It is currently 03/29/24 1:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next   Page 1 of 13   [ 316 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 7:53 am • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
William Barr is a Catholic conservative who rejects the separation of church and state, calls secularists "fanatics", and blames secularism for "moral decline".

Trump’s attorney general wants god’s moral order enforced by government

By Rmuse

As the nation lurches closer towards being ruled by a tyrannical dictator with unwavering support from the Republican Party, the American people are ignoring an even greater threat to their waning secular democracy – rule by tyrannical theocrats.

The rise of theocrats in powerful positions of authority is particularly disconcerting because not only was America created as a secular nation with a secular Constitution, but because the theocrats running the federal government represent a very small minority of the population. And now Trump has given that vicious minority what they elected him to do in the first place; another radical Christian extremist, William Barr, in a powerful federal government position.

J. Beauregard Sessions was a legitimate threat to America’s secular government as Trump’s attorney general, but his theocratic aspirations paled in comparison to Trump’s latest theocratic cabinet member – a conservative Catholic malcontent who is unlikely to ever defend the U.S. Constitution because it is a secular document. It is noteworthy that Sessions only stated that, according to his mind, the separation of church and state in the Constitution is a concept that is unconstitutional. However, his replacement ardently believes that America’s government is duty-bound to enforce god’s laws because there is no place for secularism.

In a 1995 essay, Barr expressed the extremist Christian view that “American government should not be secular;” secularism is an abomination in Barr’s theocratic mind despite the law of the land is unmistakably secular. Furthermore, Barr contends America’s government is supposed to be imposing “a transcendent moral order with objective standards of right and wrong that flows from God’s eternal law;” eternal law best dictated by the Vatican and taught in public schools at taxpayer’s expense.

It is true that as attorney general William Barr will defend Trump’s criminality and corruption; it is one of the only reasons Trump nominated him. However, the real danger to the nation is Barr’s belief that the government’s primary function should be defending and enforcing his god’s moral edicts while ardently opposing any legislative branch effort to make secular laws according to the secular Constitution.

As noted by Michael Stone a couple of weeks ago, in addition to the racism and misogyny one expects from a radical conservative Christian, “Barr is also a bigot when it comes to non-religious people and others who respect the separation of church and state.”

Quote:
Michael Stone @pdxprogressiveX

Theocracy Alert: Senate Votes To Advance Attorney General Nominee William Barr
https://t.co/VUe7fBPePY?amp=1

Image

Barr epitomizes the typical extremist religious fanatic by blaming everything from crime to divorce to sexually transmitted diseases on what he alleges is “the federal government’s non-stop attacks on traditional religious values.” In fact, he joins no small number of Republican evangelical extremists who demand that taxpayers fund religious instruction, specifically Catholic religious instruction, in public schools. Barr, as a matter of fact, has called for the United States government to subsidize Catholic education and categorically called for federal legislation to promote Vatican edicts to “restrain sexual immorality;” an explicit reference to his religion’s ban on homosexuality, extramarital sex, and “artificial” birth control. Don’t believe it?

In an address to “The Governor’s Conference on Juvenile Crime, Drugs and Gangs,” Barr condemned the idea of adhering to the U.S. Constitution’s mandated separation of church and state in the public education system. The theocrat said:

Quote:
“This moral lobotomy of public schools has been based on extremist notions of separation of church and state or on theories of moral relativism which reject the notion that there are standards of rights or wrong to which the community can demand adherence.”

Barr also penned an article in The Catholic Lawyer where he complained vehemently about what he asserted was “the rise of secularism;” something he claims is anathema to a nation he believes should be ruled by theocrats. Barr attempted to give an answer to “the challenge of representing Catholic institutions as authorities” on what is considered right and wrong, or morally acceptable in a secular nation. In discussing what Barr termed was “The Breakdown of Traditional Morality,” the new attorney general complained thus:

Quote:
“We live in an increasingly militant, secular age… As part of this philosophy, we see a growing hostility toward religion, particularly Catholicism. This form of bigotry has always been fashionable in the United States. There are, today, even greater efforts to marginalize or ‘ghettoize’ orthodox religion…”

Barr is also a bigot when it comes to people who respect the Constitution’s separation of church and state in providing equal rights for all Americans whether theocrats agree or not. Barr’s belief that government is bound to enforce Vatican dictates is what drives his assertion that, for example, equal rights laws demanding that colleges treat homosexual groups like any other student group is inherently wrong.

He claims treating LGBTQ people like everyone else is detrimental because:

Quote:
“[Equality] dissolves any form of moral consensus in society. There can be no consensus based on moral views in the country, only enforced neutrality.”

It is noteworthy that what Barr considers “enforced neutrality” is what most Americans understand is the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights for all Americans. If this country was not plagued with religious extremists, bigots, misogynists, and hate-driven conservatives there would never be a need to “enforce neutrality,” or protect all Americans’ equal rights guaranteed according to secular law. There is no such thing as equality in Barr’s theocratic mind and the idea of the government not enforcing the privilege and superiority the religious right has enjoyed for too long is abominable, and now he wields federal government authority to right that abomination.

Quote:
Hemant Mehta @hemantmehta

Attorney General Pick William Barr Blamed Secularism for Nation’s Moral Decline http://dlvr.it/Qt5GCH

Image

It is too bad that Barr’s religious mind incites him to believe the federal government’s job is enforcing his religion’s concept of “morality,” and that the purposely-conceived “secular” law of the land is “militant” and “hostile toward religion, particularly Catholicism.” If any American believes Barr will defend the Constitution, or equal rights, or freedom from religious imposition, they are deluded beyond belief. As the religious right’s attorney general, Barr will be the de facto enforcement arm of the evangelical extremists and aid in implementing all of the horrors a theocratic dictatorship entails – beginning with an increased government assault on women.

For an idea of how an avowed anti-choice theocrat leading the Justice Department will be the enforcement arm of the evangelical extremist cult, consider Trump’s latest evangelical edict forbidding medical professionals from giving women medical options the religious right and Vatican oppose.

Trump and Pence issued a gag order banning the term “abortion” as a woman’s option to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. The order will certainly face lawsuits, but instead of defending a medical professional’s ability to practice medicine, or exercise their freedom of speech, the theocratic-led DOJ will defend the religious right’s assault on women and medical professionals’ free speech because such speech is opposed by evangelicals. Trump’s latest theocratic edict was, by the way, a direct result of the evangelical right’s strict adherence to Vatican dictates banning women’s bodily autonomy and self-determination regarding reproduction.

There is no good outcome going forward with an avowed theocrat serving as the nation’s top law enforcement official. This is particularly true since Barr has made no secret that he considers the secular government “militant” and “bigoted” for not promoting “god’s eternal laws” of right and wrong. The very inconvenient truth for Americans is that long after Trump and Barr are out of power, the theocratic authorities will continue unimpeded because Trump has dutifully created a hard-line conservative judiciary specifically to ensure that America as a secular nation is, for all intents and purposes, coming to an end after resisting theocracy for over two centuries.

Who is William Barr?



Evangelicals keep faith in Trump to advance religious agenda



Chris Hedges: “AMERICAN FASCISTS” The Christian Right vs USA



SOURCE


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 8:15 am • # 2 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
And I wouldn't expect any help from the Supreme Court ...

Neil Gorsuch says no-one can sue to stop government establishing religion

By Rmuse

One inherent danger of allowing a religious minority to install a puppet controlled by religious fanatics in the White House is the now unfolding threat of government officially establishing religion – the Christian religion. Any American’s confidence that the U.S. Constitution is a protection against government establishing religion is grossly misplaced and, that belief is about to be disabused by the current religious conservatives responsible for adjudicating the law of the land.

Because a nearly half-century-old Supreme Court ruling prevented the government from advancing religion, the wall of separation between church and state is almost certainly going to be eviscerated by the Christian conservatives on the current Supreme Court. The crusade to demolish the wall of separation is being advanced by one of the Heritage Foundation SCOTUS nominees confirmed shortly after Trump corrupted every aspect of the government his hands touched. However, it is noteworthy that Neil Gorsuch’s theocratic crusade is wholly supported by Trump’s other SCOTUS appointee, Brett Kavanaugh.

The reason the “Establishment Clause” is going to be found unconstitutional by the current Court’s Christian conservatives is crystal clear; they believe a 1970’s-era ruling prohibiting government establishment of religion adhered to the U.S. Constitution and is patently wrong. The prohibition on government establishing religion is appalling to evangelicals and the theocrats on the High Court are not going to tolerate it any longer.

The High Court recently heard two cases, American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association, brought by Americans who errantly believed the Supreme Court would rule according to the U.S. Constitution like lower federal courts; but that prospect is highly unlikely. Those Americans failed to comprehend that there are few conservatives who actually fulfill their oath to uphold the nation’s founding document and law of the land; this is particularly true any time the Constitution is at odds with the theocracy-minded Christian Dominionists. Christian Dominionists have lusted for the day the federal government will establish the Christian religion as the law of the land, and it is something Justice Neil Gorsuch contends cannot be challenged.

Based on comments by Trump’s more vocal and radical theocratic justice, it is all but certain that the Court will uphold the so-called “Peace Cross” as the initial step in a long sought-after demolition of the so-called wall of separation enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment. The case centers on a 40-foot tall Christian cross-shaped monument on government land in Maryland. The Christian cross, a well-known Christian symbol, was erected to honor fallen Christian soldiers from the First World War; as if no Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or atheists sacrificed their lives for what they believed was a nation with a secular Constitution banning the government from establishing any religion.

Quote:
The Washington Post @washingtonpost

Analysis: The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross: Here’s the important backstory https://wapo.st/2EesMqQ

Image

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion ... backstory/

Trump’s theocratic Justice Neil Gorsuch proffered a truly radical position regarding the unconstitutionality of the government establishing religion, as if he was a hired lawyer and spokesman for the theocratic Dominionist movement. Although not going so far as asserting the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause is unconstitutional” like former Attorney General J. Beauregard Sessions, he may as well have.

Gorsuch did, in fact, claim that any plaintiffs who challenge government establishment and endorsement of one specific religion should be banned from suing the government to force it to uphold the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. According to Gorsuch, there is no situation that allows any American to have “legal standing to challenge” a Christian religious display on government property; something that is in fact establishing religion. He claims that because “their only injury is that they take offense” at the religious display on taxpayer’s land, in his theocratic mind being offended is not enough to demand the government abide by the law of the land – any more than expecting Christian conservative justices to support, uphold, and decide cases based on the Constitution.

It is noteworthy that in Gorsuch’s Catholic mind there in no law, no part of the Constitution, or no civil rights protections that an evangelical extremist’s religious freedom cannot abridge. In fact, any time he has been involved with cases regarding basic civil rights, especially women’s and gays’ human rights, Gorsuch plays the religious liberty card – it is what his Catholic religious leaders taught evangelicals a few decades ago as an electoral tool to engender unwavering religious support for Republican candidates in the South.

Quote:
Niraj Warikoo @nwarikoo
Replying to @nwarikoo
"Catholics have essentially taken over the Supreme Court with Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Samuel Alito, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch all raised in the religion."
https://t.co/TY4c7gddI1

During the evangelicals’ argument that the Court has to tear down what Founding Father Thomas Jefferson labeled “a wall of separation between church and state,” Gorsuch condemned the High Court’s 1971 ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman. In that particular case, the Supreme Court had to defend, support, and enforce the 1st Amendment’s “Establishment Clause” because malcontent religious freaks opposed the idea of a Constitution that prohibits theocrats from using the government to establish their religion. In that decision the Court ruled correctly.

“The nation’s laws must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.”

The Court also held that “the nation’s laws cannot foster government entanglement with religion.”

Gorsuch disagrees and complained bitterly about that kind of originalist argument he asserted was too confusing for judges in lower courts leading him to declare:

“It’s time to thank Lemon for its service and send it on its way.”

Gorsuch’s arguments were aligned closely, and likely carefully coordinated, with one of three theocratic attorneys arguing in favor of the Peace Cross as a cudgel to tear apart the wall of separation between the Christian church and state. According to “archconservative lawyer” and theocrat Michael Carvin, any law that advances religion should be upheld by the High Court unless it coerces individuals into religious activity.

It is noteworthy that all Americans are already “coerced” into providing tens-of-billions of dollars annually in free, tax-exempt welfare to churches, and that is on top of the several billions worth of tax-free faith-based initiative dollars to shove their religion down other Americans’ throats.

There was a time, not so long ago, that the idea of a Supreme Court justice openly arguing that the government has a right to establish religion, and that no citizen has standing to sue to force said government to adhere to the law of the land, would be considered lubridious. However, that was before a fanatical religious minority seized absolute control of the federal government, including the federal judiciary, on the day of Trump’s poorly-attended inauguration. It is curious that religious extremists like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh claim to be devotees of “Constitutional originalist” Antonin Scalia, and yet they are staunch crusaders for violating the Founders’ original intent and support giving other Christian extremists the religious freedom to control all American citizens.

Look, anyone who is remotely aware of world history, especially the bloody and brutal Christian world history, knows full well that these Taliban-ISIS-like fanatics will never stop until they rule with a theocratic iron fist. The Handmaid’s Tale was probably written as fiction, and possibly as a cautionary tale, but the fictional events that led to the overthrow of the democratic United States and creation of the “Republic of Gilead” are playing out before American citizen’s eyes – and people are still terrified of uttering an unkind word against the religious minority running America. Sadly, the same “who cares” attitude that allowed America to get to this extremely tragic situation will continue unabated until America is Gilead.

The Republicans advancing the Dominionists’ agenda may not comport changing America’s name to Gilead, but they damn sure countenance America’s lurch toward theocracy. Moreover, they will continue unabated providing a vile group of “mean god” evangelicals with all the “religious liberty” they demand to control every aspect of American life. Even more tragic is that their first victims will be mothers, daughters, sisters, girlfriends and wives of the men who claim to love them while remaining silent and therefore complicit.

Who is Neil Gorsuch? U.S. Supreme Court Justice | NowThis



VP Pence ‘Confident’ Judge Gorsuch ‘Will Keep Faith With The Constitution’



SOURCE


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 8:16 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 06/18/16
Posts: 2164
Ironically - he is a big part the moral decline


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 10:36 am • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14091
The people who will support this crap are the same people who become enraged and wail about "sharia law" that they fear will creep into the culture. The jokes on them if the US becomes a religious enclave where the women won't be allowed to have careers or control over their own bodies among other things. Let's see what happens then.......


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 1:16 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
The sad thing is that it only takes a dedicated minority to impose theocracy on the U.S. As the articles point out, installing a handful of jurors, especially on the Supreme Court, a few influential law makers and a sympathetic Attorney General can do the trick of converting the U.S. into a theocracy. And, given the national red/blue partisanship and longevity of many lawmakers as well as the lifetime appointments of federal judges making changes to the installation of theocratic laws and practices extremely difficult.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 3:16 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
More on this ....

Trump’s Evangelicals And AG Barr Launched A Religious War Against America

By Frank Schaeffer

Image


Attorney General William Barr, who is busy trying to muddy the legal waters around the impeachment process against Donald Trump, is a conservative, far-right Roman Catholic Activist. A Roman Catholic first, and an American second. A right-wing ideologue first, and someone who swore to uphold the constitution second. In his moral framework of thinking, it is ok to lie, cheat, steal, and bully on behalf of this philandering adulterer, thrice-married president who gropes women, who has used his power to try to investigate a political opponent through a foreign country, and all the rest of it, because in William Barr’s ideal world, we would be in an autocratic theocracy. An American version of the papacy that would reflect his and conservative white evangelicals’ views of white nationalist power.

William Barr gave a speech at Notre Dame University that was passed over by much of the mainstream media until quite recently, but I knew exactly what was going on, and called him on it at the time. In that speech, he talked about nefarious dark forces of “secular liberals and humanists” who were trying to undermine Judeo-Christian values. This page is ripped directly from the writings of my father, Francis Schaeffer, who in his last book, “A Christian Manifesto,” called for the violent overthrow of the United States government if it did not change its policy on legal abortion.

I would say to a lot of my more secular friends who grew up in more liberal households, you have no idea how serious these folks are, and when you see someone like William Barr doing what he is doing, you have to understand that, for him, this is an issue of religion, not of politics. This is an issue of faith that he is defending, not politics. There is no logic or rationale to what he is doing any more than what the white evangelical leaders, like Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Franklin Graham, and the rest of them bring to the table.

Billy Graham’s daughter and Franklin Graham’s sister, Anne Graham Lotz, even went on the disgraced Jim Bakker’s show and said that she understood why Trump had allowed Russia to take over our base in Northern Syria when Trump pulled out; because it was fulfilling the biblical prophecy to destroy Israel, kill the Jews, and pave the way for Jesus’ return to Earth.

So when you look at William Barr, you have to understand that his agenda is not an American political agenda. It is one of religious wars carried on by other means. It is one of the Crusaders, who attacked and destroyed Constantinople on their way to Jerusalem back in the 12th Century. It is the policy of the neo-fascists in Germany who paved the way for Hitler.

It is out of the Dark Ages, quite literally. Before the Renaissance. Before the Enlightenment. Before the turn to science. This is the world William Barr inhabits in his other brain –not his policy brain– but the one that now informs him.

So when you ask –How can William Barr be doing this and selling out his country? –How can evangelical leaders embrace this man who puts children in cages at the season of nativity, when we think of Jesus with no place to lay his head after he is born in a manger in a stable? It is because it is not a political issue to them. It is a political issue only in the sense that this is now a war of religion against the enlightenment, against science, against fact and evidence, carried on by other means.

It is the same war carried on by evangelicals who do the bidding of the oil companies and the coal companies when they say that there is no such thing as “climate change,” and if there is, it is “certainly not man-made.”

To understand this moment in history, we HAVE to understand that there has been a Civil War launched against the American State by Religious Fanatics who are using a Fool named Donald Trump to achieve their ends.

SOURCE


Last edited by shiftless2 on 12/16/19 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 5:16 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
he's a fucking loon.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 5:30 pm • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
macroscopic wrote:
he's a fucking loon.


Don't look now but the "fucking loons" are winning.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/19 8:13 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
they won big in 2016. they have not won shit since then.

forgive my foul language, but I am getting a little tired of the false narrative.

then again, why should I care? I am out of here in 11 months.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/19 9:03 am • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
macroscopic wrote:
they won big in 2016. they have not won shit since then.

Problem is, the judges that they've managed to appoint are there for life. It's going to take decade to even begin to clean up the mess that they've already created.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/19 9:45 am • # 11 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14091
macroscopic wrote:
they won big in 2016. they have not won shit since then.

forgive my foul language, but I am getting a little tired of the false narrative.

then again, why should I care? I am out of here in 11 months.


Where are you going? I hate to tell you, but you will still care no matter where you go. If you have friends and family in the US, it's always a concern.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/19 3:56 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Europe. can't say specifically yet. working on it.

and no, I won't care, because I already don't care.

if my friends and family want to join me, I will help move them. if not, it is on them, not me.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/23/19 10:50 am • # 13 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
In other news, water is wet ...

Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom”

BY HEMANT MEHTA

We’re living through a time when conservative Christians have a lot of political power, and we see how they’re using it. They’ve shoving fellow conservatives, even unqualified ones, to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. They’re discriminating against LGBTQ people however they can; the government is kicking people out of the military and writing Supreme Court briefs in defense of discrimination at Christian-owned businesses. They’re making sure the White House is teeming with as many right-wing Christian leaders as can fit at all times.

For all their talk of “religious freedom,” given more power than they ever dreamed of, they’re using it to instill Christian supremacy.

If you watch FOX News and live in a conservative media bubble, you might think all this is necessary. After all, if atheists were in charge, we’d be doing the exact same thing. We’d shut down churches, and block people from saying “Merry Christmas,” and put pastors in jail for speaking out against homosexuality. Right? Right?!

We know that’s wrong. They don’t. And now a study has shown just how ignorant they are.

Image


Writing for the Washington Post, Denison University Professor Paul A. Djupe says he recently conducted a study with Eastern Illinois University Professor Ryan P. Burge that showed how a majority of white evangelical Christians sincerely believe atheists would strip away their rights if given the chance.

Quote:
Of those white evangelical Protestants, we found that 60 percent believed that atheists would not allow them First Amendment rights and liberties. More specifically, we asked whether they believed atheists would prevent them from being able to “hold rallies, teach, speak freely, and run for public office.” Similarly, 58 percent believed “Democrats in Congress” would not allow them to exercise these liberties if they were in power. By contrast, 23 percent think “Republicans in Congress” would not respect their rights; those were primarily the views of a small contingent of white evangelical Democrats in the sample.


But in a separate poll Djupe conducted a few years ago, he can say with authority that those fears are completely unfounded. Atheists aren’t trying to take away the civil rights of religious people. We might have passionate disdain for conservatives but that’s a far cry from saying we would use any power we have to hurt them.

Quote:
Then respondents were asked whether their selected group should be allowed to give speeches in the community, teach in public schools, run for public office and other liberties. Americans are not particularly tolerant of groups they dislike. Only 30 percent are willing to allow their disliked group three or more such activities.

But 65 percent of atheists and 53 percent of Democrats who listed Christian fundamentalists as their least-liked group are willing to allow them to engage in three or more of these activities. That’s a much higher proportion with tolerance than the sample overall.

What did white evangelicals say about atheists when asked the same question?

They would totally strip away our rights.

Quote:
Thirteen percent of white evangelical Protestants selected atheists as their least-liked group. Of those, 32 percent are willing to extend three or more of these rights to atheists. In fact, when we looked at all religious groups, atheists and agnostics were the most likely to extend rights to the groups they least liked.


To summarize, among atheists who said they loathed Christian fundamentalists more than any other religious group, 65% still said they would be perfectly fine with those Christians having the same rights as everyone else. But among white evangelicals who hated atheists the most — even more than “white supremacists” — only 32% would say the same.

This is a core difference between the two groups and it illustrates why the “both sides are the same” argument is ridiculous. We’re not equally dogmatic but on opposite sides of the spectrum. In fact, these results just emphasize a point I’ve made repeatedly on this site: Atheists fight for religious neutrality, while white evangelicals fight for Christian supremacy.

When white evangelicals are in power, as they are now, everyone outside that particular bubble is screwed. We see that in action now. We hear them say it all the time. And all the fear-mongering that occurs in conservative media and at evangelical churches has made it so those Christians believe they have to keep others down.

That’s not the case when damn near anyone else is in power.

White evangelicals have long believed they’re persecuted. That’s why they overreach when given the opportunity. And yet the irony is that there’s no way they would swap power with any other group. If they truly believe Christians are under attack, I’m happy to trade the number of open atheists in Congress with the number of evangelicals.

No Christian would ever take that bet because it would shatter the myth that they’re persecuted when, in reality, they’re the persecutors. The bullies want you to think they’re the real victims. Don’t fall for it.

SOURCE

Live links at source


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/19 2:11 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Not just at the federal level ....

Former Nebraska Attorney General: The Governor Can Totally Promote Christianity


https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... istianity/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/19 2:41 pm • # 15 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
shiftless2 wrote:
Not just at the federal level ....

Former Nebraska Attorney General: The Governor Can Totally Promote Christianity


https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... istianity/

shift, do you think/believe we'd be experiencing the same over-heated rebellion with a different/real potus?

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/29/19 4:50 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
The thing is, Trump is dependent on the Evangelical right if he wants to be re-elected. And they're willing to overlook his moral transgressions because they figure he'll give them the Supreme Courts. And of course their hope is to see Roe v Wade overturned along with Obergefell v. Hodges.

But you'll probably find this interesting

Quote:
What Happened When Trump Reshaped a Powerful Court
For the 5th Circuit, 2019 was an experiment in extreme right-wing jurisprudence.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ating.html

But to address your question - if the US had a competent POTUS who wasn't dependent on the extreme right and who wasn't openly supporting discriminatory policies I'd have to say no. It doesn't take huge numbers of people in power to succeed in ramming stuff like this thru.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/19 11:30 am • # 17 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
I think it has always been clear that christian supremacy has been the goal. It has always been a question of imposing their values on others, not about being free to practice their religion. You are free to follow your religion and not get an abortion, even if your own life is at stake. You are free to not use contraception. Hell, you are even free from having to pay for it through your taxes even though you have to pay taxes for other things a christian might object to, like putting kids in cages, or blowing up hospitals.Christian values do not prevent you from making a cake for a wedding you don't believe in for monetary compensation. Christ hung with the whores and the beggars. All the obscure bible passages about severe punishment were old testament. Christ was born to put an end to all of that crap, if you believe in Christianity it is inherent in the name of the faith that you follow Christ, not some 200 year old king with concubines who married minor children and proclaimed you be put to death for laying down with another man. I really don't know anyone who is offended if someone wishes them a Merry Christmas even if it isn't their holiday. But it seems there are plenty of people who are offended to be wished a happy holiday, even if that might include Christmas. It has always been about dominance, not freedom.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/19 1:06 pm • # 18 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Quote:
All the obscure bible passages about severe punishment were old testament. Christ was born to put an end to all of that crap ...

Jesus made it clear that all the Old Testament laws would stand until the end of time. That's all of them. Not just the ones that people like.

Speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings he said:

The Law Stands

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/19 3:05 pm • # 19 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
One curiosity is that none of those alleged people who allegedly wrote anything about alleged Jesus ever knew him or ever met him.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/19 3:39 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I believe God proscribes death by stoning for adultery and divorce.

can I cast the first stone?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/19 4:12 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
oskar576 wrote:
One curiosity is that none of those alleged people who allegedly wrote anything about alleged Jesus ever knew him or ever met him.

True. The gospels were written years (decades actually) after the supposed date of the crucifixion and then by unknown authors who had never met him.

Fact is, there's only one passage in the entire Bible where somebody actually claims to have met him (2 Peter 1:16-18) but most scholars are of the opinion that it's a forgery.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/19 7:25 am • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Bill Barr Thinks America Is Going to Hell
And he’s on a mission to use the “authority” of the executive branch to stop it.

By Katherine Stewart and Caroline Fredrickson

Why would a seemingly respectable, semiretired lion of the Washington establishment undermine the institutions he is sworn to uphold, incinerate his own reputation, and appear to willfully misrepresent the reports of special prosecutors and inspectors general, all to defend one of the most lawless and corrupt presidents in American history? And why has this particular attorney general appeared at this pivotal moment in our Republic?

A deeper understanding of William Barr is emerging, and it reveals something profound and disturbing about the evolution of conservatism in 21st-century America.

Some people have held that Mr. Barr is simply a partisan hack — willing to do whatever it takes to advance the interests of his own political party and its leadership. This view finds ample support in Mr. Barr’s own words. In a Nov. 15 speech at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention in Washington, he accused President Trump’s political opponents of “unprecedented abuse” and said they were “engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.”

It is hardly the first time Mr. Barr stepped outside of long-established norms for the behavior of attorneys general. In his earlier stint as attorney general, during the George H.W. Bush presidency, Mr. Barr took on the role of helping to disappear the case against Reagan administration officials involved in the Iran-contra affair. The situation demonstrated that “powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office,” according to Lawrence Walsh, the independent prosecutor in that case. According to some critics, Mr. Barr delivered the partisan goods then, as he is delivering them now.

Another view is that Mr. Barr is principally a defender of a certain interpretation of the Constitution that attributes maximum power to the executive. This view, too, finds ample support in Mr. Barr’s own words. In the speech to the Federalist Society, he said, “Since the mid-’60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority that accelerated after Watergate.” In July, when President Trump claimed, in remarks to a conservative student group, “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” it is reasonable to suppose this is his CliffsNotes version of Mr. Barr’s ideology.

Both of these views are accurate enough. But at least since Mr. Barr’s infamous speech at the University of Notre Dame Law School, in which he blamed “secularists” for “moral chaos” and “immense suffering, wreckage and misery,” it has become clear that no understanding of William Barr can be complete without taking into account his views on the role of religion in society. For that, it is illuminating to review how Mr. Barr has directed his Justice Department on matters concerning the First Amendment clause forbidding the establishment of a state religion.

In Maryland, the department rushed to defend taxpayer funding for a religious school that says same-sex marriage is wrong. In Maine, it is defending parents suing over a state law that bans religious schools from obtaining taxpayer funding to promote their own sectarian doctrines. At his Department of Justice, Mr. Barr told law students at Notre Dame, “We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the establishment clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith.”

In these and other cases, Mr. Barr has embraced wholesale the “religious liberty” rhetoric of today’s Christian nationalist movement. When religious nationalists invoke “religious freedom,” it is typically code for religious privilege. The freedom they have in mind is the freedom of people of certain conservative and authoritarian varieties of religion to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove or over whom they wish to exert power.

This form of “religious liberty” seeks to foment the sense of persecution and paranoia of a collection of conservative religious groups that see themselves as on the cusp of losing their rightful position of dominance over American culture. It always singles out groups that can be blamed for society’s ills, and that may be subject to state-sanctioned discrimination and belittlement — L.G.B.T. Americans, secularists and Muslims are the favored targets, but others are available. The purpose of this “religious liberty” rhetoric is not just to secure a place of privilege, but also to justify public funding for the right kind of religion.

Mr. Barr has a long history of supporting just this type of “religious liberty.” At Notre Dame, he compared alleged violations of religious liberty with Roman emperors forcing Christian subjects to partake in pagan sacrifices. “The law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy,” he said.

Barr watchers will know that this is nothing new. In a 1995 article he wrote for The Catholic Lawyer, which, as Emily Bazelon recently pointed out, appears to be something of a blueprint for his speech at Notre Dame, he complained that “we live in an increasingly militant, secular age” and expressed his grave concern that the law might force landlords to rent to unmarried couples. He implied that the idea that universities might treat “homosexual activist groups like any other student group” was intolerable.

This form of “religious liberty” is not a mere side issue for Mr. Barr, or for the other religious nationalists who have come to dominate the Republican Party. Mr. Barr has made this clear. All the problems of modernity — “the wreckage of the family,” “record levels of depression and mental illness,” “drug addiction” and “senseless violence” — stem from the loss of a strict interpretation of the Christian religion.

The great evildoers in the Notre Dame speech are nonbelievers who are apparently out on the streets ransacking everything that is good and holy. The solutions to society’s ills, Mr. Barr declared, come from faith. “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct,” he said. “Religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.” He added, “The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.”

Within this ideological framework, the ends justify the means. In this light, Mr. Barr’s hyperpartisanship is the symptom, not the malady. At Christian nationalist gatherings and strategy meetings, the Democratic Party and its supporters are routinely described as “demonic” and associated with “rulers of the darkness.” If you know that society is under dire existential threat from secularists, and you know that they have all found a home in the other party, every conceivable compromise with principles, every ethical breach, every back-room deal is not only justifiable but imperative. And as the vicious reaction to Christianity Today’s anti-Trump editorial demonstrates, any break with this partisan alignment will be instantly denounced as heresy.

It is equally clear that Mr. Barr’s maximalist interpretation of executive power in the Constitution is just an effect, rather than a cause, of his ideological commitments. In fact, it isn’t really an interpretation. It is simply an unfounded assertion that the president has what amount to monarchical powers. “George III would have loved it,” said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine who once held Mr. Barr’s position as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, of Mr. Barr’s theory. It’s almost beside the point to note, as the conservative lawyers group Checks & Balances recently wrote, that Mr. Barr’s view of history “has no factual basis.”

Mr. Barr’s constitutional interpretation is simply window dressing on his commitment to religious authoritarianism. And that, really, gets to the heart of the matter. If you know anything about America’s founders, you know they were passionately opposed to the idea of a religious monarchy. And this is the key to understanding the question, “What does Bill Barr want?”

The answer is that America’s conservative movement, having morphed into a religious nationalist movement, is on a collision course with the American constitutional system. Though conservatives have long claimed to be the true champions of the Constitution — remember all that chatter during previous Republican administrations about “originalism” and “judicial restraint” — the movement that now controls the Republican Party is committed to a suite of ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution and the Republic that the founders created under its auspices.

Mr. Trump’s presidency was not the cause of this anti-democratic movement in American politics. It was the consequence. He is the chosen instrument, not of God, but of today’s Christian nationalists, their political allies and funders, and the movement’s legal apparatus. Mr. Barr did not emerge in order to serve this one particular leader. On the contrary, Mr. Trump serves a movement that will cynically praise the Constitution in order to destroy it, and of which Mr. Barr has made himself a hero.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/opin ... trump.html

live links at source


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/19 9:34 am • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
shiftless2 wrote:
Quote:
All the obscure bible passages about severe punishment were old testament. Christ was born to put an end to all of that crap ...

Jesus made it clear that all the Old Testament laws would stand until the end of time. That's all of them. Not just the ones that people like.

Speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings he said:

The Law Stands

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)


I believe the law referenced is the ten commandments, not all the gobbledygook proclaimed by the kings of the old testament.
And to Mac's point, I was just using snippets of things the bible thumpers spout as my premise. Try starting with the facts of the origins of the bible and you have nothing to cite, hahaha.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/19 12:43 pm • # 24 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
He doesn't say the Ten Commandments. He says "the Law" And even if he did, which set of Commandments re referring to? There are three sets of Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) in the Old Testament but the Bible only refers to one of them as the Ten Commandments. And it's not the set we see carved on monuments or that many of us were forced to learn as memory work in school:

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Most people are familiar with the "Ten Commandments" that were given to Moses in the book of Exodus (Ex. 20:3-17), but what these people don't realize, is that these are not the Ten Commandments that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. God didn't even call the commandments mentioned in Exodus 20, The Ten Commandments. The actual Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 34:14-26. As you can see below, they are much different than the ones that Christians are fighting to put up in our schools and courtrooms.

The Ten Commandments

1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

After giving these commandments, God said...

Exodus 34

27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

This is the only place in the Bible in which you will see commandments from God being call "The Ten Commandments".

-----------------------------------------------------------------


For the record, there are 613 Commandments in the Old Testament

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/19 1:48 pm • # 25 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Do you think the evangelicals of whom we speak know even a hint of the research you mention? Pretty sure most of them are just spouting catchphrases spoon fed by mega pastors to get them riled up about the threat to the practice of their beliefs unless christianity is declared the law of the land over all Americans. Bringing us back to the original comments I made mostly in support/ response to #13.

Conversing with intelligent and thoughtful people is both refreshing and exhausting, hahaha.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next   Page 1 of 13   [ 316 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.