt that was more important.
"Culture" was a shield for intolerance, but I don't think this was a cynical ploy she was using consciously. I think she just felt uncomfortable with the idea, but she couldn't say that without seeming kind of petty. She needed a higher ideal than her own discomfort to cite, and culture was the first thing that came to mind, simply because we venerate culture but can't actually define it.
That's the thing. We're expected to respect culture and religion, but neither of those things is ever well-defined. It's considered impolite for people to challenge culture or question religion, which means you can cite them to support any argument, even if you can't quote a verse or explain why being gay or trans shouldn't be a part of your culture.
Orientation and gender identity aren't choices. We're born with them. If I could push a button that would make me cis, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could push a button that made me straight, I'd do that, too. Life would be a lot less complicated if I could.
Culture and religion are choices. We are raised with certain traditions, but people can change them, and even the most conservative among us don't share all the values of our parents.
Our beliefs are our own to choose. A culture that requires us to oppose or criticize our own family members isn't a culture we need.
Well, let's see, they elected a Christian extremist who believes in violence to reform the state to represent them and who has very strong sentiments on abortion and gay marriage. I think, without any further examination, we can come to a number of pretty reasonable conclusions as to what objections they may have, what they are angry about, and what things they are forced to accept that they otherwise wouldn't. I think a plausible theory based only on this information goes something like this: This has been a Christian region for a long time, many generations, and the community clearly has built a strong consensus around what they do and do not find acceptable in their community. They see federal power taking away more and more of their ability to live the way they want away from them, to force what they see as evil into their lives. Seeing no other alternative, they elect the man who promises to fight for them.
I don't care how right you think you are and how wrong you think they are. They don't care either. I don't believe you or anyone should be able to tell them how to set up their own towns and communities except in the extreme cases, examples being violations of due process rights in criminal courts.
State rights need to be taken seriously again. If someone wants to live in a Christian town that promotes only Christian values they should have a right to it, just like someone who wants to live in a gay-friendly town should have the right to it. People will eventually self-segregate to where they want to be. If they don't have the power to make decisions in their own communities no matter how strong a majority or consensus they simply aren't free.
But they should be able to make gay people second-class citzens based on their religion. Something that has ZERO effect on their actual lives. None. I always knew the acceptance of gay marriage on the "new right" would be short lived, or was just a convenient talking point to begin with, but it's nice to have it confirmed.
What in the ever-loving hell does two men being married have to do with anyone's personal practice of their religion?? Has anyone ever come up with a SINGLE way this actually effects those who oppose it?? Even ONE?? You are saying nothing less than if gay people don't want to be second class citizens they should just suck it up and move. Christian enclaves where biblical law is the order of the day. But only with gay people. Rest assured these people still eat shellfish and wear sweaters made from two different clothes. These people know as much about the Bible as I do about quantam physics. I'll respect their position on Biblical principles the moment they start stoning their neighbors to death for breaking Old Testament law on a daily basis. Until then, it's simply a book that justifies their own insecurities.
In the spoilers below I have copied everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality.
Yeah, using an old text to justify their own hate seems about right (badumtsh). Jesus talked about mercy, yet people fall back on "ceremonially clean" as justification, while ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE that goes with the Old Testament ceremonies.
@semiticgod "But equality is not a violation of Christian doctrine."
Even better, equality IS a foundation of Christian doctrine. "7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. "
Well, let's see, they elected a Christian extremist who believes in violence to reform the state to represent them and who has very strong sentiments on abortion and gay marriage. I think, without any further examination, we can come to a number of pretty reasonable conclusions as to what objections they may have, what they are angry about, and what things they are forced to accept that they otherwise wouldn't. I think a plausible theory based only on this information goes something like this: This has been a Christian region for a long time, many generations, and the community clearly has built a strong consensus around what they do and do not find acceptable in their community. They see federal power taking away more and more of their ability to live the way they want away from them, to force what they see as evil into their lives. Seeing no other alternative, they elect the man who promises to fight for them.
I don't care how right you think you are and how wrong you think they are. They don't care either. I don't believe you or anyone should be able to tell them how to set up their own towns and communities except in the extreme cases, examples being violations of due process rights in criminal courts.
State rights need to be taken seriously again. If someone wants to live in a Christian town that promotes only Christian values they should have a right to it, just like someone who wants to live in a gay-friendly town should have the right to it. People will eventually self-segregate to where they want to be. If they don't have the power to make decisions in their own communities no matter how strong a majority or consensus they simply aren't free.
But they should be able to make gay people second-class citzens based on their religion. Something that has ZERO effect on their actual lives. None. I always knew the acceptance of gay marriage on the "new right" would be short lived, or was just a convenient talking point to begin with, but it's nice to have it confirmed.
What in the ever-loving hell does two men being married have to do with anyone's personal practice of their religion?? Has anyone ever come up with a SINGLE way this actually effects those who oppose it?? Even ONE?? You are saying nothing less than if gay people don't want to be second class citizens they should just suck it up and move. Christian enclaves where biblical law is the order of the day. But only with gay people. Rest assured these people still eat shellfish and wear sweaters made from two different clothes. These people know as much about the Bible as I do about quantam physics. I'll respect their position on Biblical principles the moment they start stoning their neighbors to death for breaking Old Testament law on a daily basis. Until then, it's simply a book that justifies their own insecurities.
In the spoilers below I have copied everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality.
Yeah, using an old text to justify their own hate seems about right (badumtsh). Jesus talked about mercy, yet people fall back on "ceremonially clean" as justification, while ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE that goes with the Old Testament ceremonies.
@semiticgod "But equality is not a violation of Christian doctrine."
Even better, equality IS a foundation of Christian doctrine. "7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. "
Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. He fed the poor. He made friends with prostitutes. He said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. I have no doubt there are scores of Christian who adhere to his philosophy. But the FACE of Christianity, and the one that has a direct line to the White House is nothing but pure Calvinism, re-branded as the "prosperity gospel". As far as I'm concerned, these preachers are engaging in blasphemy. Jesus was a cool cat. The religion that worships him has been destroyed forever by the people who represent it in public. Between the Catholic Church hierarchy and evangelical leaders, it is simply no longer something I can associate with. I didn't leave the church, the church left me.
Why do people still insist that Christianity has anything to do with American Tele-Evangelism.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is how groups of people literally fucked themselves into extinction. It's a warning about small community not being able to procreate, which is the basis of every holy teaching.
Natural Order creates life and Chaos destroys it.
Don't take holy books at literal value, they are there as a guide and nothing more.
Why do people still insist that Christianity has anything to do with American Tele-Evangelism.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is how groups of people literally fucked themselves into extinction. It's a warning about small community not being able to procreate, which is the basis of every holy teaching.
Natural Order creates life and Chaos destroys it.
Don't take holy books at literal value, they are there as a guide and nothing more.
Essentially, because in the late-70s/early 80s people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwelll tied themselves at the hip with the Republican Party. They hijacked the public perception of what Christianity stands for. Even if they are a MINORITY of actual Christians, they evangelical right is by far the loudest and most active.
Why do people still insist that Christianity has anything to do with American Tele-Evangelism.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is how groups of people literally fucked themselves into extinction. It's a warning about small community not being able to procreate, which is the basis of every holy teaching.
Natural Order creates life and Chaos destroys it.
Don't take holy books at literal value, they are there as a guide and nothing more.
It's like the whole "muslim terrorist" thing. A few bad apples (American Tele-Evangelists, terrorists) have made a bad name for the whole thing. Not every muslim is a terrorist, not every christian is an evangelist.
Christians should do something and denounce teleevangelist extremists.
Why do people still insist that Christianity has anything to do with American Tele-Evangelism.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is how groups of people literally fucked themselves into extinction. It's a warning about small community not being able to procreate, which is the basis of every holy teaching.
Natural Order creates life and Chaos destroys it.
Don't take holy books at literal value, they are there as a guide and nothing more.
It's like the whole "muslim terrorist" thing. A few bad apples (American Tele-Evangelists, terrorists) have made a bad name for the whole thing. Not every muslim is a terrorist, not every christian is an evangelist.
Christians should do something and denounce teleevangelist extremists.
I am not Semitic so I don't give a shit about Semitic right wing ideologies. I do know that if someone tries to push their Semitic ideologies on me, they would get a good old Spartan kick to the chest.
When it comes to backwards think I have a moto I know and understand.... Πας μη Έλλην Βάρβαρος.
@jjstraka34 You're not wrong. Its why I'm so outspoken about it what Christ actually taught and stood for. Christianity IS under attack, but by those who want to use it as a shield for their own hate. Not by our government.
I see no similarity between Christian evangelists and Muslim terrorists besides belonging to one of the Abrahamic traditions. I see no similarity at all between Muslim terrorists and far-left progressives, or between far-left progressives and Christian evangelists.
The terrorists kill people. I ain't seeing a lot of murder from the other two.
I see no similarity between Christian evangelists and Muslim terrorists besides belonging to one of the Abrahamic traditions. I see no similarity at all between Muslim terrorists and far-left progressives, or between far-left progressives and Christian evangelists.
The terrorists kill people. I ain't seeing a lot of murder from the other two.
I both sort of agree with this statement, and also sort of disagree with this statement.
To start - I agree that Evangelical Christians are nothing like either other type mentioned. I think the evangelical aspect was a reference to the group in the US that self-identify in that way.
Part of the problem we have in the USA is that of a framing issue. We often consider all Muslim Terrorists to be religiously driven terrorists, even if their message isnt always particularly religious. We dont really do that for Christian terrorists (For example - as was previously mentioned, The KKK burn large crosses, an obvious religious symbol. However, we would generally categorize the KKK as a terrorist group on racial grounds and not religious grounds despite the religious nature of some of their actions).
I think this all plays into the societal bias against Islam.
Anyways, my point in this is that one of the reasons why some people reject the comparison between Muslim terrorists and the existence of Christian terrorism is because we tend to find convenient ways to exclude the "Christian" part, and then have a tendency to lump as Muslim Terrorists into the "Driven only by religion" camp.
I see no similarity between Christian evangelists and Muslim terrorists besides belonging to one of the Abrahamic traditions. I see no similarity at all between Muslim terrorists and far-left progressives, or between far-left progressives and Christian evangelists.
The terrorists kill people. I ain't seeing a lot of murder from the other two.
You should. I was referring to the "not all X are Y" thing:
It's like the whole "muslim terrorist" thing. A few bad apples (American Tele-Evangelists, terrorists) have made a bad name for the whole thing. Not every muslim is a terrorist, not every christian is an evangelist.
Christians should do something and denounce teleevangelist extremists.
A lot of people imagine terrorists when they hear "muslim", all because some individuals really disagreed with Washington's policies in the (Middle) East. A lot of people imagine SJWs when they hear "liberal", because some individuals lost touch with common sense when promoting their ideology.
It's easy for sufficiently intelligent person to spot extremist bad apples in a group they do not belong to, and realize those do not represent the whole group. Fewer can take a step further and project their expectations of others upon themselves.
I see no similarity between Christian evangelists and Muslim terrorists besides belonging to one of the Abrahamic traditions. I see no similarity at all between Muslim terrorists and far-left progressives, or between far-left progressives and Christian evangelists.
The terrorists kill people. I ain't seeing a lot of murder from the other two.
I have trouble wrapping my head around a far-left progressive murdering people, though like right-wing extremism, there's lots of branches out there. There probably are some militant groups. But for the most part, progressives are looking to improve the human condition. Killing people generally does not.
The thing about "Muslim terrorists" is that fundamentally (heh), the extremists can't accept a society that does NOT hew to the faith. It's not just because it's a different culture politically, but because religion is tied into the society itself. Islamic law IS the law.
There are certainly Christian evangelists who are at least willing to say they're willing to put God's law above society's. Certainly in the past.
Their idea of a holiday perk is "give us back the money we just paid you for a nearly meaningless discount" (how much can a Wal-Mart employee possibly spend??). Even if on the HIGH end they were spending, say, $500, we are talking about $75 dollars. The kicker?? They had only EIGHT DAYS (Dec. 5th-13th) to redeem this offer.
And was only available to those who worked Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and that Saturday. This is what the late stages of a capitalistic hellscape looks like. Black Friday being moved up to early afternoon on Thanksgiving, traditionally one of only TWO days per year most workers could expect off, was a canary in the coalmine. Now, it's down to one (tomorrow). Without pre-approved vacation, many workers are subject to being available at the drop of a hat 364 out of 365 days of the year if they expect to keep their jobs.
There was a bit of discussion the other day about evangelical support for Trump. This article notes some cracks in that. While most of that support is intact, there are now a few voices acting in the role of the child in the Emperor's New Clothes story.
The principal reason for evangelicals supporting Trump is that his policies have generally been supportive of them. However, in religious teaching the end does not generally justify the means. Supporters have got round that by saying Trump has in fact done nothing wrong or immoral, but convincing themselves of that must be a real challenge for many evangelicals.
Senate Confirms Trump Judicial Nominee Who Cried When Confronted With Anti-Gay Record.
Lawrence VanDyke is just the latest Trump nominee whom Republicans confirmed despite a “Not Qualified” rating.
The Senate confirmed Lawrence VanDyke to a lifetime appointment on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday by a vote of 51–44. Every Republican present except Sen. Susan Collins voted for the nomination; every Democrat present opposed it. Like Sarah Pitlyk, a judicial nominee confirmed just last week, VanDyke received a rare “Not Qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. After conducting 60 interviews, the ABA found that VanDyke has a reputation as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules.” Video of VanDyke lecturing, scolding, and interrupting judges during oral argument while serving as Nevada solicitor general lends credence to that assessment.
VanDyke has a long record as an anti-LGBTQ activist. He wrote in 2004 that marriage equality “will hurt families, and consequentially children and society.”
In 2010, VanDyke also filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to rule that student groups at public universities have a First Amendment right to discriminate against LGBTQ students.
Unsurprisingly, VanDyke also co-authored a brief defending 20-week abortion bans and urging the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade wholesale.
Republicans insane activist judges. Totally, completely disgusting. Ditch Mitch and Putin's bitch.
Trump, a notorious lying conman, has now appointed more than a quarter of federal appellate judges, and seven judges rated “Not Qualified.”
The vast majority of federal cases end in appeals courts, so activist insane partisan judges like VanDyke will have the final say over numerous disputes of great importance.
There was a bit of discussion the other day about evangelical support for Trump. This article notes some cracks in that. While most of that support is intact, there are now a few voices acting in the role of the child in the Emperor's New Clothes story.
The principal reason for evangelicals supporting Trump is that his policies have generally been supportive of them. However, in religious teaching the end does not generally justify the means. Supporters have got round that by saying Trump has in fact done nothing wrong or immoral, but convincing themselves of that must be a real challenge for many evangelicals.
Two major Christian magazines have come out in support of his impeachment. I seriously doubt this will have any effect on the perception among the evangelical community. #1 because I seriously doubt these are widely read publications and #2 because the transition of Trump to an almost cult-like figurehead happened way in the rear-view mirror. Once that happens the leader's word is able to override pretty much every other ancillary force in the lives of the followers. In fact, that's the point. You will distrust your own family, your own previous religious beliefs, even your own thoughts to conform them to the narrative. Because abandoning the movement is admitting everything you thought was wrong. Some people would rather die than face up to this.
Point being, I see this causing no significant cracks in his base. If anyone would like a crash course as to why, I recommend reading this:
...Trump is an almost cult-like figurehead....
Once that happens the leader's word is able to override pretty much every other ancillary force in the lives of the followers. In fact, that's the point. You will distrust your own family, your own previous religious beliefs, even your own thoughts to conform them to the narrative. Because abandoning the movement is admitting everything you thought was wrong. Some people would rather die than face up to this.
Point being, I see this causing no significant cracks in his base. If anyone would like a crash course as to why, I recommend reading this:
And if you disagree that the dear leader is not all powerful, you get attacked. And these people just quit leaving the hardcore extremists in place. Jeff Flake, and Justin Amash are a couple of congresspeople that "had" to quit instead of fighting back while they could they were forced out. Shep Smith and Megyn Kelly were forced from Fox News. These people are not necessarily good people, just not insane enough and not fawning enough weaklings to exist in the current Republican party.
Napp Nazworth from The Christian Post website just quit because the website he worked for aligned itself against Christianity today.
“Today, rather abruptly, I was forced to make the difficult choice to leave The Christian Post,” Mr. Nazworth wrote. “They decided to publish an editorial that positions them on Team Trump. I can’t be an editor for a publication with that editorial voice."
“I’m saddened by what happened for many reasons. I’ve been with CP for over 8.5 years, made many friendships, and had lots of exciting opportunities along the way,” he continued. “As long as I was with the company, they strived to be a place that represented the diversity of evangelicalism in the US. I even wrote about this diversity in the last published article I wrote on Sunday. When the editors had disagreements, we would work through them, letting those discussions and debates inform and improve our coverage."
“Now, CP has chosen to go in a different direction. Like so many other media companies, they’ve chosen to silo themselves,” he wrote. “They’ve chosen to represent a narrow (and shrinking) slice of Christianity. That might be a good business decision, short term at least. But it’s bad for Democracy, and bad for the Gospel. It means there will be one more place where readers can go for bias confirmation, but one less place where readers can go to exercise their brains on diversity of thought.”
So we're left with an extremist right wing Republican party consisting of grifters, yes-men, and white nationalists. On top of that, we're all going to be stuck with insane activist unqualified regressive judges for a generation. These clowns will continue to hand our rights over to big corporations, say goodbye to your rights except the right to be murdered by firearms.
The President of the US is revealing the name of a whistleblower, who has followed all the federal procedures intended to ensure anonymity . Trump is not even disputing what the whistleblower has said (at least, only the interpretation and not the facts). He's just using the attack on the whistleblower in an attempt to cover over the fact that those second-hand concerns have now been confirmed and reinforced by first-hand testimony - despite the fact that White House employees are still forbidden from providing any information and contemporaneous documentation is still being with-held.
I know that I don't agree with the majority of his policies, but I really can't conceive I could support this guy even if I approved of the lot of them. I really, really struggle to see how any Senator can talk with a straight face about the need to follow due process and how unfairly the President is being treated ...
Comments
So. Predominantly white neighbourhood can refuse to have a black family move into their community and they can do this by placing a burning cross on their new neighbours home and hanging noises from a tree?
That’s the messaging I am getting when you say “This has been a Christian region for a long time, many generations, and the community clearly has built a strong consensus around what they do and do not find acceptable in their community.”
If this is the reasoning, then these people are not true christians. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ of they’d rather judge and condemn people for their sins and temptation instead of offering love and compassion. They are using Christianity to hide behind their bigotry and it is a deplorable thing to do.
And remember, this idiot wasn’t charged by waging a “holy war” in his community. He was waging it in places out of state, so this whole “states rights/community building BS is just that.
The issue though is how you define basic rights and mediate between conflicting ones. You may perceive that having someone gay living next door has no impact on a Christian conservative and hence they should have no say in that. However, the Christian may not agree with you about that ...
Personally I suspect our views on what constitutes basic rights are very similar. I recognize though that lots of people don't share the same views and it's not surprising there are ongoing struggles in this area on how best to judge between competing rights (like the cake baking cases, or the long-running protests by mainly Muslim parents in Birmingham protesting about children being taught about LGTB).
I'm fine if they don't bake the cake as long as they don't say word one when someone else denies them service for being Christian. But I don't just SUSPECT they'd raise holy hell if that ever happened to them, I know it for a fact. And our Supreme Court would side with them. The problem is they are perfectly fine discriminating against gay people and wouldn't sit still for a single second if it was turned on then regarding their religion. They are searching high and low for any reason to nail themselves to a cross.
The idea Christianity, of all things, is under assult in this country is what is patently absurd. The reason less people are religious year after year is because the most outspoken religious voices in this country are astounding hypocrites at best and outright bigots at worst. They've done it to themselves.
I will take a stab in the air: It is the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and our demand to be treated as equals. If that is not the provocation, I do not know what is, because I've never heard anyone specify what they felt was an act of oppression.
But equality is not a violation of Christian doctrine. And me being treated as a human being doesn't mean a transphobic person is being denied their rights. If they don't believe it's okay to be trans, then they don't have to be trans. I am reminded of the Charlie Hebdo controversy, and the one argument I felt was impossible to argue with: "Islam may forbid depicting the prophet Muhammad, but non-Muslims can't be punished for violating another person's religion."
Some folks believe in a religion that forbids transgender identities. That's not my religion, though. I'm not bound by that rule any more than a French cartoonist is bound by sharia law.
And thank God for that. The United States isn't Pakistan or Iran. We don't have blasphemy laws or national dress codes.
But let's get back to the question of what it means that Shea was elected with 58% of the vote: I am not convinced that this means 58% of that Washington state population agrees with, or is even remotely okay with, the idea that political violence is acceptable in this country. People vote based on multiple different priorities, and it wouldn't surprise me if a large number of those votes were cast by folks who weren't aware of Shea's extremism.
Unless there is some other evidence that many Washington residents support political violence, my guess is that ignorance is the more likely reason why an extremist was able to take office.
I agree with you, but I think it's pretty obvious there's not universal agreement on that. One of the problems of a more fundamentalist approach to religion is that it defines not only what is good for you, but also what is good for everyone else. That allows (or in some cases even requires) the believer to dictate what you should do "for your own good".
To some degree that also applies to more extreme conservative views generally. As was briefly covered in the recent discussion on moral impulses, conservatives tend to give more weight to in group loyalty and codes of behavior that define how you should act to support the community are part of that.
1.) Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God
2.) Eating fat
3.) Letting your hair become unkempt
4.) Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof
5.) Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy
6.) Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl
7.) Having sex with a woman during her period
8.) Mixing fabrics in clothing
9.) Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it
10.) Trimming your beard
11.) Cutting your hair at the sides
12.) Getting tattoos
13.) Not standing in the presence of the elderly
and my absolute favorite
14.) Mistreating foreigners
Yet, somehow, someway, there is exactly ONE thing society is supposed to legislate from the Bible, which is homosexuality. We can ignore EVERY other one, mostly because if we didn't society would fucking collapse on itself within 48 hours. No one should take any of this seriously for a split second, much less LEGISLATE it into law. The evangelical/religious right opposition to gay rights has NOTHING to do with religion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Religion is the cudgel they use as plausible deniability for their own hatred. It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. It will be bullshit til the sun engulfs the planet. Until I see religious opponents of gay marriage raiding their closets and starting a bonfire of their clothing that is only 50% wool, and refusing to eat basically any fruit whatsoever, they are exposed as charlatans. We're either gonna live by Biblical law, or we aren't. So if that's the road we're going down, let's go whole hog. Oh wait, we can't go whole hog.......that would be in direct violation of #4.
It was a really positive and interesting discussion overall. They seemed really thankful to hear about trans issues (they had never heard a trans person talk to them about it before) and by the end we were hugging and taking pictures and stuff. It was very sweet.
One of the women had a lot of trouble with a gay nephew of hers. She stressed that she was fully accepting of his orientation, but she was upset that he came out to his uncle, because his uncle was really upset by it. Mexican culture is generally not okay with homosexuality or femininity in men (my friend has complained about machismo in the past), and the uncle was very uncomfortable with the concept. This woman felt it was disrespectful for her nephew to come out, because that orientation clashed with the family's culture.
One of her friends very strongly disagreed with her. It was not an act of disrespect simply to be different from one's family; her nephew was just living his own life. My friend did a lot of probing to figure out where the first woman was coming from, and what it boiled down to was kind of simple: because one family member was uncomfortable with homosexuality, that meant it was wrong for others to be gay and out of the closet. She repeatedly emphasized the family's culture, but the real issue for her was that it bothered the uncle, and she felt that was more important.
"Culture" was a shield for intolerance, but I don't think this was a cynical ploy she was using consciously. I think she just felt uncomfortable with the idea, but she couldn't say that without seeming kind of petty. She needed a higher ideal than her own discomfort to cite, and culture was the first thing that came to mind, simply because we venerate culture but can't actually define it.
That's the thing. We're expected to respect culture and religion, but neither of those things is ever well-defined. It's considered impolite for people to challenge culture or question religion, which means you can cite them to support any argument, even if you can't quote a verse or explain why being gay or trans shouldn't be a part of your culture.
Orientation and gender identity aren't choices. We're born with them. If I could push a button that would make me cis, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could push a button that made me straight, I'd do that, too. Life would be a lot less complicated if I could.
Culture and religion are choices. We are raised with certain traditions, but people can change them, and even the most conservative among us don't share all the values of our parents.
Our beliefs are our own to choose. A culture that requires us to oppose or criticize our own family members isn't a culture we need.
In the spoilers below I have copied everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality.
Yeah, using an old text to justify their own hate seems about right (badumtsh). Jesus talked about mercy, yet people fall back on "ceremonially clean" as justification, while ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE that goes with the Old Testament ceremonies.
@semiticgod "But equality is not a violation of Christian doctrine."
Even better, equality IS a foundation of Christian doctrine. "7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. "
Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. He fed the poor. He made friends with prostitutes. He said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. I have no doubt there are scores of Christian who adhere to his philosophy. But the FACE of Christianity, and the one that has a direct line to the White House is nothing but pure Calvinism, re-branded as the "prosperity gospel". As far as I'm concerned, these preachers are engaging in blasphemy. Jesus was a cool cat. The religion that worships him has been destroyed forever by the people who represent it in public. Between the Catholic Church hierarchy and evangelical leaders, it is simply no longer something I can associate with. I didn't leave the church, the church left me.
Why do people still insist that Christianity has anything to do with American Tele-Evangelism.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is how groups of people literally fucked themselves into extinction. It's a warning about small community not being able to procreate, which is the basis of every holy teaching.
Natural Order creates life and Chaos destroys it.
Don't take holy books at literal value, they are there as a guide and nothing more.
Essentially, because in the late-70s/early 80s people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwelll tied themselves at the hip with the Republican Party. They hijacked the public perception of what Christianity stands for. Even if they are a MINORITY of actual Christians, they evangelical right is by far the loudest and most active.
It's like the whole "muslim terrorist" thing. A few bad apples (American Tele-Evangelists, terrorists) have made a bad name for the whole thing. Not every muslim is a terrorist, not every christian is an evangelist.
Christians should do something and denounce teleevangelist extremists.
I am not Semitic so I don't give a shit about Semitic right wing ideologies. I do know that if someone tries to push their Semitic ideologies on me, they would get a good old Spartan kick to the chest.
When it comes to backwards think I have a moto I know and understand.... Πας μη Έλλην Βάρβαρος.
I misspelled "Christ" oh the irony.
The terrorists kill people. I ain't seeing a lot of murder from the other two.
I both sort of agree with this statement, and also sort of disagree with this statement.
To start - I agree that Evangelical Christians are nothing like either other type mentioned. I think the evangelical aspect was a reference to the group in the US that self-identify in that way.
Part of the problem we have in the USA is that of a framing issue. We often consider all Muslim Terrorists to be religiously driven terrorists, even if their message isnt always particularly religious. We dont really do that for Christian terrorists (For example - as was previously mentioned, The KKK burn large crosses, an obvious religious symbol. However, we would generally categorize the KKK as a terrorist group on racial grounds and not religious grounds despite the religious nature of some of their actions).
I think this all plays into the societal bias against Islam.
Anyways, my point in this is that one of the reasons why some people reject the comparison between Muslim terrorists and the existence of Christian terrorism is because we tend to find convenient ways to exclude the "Christian" part, and then have a tendency to lump as Muslim Terrorists into the "Driven only by religion" camp.
A lot of people imagine terrorists when they hear "muslim", all because some individuals really disagreed with Washington's policies in the (Middle) East. A lot of people imagine SJWs when they hear "liberal", because some individuals lost touch with common sense when promoting their ideology.
It's easy for sufficiently intelligent person to spot extremist bad apples in a group they do not belong to, and realize those do not represent the whole group. Fewer can take a step further and project their expectations of others upon themselves.
Yes, I think it demonstrates my point nicely
I have trouble wrapping my head around a far-left progressive murdering people, though like right-wing extremism, there's lots of branches out there. There probably are some militant groups. But for the most part, progressives are looking to improve the human condition. Killing people generally does not.
The thing about "Muslim terrorists" is that fundamentally (heh), the extremists can't accept a society that does NOT hew to the faith. It's not just because it's a different culture politically, but because religion is tied into the society itself. Islamic law IS the law.
There are certainly Christian evangelists who are at least willing to say they're willing to put God's law above society's. Certainly in the past.
After all, Kill them all, let God sort them out is a Christian saying.
Fixed it for ya.
Their idea of a holiday perk is "give us back the money we just paid you for a nearly meaningless discount" (how much can a Wal-Mart employee possibly spend??). Even if on the HIGH end they were spending, say, $500, we are talking about $75 dollars. The kicker?? They had only EIGHT DAYS (Dec. 5th-13th) to redeem this offer.
And was only available to those who worked Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and that Saturday. This is what the late stages of a capitalistic hellscape looks like. Black Friday being moved up to early afternoon on Thanksgiving, traditionally one of only TWO days per year most workers could expect off, was a canary in the coalmine. Now, it's down to one (tomorrow). Without pre-approved vacation, many workers are subject to being available at the drop of a hat 364 out of 365 days of the year if they expect to keep their jobs.
The principal reason for evangelicals supporting Trump is that his policies have generally been supportive of them. However, in religious teaching the end does not generally justify the means. Supporters have got round that by saying Trump has in fact done nothing wrong or immoral, but convincing themselves of that must be a real challenge for many evangelicals.
Lawrence VanDyke is just the latest Trump nominee whom Republicans confirmed despite a “Not Qualified” rating.
The Senate confirmed Lawrence VanDyke to a lifetime appointment on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday by a vote of 51–44. Every Republican present except Sen. Susan Collins voted for the nomination; every Democrat present opposed it. Like Sarah Pitlyk, a judicial nominee confirmed just last week, VanDyke received a rare “Not Qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. After conducting 60 interviews, the ABA found that VanDyke has a reputation as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules.” Video of VanDyke lecturing, scolding, and interrupting judges during oral argument while serving as Nevada solicitor general lends credence to that assessment.
VanDyke has a long record as an anti-LGBTQ activist. He wrote in 2004 that marriage equality “will hurt families, and consequentially children and society.”
In 2010, VanDyke also filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to rule that student groups at public universities have a First Amendment right to discriminate against LGBTQ students.
Unsurprisingly, VanDyke also co-authored a brief defending 20-week abortion bans and urging the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade wholesale.
Republicans insane activist judges. Totally, completely disgusting. Ditch Mitch and Putin's bitch.
Trump, a notorious lying conman, has now appointed more than a quarter of federal appellate judges, and seven judges rated “Not Qualified.”
The vast majority of federal cases end in appeals courts, so activist insane partisan judges like VanDyke will have the final say over numerous disputes of great importance.
Two major Christian magazines have come out in support of his impeachment. I seriously doubt this will have any effect on the perception among the evangelical community. #1 because I seriously doubt these are widely read publications and #2 because the transition of Trump to an almost cult-like figurehead happened way in the rear-view mirror. Once that happens the leader's word is able to override pretty much every other ancillary force in the lives of the followers. In fact, that's the point. You will distrust your own family, your own previous religious beliefs, even your own thoughts to conform them to the narrative. Because abandoning the movement is admitting everything you thought was wrong. Some people would rather die than face up to this.
Point being, I see this causing no significant cracks in his base. If anyone would like a crash course as to why, I recommend reading this:
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/andrea-mitchell-center/sites/www.sas.upenn.edu.andrea-mitchell-center/files/Balmer - Historian's Pickaxe.pdf
And if you disagree that the dear leader is not all powerful, you get attacked. And these people just quit leaving the hardcore extremists in place. Jeff Flake, and Justin Amash are a couple of congresspeople that "had" to quit instead of fighting back while they could they were forced out. Shep Smith and Megyn Kelly were forced from Fox News. These people are not necessarily good people, just not insane enough and not fawning enough weaklings to exist in the current Republican party.
Napp Nazworth from The Christian Post website just quit because the website he worked for aligned itself against Christianity today.
“Today, rather abruptly, I was forced to make the difficult choice to leave The Christian Post,” Mr. Nazworth wrote. “They decided to publish an editorial that positions them on Team Trump. I can’t be an editor for a publication with that editorial voice."
“I’m saddened by what happened for many reasons. I’ve been with CP for over 8.5 years, made many friendships, and had lots of exciting opportunities along the way,” he continued. “As long as I was with the company, they strived to be a place that represented the diversity of evangelicalism in the US. I even wrote about this diversity in the last published article I wrote on Sunday. When the editors had disagreements, we would work through them, letting those discussions and debates inform and improve our coverage."
“Now, CP has chosen to go in a different direction. Like so many other media companies, they’ve chosen to silo themselves,” he wrote. “They’ve chosen to represent a narrow (and shrinking) slice of Christianity. That might be a good business decision, short term at least. But it’s bad for Democracy, and bad for the Gospel. It means there will be one more place where readers can go for bias confirmation, but one less place where readers can go to exercise their brains on diversity of thought.”
So we're left with an extremist right wing Republican party consisting of grifters, yes-men, and white nationalists. On top of that, we're all going to be stuck with insane activist unqualified regressive judges for a generation. These clowns will continue to hand our rights over to big corporations, say goodbye to your rights except the right to be murdered by firearms.
The President of the US is revealing the name of a whistleblower, who has followed all the federal procedures intended to ensure anonymity
I know that I don't agree with the majority of his policies, but I really can't conceive I could support this guy even if I approved of the lot of them. I really, really struggle to see how any Senator can talk with a straight face about the need to follow due process and how unfairly the President is being treated ...