Christian Nationalism; The Right-wing Addiction

[Lucidus]

God, the Holy Bible and interpretations of the Word; all things that lack grounding in reality as it pertains to their ability to be verified by any demonstrable method. That is to say -- propositions for which faith necessarily serves as the foundation for belief.

When it comes to the the political process -- religion should carry no more weight than astrology, telepathy, numerology, the paranormal, Flat Earth theory or Q-Anon conspiracies; all suffering from the same absence of naturalistic / scientific evidence.

However, the American political landscape is saturated with religious ideology and influence on the right; from the Republican voter base all the way up to the SCOTUS conservative majority. That saturation is fueled, in large part, by the notion that religious moral authority should supersede church - state separation; including the legislative and judicial process.

Pew Research polling has provided some rather disturbing results:

When asked whether the Bible should influence laws -- either greatly or somewhat; 67% of Republicans said yes, 68% of Christians, and 89% of White Evangelicals (who have become an incredibly vocal and powerful faction on the right).

In addition, 45% of Republicans believed that teachers should be able to lead students in prayer, and 60% thought religious symbols should be displayed on public properties.

Religion, and it's adherents / advocates, enjoy a privileged status that is wholly undeserved and nonsensical. It should zero place in the political - legislative - judicial arena, as it offers nothing more than affirmations of it's own validity, sans any real-world attestation. Yet, alarming numbers in one political party -- and their acolytes in all governmental bodies -- are not only accepting of the power and influence wielded by religion, but are actively pursuing ways to make it even greater.

The invocation of religion by anyone and in any aspect of lawmaking, legal interpretation, constitutional foundation, secular education, civil rights, bans, restrictions, environmental issues, etc., should be widely and profoundly rejected by all who value church - state separation and reality-based forms of evidence. 

This is a most important time in America's history, as there is a very real desire for Christian Nationalism. The means for achieving said desire have been pursued and put in place in a very methodical fashion over the years. However, the effort is no longer one taking place in the shadows or behind closed doors; it's now very much out in the open and unapologetically brazen. 

The goal of the religious right is to impose their morality on everyone; with that morality being derived from barbaric antiquities. 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Start threatening them with taxing the churches. That'll keep them quiet and in the shadows.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Are you saying that anyone that has Religious based beliefs shouldn't have a voice in the world of politics in a Nation where they live in? That sounds unconstitutional.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 02:55 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Start threatening them with taxing the churches. That'll keep them quiet and in the shadows.

That won't work. I thought the trade off was for them to not be active politically, if you tax them, then you give them free will to be as active as they want to be.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-10-2022, 03:26 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That won't work. I thought the trade off was for them to not be active politically, if you tax them, then you give them free will to be as active as they want to be.

They're politically active now.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-10-2022, 03:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you saying that anyone that has Religious based beliefs shouldn't have a voice in the world of politics in a Nation where they live in? That sounds unconstitutional.

Representation without taxation. A Republican's dream.

When most of the country treats it like a fairy tale, we shouldn't be making policy off of a belief with no proof and no facts that it exists.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 03:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you saying that anyone that has Religious based beliefs shouldn't have a voice in the world of politics in a Nation where they live in? That sounds unconstitutional.

Sure they should. So long as they're not using their religious beliefs as basis for policy.

For instance - if you can give me a valid reason to ban gay marriage that isn't 'ThE bIbLe SaYs', then you have a chance. But as soon as God or Jesus comes into your reasoning, you lose all footing and your bill is ignored.

Kind of comes along with that whole separation of Church and State which is Constitutional.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 10:02 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Sure they should. So long as they're not using their religious beliefs as basis for policy.

For instance - if you can give me a valid reason to ban gay marriage that isn't 'ThE bIbLe SaYs', then you have a chance. But as soon as God or Jesus comes into your reasoning, you lose all footing and your bill is ignored.

Kind of comes along with that whole separation of Church and State which is Constitutional.

So you can't use your beliefs as a basis for policy either? Doesn't make sense.

Not a bible thumper here, but if you want to get into it, I personally don't care who marries who, but the idea behind giving families a tax break is because it encourages their natural ability to reproduce. Something that a gay couple can not do.. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 04:26 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: They're politically active now.

To a small degree yes. 
I don't think they are allowed to use their money to fund Super- Pacs, but if you start taxing them, then you free them from those restrictions.

The other stuff they do? well that's all on the Governments fault for not keeping them in check on their activities.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 02:55 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Start threatening them with taxing the churches. That'll keep them quiet and in the shadows.

Once they start endorsing candidates or talking policy from the pulpit - as many churches are openly doing now - they should automatically lose their 501c3 status. Unfortunately, the IRS has been very lackadaisical when it comes to monitoring and enforcing the non-profit tax law when it comes to churches.

(07-10-2022, 03:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you saying that anyone that has Religious based beliefs shouldn't have a voice in the world of politics in a Nation where they live in? That sounds unconstitutional.

A person or group can possess whatever religious beliefs they choose, and adhere to those beliefs in their own lives. What they can't do is impose said beliefs on others by invoking the supernatural to influence / dictate laws or policies in the natural world. 

If an argument for a law / policy is derived from an interpretation of what a God or Holy Book has instructed, it must first be proven that the God actually exist and then, that the Holy Book was in fact the expressed thoughts of that God. Until that both things occur, it's simply irrelevant to any real-world discussion about how to govern people. 

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 12:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you can't use your beliefs as a basis for policy either? Doesn't make sense.

Not a bible thumper here, but if you want to get into it, I personally don't care who marries who, but the idea behind giving families a tax break is because it encourages their natural ability to reproduce. Something that a gay couple can not do.. 

A gay couple can adopt, as my husband and I have done twice. This applies to straight couples as well. Reproduction as a result of sex between partners is not the only way for those partners to have children. 

[CKwi88]

(07-10-2022, 02:28 PM)Lucidus Wrote: A gay couple can adopt, as my husband and I have done twice. This applies to straight couples as well. Reproduction as a result of sex between partners is not the only way for those partners to have children. 

Not to mention heterosexual couples that either choose to not or cannot reproduce being allowed to marry.

The anti gay marriage crowd should just own the "well I don't like not-straight people" instead of inventing absolutely bulls**t justifications.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 03:37 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not to mention heterosexual couples that either choose to not or cannot reproduce being allowed to marry.

The anti gay marriage crowd should just own the "well I don't like not-straight people" instead of inventing absolutely bulls**t justifications.

Indeed sir; and the same-sex issue is also another disturbing example of religiously derived conclusions being taken seriously, when instead, they should be immediately dismissed from any serious conversation on the topic. Religion should have absolutely nothing to say on the subject, until it can be proven that the proposed God had anything to say on the subject.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 12:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you can't use your beliefs as a basis for policy either? Doesn't make sense.

Not a bible thumper here, but if you want to get into it, I personally don't care who marries who, but the idea behind giving families a tax break is because it encourages their natural ability to reproduce. Something that a gay couple can not do.. 

Use your beliefs to right policy, but have an actual reason for it other than 'ThE bIbLe SaYs'. When science flies in the face of faith, science wins because it has a basis that isn't feelings.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 02:28 PM)Lucidus Wrote: A gay couple can adopt, as my husband and I have done twice. This applies to straight couples as well. Reproduction as a result of sex between partners is not the only way for those partners to have children. 

Who cares, my point has already been proven.
Lucidus doesn't want Religion to have any say in Politics, now I hit him with Factual Science and apparently that's not gonna work for him either.

I have no issues with same-sex marriage or adoption. 

What i do have issues with is close minded people from either side.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 05:27 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Use your beliefs to right policy, but have an actual reason for it other than 'ThE bIbLe SaYs'. When science flies in the face of faith, science wins because it has a basis that isn't feelings.

or science or really anything that doesn't see eye to eye with your stance.

It's cool i get it. Bigotry comes in many shapes and sizes.

[Lucidus]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” - Barry Goldwater

Martin Luther King, Jr has this to say about Goldwater:

“I feel that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality, and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represents”

Yet, even Goldwater -- the man who King deemed a threat to the nation -- was frightened by the thought of Christian extremism taking control the Republican party. Those fears were well-founded:

Florida offers new training for teachers that says it was a 'misconception' that 'the Founders desired strict separation of church and state'
https://www.businessinsider.com/floridas-new-training-teachers-undermines-separation-of-church-state-2022-7

The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: ‘We Are Seeing Them Emboldened’
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/us/christian-nationalism-politicians.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Boebert says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3540071-boebert-says-she-is-tired-of-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-is-supposed-to-direct-the-government/

SCOTUS Justices ‘Prayed With’ Her — Then Cited Her Bosses to End Roe
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/roe-supreme-court-justices-1378046/

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 05:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: or science or really anything that doesn't see eye to eye with your stance.

It's cool i get it. Bigotry comes in many shapes and sizes.

Science is demonstrably real and verifiable in the real world.

God is not demonstrably real and not verifiable in the real world.

One is a method of determining the most accurate explanations.

One is a concept that can't be accessed for any explanations.

That aside; how can we see eye to eye on any stance in which the assertions are justified by a foundation that can't be proven right or wrong? It's utterly useless until there's a way to prove a God is real and has ever said anything. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of people stating as fact what aliens have said, think or instructed, when there is no absolutely no evidence to support the claims.

[HarleyDog]

Reading the OP, it would appear the left doesn’t believe in God? Wow, I think I finally understand why the left does what they do and believes what they believe. 

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 06:47 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Reading the OP, it would appear the left doesn’t believe in God? Wow, I think I finally understand why the left does what they do and believes what they believe. 

Could you provide an example of anything God has had to say on any topic over the past 2,000 years? More to the point, can you prove that a God has ever had anything to say, period?

Respectfully, how would belief in an entity that can't demonstrably be accessed, observed or communicated with be at all relevant to the actual reality that we all experience?