Mormons (and ex-Mormons) are familiar with the idea of a (supposedly) all-powerful church controlling things behind the scenes -- but indirectly, not overtly. But what would happen if current trends continue unchecked and America descends into overt, out-in-the-open religious extremist rule? This possibility, while still remote, is not as remote as it once seemed.

We are now living in a fantasy, post-truth era in America where religious ideology supercedes reality and scientific fact. Religious intolerance is at an all time high. So, it's perfectly possible that one day in the not too distant future Americans could wake up and find themselves living in Christofascist state.


What would you do?


(And in case you want to know, I'd be in the resistance.)

I grew up in a Mormo-facist home, so I know what to do. Same thing Hemmingway did when he ran out of hope.

Canada in the warmer months, Mexico in the cooler months. I can do that because I'm retired.

I'd run into your room and start shaking you.

"Anybody! Anybody! Wake up! You're having that silly nightmare again about that imaginary crisis!"

And if you really want me to stop having nightmares you'll tell your religious friends to stop trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land and leave other people alone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2017 11:40PM by anybody.

The up and coming generations are less and less religious. The churches and other places of worship are less attended.

You have nothing to worry about. America is continuing to become more secular, not less.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And if you really want me to stop having
> nightmares you'll tell your religious friends to
> stop trying to make their religious beliefs the
> law of the land and leave other people alone.

Because in a democratic republic, religious people should just shut up and let the more enlightened members of society dictate the laws and morality for all of us.

By the way, there are exactly -zero- pending laws or contemplated laws that will enforce any sort of specific religious belief on the population. If you'll recall from your civics class, there's some prohibition that says something like, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Moral issues are fair game for anyone, so perhaps you can pry yourself free from your safe space to recognize that every citizen has an equal right to contend for whatever issues are important to them. And if some of those citizens are Christian, you can actually argue with them rather than insisting on using silly pejoratives like "Christofascists."

In this conversation, you're the one going all fascist by suggesting religious people should not participate in the political process. But who am I to interrupt your fantasy?

Much has been written about the coming demographic shift. The problem is not everyone participates equally in American democracy. It's a vicious spiral. As more and more voting restrictions are placed on the poor and non-white, fewer and fewer people will want to participate. Gerrymandering is reinforcing extreme ideologloical positions. You yourself claim that antropogenic climate change isn't happening and it makes no difference that almost every climatologist on this planet disagrees with you. America is facing a perfect storm of fear, racism, religious intolerance, and willful ignorance. Permanent South African style minority herrenvolk rule in America is no longer a remote possibility.

As I've said, every day brings another news report about a new law attempting to legislate evangelical Christian beliefs. Why ex-Mormons who escaped the clutches of a theocracy would support this baffles me.

But...many of the "non-whites" are religious, you know...

Look, I absolutely agree that there are groups in the US that would LIKE to establish a religious theocracy here. They've said so. And that we need to be ever vigilant to prevent such a thing from occurring.

However, rare though this may be, I'm mostly with TMSH on this one. You're letting fear get the best of rational thought, and way overstating the reality of the situation. You also don't seem to have studied much US history -- statements like "religious intolerance is at an all time high" aren't at all accurate.

The vast majority of religious people in the US don't want any kind of theocracy. The vast majority of them aren't the rabid, alt-fact ranting minority that get all the press coverage. The vast majority of them are people who are good neighbors, good citizens, and good people. Don't let your own fears overcome your ability to assess facts -- then you're becoming just like the rabid minority that you're so worried about.

Yes, keep a watchful eye on that rabid minority. Yes, challenged them and counter their nonsense with facts. No, don't adopt their tactics, or be so fearful of them that you lose all perspective.

Seriously.

This ^^^ +1

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Much has been written about the coming demographic
> shift.


This is true. Poll after poll shows the decline of organized religion in America. Lacking a strong central structure around which to rally, it's moving your fantasy uprising further and further away from reality.


> As more and more voting restrictions are
> placed on the poor and non-white, fewer and fewer
> people will want to participate.

Exactly what voting restrictions would these be?



> almost every climatologist on this planet
> disagrees with you.

A well-worn lie, but a lie nonetheless. You had the courage to examine the claims of Mormonism by using diverse sources including some that were clearly opposed to it, right? Do you have the courage to examine any of your other beliefs with the same rigor? I've never met a person who critically examined the "97% of all climate scientists" claim who felt there was sufficient evidence to support it. Our climate is a vast and complicated system, and no single discipline is an expert in all of the factors that effect it. Virtually every scientists agrees the earth is warming. They will also all agree we're in an interglacial period and these are _always_ marked with warming even before mankind had any presence. The role that mankind plays in this is not agreed to by any consensus whatsoever.

Be brave, read something other than Vox.com or Huffington Post:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming-joseph-bast

Remember, Mormons can dismiss anything because they deem it to be contrary to their core beliefs. Do yourself a favor, and stop thinking like a Mormon.



America is facing a perfect
> storm of fear, racism, religious intolerance, and
> willful ignorance. Permanent South African style
> minority herrenvolk rule in America is no longer a
> remote possibility.
>

An assertion that not only lacks evidence, but all available evidence militates against it. The only thing truly under fire in America today is freedom of speech.



> As I've said, every day brings another news report
> about a new law attempting to legislate
> evangelical Christian beliefs.

Will you please post here the articles from the past week that are attempting to legislate evangelical Christian beliefs?

Remember, abortion is not a solely religious issue. As science has progressed, so has the thinking of many non-religious people on this issue. Here's a link to a member of the atheist community who is part of the secular movement against abortion: http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2017 01:52PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

People inside the right wing alternative reality distortion field think rampant voter fraud by undocumented immigrants requires restrictions on voting. The reality is quite different. There are very few cases of voter fraud and it's really a non-issue. Several politicians have admitted the real reason behind these laws is voter suppression:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/north-carolina-gop-brags-about-how-few-black-people-were-able-vote-early


***************

You can deny that human activity isn't the cause for the vast increase in carbon dioxide levels and subsequent climate change since the start of the Industrial Revolution for the rest of your life if you want. By the time you boomers are long dead and I'm retirement age the effects will be there for all to see.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/


******************

Abortion is a medical issue. A developing embryo or foetus isn't a living human. It can become one but it's not alive. My body belongs to me and if I get pregnant it's my body and my decision if I want to have a child or not. I'm not just a "host" as one Oklahoma state rep recently said. I also wonder if the pro-life movement doesn't have a racist component. I hardly ever hear of people complaining about poor black or brown women having abortions -- and well off white women could always procure one if they got into trouble. I know this because my great uncle did them way back when when it was illegal.

******************

As I've said, there is no longer a division between right wing politics and evangelical Christianity in America. They are one in the same. Laissez-faire free market capitalism is preached from the pulpit and parishioners are told to vote Repulican. Legislators are making repeated attempts to make their religious values the law of the land:

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/legislation/
https://www.au.org/resources/publications/the-religious-rights-war-on-lgbt-americans
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/06/us/religious-freedom-laws-why-now/

**************

I don't want to restrict your right to worship as you see fit. I would accord you the freedom to worship knowing that the same evangelical zelots would try and make what they call the law of God the law of the land...just like the Taliban.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People inside the right wing alternative reality
> distortion field think rampant voter fraud by
> undocumented immigrants requires restrictions on
> voting. The reality is quite different. There are
> very few cases of voter fraud and it's really a
> non-issue. Several politicians have admitted the
> real reason behind these laws is voter
> suppression:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/north-
> carolina-gop-brags-about-how-few-black-people-were
> -able-vote-early
>
>

A wonderful argument weakened by a small, but significant weakness:

It's absolutely, completely, categorically unproven.

Partisan politics is a bloodsport that both sides engage with equal fervor. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is linkage that any specific circumstance of the North Carolina election impacted voter outcome whatsoever. There's a lot of partisan griping by the losers. Losers always do that. There is no evidence to salve their wounds other than they elevated the single most uncompelling candidate in recent history and saw a representative loss of enthusiasm as a result.

These claims all lack one vital element: An actual, empirical link between the cause they screech about and the outcome they got. And is there some reason why nobody on the losing side seems to realize the top of the ticket was no longer occupied by an African American which virtually every analyst cites as driving previously elevated levels of black participation? Next thing you know, they'll start claiming the Russians were on the ground in North Carolina tinkering with voting machines.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441698/voter-suppression-not-selma-stop-hysterics


> ***************
>
> You can deny that human activity isn't the cause
> for the vast increase in carbon dioxide levels and
> subsequent climate change since the start of the
> Industrial Revolution for the rest of your life if
> you want. By the time you boomers are long dead
> and I'm retirement age the effects will be there
> for all to see.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-cli
> mate-skeptics-are-wrong/
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-a
> nswers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
>
>

And yet, the one question that you and every alarmist refuses to even attempt to answer is, "How much of global warming can be proven to be caused by human activity? May I get an estimate of the percentage?"

If you can't even offer an estimate, what reason is there for any of us to assume it's 99% and not 9%? If your doctor says he's found you have cancer and suggests you should have your leg amputated, would you go through with it if he cannot confirm it's actually in your leg or that removing your leg will cure you? How would you react if your suggestion to seek a second opinion is met with insults, intimidation, and suggestions that you're just ignoring settled science?

This is where the global warming alarmists go full Mormon in their response. Ask a simple, completely relevant question and you trigger attacks and wholesale dismissal as a "doubter" or "denier." Run back into your testimony meeting Johnny, so you can flush all memories of that bad man. He's a DOUBTER!

True science does not vilify informed dissent. This single fact is enough to demonstrate this issue significantly transcends actual science and has become a political movement. And much of what it claims is pure fiction. Claims of a consensus are simply not true, and are a political tool to silence any who actually disagree. You have to ask yourself, why is a central element of this discussion always debating whether or not there's a consensus?

Here's a recent study that critically examines some of the claims. https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

You should only read this if you're willing to sacrifice your ideology for an actual informed position.

BTW, in a previous discussion you claimed to be a scientist. Am I correct in assuming that your area of expertise is not found among the hard sciences? I have a hard time imagining it even being among the social sciences. Care to inform us what sort of scientist you are?

> ******************
>
> Abortion is a medical issue. A developing embryo
> or foetus isn't a living human. It can become one
> but it's not alive. My body belongs to me and if I
> get pregnant it's my body and my decision if I
> want to have a child or not. I'm not just a
> "host" as one Oklahoma state rep recently said. I
> also wonder if the pro-life movement doesn't have
> a racist component. I hardly ever hear of people
> complaining about poor black or brown women having
> abortions -- and well off white women could always
> procure one if they got into trouble. I know this
> because my great uncle did them way back when when
> it was illegal.
>
> ******************
>

Are you one of those people who is unable to discern the difference between what is your opinion and what is an actual, global truth? If so, you've never fully left Mormonism.

It's sad to see those that pretend to embrace science abandon it with glee on this issue. At the moment of conception a zygote is identifiably different from its mother with its own unique DNA signature. It is identifiable scientifically as human, and as a distinct identity from its mother. It is, by actual scientific definition, human life. Your argument from this point becomes one to justify killing this human life.


The "it's my body" argument would be laughable if it didn't betray such brutal dishonesty. Following this logic about half of pregnant women have a penis as an integral part of their body. No, scientifically speaking, your body has another body residing inside of it. You can argue that its geographic location somehow grants you the right to terminate its life, but that's the actual argument. You're not removing some spontaneously-occurring growth. You're terminating a distinct, separate, human life. A fetus is a fully human participant in the trajectory of a natural, normal developing human every bit as much as an adolescent is. They reside in different places, but are merely at different stages of development. That's the undeniable science of this.

That is why this is not just a medical issue. It's an issue of ethics. And you clearly are not far enough in your maturity of belief to actually examine the positions of others and respond to them reasonably. You're long on bumper sticker ideology, but sadly short on actual, well-reasoned thinking.

If you feel you can scientifically or ethically justify terminating a human life, please present your arguments. Do not deceive yourself that this is a discussion about anything else.

I'll post this article by the atheist again. Will you read it and respond rather than persisting in your fantasy that this is only an evangelical Christian issue?

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/




> As I've said, there is no longer a division
> between right wing politics and evangelical
> Christianity in America. They are one in the same.
> Laissez-faire free market capitalism is preached
> from the pulpit and parishioners are told to vote
> Repulican. Legislators are making repeated
> attempts to make their religious values the law of
> the land:
>
> http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/legislation/
> https://www.au.org/resources/publications/the-reli
> gious-rights-war-on-lgbt-americans
> http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/06/us/religious-fre
> edom-laws-why-now/
>

You don't actually read your own sources do you? The first one has about 4 entries for the past 5 years, and it appears all of them are no longer relevant.

The second one decries the religious right's war against the LGBT community and how their rights are denied. It dates from before the legalization of gay marriage. Hello?

The final one details the movement by some states to carve out religious freedoms for businesses and individuals. Okay, that's something we can all debate, but it hardly qualifies as some evidence of a religious take over. Do you realize there really aren't any monsters under your bed?


> **************
>
> I don't want to restrict your right to worship as
> you see fit. I would accord you the freedom to
> worship knowing that the same evangelical zelots
> would try and make what they call the law of God
> the law of the land...just like the Taliban.

And there we have it. If not for unsubstantiated, emotional appeals with idiotic hyperbole, you would really have no ability to converse on this at all, would you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2017 04:38PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

You are delusional and beyond rational thought -- like a lot of climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists. You can live in your alternative reality while the rest of us live in the real world. Fearing that America could slide into religious fascism isn't the same thing as denial of fact.

By the way, I know there is nothing that I can say that will change your mind. I wasn't trying to. The only reason that I even bothered to reply was to inform other people who might read this. Nothing that I have said is hard to find. It's all well known basic information that is available to all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2017 05:46PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are delusional and beyond rational thought --

Really? I can tell you exactly why I believe what I do and offer specific evidence to support it. When you're asked to respond to this, you fold up like a cheap suit. Who is delusional and beyond rational thought?

> like a lot of climate change deniers and
> conspiracy theorists. You can live in your
> alternative reality while the rest of us live in
> the real world. Fearing that America could slide
> into religious fascism isn't the same thing as
> denial of fact.
>

It's rich that you embrace a religious conspiracy for which there is not a single shred of evidence, yet seem to see conspiracy theories among those who disagree with you. Your "facts" require no substantiation, I see. Strange, that.



> By the way, I know there is nothing that I can say
> that will change your mind. I wasn't trying to.
> The only reason that I even bothered to reply was
> to inform other people who might read this.


The thing you informed others of is that when confronted with reasonable criticism of your dearly-held beliefs you are incapable of offering a thoughtful response. When asked for something a bit more substantive than a bumper sticker slogan, you come up empty.

It's actually hilarious that you convulse about the dangers of a population that is increasingly ignorant and ignores science when that is the exact behavior that motivates much of your world view. Look in the mirror. The thing you fear most will be staring back at you.

I don't "believe" anything. Belief has nothing to do with it.


I'm not making an argument based on faith or belief.


If you look at the same data that I do, follow the same rational thought process, you should come to the same conclusion. Take anthropogenic climate change:


So, we can go 'round and 'round about how much carbon dioxide, methane, sulphur dioxide, carbon particulate matter, etc there is in the Earth's atmosphere and where this stuff is coming from.

You might say, "well, it's volcanoes and not humans putting all the stuff out." -- Not so fast:

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/

Or it could be some other "supposed" source or sources -- but -- eventually, if you are still rational and thinking rationally, you should come to the same conclusion:


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2896.html



The same is true of other issues like trans people and society for example.

Instead of reacting, I try to act rationally and ask "what's happening? What's going on? What's behind this?" So, when medical researchers say there's an actual brain difference and markers of pre-natal hormonal exposure, I listen.


If you think science works on "belief" go ask your friends Ponds and Fleishmann why cold fusion isn't working yet.


You may be familiar with the so-called "Doomsday Clock:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

It's just an arbitrary assessment by a scientific organisation about how close humanity is to destroying itself.

So, when people wonder about America sliding into fascism and dictatorship, I listen and think:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-scientists-donald-trump-america-societ-union-russia-politics-climate-change-denierfossil-fuels-a7584101.html

https://medium.com/defiant/donald-trump-is-becoming-an-american-dictator-8a65f36afe14

It probably won't happen -- like Doomsday -- but the possibility that it might can't be dismissed.


And concerning your comment about "penis envy" -- I sure as h@(% don't and you can kiss my sweet a#%...

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And concerning your comment about "penis envy" --
> I sure as h@(% don't and you can kiss my sweet
> a#%...


Which is found exactly where? In your vividly imaginary world doesn't count.

But looking on the bright side, the correct date for engaging this topic has finally arrived.

Honestly, I know you only through the things you post here, but it may not be a bad idea for you to consider taking a break and just enjoy some time with supportive friends and family.

Like having a silly nightmare that Trump would be elected President? Tell me that, 4 years ago, you would have bet a million dollars that that would never happen. The Tea Party masqueraded as States Rights & Constitutional basics, but in reality, turned into a fascist christian organization. America better wake up. Fast!

I have little reason or desire to return to the U.S. now, and I'd have less if what you describes transpires.

Happily, there's a big wonderful world out here. Most people don't need to be in the U.S.

Be thankful I live in Canada. I can fly to a beach in the winter.

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees. I would resist.

Man, I really hate these political posts...

but now there is no longer a division between religion and far right politics in America. They are one and the same.

are you saying that all people who are conservative in their thinking are religious? That is an incorrect generalisation - people do tend to get more conservative as they age, but being conservative in your politics does not equal in any way being a bible thumping christian or a koran thumping muslim.

You could just as easily say that no democrats (liberals) are religious and it would have the same amount of truth to it. Alternatively, you could also claim all democrats are secret communists and this would also have the same amount of truth to it as "there is no division between right wing politics and religion".

What has this bigoted view of yours got to do with recovering from mormonism anyway? Religious intolerance means being intolerant of someone purely because of their religion (you appear to be guilty of this with christians, perhaps you do not realise you come across this way), or, moving to a new country and demanding special tolerances for your own religion over and above any that other religions get in the country giving you sanctuary.

The only religious dictatorship we westerners have a chance of living under is sharia when the muslims outbreed us in a couple of generations. They would not tolerate the same acceptance of other religions that is afforded by non-muslims to islam. You appear to get all your views from an echo chamber - we must investigate all aspects of a subject before making a decision; all the arguments for and against with an open mind or we are being intolerant ourselves.

UK conservatives would not be considered fully conservative or RINOs by American standards. This nexus of conservative politics and religion is very unique.

that's a cop out - a non-answer. care to provide a proper response?

All of those are anathema to American Republicans.

still not a response to my questioning your statement that there is no difference between right wing politics and religion.

Stop deflecting your answer by saying UK is different - I am not asking about the UK, I am asking you to explain your claim which holds as much truth as 'all democrats are godless' or 'all democrats are communists', both of which are a nonsense.

Mormons and Southern Baptists are overwhelmingly Republican -- 60-70%+

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings

Not all conservatives are religious. Ayn Rand was an atheist.


Here's a better and more thorough answer than I could provide that should answer your question:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Christians-embrace-the-Republican-Party-when-the-conservative-ideology-is-nearly-opposite-the-teachings-of-Christ

"This is a great question on many levels and has already drawn some really good answers. As a pastor who has been involved with the Republican party in one form or another for many years, let me offer a few thoughts on the political side first.
I think the number one reason that most of the Christian right (which is only a portion of those who claim Christianity in this country) is the pro-life or anti abortion plank in the Republican party. I would also say that the bulk of those folks would say that the Democratic party has been demonizing and trying to limit faith based organizations and people's ability to be involved in community life and in politics. The result is the Christian right cannot see the social policies that Jesus seemed to promote as being reconcilable to the liberal agenda. For them the last year or two of court rulings and government edicts are exactly what they have feared was coming, and they are gearing up to fight back.
On the faith and religion side of the discussion, I would say that many churches and denominations promote what I call cafeteria Christianity (that is they only use and follow the parts of the Bible that are convenient and support those things that they find pleasing and helpful to their cause). In many cases they have reached the point where they have institutionalized secular humanism and forgotten, rejected, or ignored much of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible in general.
I can not tell you how many pastors I have spoken with over the last ten years who are gung ho supporters of the anti-abortion movement, but would never consider preaching a message on the evils of capital punishment. When I ask how they can be on both sides of the argument for sanctity of life, they look at me like I am from another planet. The same goes for the pastors who are spewing hate and intolerance for many of our fellow people. The Westboro Baptist fanatics come to mind, as well as the "pastor" in Florida who thinks it is funny to burn the holy books of other faiths.
We have far more people in this country who think that going to a church on Sunday mornings makes them a Christian, and they have no idea that it takes a personal, surrendered relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to make someone a "little Christ" which is what the word Christian means.
To be clear, I oppose the Christian church in any way supporting, sanctifying, or legitimizing "gay marriage". However I am also of the opinion that the Christian has no right to condemn the people involved, living that life choice, or helping with those ceremonies. True Christians are called to love ALL people, whether it is convenient or not; whether it is easy or not; and, whether it is popular or not. I also oppose abortion (which from the Christian perspective should be considered a form of murder which I also oppose), but again do not think that a Christian should hate or condemn the people who have them or even the people who perform them. For me they are just more sinners (like me) who need more of Jesus in their lives."


Since George Bush the Younger's time the Republican Party has become a de-facto white nationalist Christian political party. There are few if any non-whites left, few LGBTs, and only a few non-religious people. In America if you are "Christian" in the popular sense you support all of the right-wing ideological positions on same-sex marriage, gun rights, taxation, abortion, and so on. Things that were just political twenty or thirty years ago are now religious.

One example of this is evangelical prosperity theology:

http://time.com/donald-trump-prosperity-preachers/

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I can not tell you how many pastors I have spoken
> with over the last ten years who are gung ho
> supporters of the anti-abortion movement, but
> would never consider preaching a message on the
> evils of capital punishment. When I ask how they
> can be on both sides of the argument for sanctity
> of life, they look at me like I am from another
> planet.

I personally oppose the death penalty, but understand the argument in the context of justice. Abortion is the snuffing out of the most innocent and vulnerable form of human life possible. It has done nothing wrong, but for what is usually done in an act to avoid the inconvenience of childbirth, abortion permits killing the unborn child.

Yet when presented with an individual who, for example, horribly tortured, raped, and murdered a young girl, some who favor abortion will fight for that person's right to live.

Kill the innocent, but preserve the guilty. This is the incongruity of those who favor abortion, but reject capital punishment.

Your question to the pastor is essentially the same as, "If you value freedom, how can you possibly support incarcerating people?" Because forced incarceration is how our civil society demonstrates the value it places on meting out justice for victims, punishment for criminals, and preventing criminals from harming others. Capital punishment is clearly the most severe extension of justice, and is an extreme demonstration of the value we place on life. If you rob someone of their safety and freedom, you will lose yours. If you rob someone of their life, you will lose yours.



> The same goes for the pastors who are
> spewing hate and intolerance for many of our
> fellow people. The Westboro Baptist fanatics come
> to mind, as well as the "pastor" in Florida who
> thinks it is funny to burn the holy books of other
> faiths.

Every group has fringe elements. You can't take a fringe example and present it as representative of the larger group -- which in this case, consistently, openly disavows the actions of the fringe.


> We have far more people in this country who think
> that going to a church on Sunday mornings makes
> them a Christian, and they have no idea that it
> takes a personal, surrendered relationship with
> Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to make someone a
> "little Christ" which is what the word Christian
> means.
> To be clear, I oppose the Christian church in any
> way supporting, sanctifying, or legitimizing "gay
> marriage". However I am also of the opinion that
> the Christian has no right to condemn the people
> involved, living that life choice, or helping with
> those ceremonies.

Huh? Christians can believe a certain activity is wrong, but have no right to express that belief or act on it?


> True Christians are called to
> love ALL people, whether it is convenient or not;
> whether it is easy or not; and, whether it is
> popular or not. I also oppose abortion (which from
> the Christian perspective should be considered a
> form of murder which I also oppose), but again do
> not think that a Christian should hate or condemn
> the people who have them or even the people who
> perform them. For me they are just more sinners
> (like me) who need more of Jesus in their lives."
>

So, in your world, Christians would have a set of morals, but would never express them in a larger context, and never suggest they may be global? That's not how religions work. If you understand that many Christians view abortion as something akin to murder, how could you possible expect them to remain silent about it? Should Christians just shut up when they see someone actually being murdered on the street as well, because it's wrong to condemn the sin of others? It looks like you haven't thought this through too well.

I think what you're actually saying is, "Those religionists can believe whatever they want, but they better just shut up about it if it's a topic I don't personally agree with."

>
> Since George Bush the Younger's time the
> Republican Party has become a de-facto white
> nationalist Christian political party. There are
> few if any non-whites left, few LGBTs, and only a
> few non-religious people. In America if you are
> "Christian" in the popular sense you support all
> of the right-wing ideological positions on
> same-sex marriage, gun rights, taxation, abortion,
> and so on. Things that were just political twenty
> or thirty years ago are now religious.
>

You're consistently loose with your claims and unable to support them. There has never been a time when same-sex marriage and abortion were ignored by Christians. They are necessarily political issues since our government is the gateway for legalizing or prohibiting these activities.

Christians likely as a group tend to value personal freedoms and less government interference more than other individuals. Your leap to suggest a racist component is unfounded and disappointing.

all you want. But when you try to introduce religious beliefs into the public sphere with the force of law you are infringing on the rights of others. You don't have to believe me -- go to any town in America outside of a major urban area or in the Bible Belt and you will discover for yourself how religion and right wing conservative politics have become one and the same. There are liberal evangelicals -- I know several -- but they are few in number.

And you forgot the other most important principle:

Equal justice under law.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2017 02:06PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all you want. But when you try to introduce
> religious beliefs into the public sphere with the
> force of law you are infringing on the rights of
> others.

Tent revival? Sheesh.

Exactly what religious beliefs do you feel are being pushed into laws? Won't you please give us some examples?



>
> And you forgot the other most important principle:
>
>
> Equal justice under law.

And I imagine you're not going to tell me exactly how and where I have suggested we violate this principle. Is this going to be another of your "If you too ignorant to know, I'm not going to help you" moments where you avoid discussing the pure fantasy that you embrace?

It's one thing to want religious freedom for all. It's another to impose the religion on others. Here is an example:

Religious freedom: Protect the personal right to not have an abortion. I'm all for a Christian woman who makes the choice not to have an abortion.

Christofacist state: Impose rules about abortion and reproduction decisions on people who have different views.

TMSH, don't have an abortion if you don't want one! A bunch of white Christian old men enforcing what women can do is completely inappropriate in this day and age. These are the same men who are gung-ho about keeping accessible birth control for all inaccessable and preventing public sex education. Religion has been overreaching into women's crotches way too long. Women are not thrilled about having to make a decision about abortion, for cripes sake. Funny how certain types abhor government getting involved in anything but are fine using it to intrude into people's bedrooms and reproductive decisions.

Are you willing to delegate slavery to a simple difference of opinion? Should I keep my opinion of that to myself, too? Am I wrong to defend another human's rights?

Abortion is by every reasonable scientific measure the extinguishing of human life. There is no logic that can arrive anywhere else. Bald eagles are a protected endangered species and we extend criminal liability to any act that harms a bald eagle egg. Why? Because we all recognize that an unviable pre born bald eagle in an egg will, if left undisturbed, become an eagle. There is no reasonable argument (and certainly no legal argument) that a bald eagle egg is somehow removed from the normal process involved in creating a bald eagle. That's why we protect them.

A human fetus is in every way a full participant of a normal trajectory of human life equal to an infant, adolescent, or octogenarian. They are all at different phases of normal human life. In 38 states if you harm a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, you've committed a crime.

And you'll note nowhere in any of this is there a need to invoke some religious argument. This is a simple human argument. If we actually value human life, science shows us a fetus is every bit a member of the human life continuum with any other crawling, walking, or limping human. I'm not pushing my religion on you. I'm reminding you that we're all human, and the thing that distinguishes us from lower life forms is our ability to cherish life and protect the most helpless and defenseless members of it.

This is not an issue of opinion. It's an issue over whether women should have the right to kill human life merely due to the fact that it is geographically located inside their body.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you willing to delegate slavery to a simple
> difference of opinion? Should I keep my opinion of
> that to myself, too? Am I wrong to defend another
> human's rights?
>
> Abortion is by every reasonable scientific measure
> the extinguishing of human life. There is no logic
> that can arrive anywhere else. Bald eagles are a
> protected endangered species and we extend
> criminal liability to any act that harms a bald
> eagle egg. Why? Because we all recognize that an
> unviable pre born bald eagle in an egg will, if
> left undisturbed, become an eagle. There is no
> reasonable argument (and certainly no legal
> argument) that a bald eagle egg is somehow removed
> from the normal process involved in creating a
> bald eagle. That's why we protect them.
>
> A human fetus is in every way a full participant
> of a normal trajectory of human life equal to an
> infant, adolescent, or octogenarian. They are all
> at different phases of normal human life. In 38
> states if you harm a pregnant woman causing her to
> miscarry, you've committed a crime.
>
> And you'll note nowhere in any of this is there a
> need to invoke some religious argument. This is a
> simple human argument. If we actually value human
> life, science shows us a fetus is every bit a
> member of the human life continuum with any other
> crawling, walking, or limping human. I'm not
> pushing my religion on you. I'm reminding you that
> we're all human, and the thing that distinguishes
> us from lower life forms is our ability to cherish
> life and protect the most helpless and defenseless
> members of it.
>
> This is not an issue of opinion. It's an issue
> over whether women should have the right to kill
> human life merely due to the fact that it is
> geographically located inside their body.

Every sperm is sacred, but screw child refugees, immigrants, the poor, and go for hawkish war killing of civilians.

Enjoy all the Christian love, zygotes, because, once you are here you're on your own. If you are female, your job is to be a vessel, and your rights and decisions become secondary to any sperm that might have a "trajectory" of becoming a human.

Most of the highly religious South was fine with slavery. That is a particularly bad example you selected IMO, since slavery was justified in the Bible. Thankfully some did come to "interpret" the Bible differently.

Thankfully not all Christians are like this, but that is the "trajectory" of the Christians who appear to be in charge.

I'm sorry, but if something is "geographically" located in my body, it's none of your business. I've never shoved slaves up my crotch.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Every sperm is sacred, but screw child refugees,
> immigrants, the poor, and go for hawkish war
> killing of civilians.
>
> Enjoy all the Christian love, zygotes, because,
> once you are here you're on your own. If you are
> female, your job is to be a vessel, and your
> rights and decisions become secondary to any sperm
> that might have a "trajectory" of becoming a
> human.
>

I recognize this quickly becomes an emotional issue for many people. Your immediate retreat to a hackneyed red herring that doesn't even do justice to a Monty Python skit is sad.

It's convenient to create a straw man about things I never suggested, but if you're actually a reasonable, rational adult, you know none of these things has anything to do with this discussion. The value of one human does not stand or fall on the politics of another, and you surely know that. This is not even a matter of opinion. It is purely science. And it's an unavoidable truth that the thing growing inside of a pregnant woman is human life and was from the moment of conception. There is no other way to describe it without abandoning simple logic.


> Most of the highly religious South was fine with
> slavery. That is a particularly bad example you
> selected IMO, since slavery was justified in the
> Bible. Thankfully some did come to "interpret" the
> Bible differently.
>
> Thankfully not all Christians are like this, but
> that is the "trajectory" of the Christians who
> appear to be in charge.

You use my example in a way that defeats your position. Do you believe that Christians were wrong if they supported ripping humanity from slaves, but are somehow right if they deny the scientific fact that unborn babies are every bit as human as were slaves?

>
> I'm sorry, but if something is "geographically"
> located in my body, it's none of your business.
> I've never shoved slaves up my crotch.

Again, I understand this can be very emotional for people, and while you may take comfort insisting this is just some backwater religious belief, you'll note I have not even suggested there be any religious component to this discussion. This is a simple appeal to science and the innate value of human life.

The problem for you is that there is no ethical or moral system that would insist upon a right to kill a human simply because it was located one place over another. It doesn't work that way for your living room, your backyard, and there's no ethical or moral reason a helpless child residing in your womb should be viewed as anything other than a human worthy of the protections you would afford any other helpless human who may present themselves to you in need of your help.

You seem troubled that many religious people are against abortion, so may I offer a resource from an atheist who finds no religious reason, but still is against abortion?

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

I'm glad that you admitted my point, that not all people with conservative politics are religious, but then you offer up an opinion piece full of anecdotes and expect me to accept it as factual - it is not, it is an opinion piece full of anecdotes and a claim that fringe elements (like the westoboro baptists) are normal and a fair representation of a large demographic: this is completely irrelevant to your initial statement and displays quite a high level of intolerance towards people who identify as christian. Muslims are pro-life, anti lgbt and anti a whole lot of other stuff too, so I do not understand why they have not been included in your evaluations.

I didn't bother with your link regarding the 'prosperity gospel' which is just the same as worshiping a golden calf, imo, and it has nothing to do with the concession that you made: that having a conservative outlook in politics does not equal being religious. I know many people who are well aware that going to church does not equal being 'christian' and there are a good number of non-attendees who live a far more just life than some who claim to be followers of christ who do attend a building faithfully, every week.

That's it, no more dystopian teen novels for you!

Well, the last time that happened, wait, what?

Sorry, I'll try one more time. Study the history of Christian theocracies, they show themselves to be abject failures and worse very bloody. The Reformation/Counter Reformation was only partly about religion but it seems fair to include them. The English civil war was only partly about religion but man was that bloody. Massachusetts was the paradigm on how to treat unbelievers for a moment and when they went crazy in Salem it pretty much came to an end.

The point is this fear you have is over something that has caused real problems but has been consistently squashed by the suffering population.

As for today, honestly, when I hear you complain about the pending doom of our secular society I'm reminded of the religionists crying over the pending doom of our religious society. It gives me real comfort that both extremes are scared that their way of life might be coming to an end.

The society that I want to live in is one that is both accepting and flexible. The diversity of beliefs, views, heritage, and so forth are the items that I want. I want people to disagree, and yet live together in relative harmony. So by all means, believe in Jesus, Allah, Science, and Zeus. Because that makes my life all the more fulfilling.

Retire to Republic of Ireland. Which you can do if you can prove you have at least 50,000 euros per year. I'm IN!

The globalists are trying to use islam to do just that. And that moslem Trudeau kid in Canada is goose-stepping right along with the agenda.

You mean liberal intolerance of religion is at an all time high, don't you?

From where I am, I'm more worried about a totalitarianism state made up of liberals who aren't.

I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree.

including people who think that America is a "christian" nation and was founded as such even though it never was any such thing.

Secularism isn't the same thing as intolerance of religion. The government and the state should and must be neutral in matters of faith.

Bullshit. There are plenty of republicans that think religion in America has been hijacked by extremists. Right wing conservatives love to scream about religious intolerance. What they really mean is that others are opposed to Christianity forced down their throats. The same people that want to ban an entire religion from America can also complain about religious intolerance? Hypocrites.

You can believe what ever you want.

Standing up and saying your beliefs do not justify telling me how to live is not being intolerant of religion.

Standing up and saying the bible is not the law of the land and should not be, is not being intolerant of religion.

trying to discredit me for saying that is actually religious intolerance.

It's not -- so I won't do anything.

the sky is falling! the sky is falling...

Ain't going to happen ...

The Constitution forbids it. There is plenty of case law based upon said. I'd wager very few Americans want to live in a Theocracy of any kind.

And Christianity is in dramatic decline now. The mainline Protestant churches have flatlined decades ago. Mormonism seems to reached it's peak during the Hickster's time and is falling apart. Evangelicalism had a hurrah during the Bush administration, but has been in serious decline.

Sure there are some nutters who would like a theocracy, but let's bet honest, they are a fringe of the fringe. Meh. Just not seeing it.

I love living in a country that provides Freedom of Religion for you and for me.

You can believe or not. It isn't a law that you do so. What do you think our forebears fled from in part, if not to escape that very religious persecution in England and elsewhere?

The thing that frightens me more than a Christian nation (which by the way does not,) is a godless Atheist one. When you have to worship the government in place of god, and ALL your allegiance is to the supreme despot in the land, that is putting trust and faith in the wrong institution IMHO.

Man-made institutions are still that, at the end of the day. They may rise, but inevitably decline too. There is no one man, or government that has lasted historically.

The God I put my faith in is not of this world.

America is (supossedly) secular and religiously neutral.

Just because there's no official state religion doesn't make it a "godless" country -- just not a Christian one.

The issue as I see it is that moral people on both sides have very little ability to compromise.

Example:

Okay, it's a potential human life growing inside of a female body, but for a period of [a disputed number of months], it is much more like a fish than a human. During that time, abortion of this growth is not "a crime against humanity," but a relatively simple medical procedure.

If a female "hosts" this growth for at least a period of [a disputed number of months], measurable human traits become undeniable, and intentionally harming this potential human becomes a crime against a human, regardless of whom inflicts the harm - a gunman, the father, the mother or a drunk driver.

End of example, and comment:

This sort of view would require consessions from both sides of the argument. I'm not claiming that it is "the" solution, but opening such a discussion would at least drag the participants from the cement of all or nothing, which is *the* recipe for extremism.

Why isn't "the morning after" pill an acceptable solution? We would be addressing the "abortion" of less than 10? cells. 10 cells does not a "human life" make.

And, we protect bald eagles because humans have (and may still) cause (anthropogenic) extinction of the species. Dare I say that the human race is not yet in the same danger of extinction?

We -all- can step away from extreme positions, and detemine and discuss facts.

kick the bucket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue as I see it is that moral people on both
> sides have very little ability to compromise.
>
> Example:
>
> Okay, it's a potential human life growing inside
> of a female body, but for a period of , it is much
> more like a fish than a human. During that time,
> abortion of this growth is not "a crime against
> humanity," but a relatively simple medical
> procedure.
>
> If a female "hosts" this growth for at least a
> period of , measurable human traits become
> undeniable, and intentionally harming this
> potential human becomes a crime against a human,
> regardless of whom inflicts the harm - a gunman,
> the father, the mother or a drunk driver.
>
> End of example, and comment:
>
> This sort of view would require consessions from
> both sides of the argument.


Actually, no it would not require concessions from both sides. Every pro-choice person I know agrees with the idea that the fetus becomes "human" at some point and an abortion should not happen after that. If the other side does not agree, there is no agreement.

Let me clarify, yes both sides need to make concessions to have agreement.

If one side does make the concessions, but the other does not, then there is no agreement. To talk as if both sides still need to make concessions in this case is a fallacy that only adds to the disagreement.

I forgot about this thread. It's a real knee slapper.

Retire to the Pacific NW, western slope of the Cascades, where none dare hurt or make afraid.

Christofascist: another boogieman word, in this case for the frightened atheists. As opposed to just plain fascist, at least there's a bit of Jesus in this one, a glimmer of hope for pity, empathy, feeding the poor sheltering the homeless and ye sans sin casting the first stone stuff.


Here's a term that actually applies to present day USA, created by Sheldon Wolin: Inverted totalitarianism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#/search


Hint: stop trying to cast religion as the boogieman of the world. It is a lie, masking for the actual ills that set us back. After all, what did the 26,171 bombs America drop JUST LAST YEAR have to do with religion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism

People in America who call themselves "christians" want to:

Control who love
Control who I sleep with
Control my body
Control what I can wear
Control what I watch
Deny human rights and dignity to non-cisgendered heteronormative people
Force everyone else to believe as they do "for their own good"

I don't try to force other people to live and act as I do. They can do as they please as long as they don't deny to others the same freedom they have for themselves.

Chick-fil-a is giving free sandwiches to us when we show our Secret Christofacist Identity Card during checkout.

We're working on getting a Hobby Lobby discount, too, so stay tuned.