2020 US Election (Part One)

[onejayhawk]

Are you calling the Christian Right faithful?

The ones I know are. That's the Southern Baptist, Church of Christ bunch, so they are pretty Bible centered. Like any church, you get your true believers and the hangers on, but on the whole I would say, yes.

No. That the mainstream rightwing view of 'the left' is that 'the left is anti-faith'. The rest of his post is that it's not a very intellectually honest position, but one that the rightwing has talked itself into. The analogue is that it is a mainstream view of the left that "the right holds poor people in contempt".

So, we have a mixed review, which fits since neither side is monolithic. To the extent that there is an anti-faith bloc, it is in the liberal camp. To the extent that there are anti-Christian or anti-Jewish blocs, they are also liberal. Anti-Muslim can be either but differently oriented depending on which side.

Religious beliefs and faith being about as irrational a topic you can find. The fact you are politically dead if not religious in a presidential race speaks volumes about the rational on which these elections are held. Funny however; how the same majority of the electorate will bend over backwards in attempts to find rational in defence for the present economic policy. Your moral code can be anywhere – but challenge the way the budget is crafted and you’re done for. Green new deal – apparently extremely suspect if you’ve been talking to Jesus all your life.

Trump isn't. Clinton wasn't. What you cannot be is anti-religious. Agnostic is forgivable but not atheist.

J

 

[Ironsided]

Trump isn't. Clinton wasn't. What you cannot be is anti-religious. Agnostic is forgivable but not atheist.

No reason why an atheist should be considered anti-religious. Most atheist are pro-choice when it comes to spirituality. Is it the matter of questioning blind faith that makes you see them as anti-religion? Many atheists are in fact very spiritual. I consider myself more agnostic but that’s really just a fuzzy convenience. I’m basically a spiritual and irrational atheist still searching answers. At least I can honestly recognise the irrationality of my spiritual position.

Now let’s drag this back on topic. Why do a majority of Americans still demand a presidential candidate morally grounded in an inherited religious faith – much lacking in sense of objective rational – and then expect them to reason in rational about law and policy?

 

[Sommerswerd]

anti-Jewish blocs, they are also liberal.

Those guys marching with the torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" weren't voting for liberals. You think those guys would support Sanders in the election?

 

[AdrienIer]

Those guys marching with the torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" weren't voting for liberals. You think those guys would support Sanders in the election?

"Jews will not replace us" -> votes for Jewish man. Makes sense

 

[Lexicus]

And the other became president!

Read dat post more carefully

 

[El_Machinae]

Only non evangelicals think that Trump isn't religious. It's why we were so stunned about him lying about his faith, because we thought it would greatly offend the evangelicals. But it didn't. They seemed to embrace him.

 

[Lexicus]

we thought it would greatly offend the evangelicals. But it didn't. They seemed to embrace him.

Who's "we" here, you and the one other person in the world who thought US evangelicals had any real principles?

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem with quoting me when you make these non useful quips is that I get an alert, and then I followed the alerts thinking they're important. And so, it kind of wastes my time. Obviously, you're free to make your sardonic group attacks. It's the quoting that's the problem

 

[rah]

Most of us would just change our notification settings.
I can't imagine wanting a notification for when anybody quoted any wild-ass comment I made. Feel free to quote this.

 

[Arakhor]

I can't imagine wanting a notification for when anybody quoted any wild-ass comment I made.

I imagine that that might be annoying, yes.

 

[rah]

and NO, I was not notified.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Quote me all you want @Lexicus … I enjoy your "non useful quips" and "sardonic group attacks" very much

​

Most of us would just change our notification settings.
I can't imagine wanting a notification for when anybody quoted any wild-ass comment I made. Feel free to quote this.

Challenge accepted

 

[onejayhawk]

Only non evangelicals think that Trump isn't religious. It's why we were so stunned about him lying about his faith, because we thought it would greatly offend the evangelicals. But it didn't. They seemed to embrace him.

Reagan was not particularly religious and he is still the evangelicals fair haired son. I suspect it is more a matter of embracing a faith based value system than the outward showing of faith.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's that some people naturally want a King. Trump was the evangelicals King Saul moment, and they preferred to have a King than listen to the concerns of Samuel about how terrible a King was.

The Right is split between people (it's a coalition) of people who want a King and of people who want 'limited government' within their definition of 'limited'. Trump showed his contempt for the Christian value system when he quoted "an eye for an eye" as his favourite part of the Bible. Evangelicals showed the true paucity of their faith when they weren't able to convince more than a minority of their adherents that Trump was unacceptably evil.

Mind, I understand. Christian values are not actually sustainable in practice. And so, people implicitly know this and are quite happy to re-interpret Christian values in order to foist Trump on the electorate.

edit wasn't expecting that word to be censored!

 

[Lexicus]

embracing a faith based value system

I suppose you could refer to the worship of Mammon as a "faith-based value system"

 

[El_Machinae]

There's also a distinctly right-wing view that "building personal wealth increases the benefit to the whole". Now, there are certainly conditions where it can be true. But that's only part of the pie chart. We saw this when we saw people making obscene profits and thinking that they were contributing more than average by 'paying taxes'. Even the finance minister (which really is a position where the person needs to know better) propagates that idea in his household.

 

[Takhisis]

Now let’s drag this back on topic. Why do a majority of Americans still demand a presidential candidate morally grounded in an inherited religious faith – much lacking in sense of objective rational – and then expect them to reason in rational about law and policy?

Because the US is still a pre-modern country with the military capacity of an industrialised superpower.

Read dat post more carefully

Sorry, I live in a banana republic/alternate reality where you have to get more votes than the other candidates in order to win.

Quote me all you want

Challenge accepted.

Most of us would just change our notification settings.

But this is Xenforo…

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because the US is still a pre-modern country with the military capacity of an industrialised superpower.

That's not the answer. The answer is most Americans do not, in fact, show any evidence that they "expect presidents to apply rationality to law and policy". Religious dogma can be and often is a problem, but it's not the only set of "beliefs without supportive evidence/reasoning" plaguing US politics. Plenty of that going around.

The comical/sad thing is that other western nations think they're different while Australia passes legislation against VPNs and the EU goes mini-China in information suppression, bypassing any public opinions on the matter.

 

[Takhisis]

The answer is most Americans do not, in fact, show any evidence that they "expect presidents to apply rationality to law and policy".

I.e. they are pre-modern.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I.e. they are pre-modern.

By that standard, there are no modern governments.