Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jacksonpollock

The Democrats’ Religion Problem

Recommended Posts

"Secular Democrats need to study the religious language of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They need to take the time to learn the religious values of their audience. They need to be honest about their own secularity, but acknowledge their debt to the religious traditions that have shaped their progressive ideology."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/democrats-religion-jon-ossoff.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

 

 

 

I don't agree with this editorial at all, but thought it worth posting for discussion. The real problem is not about religion, it's that Democrats need to stay on the topic of economic justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Secular Democrats need to study the religious language of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They need to take the time to learn the religious values of their audience. They need to be honest about their own secularity, but acknowledge their debt to the religious traditions that have shaped their progressive ideology."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/democrats-religion-jon-ossoff.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

 

 

 

I don't agree with this editorial at all, but thought it worth posting for discussion. The real problem is not about religion, it's that Democrats need to stay on the topic of economic justice.

the USA has a Religious Problem...the GOP Apostates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Secular Democrats need to study the religious language of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They need to take the time to learn the religious values of their audience. They need to be honest about their own secularity, but acknowledge their debt to the religious traditions that have shaped their progressive ideology."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/democrats-religion-jon-ossoff.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

 

 

 

I don't agree with this editorial at all, but thought it worth posting for discussion. The real problem is not about religion, it's that Democrats need to stay on the topic of economic justice.

What secular democrats? Couldn't be more than a hand full.

 

Religion isn't the problem. Problem is that those fucking Jeezus huffers wanna legislate according to their fucking religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What secular democrats? Couldn't be more than a hand full.

 

Religion isn't the problem. Problem is that those fucking Jeezus huffers wanna legislate according to their fucking religion

 

 

Reminds me of what Machiavelli said about the Prince: Pretend to be religious to please the masses, but never actually be religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not quite sure what you meant. Care to develop that?

the Bible refers to persons that preach false Christian doctrine for political purposes...called Apostates...there is even reference to end times where there is a falling away from the church...the Bible calls that ...The Apostasy

 

the word Evangelical is not in my bible...for instance...

 

and where in the bible does it say to CUT and GUT the poor, elderly, sick and disabled...

 

Matthew 7:21-23New King James Version (NKJV) I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Bible refers to persons that preach false Christian doctrine for political purposes...

 

the word Evangelical is not in my bible...for instance...

 

and where in the bible does it say to CUT and GUT the poor, elderly, sick and disabled...

 

Matthew 7:21-23New King James Version (NKJV) I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

 

 

As Nietzsche said, "The last Christian died on the cross."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As Nietzsche said, "The last Christian died on the cross."

Separation of Church and state is another LAW the fascist try day and night to destroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of what Machiavelli said about the Prince: Pretend to be religious to please the masses, but never actually be religious.

 

jDjkYvc.gif

tumblr_o7qwc3HQ2a1r187pho1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Bible refers to persons that preach false Christian doctrine for political purposes...called Apostates...there is even reference to end times where there is a falling away from the church...the Bible calls that ...The Apostasy

 

the word Evangelical is not in my bible...for instance...

 

and where in the bible does it say to CUT and GUT the poor, elderly, sick and disabled...

 

Matthew 7:21-23New King James Version (NKJV) I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I am not aware of any place in the bible where it says to CUT and GUT the poor, elderly sick and disabled. Instead, Christian's are expected to give charity to the poor, but this is a personal direct responsibility and not one that can be discharged by voting for socialists who promise to tax one group of American's to fund social welfare programs for the poor. The Bible has plenty to say about theft, the taking of another man's property by force, which is a sin.

 

A great many false Christians say Lord, Lord, I voted for Democrats, socialists, so that other people, rich people, are forced by the government to provide for the poor, but if we could look into their selfish, black, evil hearts we would see no love for the poor, the elderly, the sick or the disabled and they give nothing at all out of their own free will to provide charity for those in need.

 

Social justice, meaning forced government redistribution of wealth, is a social and moral evil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Social justice, meaning forced government redistribution of wealth, is a social and moral evil

Look up what it means. And you won't find the definition in your fucking bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social justice, meaning forced government redistribution of wealth, is a social and moral evil

 

So, if you are taxed, and part of your taxes pay for doctors and others in an emergency room to save the life of some poor illness or accident victim who would otherwise DIE, that is EVIL for you?

 

Is government aid to prevent children from starving EVIL?

Is public education EVIL?

Are taxes paid to build, maintain and staff public schools, libraries and roads and bridges EVIL?

 

That is what it sounds like you are claiming here.

 

The government is taking your tax money and doing EVIL deeds with it. They are educating children you will never hire, they are building roads you will never use. They are preventing the death of maimed and sick persons that are useless to you. And thatis, according to your definition EVIL, right?

 

Essentially, if you consider what you have written here, all government, any government not supported by voluntary charity is EVIL.

 

Is there any government on this planet you do not deem to be evil?

 

I imagine that you claim to be some sort of rugged individualist Libertarian, but in reality, you seem to be an anarchist.

No government in the history of Earth has ever depended on charity to function, so far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social justice, meaning forced government redistribution of wealth, is a social and moral evil

 

So, if you are taxed, and part of your taxes pay for doctors and others in an emergency room to save the life of some poor illness or accident victim who would otherwise DIE, that is EVIL for you?

 

Is government aid to prevent children from starving EVIL?

Is public education EVIL?

Are taxes paid to build, maintain and staff public schools, libraries and roads and bridges EVIL?

 

That is what it sounds like you are claiming here.

 

The government is taking your tax money and doing EVIL deeds with it. They are educating children you will never hire, they are building roads you will never use. They are preventing the death of maimed and sick persons that are useless to you. And thatis, according to your definition EVIL, right?

 

Essentially, if you consider what you have written here, all government, any government not supported by voluntary charity is EVIL.

 

Is there any government on this planet you do not deem to be evil?

 

I imagine that you claim to be some sort of rugged individualist Libertarian, but in reality, you seem to be an anarchist.

No government in the history of Earth has ever depended on charity to function, so far as I know.

Theft is evil, even when it is theft by proxy of a democratic government. But not all taxation is theft.

 

The legitimate function of any government is the preservation of the liberty of the people, including our economic liberty, and taxation to that end, such as taxation to provide for the common defense, is not evil. The idea that anyone who apposes the forced, violent, redistribution of wealth within a society is an anarchist is just balderdash, a false bifurcation. A free people are not properly tax slaves to the state, rather all just governments are erected to protect the freedoms of the people.

 

When the government waxes large and powerful, then the people are necessarily oppressed, but this in no way implies that the only alternative to a massive confiscatory state is anarchy. The appropriate choice is a small, limited, liberal government that is dedicated to sustaining the liberty of the people governed.

 

It is not evil to feed children, nor to provide for the infirm, or to shelter the poor. It is not the act of giving to the less fortunate that makes socialism evil, it is the violent forced taking, the economic enslavement of a people in order to fund social welfare programs, that makes socialism a moral evil. Socialist will, in general, always attempt to conflate the two, that is they will always talking about the benign hand that gives while continually ignoring the sinister hand that forcibly takes. The socialist will ask if feeding a child is evil, a starving child, as if the only way to feed a starving child is to violent take by force of government, while dismissing the clearly stated view that it is the forced theft that is evil.

 

What about all the starving children is Asia and Africa? How is it that you are so cruel as to ignore their suffering, their deaths, their deprivations? Are you also then an anarchist because you do not continually advocate for the forced redistribution of American wealth to provide for their far more pressing needs? Perhaps the true purpose of socialism is to create and maintain a huge number of people who are dependent on social welfare program as a political power base for elites who purchase votes out of the public treasure?

 

There is nothing at all impressive, or kind, or moral, about any individual who loudly proclaims their love of the children or the poor while sticking their greedy hands into other peoples pockets instead of simply opening their own. Go, and sell you homes and your cars, liquidate your private fortunes and give all that to the poor, and then come back and chastise me for apposing the evils of socialism, the violence of the forced redistribution of wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What secular democrats? Couldn't be more than a hand full.

 

Religion isn't the problem. Problem is that those fucking Jeezus huffers wanna legislate according to their fucking religion

 

Communism-socialism has all the similar rules and regulations however they are applied in more demanding and harsh ways by the current commune group leader who is allowed to take the place of God.

 

Christianity is voluntary, communist slave-herd animal is not a voluntary situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Secular Democrats need to study the religious language of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They need to take the time to learn the religious values of their audience. They need to be honest about their own secularity, but acknowledge their debt to the religious traditions that have shaped their progressive ideology."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/democrats-religion-jon-ossoff.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

 

 

 

I don't agree with this editorial at all, but thought it worth posting for discussion. The real problem is not about religion, it's that Democrats need to stay on the topic of economic justice.

The fact you don't agree is why your side keeps losing. You refuse to believe that most people don't think the way you and your 3 friends in life think. They don't.

the USA has a Religious Problem...the GOP Apostates

You don't even know what an apostate is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not evil to feed children, nor to provide for the infirm, or to shelter the poor. It is not the act of giving to the less fortunate that makes socialism evil, it is the violent forced taking, the economic enslavement of a people in order to fund social welfare programs, that makes socialism a moral evil. Socialist will, in general, always attempt to conflate the two, that is they will always talking about the benign hand that gives while continually ignoring the sinister hand that forcibly takes. The socialist will ask if feeding a child is evil, a starving child, as if the only way to feed a starving child is to violent take by force of government, while dismissing the clearly stated view that it is the forced theft that is evil.

 

Feeding and caring for children, the infirm and the injured with tax money is the definition of social justice, which you call evil. All taxation is by nature forced upon the citizens, and even if most of the citizens are willing to be taxed, there will always be someone like you who will say, "it is too much, or it is a violation of my principles".

 

You maintain that taxation is inherently evil to start off with, and now you claim that all taxes are taken by violent means and therefore those are evil. Have you done time in Leavenworth for refusing to pay your taxes? Has the federal government garnished your wages or raided your bank account to take its taxes? When you pay sales taxes, does the cashier hold a gun to your head?

Is there any country anywhere that has a government that runs on voluntary contributions alone?

 

What about all the starving children is Asia and Africa? How is it that you are so cruel as to ignore their suffering, their deaths, their deprivations? Are you also then an anarchist because you do not continually advocate for the forced redistribution of American wealth to provide for their far more pressing needs? Perhaps the true purpose of socialism is to create and maintain a huge number of people who are dependent on social welfare program as a political power base for elites who purchase votes out of the public treasure?

 

This is a political forum about the United States. The world is divided into different societies and then divided into countries, each of which is more or less independent to deal with its own culture and people. There are about 320 million Americans out of a total world population of 7 billion. We are fewer than 5% of the world's people. It makes sense to me for Americans to care for their own people first and for the other 95.5% voluntarily. I thiunk that everyone takes this as fitting and proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great many false Christians say Lord, Lord, I voted for Democrats, socialists, so that other people, rich people, are forced by the government to provide for the poor.....

 

Yeah?

Name five of them....and, let's see their direct-quotes!!!

*

When "conservatives" lack any proof (to support their "absolutes"), they simply rely-upon....

....And, there are (actually) suckers who BUY such horseshit!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism-socialism has all the similar rules and regulations however they are applied in more demanding and harsh ways by the current commune group leader who is allowed to take the place of God.

 

What is the place of God for you? The relationship between each person and "God" is different, as it the definition and perception of "God".

"God" does not rule any country on this planet and never has.

 

The obvious traits of "God" is that He is believed to be omniscient, omnipresent,omnipotent, eternal. and omnibenevolent. On the other hand, he is invisible (we cannot see Him), ethereal (We cannot touch him),odorless (We cannot smell him), inaudible or mute (We cannot hear him), and He cannot be tasted. WE have been given five senses and nary a one is useful to us theologically: we have been given five keys that are out senses and none of the opens the door to "God". A government that took it upon itself to replace "God" could never function. Think about it.

 

You don't know much about politics, it appears. I don't think that communes are very common in any Communist country other than perhaps North Korea and perhaps Cuba. They do not exist at all in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Scandinavia as government entities, even when the leaders are Social Democrats. Some of them have the power to tell the garbage collectors to refuse to pick up your trash if you do not separate the garbage from the paper and the plastic and fine you. That is not anything that any sane person would call "slavery".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not evil to feed children, nor to provide for the infirm, or to shelter the poor. It is not the act of giving to the less fortunate that makes socialism evil, it is the violent forced taking, the economic enslavement of a people in order to fund social welfare programs, that makes socialism a moral evil. Socialist will, in general, always attempt to conflate the two, that is they will always talking about the benign hand that gives while continually ignoring the sinister hand that forcibly takes. The socialist will ask if feeding a child is evil, a starving child, as if the only way to feed a starving child is to violent take by force of government, while dismissing the clearly stated view that it is the forced theft that is evil.

 

Feeding and caring for children, the infirm and the injured with tax money is the definition of social justice, which you call evil. All taxation is by nature forced upon the citizens, and even if most of the citizens are willing to be taxed, there will always be someone like you who will say, "it is too much, or it is a violation of my principles".

 

You maintain that taxation is inherently evil to start off with, and now you claim that all taxes are taken by violent means and therefore those are evil. Have you done time in Leavenworth for refusing to pay your taxes? Has the federal government garnished your wages or raided your bank account to take its taxes? When you pay sales taxes, does the cashier hold a gun to your head?

Is there any country anywhere that has a government that runs on voluntary contributions alone?

 

What about all the starving children is Asia and Africa? How is it that you are so cruel as to ignore their suffering, their deaths, their deprivations? Are you also then an anarchist because you do not continually advocate for the forced redistribution of American wealth to provide for their far more pressing needs? Perhaps the true purpose of socialism is to create and maintain a huge number of people who are dependent on social welfare program as a political power base for elites who purchase votes out of the public treasure?

 

This is a political forum about the United States. The world is divided into different societies and then divided into countries, each of which is more or less independent to deal with its own culture and people. There are about 320 million Americans out of a total world population of 7 billion. We are fewer than 5% of the world's people. It makes sense to me for Americans to care for their own people first and for the other 95.5% voluntarily. I thiunk that everyone takes this as fitting and proper.

Yes, social justice is evil because socialism is evil as mild form of slavery. I am quite willing to be taxed, taxed to provide for those legitimate and central government activities that are required to secure the freedom of the people. Social welfare programs fail to conform to this basic standard and indeed as these program become far more dominant, by far the largest part of the government, then not only does the government fail in it's core duty to protect the liberty of the people, including the economic liberty of the people, it become the primary threat to the very freedoms it was erected to protect.

 

You ask me if I have done time in prison for refusing to pay taxes so you clearly understand that taxation is an act of violence. Refuse to pay, and men and women with guns will come and arrest you and take away your freedom. Violence is not always wrong, but it is certainly wrong when their are alternatives. All government everywhere are inherently violent which is why liberals favor small limited government whose powers are confined to those necessary for the preservation of freedom.

 

The primary justification for socialism is always the need of the people provided with social welfare benefits The argument is that poor people need help and this somehow makes it OK to use the violence of government to take from those with property so as to redistribute that wealth to those with needs. This is, however a lie, as needs are in no way limited by national borders. The children of Asia and Africa suffer far more from the deprivations of poverty than do the children of America, but somehow their need is ignored while massive benefits are heaped on the children of America. The real purpose of socialism is not the help the poor, but rather to create a massive dependency class that will vote for the socialist that control the redistribution of wealth.

 

Most of the worlds population, close to 90%, live on less than $10 a day purchasing power parity and any one with America Privilege is far better off then almost anyone else in the world. Even the poorest of Americans are in the top few percent in terms of wealth when compared to the rest of the world, and yet the suffering of poor children around the world hardly ever touches the hearts of American socialists. I will not argue that you want these kids to suffer and die, but I happily point out that it is not the suffering of children that truly motivates an American socialist.

 

These United States are arguable the richest country on earth with arguable the least need for social welfare with the people with the smallest needs of any peoples on earth. If there is any country where the needs of the poor can be met without the violence of government, without making the citizens tax slaves to the state, it is this country, but it is human nature, no matter how well off, to look with envy on your neighbor and to desire what they have and there are plenty of people that will run for political office promising to give to one man what another man has created out of his own labor.

 

Concepts of justice, morality, good or evil, transcend nationality, and it is the very fact that socialist in America, those born with American Privilege, ignore the needs and sufferings of other's around the world, the far greater needs than those born without American Privilege, that demonstrates that it is not need of the child that justifies the violent takings of government, but rather just crass political expedience, the lust for power, the self aggrandizement of the tyrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, social justice is evil because socialism is evil as mild form of slavery. I am quite willing to be taxed, taxed to provide for those legitimate and central government activities that are required to secure the freedom of the people. Social welfare programs fail to conform to this basic standard and indeed as these program become far more dominant, by far the largest part of the government, then not only does the government fail in it's core duty to protect the liberty of the people, including the economic liberty of the people, it become the primary threat to the very freedoms it was erected to protect.

 

You ask me if I have done time in prison for refusing to pay taxes so you clearly understand that taxation is an act of violence. Refuse to pay, and men and women with guns will come and arrest you and take away your freedom. Violence is not always wrong, but it is certainly wrong when their are alternatives. All government everywhere are inherently violent which is why liberals favor small limited government whose powers are confined to those necessary for the preservation of freedom.

 

The primary justification for socialism is always the need of the people provided with social welfare benefits The argument is that poor people need help and this somehow makes it OK to use the violence of government to take from those with property so as to redistribute that wealth to those with needs. This is, however a lie, as needs are in no way limited by national borders. The children of Asia and Africa suffer far more from the deprivations of poverty than do the children of America, but somehow their need is ignored while massive benefits are heaped on the children of America. The real purpose of socialism is not the help the poor, but rather to create a massive dependency class that will vote for the socialist that control the redistribution of wealth.

 

Most of the worlds population, close to 90%, live on less than $10 a day purchasing power parity and any one with America Privilege is far better off then almost anyone else in the world. Even the poorest of Americans are in the top few percent in terms of wealth when compared to the rest of the world, and yet the suffering of poor children around the world hardly ever touches the hearts of American socialists. I will not argue that you want these kids to suffer and die, but I happily point out that it is not the suffering of children that truly motivates an American socialist.

 

These United States are arguable the richest country on earth with arguable the least need for social welfare with the people with the smallest needs of any peoples on earth. If there is any country where the needs of the poor can be met without the violence of government, without making the citizens tax slaves to the state, it is this country, but it is human nature, no matter how well off, to look with envy on your neighbor and to desire what they have and there are plenty of people that will run for political office promising to give to one man what another man has created out of his own labor.

 

Concepts of justice, morality, good or evil, transcend nationality, and it is the very fact that socialist in America, those born with American Privilege, ignore the needs and sufferings of other's around the world, the far greater needs than those born without American Privilege, that demonstrates that it is not need of the child that justifies the violent takings of government, but rather just crass political expedience, the lust for power, the self aggrandizement of the tyrant.

Suck it up or have your god do something about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suck it up or have your god do something about it

What God would that be?

 

It just amazes me how unwilling socialists, born into American Privilege, are to open their own wallets to help the poor. It is always someone else who is expected to pay, and pay some more, and then pay even more.

 

OK ... in truth I am not at all amazed because there is no true love in the envious hearts of socialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...