|
rudatron posted:Stop thinking of religions as a catalog of beliefs, and start seeing then as power structures. "Stop looking at it like this one uncharitable reductive thing in bad faith, and instead look at it like this other uncharitable reductive thing in bad faith. Pick the most opportunistic distortion."
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Whoops, dp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Agag posted:You compete for those voters, hopefully swing some. There is one "market" here - voters - and you have to win them over. You are talking like this isn't being done. It is being done on a massive scale. That's basically the dems pitch right now and it isn't working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:"Stop looking at it like this one uncharitable reductive thing in bad faith, and instead look at it like this other uncharitable reductive thing in bad faith. Pick the most opportunistic distortion." Because that's whay you're suggesting, when you claim that appealing to scripture is actually going to work. It's not, because what any piece of scripture means isn't even determined by what's actually written, but by what is politically convenient at that moment in time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
The myth of the 'eye of the needle' referring to a gate is like exhibit A here, but it gets worse the more abstract and more contextual you get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Taxing churches is definitely boring compared to old school anti-clerical leftists' preferred solutions to the issue of priests preferring to gorge at the far right's table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Agag posted:I don't think mentioning religion is the lesson to take away from Hillary vs. Bernie. Hillary's general inauthenticity was the issue there, matched only by Trump's shallow pandering to the evangelical Republican base. It wasn't an election about religion, clearly. Looking at the state level, the current D strategy of offering Republican lite is a massive failure. "I believe in Jesus too! But I think we should accept LGBTQ people" is not something that sways voters. Local candidates should be pushing secular local issues, not trying to stir up a religious base. That has a terrible track record for progressives. Run on repairing the bridges, creating an opiate abuse program, a public works project that will bring new infrastructure and businesses, etc. Talk to the local people in the local vernacular. In the South this might include an occasional praise Jesus, I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't ever mention their faith. I'm saying it should be avoided and downplayed because that strategy doesn't work. Democratic politicians should absolutely not be lecturing their constituents about secularizing that's a crazy strategy that would just alienate people. They just have to focus far more on secular projects and not mention Jesus as much. The active push for secularization needs to come from cultural sources like media. As for demographic changes, it's already happened. Religiously unaffiliated is now one of the largest groups when it's narrowed down to Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, etc. It's a severely undertapped group politically. Bolocko posted:Honestly it would empower megachurches and possibly steer American Christianity in precisely the direction opposite what you're hoping for. How the hell does this work? Megachurches all the sudden lose 30% of their war funds and their influence increases? Their base is already on max outrage mode they can't be any more vocal or vote more. Agag posted:Christian progressives in America brought you Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement, against right-wing Christians who opposed them. This can be done. Are you seriously arguing that progressive churches were the main driving force powering Abolition and the Civil Right Movement? I mean maybe you can argue for the Civil Rights Movement often being organized through Black churches, but that's for a variety of reasons and ignores the massive work done absence from churches like college campuses and outside the South. But arguing that Christianity led the movement for abolition is a crock of poo poo. The biggest defense pro-slavery assholes had was explicitly written in the Bible and most churches were not abolitionist. That movement didn't start happening until post 1830s leading up to the Civil War. America is heavily revisionist in teaching its own history in school. What actually triggered the political impetus to actually end slavery was a secular response to threats to first amendment rights. In 1836 the "gag rule" denied even hearing a petition to end slavery. This upset Northerners who saw it as an assault on the 1st amendment right to free petition. The Fugitive Slave Law fully broke this open and Northerners saw it as an assault on state's rights. Quakers and Baptists had been pushing abolition for hundreds of years already at this point. They were a radical minority until we included secular issues and things started changing. It's a much nicer narrative though that mass numbers of progressive Christians championed freedom through their faith. The truth is much less pretty because most churches didn't give a poo poo about slavery and the Pope even affirmed slavery is still ok sometimes after the Civil War. Don't get me wrong the progressive churches still helped by spreading knowledge of the tyranny of chattel slavery and definitely helped organize and publish. This was undeniably a good thing and I'm not trying to attack these institutions. But they weren't responsible for abolitionism or the ultimate success of the movement (that required a massive war fought for secular reasons). Progressive Christians didn't "bring us" these movements, they were fought for with blood and sweat by a wide range of people. They were a part of that but not the origin or even the strongest part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you honestly believe that what's lacking is the right ~magical~ phrasing, that if you but simply say the exact right words, said integration of the leadership with reaction will disappear into the mist? I think you have me confused for another poster, but If you're concerned about hocus pocus disintegrating leaders into the mist, Let me remind you that with "hoc est enim corpus meum" in fact the true leader incarnates into our midst. And recall, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
I was responding to your directly reply of mine. If your answer to the problem of the political integration of religious leadership into the ruling class, is 'the second coming', then you're not ready to talk about this seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Universal empathy seems to be a good thing I took from my religious upbringing, I wish more movements would work with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:How the hell does this work? Megachurches all the sudden lose 30% of their war funds and their influence increases? Their base is already on max outrage mode they can't be any more vocal or vote more. Megachurches are the outliers who'd be able to take a 30% hit. A lot of smaller churches would be sunk. My parish of ~3000 would go under. And it's not just Christians — Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans would be hobbled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Megachurches are the outliers who'd be able to take a 30% hit. A lot of smaller churches would be sunk. My parish of ~3000 would go under. And it's not just Christians  Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans would be hobbled. Except if your church has a budget of less than a few hundred thousand dollars it wouldn't be affected at all. Or if it was bigger than that as long as your budget actually has more than a pittance for charity it wouldn't be affected. I didn't advocate taxing all churches, I said churches should be able to be taxed. If your church organizations is bringing in literally millions of dollars it should be large enough that it can handle accounting where the money is going. Buddhists, neo-pagans, Jews, etc would be under the same umbrella and most would be too small to worry about sane tax laws for churches. Seriously is it okay with you that your church is lumped in with Crystal Cathedral type grifting? Taxing greedy churches would add accountability and actually give more credibility to churches that maintain their tax free status. RasperFat fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Seriously is it okay with you that your church is lumped in with Crystal Cathedral type grifting? Morally no — it creates an image and pastoral problem and seriously distorts public ideas about how churches operate financially, addition to being a poor and irresponsible use of people's donations — but legally yes. The alternative is much worse. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Looking at the state level, the current D strategy of offering Republican lite is a massive failure. "I believe in Jesus too! But I think we should accept LGBTQ people" is not something that sways voters. There are already Christians in America who don't support the Republican agenda, otherwise they would be winning every election %75-%25. You're ignore and dismissing people for no reason except your personal distaste for some of their beliefs, which pretty much sums up the collapse of the left over the past 30 years. As for Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement they were fundamentally Christian endeavors. Especially Abolitionism, though we are getting pretty far into the past for that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Taxing churches is definitely boring compared to old school anti-clerical leftists' preferred solutions to the issue of priests preferring to gorge at the far right's table. I mean, there aren't a lot of kings left, what we would DO with all those entrails? It's just wasteful. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Also, taxing churches is EASILY the best way to breed Christian extremists and terrorists, and I can't believe a few of you actually suggested doing that. They would correctly cite the separation of church and state clause in the constitution as justification for it. Social conservatives are already losing the argument on virtually every social and economic issue. Targeting churches would give Limbaugh, Fox News, et al all the ammunition they would ever need to cause even more destruction in this country than they already are. Furthermore, when has suppressing religion by monetary or physical means ever ended well? I'm agnostic, and I can already see how much of a shitshow this would end in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Also, taxing churches is EASILY the best way to breed Christian extremists and terrorists, and I can't believe a few of you actually suggested doing that. They would correctly cite the separation of church and state clause in the constitution as justification for it. Social conservatives are already losing the argument on virtually every social and economic issue. Targeting churches would give Limbaugh, Fox News, et al all the ammunition they would ever need to cause even more destruction in this country than they already are. Furthermore, when has suppressing religion by monetary or physical means ever ended well? If something as mild as taxes turns american christian churches into breeding grounds for terror, the problem is on them. It does not actually make organizations that abuse their tax exempt status to agitate against the rights of women and various minorities that their interpretation of religion considers undesirable look good, it makes them like lunatics holding the cultural discourse hostage. The catholic church tried this poo poo under Louis XV and Louis XVI and they were literally the first target of the hate during the terror as a result. And still today France is only crumbling under the weight of catholic terror if you consider Francois Fillon's continued political career to be terrorism. The Catholic church spent most of the 19th century being a tool of power and then blew a gasket when the Mexican left responded by making separation of church and state an article of the constitution after the revolution, despite the fact that it deserved everything and more and continued to agitate for right wing and often pro-fascist groups even after the Calles laws were overturned. Does this make them look like the victims they try to paint themselves as? No. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
If you thought the Tea Party was bad before, how about when they can scream "no taxation without representation" at the top of their lungs even if (or especially if) most haven't stepped foot in a church in years.Alienwarehouse posted:I'm agnostic, and I can already see how much of a shitshow this would end in. Truly. For just one example, "Where are the left-leaning churches, mosques, and temples?" "They bothered right-leaning politicians, who used pernicious, targeted taxation and regulation to shut their doors."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:If you thought the Tea Party was bad before, how about when they can scream "no taxation without representation" at the top of their lungs even if (or especially if) most haven't stepped foot in a church in years. There's hardly such a thing aside from the black church to begin with and secular left wing political organizations are already overtargeted by the IRS and still manage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:There's hardly such a thing aside from the black church to begin with and secular left wing political organizations are already overtargeted by the IRS and still manage. Many black churches are conservative on social issues, and there are no shortage of e.g. pro-gay churches among mainstream protestant denominations. There isn't the kind of uniformity here that people seem to think there is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Agag posted:There are already Christians in America who don't support the Republican agenda, otherwise they would be winning every election %75-%25. You're ignore and dismissing people for no reason except your personal distaste for some of their beliefs, which pretty much sums up the collapse of the left over the past 30 years. Except, the single largest data point for predicting people's vote is religiosity. This supersedes gender, race, location, or income. The left's attempt to coopt religion has never been successful, even during the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition. Ignoring the data and pushing with outdated strategies is why Democrats are being crushed electorally. I didn't say Democrats should become the anti-religion party, I said they should embrace being the secular party. It takes some serious hubris to unironically state Abolition was a "fundamentally Christian endeavor". I laid out the reasons why it wasn't that you conveniently ignored, and just reasserted your flawed position. Do you really not think that the victims themselves of slavery were not he driving force behind ending the practice of slavery? Freed and escaped slaves were always the biggest fighters for the movement, regardless of their religion. That's a serious white washing of history and takes away agency from all of the people we abused as a country for so long. "Nah it wasn't the African people of all faiths fighting against slavery, the movement was fundamentally Christian." Never mind that we forced our slaves to convert to Christianity in the first place. The Civil Rights movement was a lot more secular than you think. MLK called creationism intellectually soft, and spent far far more time talking up communism than he did God. It was organized in churches in part because Black people would literally be murdered if they tried to organize at a house or public building. Churches still got firebombed sometimes, but were still the safest places to organize without fear of being attacked. But again you prefer whitewashing history to make Good Christians be the driving force behind societal progress, when the reality is they tagged along riding on the back of secular movements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:MLK ... spent far far more time talking up communism than he did God. not empty quoting
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
There are tons of progressive churches. Sure, their pews are mostly empty and they hemorrhage members. But if you only count by sect while ignoring attendance and growth, there are tons of non-regressive churches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
that quote should follow rasperflats around everywhere like an angry poltergeist
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The Civil Rights movement was a lot more secular than you think. MLK called creationism intellectually soft, and spent far far more time talking up communism than he did God. Are you perhaps talking about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:MLK called creationism intellectually soft, and spent far far more time talking up communism than he did God. ... huh. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. spent far, far more time talking up Communism than God. Gotta love this forum: you learn something new every day!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
[img=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg] Desegregation is communism. Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
finally mlk is just a blank wall for me to project whatever i want on to. mlk... probably an anime fan
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Are you perhaps talking about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.? Whose best friend and initial strongest ally was literally a gay, atheist maoist, yes. Also abolition in Brazil and France came with complete church silence, as Rome conveniently spent about 250 years forgetting its initial rejection of slavery even on its own properties. Literally the first pope to even talk against slavery in Brazil after the 16th century waited until it had already been abolished. The church in Mexico was absolutely okay with peonage and it took anticlerical admins in the early 20th century to even start dealing with it. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Also, taxing churches is EASILY the best way to breed Christian extremists and terrorists, and I can't believe a few of you actually suggested doing that. They would correctly cite the separation of church and state clause in the constitution as justification for it. Social conservatives are already losing the argument on virtually every social and economic issue. Targeting churches would give Limbaugh, Fox News, et al all the ammunition they would ever need to cause even more destruction in this country than they already are. Furthermore, when has suppressing religion by monetary or physical means ever ended well? You're assuming that these organizations aren't already screaming about this nonsense. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with taxes, it's about not establishing a state religion. A tax affecting all religious institutions would not be a constitutional violation in any way. Churches wouldn't be "targeted". The plan I outlined would exclude the majority of churches right off the bat. For the other churches that claim oppression their tax records would now be public record. "They're oppressing us!!!! (For the millionth time before this new tax law)" "Ok how?" "They're making us pay taxes!" "I thought charities were exempt?" "They said we didn't do enough charity!" "Why would they say that? *checks filings* you realize your pastor and his friends personally got 2.5 million of your 4 million dollar budget? They only spent $50,000 all year doing charity. Dude that's only like 1.25%. Maybe you should reorganize your church to get a deserved exempt status" "Like I said! Oppression and tyranny!" These people are already rabid about being victimized, they would not gain any more traction because they have already been sending that message out on max volume for decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Guys, guys. People can only learn human dignity from Jesus. Slaves: totally OK with their condition until Jesus taught them to respect themselves. Jim Crow? Nobody knew it was bad until Jesus decided it was. Desegregation? Only through the will of god above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
You know not all 501(c)(3) organizations are charities, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
not 100% positive but i dont think that the Reverand Ralph Abernathy was a gay maoist
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:
No he did not: MLK posted:You cannot solve the problem by turning to communism, for communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Except, the single largest data point for predicting people's vote is religiosity. Yep. And an overwhelming majority of Americans are religious. Therefore the left has to speak to religious people in a persuasive manner to shave off some of those votes. quote:The left's attempt to coopt religion has never been successful, even during the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition. Not sure what you mean here. Abolition and Civil Rights happened because large numbers of American Christians were persuaded to change their views. quote:It takes some serious hubris to unironically state Abolition was a "fundamentally Christian endeavor". I laid out the reasons why it wasn't that you conveniently ignored, and just reasserted your flawed position. Do you really not think that the victims themselves of slavery were not he driving force behind ending the practice of slavery? I wish they were, but they were not. There are isolated examples of slave revolts, and of course prominent former slaves who spoke out eloquently against the institution. But ultimately slavery was put down by white christians who turned against slavery for religious reasons. Which is not to say that the victims of slavery didn't hold the same views, only that they were necessarily disempowered by the institution of slavery. I'm as big a critic of imperialism and white supremacism as you will find, but the facts are that slavery was outlawed by Parliament and Congress, and physically destroyed by the British navy and the Union army, due to the century-long efforts of Abolitionists. quote:Freed and escaped slaves were always the biggest fighters for the movement, regardless of their religion. That's a serious white washing of history and takes away agency from all of the people we abused as a country for so long. African-American Abolitionists were overwhelmingly Christians, but in any case where was their army and navy? For slavery to end large numbers of white christians had to be persuaded that it was wrong. quote:The Civil Rights movement was a lot more secular than you think. MLK called creationism intellectually soft, and spent far far more time talking up communism than he did God. The majority of Christians aren't creationists, and anyway I would use MLK as an example of the effective fusion of leftist politics and Christian belief. quote:But again you prefer whitewashing history to make Good Christians be the driving force behind societal progress, when the reality is they tagged along riding on the back of secular movements. Actually the bad guys in both of these examples were also white christians so its not so much a "Good Christians" fable as it is an example of persuading some white christians to adopt progressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Agag posted:The majority of Christians aren't creationists, and anyway I would use MLK as an example of the effective fusion of leftist politics and Christian belief. This article (and other sources) disagree with your claim: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx Unless you mean YEC, then I'd agree with you. According to those polls ~42% of Americans believe in creationism. Considering ~71% of the US identified as Christian in 2014 that indicates the majority of Christians believe in Creationism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:This article (and other sources) disagree with your claim: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx lol that's wild. I guess I was ignoring the rank and file like a true elitist lib. In light of this development I would say that I don't really care what somebody thinks about how old the universe is, so long as I can get them to agree that letting people starve and putting toxic waste in the river are bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Agag posted:lol that's wild. I guess I was ignoring the rank and file like a true elitist lib. I think the majority would say they agree with both of those things, but what they actually do is entirely different. Of course we can't let people starve! Hey, stop sending all that international aid over there and stop pampering those welfare queens!!! You definitely shouldn't be throwing toxic waste in rivers! Shut down that money grubbing EPA and all those lieberal scientists with their global warming BS!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:I think the majority would say they agree with both of those things, but what they actually do is entirely different. We start by getting rid of the chemtrails...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Agag posted:We start by getting rid of the chemtrails... My point was that the right has loving mastered cognitive dissonance, as this last election has shown. Really it's just an extension of how religious beliefs work, reality is what you chose it to be. This is a group of people that would laugh and shake their heads if you asked if magic was real but then get angry when you ask how miracles, angels and demons are different from magic. e: Case in point: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/855859245023211520 RandomBlue fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:16
|
|