Religion, Left and Right

[PoliticalChic]

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?

I did. The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it. It sounds like most people agree with me.

Religion, Left and Right


10/4 ... not left or right but Heavenly.

The Pyramid by God is the Map - accumulating religious beliefs energetically ever rising for a singular Completion upon the Apex - there for God's Judgement for the Freedom of the Everlasting to be Granted ....

Amazing....I found the same message in a fortune cookie!

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for making my point for me.

You are right. You can interpret the story however you like.

Luke 14:12-14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

But yeah, Jesus was all in favor of the rich hanging onto their wealth.

Not one of the examples is a commandment or even a suggestion for the rich to divest themselves of their wealth. Each one is a teaching that God does not reward or punish people for how much wealth they do or do not accumulate in this lifetime, but rather rewards them for what is in their hearts. Further, neither should we exalt ourselves for what we have or consider ourselves unworthy because we are poor.

Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha was obviously not a poor man. Zacheus, the rich tax collector, was honored by Jesus who invited himself to Zacheus's home for tea. Jesus had no harsh words for wealthy employers or anybody of wealth and no teachings to suggest that it was evil or wrong to be wealthy.

But the PC trend goes along well with your erroneous interpretation of these scriptures. And it is the mission of the Left, it seems, and even a few anti-religious on the right, to destroy the faith and misteach the scriptures in an effort to create a totally secular/Atheist society that you think will be far superior to one inhabited by so many evil Christians.

But be careful what you wish for. Other nations have not fared well once they manage to snuff out all or most visible Christianity.

I'm not trying to snuff out anything. I am simply making a point, and if you are honest, you know I am right.

The whole notion that the republican position is the christian one, while the democrats are heathens is obviously shit. The majority of democrats are christians.

Just because people view their religion differently, or their views on politics differently, does not make them good or evil. Both sides love their wives and kids. Both sides want what is best for the country.

This is part of what is destroying this country. Rather than focus on the stuff that matters, you people are too busy placing labels and trying to tear down the other side. Meanwhile those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, have been destroying our country for decades.

I am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I reject the entire premiss of the thread. As though one side is all about god and the family and the other is all that is evil in the world... it's a laughable view of the political world.

I can't think of a single issue with which either side could not justify their position using religion.

That is the beauty of most successful religions. They are flexible. Against abortion? though shalt not kill. In favor of legal abortion? the bible treats the unborn as property if a man hits a woman and causes an abortion. For social programs? Jesus tells the rich to give all they have to the poor. Against social spending? The bible tells us to be good stewards with what we are given.

They are just flexible enough that you can almost always make them fit your agenda, whatever it is.

"I reject the entire premiss (sic) of the thread."

When then, I invite you to pick a few of the items in the OP and turn them in a way that favors the Left's perspective.
"....make them fit your agenda,..."


That is the point of debate, isn't it?

I did. The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it. It sounds like most people agree with me.

"The entire object of the thread is to lump people into two camps, one good, one evil. It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it."



1. You've managed to decode the message of the OP! Bravo....now before you throw the confetti, your feat was meant to be simple enough that any grade-schooler could accomplish.

Sadly, where you took that success is the reason that your post must, ultimately, receive a failing grade.



2. I generally construct an OP carefully, to prove a point. A simple point, perhaps, but an important one.
Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. Sometimes the conclusion is due to the preponderance of the evidence.
It matters not to me, whether the former, or the latter. Merely, that the case is conclusive.




So...let's explore the OP.

3. The focus of the OP is a moral society. 'Religious' is used as a synonym for moral.
mor•al
/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.


Without saying so, you picked up on the idea, as you applied a biblical response.





4. Item #4 frames the argument: " Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion."
This is taken from a noted Liberal magazine, and the author is a noted liberal.

Unlike you, he is willing to accept the truth of the OP.


a. In his book, he goes on to confess "You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….




5. The OP then goes on to give reasons why Liberals require a "moral reawakening."
Do you begin to see how feeble "It's a childish way to look at the world and I won't do it." is?
If your answer, at this point is 'yes,' it is honest.
If your answer remains the same, it becomes no more than squeezing your eyes shut and putting your fingers in your ears.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yah, the OP is a fantasy world:

"5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid."

(My bold)

As if liberals were in control of US popular culture. When radio & TV first showed up in the US, no one knew how to make a buck off them. So they were relegated to experimental use @ universities, which implemented classes & concerts, lectures, plays over the air. It wasn't until some bright lad figured out how to estimate audience size & tied program sponsors to ad revenue that the media turned into the 24/7 devourers of talent & programming that we've come to know & loathe. If it had been up to liberals, we probably would have followed the UK model - BBC-like central programming, supported by annual licensing fees for each radio or TV receiver. Yah, you'd likely get Shakespeare instead of I love Lucy. No doubt that Lucy fulfills some demographic, but in the long run, I think Shakespeare is worth promulgating - the jury is still out on Lucy & all the also-rans.

Opie & Anthony run on satellite radio XM? So it's a self-limiting problem. Besides, if I understand the term shock jocks, isn't this what they do for a living? It's remarkable that they have work, but if you want me to police the airwaves, I'm game. Just give me the job - I'll clear all the deadwood, never fear.

I've never heard of the State Property line of clothing, either. I must be the wrong demographic. But again, you want to address the marketing droids, who most likely are not liberals. They are probably advertising folk, with finance minors. Bean-counters, in a word.

Hoosier???

Tell me....is Indiana an English-speaking state?

I ask because you seem unaware of the meaning of 'fantasy.'

Here....let me teach you a new word:
fan·ta·sy
/ˈfantəsē/
Noun
The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.


Now...if you really believed the OP to be fantasy, you would have addressed item #4...

"a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation"


Perhaps you'd best research the meaning of "dispositive."

 

[mamooth]

'Religious' is used as a synonym for moral.

That's where your argument fails hard, being you gave no evidence for such a thing.

Sure, you said it a lot, and you pointed to other people saying it, but you never actually supported the claim.

All you've proven is that a lot of religious people _say_ religion is necessary for morality. I could just as easily "prove" how Republicans need a moral reawakening. I'd just have to use the same kind of cherrypicking strategy you used.

 

[there4eyeM]

The following are the facts.
America today.
Quo Vadis.




1.Coming to terms with religion’s public role is one of liberalism’s most fearsome problems: how to make their case to religious America? So far, it has been a failure, which is one reason for the hostility of the left to groups such as evangelicals, even though these folks were brought onto the political scene by a liberal, Jimmy Carter.

a. Gone are is religious wing of liberalism, the prophetic voice of Reinhold Niebuhr, Dorothy Day, Michael Harrington, and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr.

2. Even while the Democrats scored signal victories in the 2006 election, exit polls showed that some 60% of those who say they attend religious services more than once a week voted Republican, a figure that is consistent with the 2002 and 2004 elections. "....2012 (50% to 48%)1. Obama’s margin of victory was much smaller than in 2008 when he defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin, and he lost ground among white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics. But the basic religious contours of the 2012 electorate resemble recent elections – traditionally Republican groups such as white evangelicals and weekly churchgoers strongly backed Romney..." 2012 Exit Polls: How the Faithful Voted - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life





3. "The Democratic Party is seen as friendly to religion by 26 percent, while 43 percent say the same about the GOP. That’s a 9 percentage point drop for Republicans since 2008, and 12 points lower for Democrats.." Barack : Kevin Trudeau Show

a. Citizens tell pollsters they attend religious services at least once a week and nearly three-quarters say they pray at least once a day. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/familyvaluesreport.pdf

4. While the number of Americans who have become alienated from organized religion may be increasing, stillTuesday’s Gallup survey shows that 77 percent of Americans still claim a religion, despite the trends toward “unbranded” religion. It also indicates Americans tend to get more religious with age, and speculates that our aging population might also spell an increase in reported religiosity. Gallup Survey Finds a Majority of Americans Still Religious - The Daily Beast

a. About 80% belong to a Christian faith, 79% believe in the virgin birth, 78% say Jesus physically rose from the dead, and 48% claim to have had a “born again experience.” Gordon S. Wood, “American Religion: The Great Retreat”

b. Compared to Europeans, over 60% of Americans state that belief in God is necessary in order “to be moral and have good values.” This is about twice the number of Germans and six times the number of French.
Asmus, Everts, and Isernia, “Across the Atlantic.”

c. “Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.” Barack Obama. Blog ? Barack Obama






4. Following the 1960’s the left made the politically suicidal choice of cultural radicalism, which succeeded, over political and economic radicalism, which failed.

a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation
Thus, the rise of the religious right.





5. And how have liberals built bridges with religious Americans?

a. “For instance, when Justin Timberlake ripped off Janet Jackson’s top at the Super Bowl performance, liberals tended to mock conservative hysteria over a single barely exposed breast. I did so myself….You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children and teens by American entertainment culture….would it be so difficult to pay more attention to the outrages against what used to be called ‘common decency’…”
Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 239-240

b. Shock jocks Opie and Anthony were suspended for reporting an alleged sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and then joked about an anal rape of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and other unspeakable acts on Laura Bush. XM Suspends Opie And Anthony Over Sexual Comments About Rice, Laura Bush

c. The disrespect for women, and humanity in general in ‘gangsta rap,’ need not be censored, but should require condemnation by liberals, every bit as much as any perceived racism, sexism, homophobia.

d. “American progressive reform has never advanced without a moral awakening with notions about what the Lord would have us do.”
Michael Kazin, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=159

e. “…why for instance, do liberals fail to protest when clothing companies selling to teens plaster the subways with posters for the “State Property” line, which distinguishes itself from other brands by featuring hidden pockets and gun holsters, as if to teach teens to admire jailed drug-dealing thugs and murders?”
Alterman, Ibid.





6. John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” of the use of ‘moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term as a useful check on antisocial behavior.”

7. “At a valuable conference on liberals and religion organized by Columbia
University's American studies program in mid-February, E.J. Dionne, a
liberal and a devout Catholic, conceded that conservatives have a number
of natural advantages when seeking to marry religious devotion to
politics. They own the word "tradition," for one.

And as Russell Kirk
pointed out in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, the canons of
conservatism tend naturally to appeal to the faithful: Conservatives, he
wrote, believe in "a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which
rules society as well as conscience." Their attachment to "custom,
convention and old prescription" provides a check on "man's anarchic
impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power."

Liberalism, on the other
hand, arose in revolt against many of these same customs and conventions,
particularly the oppressive power of the church.”
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty - With God on Our Side?




".....You don’t need to be a Christian conservative to object to the kinds of cultural messages regularly communicated to children..."
You can hardly find a more Liberal individual than Eric Alterman.


What future do you wish for your children?
Pick your side.....where you stand.

Whew!

There is so much in there that I can actually find things I agree with.

Wow!


What an amazing post....


....one that could almost pass for a doctoral thesis!

Yes, what I am to brevity, you are to, uh, the opposite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whew!

There is so much in there that I can actually find things I agree with.

Wow!


What an amazing post....


....one that could almost pass for a doctoral thesis!

Yes, what I am to brevity, you are to, uh, the opposite.

You mistake jejune for brevity.


Of course, this is easily hidden among the vast array of all of your other mistakes.

 

[hoosier88]

quote: "Hoosier???

Tell me....is Indiana an English-speaking state?

I ask because you seem unaware of the meaning of 'fantasy.'

Here....let me teach you a new word:
fan·ta·sy
/ˈfantəsē/
Noun
The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.

Now...if you really believed the OP to be fantasy, you would have addressed item #4...

"a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation"

Perhaps you'd best research the meaning of "dispositive." "

Nah, too much embedding to run through the shifts in politics in the parties. I took #5 because it's more straight-forward. & of course we speak English - & other languages in IN - but then, I don't live there anymore. (Perhaps you need to buzz off to the miniature city in the Fortress of Solitude & have your x-ray vision checked - my location is right out there.)

Brooklyn, eh? & if in midair you run into Jerry Siegel, please say Howdy for me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Religious' is used as a synonym for moral.

That's where your argument fails hard, being you gave no evidence for such a thing.

Sure, you said it a lot, and you pointed to other people saying it, but you never actually supported the claim.

All you've proven is that a lot of religious people _say_ religion is necessary for morality. I could just as easily "prove" how Republicans need a moral reawakening. I'd just have to use the same kind of cherrypicking strategy you used.

They are synonymous.

Could you make the argument that they are not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

quote: "Hoosier???

Tell me....is Indiana an English-speaking state?

I ask because you seem unaware of the meaning of 'fantasy.'

Here....let me teach you a new word:
fan·ta·sy
/ˈfantəsē/
Noun
The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.

Now...if you really believed the OP to be fantasy, you would have addressed item #4...

"a. Quoting Peter Steinfels, Dionne noted, "American liberalism has shifted its passion from issues of economic deprivation and concentration of power to issues of gender, sexuality, and personal choice.... Once trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures were the litmus tests of secular liberalism. Later, desegregation and racial justice were the litmus tests. Today the litmus test is abortion." With God on Our Side? | The Nation"

Perhaps you'd best research the meaning of "dispositive." "

Nah, too much embedding to run through the shifts in politics in the parties. I took #5 because it's more straight-forward. & of course we speak English - & other languages in IN - but then, I don't live there anymore. (Perhaps you need to buzz off to the miniature city in the Fortress of Solitude & have your x-ray vision checked - my location is right out there.)

Brooklyn, eh? & if in midair you run into Jerry Siegel, please say Howdy for me.

So...familiar with my family?
Now...you must know that I speak only truth.....and represent justice and the American way!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Monkeys care about Religion... Monkeys care about Community and Politics.

If people rarely surprise you consider me jealous - they continue to shock the shit out of me and Julia Roberts.







It's a foolish Monkey indeed who believes that there aren't plenty of Monkeys who question the concept of a Deity to the point of disbelief, and who vote republican, for whatever reason drives the politics of the average Monkey in any given election.

And silly is the Monkey who thinks there are no Monkeys who believe that a Deity named Jesus feels their pain, and who vote democratic, for whatever reason drives the politics of the average Monkey in any given election.

Can religious affiliation predict political trends? Shame the Devil and tell the truth it's a less reliable predictor than it was in the recent past... America becomes more pluralistic as She browns and the concept of specifically NOT codifying a religion into Civil Law, the one we call The United States Constitution, is about to shit on Christian politics in America.

I'll bet a dollar that America survives.

Shame the Devil and tell the truth, I've bet it all. I'm counting on you kids!


The next 20 years are going to be very interesting. Even in the grand scheme of Mom's 4.5 billion year history, of which the little Monkey bastards have been less than 10%.

 

[mamooth]

They are synonymous.

Could you make the argument that they are not?

You're pinning your argument on the fact that one of many synonyms for "religion" is "morality"?

If we check the thesaurus, we find other synonyms for "religion" are "mythology" and "cult". Thus, if we accept your argument, we must also accept that religion is a myth, and that all religions are cults.

Oh, if we do accept religion is morality, you still haven't shown it's a _good_ morality. One can have an evil morality.

 

[hoosier88]

quote: "Hoosier???

... , "

Nah, too much embedding to run through the shifts in politics in the parties. I took #5 because it's more straight-forward. & of course we speak English - & other languages in IN - but then, I don't live there anymore. (Perhaps you need to buzz off to the miniature city in the Fortress of Solitude & have your x-ray vision checked - my location is right out there.)

Brooklyn, eh? & if in midair you run into Jerry Siegel, please say Howdy for me.

So...familiar with my family?
Now...you must know that I speak only truth.....and represent justice and the American way!

(My bold)

Ah, an elaborate pun on Kandor? I get it. Seems kinda beneath you.

Can you say your name backwards?

 

[there4eyeM]

Wow!


What an amazing post....


....one that could almost pass for a doctoral thesis!

Yes, what I am to brevity, you are to, uh, the opposite.

Well, you certainly must be considered an expert on mistakes since you are so proficient at them.
You mistake jejune for brevity.


Of course, this is easily hidden among the vast array of all of your other mistakes.

Well, you certainly must be considered the expert on mistakes as you are so proficient at them.

 

[Underhill]

Not one of the examples is a commandment or even a suggestion for the rich to divest themselves of their wealth. Each one is a teaching that God does not reward or punish people for how much wealth they do or do not accumulate in this lifetime, but rather rewards them for what is in their hearts. Further, neither should we exalt ourselves for what we have or consider ourselves unworthy because we are poor.

Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha was obviously not a poor man. Zacheus, the rich tax collector, was honored by Jesus who invited himself to Zacheus's home for tea. Jesus had no harsh words for wealthy employers or anybody of wealth and no teachings to suggest that it was evil or wrong to be wealthy.

But the PC trend goes along well with your erroneous interpretation of these scriptures. And it is the mission of the Left, it seems, and even a few anti-religious on the right, to destroy the faith and misteach the scriptures in an effort to create a totally secular/Atheist society that you think will be far superior to one inhabited by so many evil Christians.

But be careful what you wish for. Other nations have not fared well once they manage to snuff out all or most visible Christianity.

I'm not trying to snuff out anything. I am simply making a point, and if you are honest, you know I am right.

The whole notion that the republican position is the christian one, while the democrats are heathens is obviously shit. The majority of democrats are christians.

Just because people view their religion differently, or their views on politics differently, does not make them good or evil. Both sides love their wives and kids. Both sides want what is best for the country.

This is part of what is destroying this country. Rather than focus on the stuff that matters, you people are too busy placing labels and trying to tear down the other side. Meanwhile those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, have been destroying our country for decades.

I am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They are synonymous.

Could you make the argument that they are not?

You're pinning your argument on the fact that one of many synonyms for "religion" is "morality"?

If we check the thesaurus, we find other synonyms for "religion" are "mythology" and "cult". Thus, if we accept your argument, we must also accept that religion is a myth, and that all religions are cults.

Oh, if we do accept religion is morality, you still haven't shown it's a _good_ morality. One can have an evil morality.

Not the case.

The argument is that the Left ....liberals/progressives/ Democrats/ whatever....have taken society on a path that is low-cast and vulgar.

An understanding of morality is understood.
There is no such thing as 'evil morality.'

The "pinning of the argument" is the testimony of known liberal author Alterman.
The only question is whether or not you agree that society as regressed under the influences that I've mentioned.



There is no clearer indication of error than the contamination, the 'thanks' from 4eyes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not trying to snuff out anything. I am simply making a point, and if you are honest, you know I am right.

The whole notion that the republican position is the christian one, while the democrats are heathens is obviously shit. The majority of democrats are christians.

Just because people view their religion differently, or their views on politics differently, does not make them good or evil. Both sides love their wives and kids. Both sides want what is best for the country.

This is part of what is destroying this country. Rather than focus on the stuff that matters, you people are too busy placing labels and trying to tear down the other side. Meanwhile those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, have been destroying our country for decades.

I am not going to agree with you that you are right when I don't think you are right. You give us a string of Bible verses with your own leftist PC spin on their meaning and get it entirely wrong. And now you are accusing me of defining Democrats and Republicans by whether they are Christian or heathen. I have done no such thing.

Eyeglasses are on the table and eyeglasses are on Foxfyre does not extrapolate to Foxfyre is a table.

That most social and political attacks on Christianity are leftist and that most Democrats are leftists does not extrapolate into most Democrats commit social and political attacks on Christianity.

And while I say that I have not accused Democrats of making war on Christianity, this in no way affects the thesis of this thread which is the destructive divide between those who acknowledge the religious underpinnings of this nation vs those who would deny and/or oppose it.

The thesis of this thread is to enhance that divide, not simply to point it out. And I do not think the left is so much anti religion. I think most of the left is anti religion as a political tool.

In that case, you continue down the road of intellectual delinquency.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Underhill]

They are synonymous.

Could you make the argument that they are not?

You're pinning your argument on the fact that one of many synonyms for "religion" is "morality"?

If we check the thesaurus, we find other synonyms for "religion" are "mythology" and "cult". Thus, if we accept your argument, we must also accept that religion is a myth, and that all religions are cults.

Oh, if we do accept religion is morality, you still haven't shown it's a _good_ morality. One can have an evil morality.

Not the case.

The argument is that the Left ....liberals/progressives/ Democrats/ whatever....have taken society on a path that is low-cast and vulgar.

An understanding of morality is understood.
There is no such thing as 'evil morality.'

The "pinning of the argument" is the testimony of known liberal author Alterman.
The only question is whether or not you agree that society as regressed under the influences that I've mentioned.



There is no clearer indication of error than the contamination, the 'thanks' from 4eyes.

Alright, so the question is, has society regressed under liberal influences?

It all depends on your measuring stick. I have no doubt the world has become less concerned with things like sex, marriage or orientation.

On the other hand I would say crime is down. Problems with things like racism and sexism have improved dramatically.

But it's tough to quantify. I think society is finding it's way at the moment. The moral code that governed for hundreds, or thousands, of years is being replaced with a new code but it's still a young movement. Give it 100 more years and I think society will settle into a new norm based less upon arbitrary rules in an old book and more upon the good of society at large.

 

[Underhill]

Alabama huh? That person is brave...