News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Dominionists in the United States

Started by Recusant, April 14, 2019, 02:50:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dark Lightning

The guy I used to car pool with was quite religious, and when the vote came up for marriage equality, he was vehement that it not be allowed. I told him that it was equal rights and he wasn't going to be able to stop it, and that it really wasn't anyone's business what people do behind closed doors, anyway. That didn't sit well with him, at all. :lol:

billy rubin

that's the nature of moral questions in general. th eproblem always boils down to distinguishing right from wrong, and people disagree.

take any particular example. a good one might be cruelty to animals. most people consider animal cruelty to be wrong (to varying degrees) and believe that society should force people who disagree to comply. if it is valid for someone to demand that another person cease being cruel to animals, then it seems equally valid for someone to tell someone else to cease same sex marriage or abortion. the arguments are usually the same:

animal cruelty is wrong
society should prohibit things that are wrong
society should prohibit animal cruelty.

versus

same sex marriage/abortion is wrong
society should prohibit things that are wrong
society should prohibit same sex marriage/abortion

the arguments are the same, and assert that society has the right to interfere in your business. so if they are valid in one place they should be valid in th eother. where the real difference in opinion occurs is in the first premise of both syllogisms:

<something> is wrong . . .

^^^that's where agreement needs to be found, else the argument will go on forever. i don't see a lot of common ground there, because people disagree on right and wrong.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Randy

Quote from: Bluenose on October 09, 2020, 08:28:59 AM
I've never understood the "religious freedom" ideologues. They are already free to practice their religion and if they don't believe in abortion, or same sex marriage and so on, then I say don't get an abortion and don't marry someone of the same sex.  What other people do is none of their damn business and these people can fuck the hell off.
I think they believe that marriage is a holy thing (hence holy matrimony) and it's blasphemous to their god and if they don't strike against it gawd will punish everyone.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

Icarus

Quote from: Bluenose on October 09, 2020, 08:28:59 AM
I've never understood the "religious freedom" ideologues. They are already free to practice their religion and if they don't believe in abortion, or same sex marriage and so on, then I say don't get an abortion and don't marry someone of the same sex.  What other people do is none of their damn business and these people can fuck the hell off.

I agree with Bluenose.  But the Jesus people and other religionists are incapable of minding their own damned business.  They believe themselves to be right and guided about Gods will. My position is that they cannot know what Gods will is and whether there is actually a God to issue his will..

The religious tell us that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is it not equally true that they cannot prove that he/she/it does in fact exist. They tell me that in order to believe; I must have "faith"............Really?   WTF is the foundation of this faith that they keep referring to?


No one

Thinking is hard. Faith replaces thought, the uglies of their particular magic sky pixies are supplanted with pleasant, agreeable, and attractive visions.

billy rubin

Quote from: Icarus on October 11, 2020, 03:09:12 AM
I must have "faith"............Really?   WTF is the foundation of this faith that they keep referring to?

the old quakers held that you had know things "experimentally . . ." a concept we would call "experientially" these days, in order to have any kind oof belief.

you had to experience things yourself in order to believe them, and god was not excluded. books, old myths, and things people told you that they had experienced thaemselves were all useful, but could not substitute for actual personal revelation. quakerism spread throughout england pretty quick on this basis, but over the centuries faded out.

the experiences were often called "conviction" and it meant what it sounded like, not a pleasant thing.

today, quakers sgenerally don't describe things they experience, but rather things they would like to have experienced, as justification for faith. didn't work for me. i had belief for a while on what i thouught was experience, but over time i decided i was mistaken.



more people have been to berlin than i have

Randy

Quote from: Icarus on October 11, 2020, 03:09:12 AM
They tell me that in order to believe; I must have "faith"............Really?   WTF is the foundation of this faith that they keep referring to?
Faith = wishful dreaming. Like No One said, "Faith replaces thought."

I was once told that I had to have the Holy Spirit in me in order to understand the Bible. I asked how am I supposed to do that to which he opened his Bible and started quoting scripture. Um, I can't understand anything you are saying because I don't have the Holy Spirit. Good day.

The exchange didn't go quite that way. It was a little more elaborate than that but that was the gist of it.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

Recusant

Quote from: Randy on October 12, 2020, 01:15:03 AM
Quote from: Icarus on October 11, 2020, 03:09:12 AM
They tell me that in order to believe; I must have "faith"............Really?   WTF is the foundation of this faith that they keep referring to?
Faith = wishful dreaming. Like No One said, "Faith replaces thought."

I was once told that I had to have the Holy Spirit in me in order to understand the Bible. I asked how am I supposed to do that to which he opened his Bible and started quoting scripture. Um, I can't understand anything you are saying because I don't have the Holy Spirit. Good day.

The exchange didn't go quite that way. It was a little more elaborate than that but that was the gist of it.

It would be swiftly modified to "proper" understanding if the unbeliever reports having read the Bible and coming to a different view of it. Maybe a Holy Ghost sized hole in a person's consciousness is helpful--the desire to make a connection with the divine. On the other hand, wanting to believe doesn't always work, apparently.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

Oh, the Christofascists are not pleased. Nor is their god, of course. If Trump manages to stomp or blunder into some significant catastrophe in the next two months, they'll point to it as a sign of that divine shithead's wrath at the "horrible" results of the presidential election.

"Bachmann Goes Berserk: 'I Ask God' to 'Take Your Iron Rod' and 'Smash the Delusion That Joe Biden Is Our President'" | New Civil Rights Movement

QuoteIn the name of Jesus Christ former U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is calling on God to "smash the delusion, Father, of Joe Biden as our president. He is not."

Right Wing Watch published the viral video Monday morning featuring the Tea Party Republican from Minnesota. In it, Bachmann also urges God to "smash" the "delusion" that Nancy Pelosi will retain the House of Representatives and "smash" Chuck Schumer becoming Senate Majority Leader.

"I ask, Oh God, that you would take your iron rod and I ask that you would smash the clay jar of deceit in America, smash the clay jar of delusion in the United States of America, smash the delusion, father of Joe Biden as our President. He is not," Bachmann says.

"Would you take your iron rod and smash the strong delusion that Nancy Pelosi does have her House of Representatives, we don't know that. Smash it, in Jesus name. Smash Lord the takeover of the Senate, by Chuck Schumer, Lord smash it with your iron rod. I asked Oh God, that you would take your iron rod. And I asked that you would smash the claim of just."

The video has been viewed nearly 88,000 times in just one hour.



"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Icarus

 Bachmann is a religious lunatic, Also a nut case with or without her mysterious man in the sky who, in her mind, hears and responds to her supplications.   

Recusant

She and her ilk are abundant on the ground in the US though. They're not mistaken--Trump is their man, and has advanced their cause. While it's obvious that his devotion to repressive theocratic Christianity is a political decision rather than a matter of sincere belief on his part, that is irrelevant to them and to the rest of us, for that matter. The Dominionist program will have to wait for the next Republican president.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

If you want to argue with an evangelical about Biden v Trump, cite the first few verses of Romans 13.  It says that whoever is in power was put there by God. If Biden wins, then it was God's will.  Remind them that they should accept God's will and pray for Biden and Harris. 

Recusant

There's a convenient answer to that commendable approach.

[spoiler=What could it be?][/spoiler]

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

Meanwhile, back at the Federalist Society, a Dominionist fellow traveller (at least) proudly pronounced upon topics that could very well come before him. That shining beacon of modern constitutional jurisprudence, Religious Freedom, figured prominently. Oh yeah, he's a Justice of the US Supreme Court.

"Alito's politically charged address draws heat" | Politico

QuoteSupreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an unusually inflammatory public speech Thursday night, starkly warning about the threats he contends religious believers face from advocates for gay and abortion rights, as well as public officials responding to the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking to a virtual conference of conservative lawyers, the George W. Bush appointee made no direct comment on the recent election, the political crisis relating to President Donald Trump's refusal to acknowledge his defeat or litigation on the issue pending at the Supreme Court.

However, Alito didn't hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.

"Is our country going to follow that course?" Alito asked. "For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It's often just an excuse for bigotry and can't be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. ... The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs."

Alito argued that some recent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark ruling upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, fueled intolerance to those who believe marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman.

"Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it's considered bigotry," he said.

Alito also seemed to minimize the significance of a refusal of a Colorado baker to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The justice noted that the couple involved "was given a free cake by another bakery" and that the high-profile standoff prompted "celebrity chefs" to come to their defense.

[Continues . . .]
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

It doesn't seem to me that the New York Times writer quoted below is telling us anything we don't already know. However, the more people are aware of the connection between Dominionism and Trumpism/Republican Party politics, the better.

I found a reprint source. The New York Times throws up a paywall after you've seen a few articles from them. In interest of verification, here's a link to the piece at the Times.

"Trump or No Trump, Religious Authoritarianism Is Here to Stay" | The World News

QuoteWill President-elect Joe Biden's victory force America's Christian nationalists to rethink the unholy alliance that powered Donald Trump's four-year tour as one of the nation's most dangerous presidents? Don't count on it.

The 2020 election is proof that religious authoritarianism is here to stay, and the early signs now indicate that the movement seems determined to reinterpret defeat at the top of the ticket as evidence of persecution and of its own righteousness. With or without Mr. Trump, they will remain committed to the illiberal politics that the president has so ably embodied.

[. . .]

The core of Mr. Trump's voting bloc, to be clear, does not come from white evangelicals as such, but from an overlapping group of not necessarily evangelical, and not necessarily white, people who identify at least loosely with Christian nationalism: the idea that the United States is and ought to be a Christian nation governed under a reactionary understanding of Christian values. Unfortunately, data on that cohort is harder to find except in deeply researched work by sociologists like Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry.

Most pollsters shoehorn complex religious identities into necessarily broad labels, so they fail to separate out the different strands of Mr. Trump's support. There are indications that the president in fact expanded his appeal among nonwhite evangelical and born-again Christians of color, particularly among Latinos. Mr. Biden, on the other hand, who made faith outreach a key feature of his campaign, appears to have done well among moderate and progressive voters of all faiths.

Conservative voters of faith "came in massive numbers, seven and a half million more above the 2016 baseline, which was itself a record," Ralph Reed, head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a longtime religious right activist, said at a postelection press briefing. "We believe they're the reason why Republicans are going to hold the Senate."

[. . .]

After processing their disappointment, Christian nationalists may come around to the reality of Joe Biden's victory. There is no indication, however, that this will temper their apocalyptic vision, according to which one side of the American political divide represents unmitigated evil. During a Nov. 11 virtual prayer gathering organized by the Family Research Council, one of the key speakers cast the election as the consequence of "the whole godless ideology that's wanted to swallow our homes, destroy our marriages, throw our children into rivers of confusion." Jim Garlow, an evangelical pastor whose Well Versed Ministry has as its stated goal, "Bringing biblical principles of governance to governmental leaders," asserted that Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris are at the helm of an "ideology" that is "anti-Christ, anti-Biblical to its core."

The comments pouring in from these and other figures may be forgotten when Mr. Biden takes office. But they are worth paying attention to now for what they say about the character of the movement. While many outsiders continue to think of Christian nationalism as a social movement that arises from the ground up, it in fact a political movement that operates mostly from the top down. The rank-and-file of the movement is diverse and comes to its churches with an infinite variety of motivations and concerns, but the leaders are far more unified.

[Continues . . .]
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken