Religion, weaponized religion, and the separation of church and state

[Nivek 16,929]

5 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

"Surprise surprise that religions and religious institutions are wicked and full of sin (because they are made up of people who are preternaturally so). 

 

This is of course the ultimate excuse.  It is also why so many family-values people vote for some of the most immoral and unethical people imaginable who seek to harm and ostracize groups on the margins who are trying to find acceptance and tolerance because they are weak, easy targets.   

[Zepol87 9,186]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Neutrality helps the oppressors not the oppressed.

Not voting is not something to be proud of.

Not on topic but yes yes yes!!! I've never understood that thinking and I'm not a smart man

Edited March 23, 2023 by Zepol87

[Brisketexan 105,139]

Neutrality helps the oppressors not the oppressed.

Not voting is not something to be proud of.

This. Infinitely this.

Thank you for this response. God bless you, brother.

Bullshit.

Pious and self-righteous “neutrality,” because “I’m above it all” is a luxury of the dominant class, and it’s a luxury that the oppressed can’t afford, often literally at the price of their lives.

Imagine living in 1930s Germany, and saying “I feel for the Jews, but I don’t vote, so I can’t vote against the Nazis.” I’m sure the Jews would have super appreciated your neutrality in those times. And if the Nazis came to power and implemented the final solution on the strength of enough people like you sitting on the sidelines, well, I guess that’s just God’s will.

But, I mean, I guess I should be grateful for any American Christian who sits on the sidelines these days. Odds are, it’s taking a likely vote for oppression off the table.

Oh, and as to the discussion above about the theocratic plan re Obergefell, Lawrence v Texas, Griswold, etc, it’s really easy. Every one of those cases rests on a principle that the individual is protected from an infringement of their individual rights/liberty/privacy by the State. That is a bulwark against the state oppressing them. The theocrats think that the only individual right we actually have is “freedom of religion” (well, I guess add the second individual right - freedom to own a gun, because you’re gonna need a tool to force your religion on people who just don’t get that you’re in charge now). Thus, the theocrats can exercise their “freedom of religion” by writing “religiously neutral” laws for religious reasons (we all know they banned gay sex because Jesus, but they argued some bullshit about the state’s interest in protecting families, even though I have yet to get any explanation about how my family is threatened because NAIU gave his husband a BJ last night). And those individual rights and protections that stood in the way of them doing so? Gone. Evaporated. There is nothing standing in between us and their Handmaid’s Tale wet dream. They get to impose it. All of it.

[Willfully Horn 8,017]

Mr @sheeeit, 

Did you read much about the constitutional authority of SCOTUS to negate an enumerated right? Me either.

Matter of fact, the ninth Amendment makes clear they have no such authority.

Get an Amendment, or GTFO.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[formermav43 4,606]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This. Infinitely this.



Bullshit.

Pious and self-righteous “neutrality,” because “I’m above it all” is a luxury of the dominant class, and it’s a luxury that the oppressed can’t afford, often literally at the price of their lives.

Imagine living in 1930s Germany, and saying “I feel for the Jews, but I don’t vote, so I can’t vote against the Nazis.” I’m sure the Jews would have super appreciated your neutrality in those times. And if the Nazis came to power and implemented the final solution on the strength of enough people like you sitting on the sidelines, well, I guess that’s just God’s will.

 

Ironically, you sound just like someone on the Religious Right here. 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Appreciated.  Lets start with abortion.  I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now.  Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt.  I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible.  That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find.  No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard.  Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins.  We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary.  It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position.  But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal.

On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific.  Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties".  It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted.  If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious.  Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately.  Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking.  I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written.  No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides.

I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past.  Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses.  Now we get to see and read everything.  I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning.

To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant.  And, more importantly, you shouldn't.  Religion is never, ever going away.  It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction.  The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence.  The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far.  But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.  

Abortion...again, it has been discussed at length in the abortion thread.  However, I do not know a single person that advocates for abortion on demand or supports late term, viable fetus abortions that do not endanger the life of the mother.  I do agree it is very difficult to get everyone to settle on the definition of life or viable fetus (although the latter seems much more possible).  However, you are conveniently leaving out special interest groups and the amount of money the pour into the the Republican party.  A politician or a judge doesn't have to actually site God or the bible as a reason, even if it is a big part of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/roe-v-wade-abortion-christian-right-america

Regarding LGBT agendas, I am not sure if you are serious or not, but again, tons of money and endorsements for right wing politicians to push legislation through.  You say these laws read rational.  Can you explain how they are rational?  I am struggling to think of a legitimate reason why two adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to get married. 

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor_abbott_statement_on_supreme_court_ruling_on_same_sex_marriage

Regarding how to stop it?  Well, the 1A for one.  But you are right, they will always be there.

[safe sex 11,725]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Appreciated.  Lets start with abortion.  I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now.  Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt.  I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible.  That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find.  No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard.  Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins.  We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary.  It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position.  But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal.

On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific.  Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties".  It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted.  If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious.  Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately.  Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking.  I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written.  No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides.

I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past.  Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses.  Now we get to see and read everything.  I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning.

To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant.  And, more importantly, you shouldn't.  Religion is never, ever going away.  It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction.  The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence.  The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far.  But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.  

Is this a serious post?

[wildcat09 29,354]

42 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Is this a serious post?

Sheeeit has never been a serious poster.

[Zepol87 9,186]

44 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Is this a serious post?

No fucking way

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The fact that the “religious” people posting in this thread are discussing everything BUT the actual topic of this thread is very telling.

They fucking know they can’t defend the way the evangelical assholes are using their beliefs as a cudgel for cruelty and to bend the law to their will.

So instead y’all are falling for their “philosophical” debates so they don’t have to defend the premise of the actual debate.

And “complementarism”?
 

 

 

That's actually false.

A consensus was reached in the first couple of pages that religion has no place in the state.

Then the "sky daddy" crowd came in and, apropos of nothing relevant to this thread, shot it off in surly directions.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I went down the rabbit hole watching videos of the Ark Experience Wow.

How many Christian’s on this site believe the earth is 6,000 years old and man not only coexisted with dinosaurs but Noah brought 85 kinds of dinosaurs on the Ark?



I know this isn’t directly related to my origin topic, but I just have to know since we have gotten off and on track through the thread.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

He’s your god. 
They’re your rules. 
You burn in hell. 

[BevoAbyss 2,059]

Two quick points.

1. Religious Belief:

The single greatest predictors — by far — of someone's religious beliefs are where they were born on Planet Earth and their parent's beliefs. It's not truth, evidence, or virtue. It's where you were born and your parents. End of story. 

2. Weaponization: 

As I have posted elsewhere at Surly, religion was weaponized and unleashed upon Native/Indigenous Peoples across three continents (North, Central, and South Americas) to violently colonize, conquer, and convert those few left alive.

It's always the 3Cs (colonize, conquer, convert) first, then "freedom" second. It's freedom within religion, not outside religion.

GQP-MAGA and their gun worship are not an aberration, they fit the historical record. 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Far too long, the secular community has been live and let live. I think there needs to be greater secular pushback, and not just against religious beliefs intermingling with government, but against religion in general. The laissez faire policy has led us down this theocratic path. Not only should there be no prayer in school, no funding to religious schools, etc. There should be taxes on churches. In God We Trust should be removed from the currency. No publicly owned spaces, parks, etc shall allow permits for religious use. 

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Abortion...again, it has been discussed at length in the abortion thread.  However, I do not know a single person that advocates for abortion on demand or supports late term, viable fetus abortions that do not endanger the life of the mother.  I do agree it is very difficult to get everyone to settle on the definition of life or viable fetus (although the latter seems much more possible).  However, you are conveniently leaving out special interest groups and the amount of money the pour into the the Republican party.  A politician or a judge doesn't have to actually site God or the bible as a reason, even if it is a big part of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/roe-v-wade-abortion-christian-right-america

Regarding LGBT agendas, I am not sure if you are serious or not, but again, tons of money and endorsements for right wing politicians to push legislation through.  You say these laws read rational.  Can you explain how they are rational?  I am struggling to think of a legitimate reason why two adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to get married. 

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor_abbott_statement_on_supreme_court_ruling_on_same_sex_marriage

Regarding how to stop it?  Well, the 1A for one.  But you are right, they will always be there.

Your first paragraph is kind of making my point.  It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion.  It did not.  The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory.  And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life.  You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision.  There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group.  Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc.  They all give tons of money to their causes.  

On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief.  I read your link and have read many other links.  Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married.  They can and they can get married in the church.  What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs.  That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not.

You say there efforts to push legislation through.  That is why I asked for specifics.  Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.  

 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Your first paragraph is kind of making my point.  It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion.  It did not.  The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory.  And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life.  You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision.  There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group.  Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc.  They all give tons of money to their causes.  
On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief.  I read your link and have read many other links.  Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married.  They can and they can get married in the church.  What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs.  That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not.
You say there efforts to push legislation through.  That is why I asked for specifics.  Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.  
 
 

Bare with me, on my phone so hopefully links work and what not.

So it is your contention that Christianity, and religious groups had no role in abortion law? Only because the decision doesn’t explicitly state it? It is very convenient to think this way. However, it seems pretty obvious to many folks that Paxton and Abbott are definitely pushing their religious beliefs onto others.

Paxton in 2015 is clear about how he views the separation of church and state:

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/20/paxton-addresses-grapevine-church/

And his homie Abbott mentioning the “creator” in regard to SB8:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

Was SB8 not part of the Roe being overturned? It’s fairly easy to connect the dots here. If you can’t see it, I’m not sure what to say. Maybe one of these law dogs can say it better than myself.

Regarding gay marriage, Abbott has been an opponent his whole career. Very easy to find articles that quote him saying as such.

It’s not called a culture battle, it’s a war. Many battles are fought within a war. You don’t think given the chance Abbott and Co. won’t revisit this? I think Brisket handled it up thread.

How about these proposed bills:

https://www.equalitytexas.org/legislature/legislative-bill-tracker-2023/

Those must all be secular since God isn’t mentioned. This is also heavily discussed in the LGBT thread.

[wildcat09 29,354]

If you fuckers seriously start engaging with sheeeit this board needs to be nuked from orbit.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

If you fuckers seriously start engaging with sheeeit this board needs to be nuked from orbit.

Oh, I am done. I mean, these politicians are not even trying to hide it. Not sure how he can’t see it just because a law doesn’t explicitly site God or scripture. It’s pretty fucking funny.

[wildcat09 29,354]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

Oh, I am done. I mean, these politicians are not even trying to hide it. Not sure how he can’t see it just because a law doesn’t explicitly site God or scripture. It’s pretty fucking funny.

He can see it. He's trolling.

[royiv 9,316]

17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a weird time.  We are now living in an era where evangelicals embrace Donald Trump, a man who has not only publicly admitted multiple times to paying off a porn star to stay quiet, but who has no shame in admitting that he's done that (which raises the question how many times he's done it in the past - he was pretty comfortable with complaining that she didn't stick to her end of the bargain).  He makes a mockery of the evangelicals and Christians who support him, and they don't care as long as they get some executive order or some shout-out from him.

That raises the question of why the folks pushing for more religion in the government or whatever, aren't even willing to criticize those like Trump who make a mockery of them, and why the rest of us should bother listening to them about anything related to religion.

The fact that evangelicals embraced Trump and the rise of Trumpism undermines any legitimacy that they claim in their views. Trump is a false idol for Christians and it makes those that support him look completely dumb to those that see through him. They worship someone who isn't one of them and, further, proudly mocks who they are. It's one of the biggest reasons I can't take any of our resident Christian conservatives that proudly vote R seriously. They worship a false idol that doesn't represent their core beliefs on morality.

I've never seen one of them seriously reconcile how they justify Trump's own beliefs and behaviors against their own core beliefs. All I've ever seen is muh money, muh boats and muh guns. That just proves to me that their beliefs can't be taken seriously because their own individual prosperity is supremely more important than the wellbeing of their fellow man and their ability to live in peace and happiness.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

No publicly owned spaces, parks, etc shall allow permits for religious use. 

That wouldn’t fly. If you’re going to allow permits, you can’t discriminate. I agree that government should be expressly secular. Strike “In God we trust” from our currency and all public buildings. Remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance. “One nation indivisible” is more meaningful anyway and apparently some citizens could use a reminder. Stop swearing on the Bible or any religious text in court, maybe? As if that’s a reason to trust anyone’s word. Just make them swear an oath to tell the truth. Get rid of prayers in all public events up to an including the presidential inauguration.

But we still have to respect everyone’s religious freedom. If you want to hold your church picnic in the park, we can’t stop you from doing that if we let the Rotary Club hold theirs in the park. Gotta let the Satanists hold theirs there too. If they pay for the permit, let them hold their event.

[Guest]

I think it’s great that we can all agree to extend the bill of rights even to religious people.  

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I think it’s great that we can all agree to extend the bill of rights even to religious people.  

LOL

If you want to extend it to the 85 dinosaurs, the buck stops there.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

I've read 0% of this thread, but I think this goes here:

[Satchel 6,938]

If evangelicals would concern themselves with “widows and Orphans” rather than legislating against transgender people and Rosa Park’s race, we’d all be better off.

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Bare with me, on my phone so hopefully links work and what not.

So it is your contention that Christianity, and religious groups had no role in abortion law? Only because the decision doesn’t explicitly state it? It is very convenient to think this way. However, it seems pretty obvious to many folks that Paxton and Abbott are definitely pushing their religious beliefs onto others.

Paxton in 2015 is clear about how he views the separation of church and state:

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/20/paxton-addresses-grapevine-church/

And his homie Abbott mentioning the “creator” in regard to SB8:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

Was SB8 not part of the Roe being overturned? It’s fairly easy to connect the dots here. If you can’t see it, I’m not sure what to say. Maybe one of these law dogs can say it better than myself.

Regarding gay marriage, Abbott has been an opponent his whole career. Very easy to find articles that quote him saying as such.

It’s not called a culture battle, it’s a war. Many battles are fought within a war. You don’t think given the chance Abbott and Co. won’t revisit this? I think Brisket handled it up thread.

How about these proposed bills:

https://www.equalitytexas.org/legislature/legislative-bill-tracker-2023/

Those must all be secular since God isn’t mentioned. This is also heavily discussed in the LGBT thread.

This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here.  I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong.  I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them.  If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded.

Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country."  I do not think that is true.    And Texas isn't the country.  I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy.  Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it?  I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in.  

When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided.  Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar.  In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated.  We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past.  That is undeniable.  Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy.

Abortion-  Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad.  However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life.  An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception.  I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that.  But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious.  It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal.  I can respect that argument.

Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time.  Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot.  But attitudes change and our govt laws change.  Gay marriage is legal everywhere now.  Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening.  Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did.  If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them.  If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights.

LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out.  I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person.  I read over some of the bills you linked above.  Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing.  The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents.  I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes.   There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor.  My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided.  Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants.  It is a brutal thing for them to deal with.  Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation.  But the subject needs to be treated carefully.  I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped.  When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it.  However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues.  To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy.  We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.

 

 

[safe sex 11,725]

You are not a real person.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

7 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion.  It did not.  The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory.

Roe was on somewhat precarious legal footing (extension of privacy rights against state police power at its greatest -- ostensibly protecting human life) when it was decided, but every year of the subsequent 49 that it stood, that footing became firmer and firmer despite being challenged at least annually and probably more than any other single decision of the Court over its history.

While the ostensible basis for overturning it was "legal theory," it is no coincidence that it was overturned by a Court comprised of 2/3 Catholic justices, at least four of whom were selected by religious fanatics specifically because of their unstated and unstatable but nevertheless staunch opposition to Roe and in an environment stoked by a fanatical religious minority created by Roe.  The legal theory by which its half-century of stare decisis value was defenestrated was made up from the whole cloth by those judges specifically for this purpose.

Edited March 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[gmr548 16,580]

3 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here.  I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong.  I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them.  If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded.

Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country."  I do not think that is true.    And Texas isn't the country.  I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy.  Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it?  I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in.  

When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided.  Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar.  In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated.  We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past.  That is undeniable.  Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy.

Abortion-  Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad.  However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life.  An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception.  I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that.  But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious.  It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal.  I can respect that argument.

Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time.  Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot.  But attitudes change and our govt laws change.  Gay marriage is legal everywhere now.  Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening.  Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did.  If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them.  If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights.

LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out.  I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person.  I read over some of the bills you linked above.  Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing.  The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents.  I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes.   There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor.  My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided.  Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants.  It is a brutal thing for them to deal with.  Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation.  But the subject needs to be treated carefully.  I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped.  When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it.  However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues.  To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy.  We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.

 

 

This is a lot of effort to troll, I'm beginning to think you might just be very dumb.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

This is a lot of effort to troll, I'm beginning to think you might just be very dumb.

It’s impressive, no?

[atomheartbevo 89,665]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 Remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance.

Remove the Pledge all together, or at least from the schools. I've never understood it.  It doesn't make anybody any more patriotic than they might already be - kids just go through the motions because they are told to.  I said it from kindergarten through 12th grade, was in JROTC in high school, served in the Army, and I just don't get it - it's weird as hell to me, because it's not binding, and anybody that's not patriotic, it's not going to make them patriotic or to love the Republic.

[atomheartbevo 89,665]

8 hours ago, royiv said:

The fact that evangelicals embraced Trump and the rise of Trumpism undermines any legitimacy that they claim in their views. Trump is a false idol for Christians and it makes those that support him look completely dumb to those that see through him. They worship someone who isn't one of them and, further, proudly mocks who they are. It's one of the biggest reasons I can't take any of our resident Christian conservatives that proudly vote R seriously. They worship a false idol that doesn't represent their core beliefs on morality.

I've never seen one of them seriously reconcile how they justify Trump's own beliefs and behaviors against their own core beliefs.

It's almost like having somebody lecture you about how to play poker, but they've never played poker, they couldn't tell you how many cards are in a deck or what they all mean, and yet they expect you to listen to them.  Okay, that's a shitty analogy.

It would be one thing if Trump showed some embarrassment over all of the anti-Christian stuff he does - embarrassed that he got caught paying off a porn star, embarrassed that he has used "goddamn" plenty of times at his rallies, embarrassed that he was caught publicly cheating on his wives in the past, embarrassed that he views women as he does, embarrassed for mocking people with disability, embarrassed for shitting on poor people, etc.  His followers could say "look, he's not perfect, but he's embarrassed and he's showing humility, he's trying to improve".  

But none of that is present and instead he's pissed that he thinks the porn star broke her NDA, and he's quite open about all of the other stuff and he has absolutely no shame, and he's quite certain that he doesn't  need to change one fucking thing about himself, to the point where he doesn't believe he needs to ask for forgiveness for his various sins.  How the fuck so many so-called evangelicals don't bail on him for that, I don't know.

And his followers aren't bailing on him in droves when he says "goddamn" or even condemning him for saying, they aren't bailing on him for having absolutely no shame about how he views women or his marriage vows, or paying off porn stars.  In fact, they cheer him on when he swears, and they defend his payments to the porn star, etc.

And then you have a Christian like Beth Moore who actually walks the walk and talks the talk and has devoted herself to spreading the Christian message and trying to bring more people into Christianity, and she criticizes Trump's behavior, criticizes the Southern Baptists for continuing to support Trump no matter how much he shits all over the Christian message and Christian ideals, and what happens?  Evangelicals lose their shit and start attacking her.  She then bails on the SBC, joins another church, one where women can hold leadership positions, and Trump's evangelical followers lose their shit again over the recent photos of her in robes and helping lead a worship service.

Trump and his kids make an absolute mockery of Christians everywhere, and way too many of them don't care, because libtards are worse.  If you buy into the antichrist stuff and the various predictions, etc., in the Bible, today's Christians in America, a whole shitload of them are going to be easily led astray, because there is no critical thinking on their part whatsoever.  No trying to hold somebody like Trump accountable to the standards that they pretend to follow.

Edited March 24, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Mdhorn 5,949]

On 3/21/2023 at 9:35 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

Satchel, are you one that believes that the Bible is the word of God and it is all to be taken literally? Just curious. I know gsoda feels that way.

That's me--I feel like the Bible is either the word of god or it's not.  If it needs to be understood by the masses to convert, then it better be damn simple and straightforward--like Aesop.  Otherwise, it's a futile, lost gesture since it is easily misinterpreted.  Another problem is, it's been edited throughout time, so we all have different versions.  

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

1 minute ago, Mdhorn said:

That's me--I feel like the Bible is either the word of god or it's not.  If it needs to be understood by the masses to convert, then it better be damn simple and straightforward--like Aesop.  Otherwise, it's a futile, lost gesture since it is easily misinterpreted.  Another problem is, it's been edited throughout time, so we all have different versions.  

Who saw Jesus first after his resurrection? Where was the stone?

[Mdhorn 5,949]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who saw Jesus first after his resurrection? Where was the stone?

Mary is my name, Prostitution is my game, Magdalene is my guess.  And what happened to Lazarus?  Is he still walking around?   

[Satchel 6,938]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:19 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

 

 

Thanks both of y’all. These are great contributions to a discussion.

 

 

I agree with your assessment and with their contributions. 

[Mole 4,333]

8 hours ago, royiv said:

The fact that evangelicals embraced Trump and the rise of Trumpism undermines any legitimacy that they claim in their views.

I get that this is a take down of conservative, R, America first Christianity, and I have no disagreement with the assessment. It’s worth pointing out that there’s a fair amount of biblical precedent and support for the idea that such an ungodly person could lead God’s people astray. The Christian believer should be on the lookout for such movements.

It’s the main theme of about half of the Old Testament and the New Testament is full of warnings about such a type of person. The Trump era has been a real challenge to my faith. That seems to be a common theme in this thread.

Watching people I love and respect turn to cruelty and selfishness — and calling it the Gospel — has been a lot to take in. The change from apolitical people tirelessly serving marginalized groups to ungodly political tribalism hurting the same people they once served has been wild. As my wife said a few years ago, “how did all of our old friends turn into assholes?” These weren’t the people we knew.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

I get that this is a take down of conservative, R, America first Christianity, and I have no disagreement with the assessment. It’s worth pointing out that there’s a fair amount of biblical precedent and support for the idea that such an ungodly person could lead God’s people astray. The Christian believer should be on the lookout for such movements.
It’s the main theme of about half of the Old Testament and the New Testament is full of warnings about such a type of person. The Trump era has been a real challenge to my faith. That seems to be a common theme in this thread.
Watching people I love and respect turn to cruelty and selfishness — and calling it the Gospel — has been a lot to take in. The change from apolitical people tirelessly serving marginalized groups to ungodly political tribalism hurting the same people they once served has been wild. As my wife said a few years ago, “how did all of our old friends turn into assholes?” These weren’t the people we knew.

Yeah they were. It’s who they always were. Trump just made it safe/popular to be flaming assholes.
Trump didn’t turn anyone into a giant, flaming asshole. He just made it safe for them to be their true selves. They were always evil.

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

24 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Mary is my name, Prostitution is my game, Magdalene is my guess.  And what happened to Lazarus?  Is he still walking around?   

I screwed that up. I should have asked who were the first disciples to see Jesus after the women. (Was that misogyny on my part?) Although the gospels don’t agree on when the women saw Jesus, which women were there, who was waiting when they came, and where the stone was. In most of the tellings the stone was already moved away but in Matthew it’s still there and it’s moved by a great earthquake. The gospels also don’t agree on what the man or men there said to them or what the women did after seeing Jesus.

There are significant differences in when, where, and to which disciples Jesus appeared afterward. Was it in Galilee or Jerusalem or on a country road? Was it to one, two, ten, or eleven? You can’t tell the Easter story in a way that isn’t contradicted somewhere in the Bible. Seems to me that’s a pretty significant story that you’d think the word of God would be able to get right.

The Bible is filled with contradictions. Heck, it starts out with two different versions of the creation myth, neither of which can be taken literally. It’s not there anymore but there used to be a website that had a quiz to test your knowledge of the Easter story. It was pretty funny because it was set up so you couldn’t answer any question correctly. For each question, whatever answer you chose would return a passage that contradicted your answer. When two stories contradict each other, they can’t both be true. But they can both be false. 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

That's me--I feel like the Bible is either the word of god or it's not.  If it needs to be understood by the masses to convert, then it better be damn simple and straightforward--like Aesop.  Otherwise, it's a futile, lost gesture since it is easily misinterpreted.  Another problem is, it's been edited throughout time, so we all have different versions.  

I guess it is the way I am wired.  I understand the difficulty of such an old document which has been translated and edited over and over.  Sometimes in a good faith effort to help people understand, but it has also been changed or manipulated to be used as a tool to control.  However, I find the cherry picking of what should be taken literal and what is allegory to be very troubling and problematic.  Who gets to decide what is what?  If one says "well, that is up to the reader", I feel that diminishes the validity of the book as a guide for how to live and enter the kingdom of God.  So if it is the literal word of God, I find that very disturbing.  There is some really awful stuff in that book that is made to sound ok...such as how women are treated.  It also makes God appear to be a jealous, narcissistic asshole.  He is made out to be a father but what father creates flawed beings that as an omniscient being knows will fall short of his expectations, so he murders them whenever he sees fit (great flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc).  It's just so strange to me.  Anyways...this may not seem related to this, but the fact that none of this can be reconciled with emperical evidence, I don't feel that this religion (or any other) should influence our laws or public education of our children.    

[Mdhorn 5,949]

I enjoy parts, Psalms largely, and think that the commandments are basic rules for society, and the condensing bastardization that the Old Testament is an eye for an eye, and the New Testament is turn the other cheek.  However, the whole God tosses those that don't comply to worship it above all else, sacrifice for it, and whatnot, or burn for eternity in a lake of fire is worse than what most would do to their basic pet dog.  I ask for my dog not to shit in the house, so I walk him.  Faith says no, I condemn the dog (which is says about animals anyways and they always get the worst of it) if it doesn't do what I ask, only without the pretext of my existence aside from a series of other dogs telling him not to shit in the house. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Mdhorn

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

20 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I guess it is the way I am wired.  I understand the difficulty of such an old document which has been translated and edited over and over.  Sometimes in a good faith effort to help people understand, but it has also been changed or manipulated to be used as a tool to control.  However, I find the cherry picking of what should be taken literal and what is allegory to be very troubling and problematic.  Who gets to decide what is what?  If one says "well, that is up to the reader", I feel that diminishes the validity of the book as a guide for how to live and enter the kingdom of God.  So if it is the literal word of God, I find that very disturbing.  There is some really awful stuff in that book that is made to sound ok...such as how women are treated.  It also makes God appear to be a jealous, narcissistic asshole.  He is made out to be a father but what father creates flawed beings that as an omniscient being knows will fall short of his expectations, so he murders them whenever he sees fit (great flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc).  It's just so strange to me.  Anyways...this may not seem related to this, but the fact that none of this can be reconciled with emperical evidence, I don't feel that this religion (or any other) should influence our laws or public education of our children.    

On the one hand, it's kind of dangerous to tell people that the Bible is just one big allegory, with some helpful hints on living life, and some not so helpful ones and a lot of begats.  That makes it too easy to descend into moral relativism, to pick and choose what "feels good." 

On the other, treating it as literal and inerrant truth, with no ability to interpret avoids that moral relativism trap, but is also just really hard to swallow. And also causes the adherent to founder on legalism:  obeying the literal rule without following the spirit or intent of it.

If you start by treating the Old Testament as a prequel to the New, that can mostly be ignored except as background, you get a lot more principles and fewer whales swallowing people and Red Seas parting and whatnot, and a lot less Jewish law and commandments.  And for me and the way I was raised, it's those principles of the Gospel that guide and are the touchstone of the whole thing.  I mean, there's no Christ in the Old Testament at all.

Jesus would never run for office.  I suppose it is possible for a Christ-like Christian to run for office and forswear establishing any kind of theocracy, but just individually "govern" as a Christian individual with tolerance, consideration for other people above him/herself, etc.  But then you have to wonder if a Christ-like Christian really would even run for office.

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 89,665]

11 minutes ago, Mole said:

I get that this is a take down of conservative, R, America first Christianity, and I have no disagreement with the assessment.

It's not a take down in the sense that royiv got one over on anybody - Christians that support somebody like Trump are taking themselves down, and they have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves.

11 minutes ago, Mole said:

It’s worth pointing out that there’s a fair amount of biblical precedent and support for the idea that such an ungodly person could lead God’s people astray.

The Christian believer should be on the lookout for such movements. It’s the main theme of about half of the Old Testament and the New Testament is full of warnings about such a type of person. The Trump era has been a real challenge to my faith. That seems to be a common theme in this thread.

You could argue that Christians should be a lot more attuned to being led astray by somebody like Trump than say a non-Christian/non-religious person, since the Bible spends a lot of time saying "don't let such people and movements lead you astray". They hammer it home, parts of it are the basis of the Ten Commandments, etc.

11 minutes ago, Mole said:

Watching people I love and respect turn to cruelty and selfishness — and calling it the Gospel — has been a lot to take in. The change from apolitical people tirelessly serving marginalized groups to ungodly political tribalism hurting the same people they once served has been wild. As my wife said a few years ago, “how did all of our old friends turn into assholes?” These weren’t the people we knew.

Watching people you've known for years turning into assholes - it was a part of what turned my wife away from the Baptists and to switch to Presbyterian.  Way too many Trumpers in her old church, who would let you know they didn't approve if they heard you weren't a Trump fan  In their eyes, there was only One Party. And when the Beth Moore drama kicked into high gear, we also saw people within the church making a huge fucking deal of throwing her books away.

When we left, we had some people unfriend us on Facebook (among other things) even though we left in a very polite manner ("oh, it's nothing personal or against the church, we are just changing churches because another church has better activities for our kids").  The fact that multiple families followed us after a few weeks of hearing what my wife had to say about the new place basically made us enemies of some, especially since they saw the other church as being "woke" and full of liberals.  The new church was also full of a lot of young families with kids.

I'm not that religious, but have no problem going to church with my wife, and it was a huge breath of fresh air to move away from a church with a bunch of olds who were Trump fans till they die and hated anybody who didn't support him, to a church where nobody asks you who you vote for, nobody cares. It honestly felt far more Christian than the old church.

[Willfully Horn 8,017]

3 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

That's me--I feel like the Bible is either the word of god or it's not.  If it needs to be understood by the masses to convert, then it better be damn simple and straightforward--like Aesop.  Otherwise, it's a futile, lost gesture since it is easily misinterpreted.  Another problem is, it's been edited throughout time, so we all have different versions.  

Does the Bible claim to be the word of God? Other than the Torah, I mean.  I don’t recall such a claim, other than John 1:1, which is much less certain in regards to words on paper. “The Word was God” is remarkably declarative. 

I do know there are folks, seriously religious folks, who view every other OT book after the first four books as heresy. These folks (are they called ultra orthodox?) answer Md’s question: yes.  And I wonder whether the prophets (shout out to Ezekiel!) were seen in those U-O circles as subjects of grift, puffists, the dismal tide, or, what? 
 

Evangelicals are completely fixated on the third chapter of John, and they are here to tell those ultra orthodox unicorns, (successfully navigating life according to the Word) that Hell is the reward for relying on a book as the ultimate word of God. Even when it explicitly says so.

The God of the Torah changed His relationship to Human. More than once. If the Bible is all your watching, you might miss the best season.

 

The moon is holding Venus.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Willfully Horn

[Mole 4,333]

10 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Does the Bible claim to be the word of God? Other than the Torah, I mean.  I don’t recall such a claim, other than John 1:1, which is much less certain in regards to words on paper. “The Word was God” is remarkably declarative. 

1. That “Word” isn’t typically understood to be the Bible or scripture but rather Jesus. It’s a beautifully poetic passage. This Word gets conflated with the Bible as the word of God idea all the time.

2. The closest that I can come up with for the Bible claiming to be the word of God is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Whether “God-breathed” is the same thing as “word of God” and what that means for different interpretations and degrees of in inerrancy is a good question I guess. “God-breathed” doesn’t have to mean literally and historically accurate, since 21st century people interpret the idea accuracy differently than ancient people would have.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

1. That “Word” isn’t typically understood to be the Bible or scripture but rather Jesus. It’s a beautifully poetic passage. This Word gets conflated with the Bible as the word of God idea all the time.
2. The closest that I can come up with for the Bible claiming to be the word of God is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Whether “God-breathed” is the same thing as “word of God” and what that means for different interpretations and degrees of in inerrancy is a good question I guess. “God-breathed” doesn’t have to mean literally and historically accurate, since 21st century people interpret the idea accuracy differently than ancient people would have.

About number 2, I would assume there are a few different translations of that passage, no? I am sure that also adds to the ambiguity of the wording.

[formermav43 4,606]

6 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

About number 2, I would assume there are a few different translations of that passage, no? I am sure that also adds to the ambiguity of the wording.

I think there’s some misconceptions out there about how translations work. It’s not as if we don’t have thousands upon thousands of Greek manuscripts, some dating backing to the early 2nd/even late 1st century. There are complete copies of the NT as early as the 4th century. The disagreements between these are usually matters of spelling, a word omitted here or there, a line skipped-basic human error. There are a few places where a verse or even a paragraph might appear in one manuscript and not another, but even these are nearly all insignificant. With the tools of textual criticism, we have a good idea of what the text originally said 99% of the time. And working from a common critical Greek text, no one is then just making up a translation out of whole cloth or anything. Most differences in various versions relate to how literal vs. functional the translation philosophy is.

That said, there actually is one key issue in this verse that you’ll see reflected in those versions, and they both are good translations of the Greek: “All Scripture is God-breathed…” is most common; but it’s also possible to render it “Every Scripture breathed out by God is…”

The former makes a statement about the nature of Scripture itself; the latter could be construed as saying the “God-breathed” Scripture is useful, but you have to separate that from the rest. So it kind of cuts to the heart of the issue you guys were discussing.

[Mole 4,333]

18 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

About number 2, I would assume there are a few different translations of that passage, no? I am sure that also adds to the ambiguity of the wording.

I used NIV above with “God-breathed.“ Other versions I find use “inspired by,” “breathed life into,” “divinely inspired,” “given by inspiration,” and “breathed out by God.” I’m not personally inclined to come up with any meaningful difference in meaning. There may be some pastor somewhere that thinks I’m a heathen because I find “God-breathed” most compelling and memorable. Churches have split over more pedantic reasons. I’m not going to pretend that I can explain or even know the nuances of whatever Greek phrase that was used.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Got it.

Although, for me personally, the two translations you just mentioned seem pretty different. The latter leaning towards the Bible being the literal word of God.

Also, something I saw the other day, which I can’t validate because I don’t own multiple copies of the Bible, is the omission of passages between publishers. Have y’all ever seen this? Basically it was a video where a guy was showing 3 copies by 3 different publishers and he went to the same verse in each and some verses were omitted. Seen anything like that?