Trump and our faith-based fantasy world.

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Trump and our faith-based fantasy world.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49065
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Carson, Trump, and The Devil: Invoking Lucifer makes perfect sense in the GOP’s land of make-believe

    But let’s circle back to the Americans who are ebulliently invested in Trump’s actual declarations, and who love him for it. It might alarm you to know that a man who’s renowned for his skill as a brain surgeon not only believes that Trump will make a great president and, concurrently, will make America great again. This brain surgeon also believes in the literal existence of The Devil.

    During the denouement of the Republican National Convention’s second day in Cleveland, Dr. Ben Carson delivered his prepared remarks in support of Trump, but ended up deviating from his script in order to elaborate upon the reality of The Devil and how Hillary Clinton is evidently pro-Lucifer. Yes, a one-time frontrunner for the GOP nomination not only believes in The Devil, but he also thinks Hillary is unqualified for president because she’s in league with The Devil. Carson, for that matter, also thinks it’s possible for humans to have actual associations with this fictitious supervillain from a thousands-of-years-old text, and, all things being equal, this ought to have disqualified Carson from receiving a licence to practice medicine on living humans. Let’s just ponder this momentarily: a grown man — and brain surgeon! — announced on prime time television that Lucifer in fact exists and that the Democratic nominee supports his nefarious deeds.

    For the record, Carson asked the thinning crowd on the floor of the convention hall, “So are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer? Think about that.” Carson was, of course, referring to “Rules For Radicals” author Saul Alinsky’s tongue-in-cheek mention of Lucifer in his acknowledgements. Incidentally, Saul Alinsky could walk up to most of the RNC attendees as a zombie, handing out free cigars, and no one would know who he was. But mention his name — now a popular right-wing shibboleth — and they’ll convulsively recite lengthy anti-Alinsky screeds cribbed from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, both of whom also believe in The Devil, by the way.

    #49068
    wv
    Participant

    Yeah, this has fascinated and appalled me about humans for many years.

    I mean, here you have a Brain Surgeon. A rightwing brain surgeon. Who’s had all kinds of “formal education” — and he believes fervently and sincerely in the devil and jeezus and angels and demons and walking on water and the garden of eden and all the rest.

    And millions and millions and millions of other Americans believe all that, too.

    I keep raising this issue myself every so often, because i think its one of
    the most salient aspects of modern-humans. I dont know quite what to ‘do’
    with this point.

    Talking monkeys. Technological-wizard monkeys.

    w
    v

    #49069
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Yeah, this has fascinated and appalled me about humans for many years.

    I mean, here you have a Brain Surgeon. A rightwing brain surgeon. Who’s had all kinds of “formal education” — and he believes fervently and sincerely in the devil and jeezus and angels and demons and walking on water and the garden of eden and all the rest.

    And millions and millions and millions of other Americans believe all that, too.

    I keep raising this issue myself every so often, because i think its one of
    the most salient aspects of modern-humans. I dont know quite what to ‘do’
    with this point.

    Talking monkeys. Technological-wizard monkeys.

    w
    v

    Another aspect of this gets to me as well, WV. How can true-believers reconcile, rationalize or be okay with their god’s frequent genocides? How can they be okay with, for example, their god ordering Joshua to slaughter every man, woman, child, baby and animal in Jericho, all because the people there wouldn’t submit to Yahweh? How could they be okay with their god committing genocide in the Cities of the Plain, and then killing Lot’s wife for merely looking back on it all? Or, bringing death into the world because Adam and Eve ate an apple? Or the flood? Or “hardening Pharaoh’s heart” to prolong the Jews’ stay in Egypt, so there could be a much greater slaughter and a bigger show of Yahweh’s ultimate power? Or, their god’s special deal with satan to torture Job?

    Richard Dawkins talks about an experiment by an Israeli psychologist (G. Tamarin) there. He read students two versions of the Joshua story. One group got the standard version from the bible. The other group got one rewritten with Chinese generals and locale. The first group of kids mostly said what their god did was okay and warranted. The second group mostly was appalled.

    Forgotten 1963 Survey: Majority Of Israeli Jewish Youth Could Support Genocide Against Arabs

    Organized religion, all too often, can make otherwise rational human beings completely, dangerously irrational.

    #49070
    bnw
    Blocked

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #49072
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    Belief in non-existent mythic creatures can often be, given what it causes humans to do in their names. Like, slaughter unbelievers, torture them, steal their lands in the name of one’s god. Go to war in the name of one’s god. Rationalize bigotry and discrimination in the name of one’s god, etc. Civil wars between members of the same “faith” that last centuries, etc. etc.

    Organized religion has been the catalyst for more death, destruction and human suffering than any other organized anything, aside from capitalism, and the two go hand in hand all too often.

    #49076
    bnw
    Blocked

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    Belief in non-existent mythic creatures can often be, given what it causes humans to do in their names. Like, slaughter unbelievers, torture them, steal their lands in the name of one’s god. Go to war in the name of one’s god. Rationalize bigotry and discrimination in the name of one’s god, etc. Civil wars between members of the same “faith” that last centuries, etc. etc.

    Organized religion has been the catalyst for more death, destruction and human suffering than any other organized anything, aside from capitalism, and the two go hand in hand all too often.

    All of the above can be said of atheist communist dictators too of which I’m sure communist purges have done worse.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #49077
    wv
    Participant

    All of the above can be said of atheist communist dictators too of which I’m sure communist purges have done worse.

    ————–
    Well, I would never argue that if you could eliminate fundamentalist-religions
    the world’s problems would go away. I mean, you’d still have the great biosphere killing beast of Corporatism, for example.

    And yes, you can have genocidal-atheists, certainly.

    The Talking Monkey have many flaws.

    w
    v

    #49078
    zn
    Moderator

    On the other hand, there are decently reasonable people of faith who do not go to war with science or resist the progress of human rights. Slaveholders used the bible to justify slavery, while insurgent slaves and abolitionists believed that god gave all individuals inherent dignity and rights.

    What’s being complained about here, it looks like, is different forms of religious fundamentalism combined with a will to dominate politics and the social system.

    It doesn’t all reduce to politically active conservative fundamentalists (be they politically engaged fundamentalist Christians or politically engaged fundamentalist Muslims etc….which are yes to me the same thing).

    I have seen people of faith who do not buy into the fundamentalist program who can handle, with grace and sincere conviction, debates about the irrationality of religion. We all have. So “attacking religion” in general serves very little purpose.

    #49084
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    Belief in non-existent mythic creatures can often be, given what it causes humans to do in their names. Like, slaughter unbelievers, torture them, steal their lands in the name of one’s god. Go to war in the name of one’s god. Rationalize bigotry and discrimination in the name of one’s god, etc. Civil wars between members of the same “faith” that last centuries, etc. etc.

    Organized religion has been the catalyst for more death, destruction and human suffering than any other organized anything, aside from capitalism, and the two go hand in hand all too often.

    All of the above can be said of atheist communist dictators too of which I’m sure communist purges have done worse.

    There never has been a “communist” nation, anywhere in the modern world. It’s the absence of the state, so it can’t exist as a state. Thus no “communist” dictators. The Soviet Union and China, for example, were State Capitalist countries — as Lenin noted about Russia when he implemented it by that name. They didn’t even get to “socialism,” much less “communism.” Socialism requires true democracy, including the economy, and the people, not political parties or dictators, own the means of production.

    That said, no state has ever gone on a holy war in the name of no-god/atheism. They have, however, done so in the name of a god, with no religion being a greater source for this than Christianity . . . with Islam being number two.

    #49092
    bnw
    Blocked

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    Belief in non-existent mythic creatures can often be, given what it causes humans to do in their names. Like, slaughter unbelievers, torture them, steal their lands in the name of one’s god. Go to war in the name of one’s god. Rationalize bigotry and discrimination in the name of one’s god, etc. Civil wars between members of the same “faith” that last centuries, etc. etc.

    Organized religion has been the catalyst for more death, destruction and human suffering than any other organized anything, aside from capitalism, and the two go hand in hand all too often.

    All of the above can be said of atheist communist dictators too of which I’m sure communist purges have done worse.

    There never has been a “communist” nation, anywhere in the modern world.

    Wow.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #49093
    zn
    Moderator

    Faith is scary? You guys are funny.

    Belief in non-existent mythic creatures can often be, given what it causes humans to do in their names. Like, slaughter unbelievers, torture them, steal their lands in the name of one’s god. Go to war in the name of one’s god. Rationalize bigotry and discrimination in the name of one’s god, etc. Civil wars between members of the same “faith” that last centuries, etc. etc.

    Organized religion has been the catalyst for more death, destruction and human suffering than any other organized anything, aside from capitalism, and the two go hand in hand all too often.

    All of the above can be said of atheist communist dictators too of which I’m sure communist purges have done worse.

    There never has been a “communist” nation, anywhere in the modern world.

    Wow.

    He’s strictly speaking accurate, b. What they had in the Soviet Union and have in China doesn’t meet the definition of communism. However, communism was never only what Marx said it was. The Soviets and Chinese converted the meaning into a militarized one-party bureaucratic state, and that’s part of the mix in talking about the history of communism.

    But from a strict point of view looking at the original definition in Marx, no they weren’t what he called communism.

    Personally I don’t think it matters. Depends on the point someone wants to make. The strict definition is real, and it’s fair to measure the Soviets by it, as bt did. But then also history morphs things. Our constitution didn’t set up a corporate dominated oligarchy, either, but here we are.

    #49096
    Billy_T
    Participant

    He’s strictly speaking accurate, b. What they had in the Soviet Union and have in China doesn’t meet the definition of communism. However, communism was never only what Marx said it was. The Soviets and Chinese converted the meaning into a militarized one-party bureaucratic state, and that’s part of the mix in talking about the history of communism.

    But from a strict point of view looking at the original definition in Marx, no they weren’t what he called communism.

    Personally I don’t think it matters. Depends on the point someone wants to make. The strict definition is real, and it’s fair to measure the Soviets by it, as bt did. But then also history morphs things. Our constitution didn’t set up a corporate dominated oligarchy, either, but here we are.

    As you know, “communism” predates Marx. He didn’t invent it. It existed in its modern incarnation before he was born, and in its ur-form, tens of thousands of years before Marx. Humans are actually quite naturally small “c” communists, as David Graeber points out in his book, Debt.

    Of course, I wasn’t referring to the ur-form when I noted the above. I was thinking in terms of socialist theory by people like Proudhon, Elisee Reclus, Kropotkin, William Morris, along with dozens of others including Marx. They sometimes used terms like “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably, though usually with modifiers, like “anarchist-communist,” or anarchist-socialist.” Socialism was usually the umbrella term.

    Again, as you know, Marx’s theory, drawn from decades of thinkers before him, was that communism followed true socialism, was basically its culmination, after actual socialism became second nature, natural, every day. And it meant no state apparatus was needed to keep true democracy and human emancipation going. No more classes, including no more ruling class.

    Other leftists, especially those in the left-anarchist camp, didn’t see the need to go in stages like Marx suggested. They didn’t think it made any sense to have an interum state in order to steer us toward the absence of the state. They basically wanted to go stateless off the bat.

    Regardless, Lenin said he had to institute State Capitalism in order to yank Russia into the 20th century. No subsequent dictator ever moved away from that. And some, like Stalin, took it even further away from actual socialism.

    #49097
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Western Marxism and the Soviet Union

    Marcel van der Linden talks about State Capitalism in Russia in the pdf linked to above.

    #49102
    zn
    Moderator

    Porn viewership hits all-time high in Cleveland during Republican National Convention

    http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/cleveland-porn-rnc-donald-trump/

    The party of Lincoln, it appears, is also the party of porn.

    In Cleveland, where Donald Trump was nominated by his party’s delegates Tuesday afternoon, porn viewership has surpassed—for the first time—New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, according to a leading adult-video streaming service.

    The increase in Cleveland porn traffic during the Republican National Convention is allegedly 184 percent higher than usual, xHamster reports. Cleveland is making history in all sorts of ways, shattering its previous record for porn viewership while topping out at 873,294 views.

    There are more people in Cleveland watching porn right now, xHamster says, than when the Cavaliers won the NBA championship (though, it’s not entirely clear what one has to do with the other).

    Interestingly, “Trump” became a trending search topic on the pornographic site, revealing that even as party members break from the tumultuous climate of the convention, the 70-year-old real estate tycoon is never far from their hearts, or what have you.

    “Kelly Trump” is also reportedly trending, perhaps reinvigorating the career of the 90s German porn star—who, as far as we know, has no relation to the Republican Party leader.

    #49104
    Zooey
    Participant

    Carson’s mention of of the Trilateral Satanic Commingling was my favorite part of the convention so far. Probably the only thing I will remember about it in 10 years.

    Follow the logic here: Hillary wrote a paper on Saul Alinsky who once off-handedly mentioned Lucifer. Therefore………………. Hillary is in league with Satan.

    Awesome.

    You know, I keep seeing these articles about how the GOP is imploding.

    It’s not imploding.

    These people have been saying out loud the most batshit crazy ass shit for YEARS, and it makes no difference. They still love Sarah Palin. I mean…you know…she should have finished off the last shred of respectability of the party of Lincoln long ago. And yet…here they are. These people occupy enough of this country to elect Donald Trump – DONALD TRUMP – as president.

    At least the death of the planet will draw big ratings.

    #49105
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Carson’s mention of of the Trilateral Satanic Commingling was my favorite part of the convention so far. Probably the only thing I will remember about it in 10 years.

    Follow the logic here: Hillary wrote a paper on Saul Alinsky who once off-handedly mentioned Lucifer. Therefore………………. Hillary is in league with Satan.

    Awesome.

    You know, I keep seeing these articles about how the GOP is imploding.

    It’s not imploding.

    These people have been saying out loud the most batshit crazy ass shit for YEARS, and it makes no difference. They still love Sarah Palin. I mean…you know…she should have finished off the last shred of respectability of the party of Lincoln long ago. And yet…here they are. These people occupy enough of this country to elect Donald Trump – DONALD TRUMP – as president.

    At least the death of the planet will draw big ratings.

    Agreed, Zooey. It doesn’t seem to make any difference. The GOP was supposed to be finished after Hoover. It was supposed to be finished after Goldwater. It was supposed to be finished after Reagan’s first term and the terrible recession he had. His own party turned on him and there was talk of running someone else in 1984. It was supposed to be finished after Gingrich left Congress in disgrace. After Dubya’s catastrophic failures. And on and on.

    It’s the zombie party with its zombie lies of trickle down awesomeness, its anti-science, creationist fanaticism, its Birthers and Birchers and False Flaggers and tea partiers and white supremacists and on and on. Nothing stops it. Not the serial lies, not the moronic economic and social ideas, not the love of inequality, the love of the suffering of others, not the racism, bigotry or xenophobia. Nothing kills it.

    But it’s not only because there are tens of millions of ignorant, reactionary Americans who continuously fall for right-wing lies — Dem or Republican. It’s because the media and the people who own it don’t want it to die. They want to channel the batshit crazies somehow, herd them at least into one known party — the better to control them, I suppose. They have to have somewhere to go and some release valve of sorts.

    Also: Alinsky. I don’t think there ever was a nicer, kinder, gentler boogeyman in our history. He worked his entire adult life to help the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed and was beloved. Demonizing him is kinda like the Brits demonizing Gandhi, though, of course, Alinsky worked on a much, much smaller scale. His comment about Lucifer was tongue in cheek. But the American Taliban doesn’t know tongue in cheek from sharia.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
    #49109
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    zn, your argument is reminiscent of the argument used by gun rights advocates.

    I have seen people of faith who do not buy into the fundamentalist program who can handle, with grace and sincere conviction, debates about the irrationality of religion. We all have. So “attacking religion” in general serves very little purpose.

    I have seen gun owners who do not buy into the NRA program who can handle with grace and sincere conviction, debates about gun control. We all have. So attacking gun rights serves very little purpose.

    Like most gun owners, most people of faith are reasonable people.

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    #49110
    wv
    Participant

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    —————–

    Well, i dont agree that its a ‘very few’ hyper-religious humans.
    There’s Billions of em. With a B.

    w
    v

    #49112
    bnw
    Blocked

    zn, your argument is reminiscent of the argument used by gun rights advocates.

    I have seen people of faith who do not buy into the fundamentalist program who can handle, with grace and sincere conviction, debates about the irrationality of religion. We all have. So “attacking religion” in general serves very little purpose.

    I have seen gun owners who do not buy into the NRA program who can handle with grace and sincere conviction, debates about gun control. We all have. So attacking gun rights serves very little purpose.

    Like most gun owners, most people of faith are reasonable people.

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    What harm?

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #49113
    Billy_T
    Participant

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    —————–

    Well, i dont agree that its a ‘very few’ hyper-religious humans.
    There’s Billions of em. With a B.

    w
    v

    WV,

    I can’t speak for Nittany, of course, but I think he was pointing out that great harm can come from just a few hyper-religious humans — which is a rather nice way of phrasing things. I don’t think he meant there were only a few in existence.

    #49114
    Billy_T
    Participant

    zn, your argument is reminiscent of the argument used by gun rights advocates.

    I have seen people of faith who do not buy into the fundamentalist program who can handle, with grace and sincere conviction, debates about the irrationality of religion. We all have. So “attacking religion” in general serves very little purpose.

    I have seen gun owners who do not buy into the NRA program who can handle with grace and sincere conviction, debates about gun control. We all have. So attacking gun rights serves very little purpose.

    Like most gun owners, most people of faith are reasonable people.

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    What harm?

    The extreme persecution of LGBT folks, including forced “conversion therapy” which has led to suicides.

    The Orwellian “religious freedom” laws, which are really just cover for hate-filled bigotry, and establish a foothold for American Sharia.

    The persecution of women, primarily via an attack on, if not a destruction of, their personal autonomy and their right to control their own bodies.

    The attack on science, especially against the science of climate change, which is a deadly threat to humans, nature and the planet, and one (conveniently) never mentioned at the GOP convention. This attack also takes the form of “creationism,” which religious zealots seek to force onto students, despite the fact that its fairy tales have no place in any science classroom.

    For starters.

    #49115
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    —————–

    Well, i dont agree that its a ‘very few’ hyper-religious humans.
    There’s Billions of em. With a B.

    w
    v

    WV,

    I can’t speak for Nittany, of course, but I think he was pointing out that great harm can come from just a few hyper-religious humans — which is a rather nice way of phrasing things. I don’t think he meant there were only a few in existence.

    Yeah. Certainly there are a great number of hyper-religious people. But here in the US I would say they are in the minority. While most people are ‘believers’ I don’t think most people are hyper-religious. But that perception can be shaped by where you live. I live in VT, and out of the hundreds of people I’ve met I know of only two who would fall in that category. In central Pa there were a lot more, as there would be in WV I am sure. Of course, this would depend on how we define ‘hyper-religious’…

    Of course I think we’d be better off if religion didn’t exist at all.

    Faith is the enemy of reason.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by nittany ram.
    #49117
    zn
    Moderator

    zn, your argument is reminiscent of the argument used by gun rights advocates.

    I have seen people of faith who do not buy into the fundamentalist program who can handle, with grace and sincere conviction, debates about the irrationality of religion. We all have. So “attacking religion” in general serves very little purpose.

    I have seen gun owners who do not buy into the NRA program who can handle with grace and sincere conviction, debates about gun control. We all have. So attacking gun rights serves very little purpose.

    Like most gun owners, most people of faith are reasonable people.

    But that doesn’t counter the great amount of harm done by a very few hyper-religious people. Pence, Cruz, Santorum etc.

    First I do note that “reasonable people of faith” (rpf) is a paradoxical name. And so be it.

    I agree that the fact that there are reasonable people of faith (including people who post here) is not supposed to deflect our attention away from the harm many do in the name of religion. What it does do is maybe caution us about tossing out simple generalizations. So I don’t blame “religion” for anything. I do blame extremists and fundamentalists who do harm in the name of religion. Different thing.

    Your analogy breaks down this way. With guns, the argument is, the fact that there are some who never cause harm is irrelevant. We want to regulate and limit the ways in which they can be kept and used. So for example open carry is an inherent social evil. Regardless how many do it right. There is no equivalent claim with religion since we’re not proposing to limit or ban it.

    One reason we don’t want to generalize about religion per se is that it takes so many forms. Actually according to one poll a few years ago “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” So for many, science and some kind of faith are not opposed things. This of course contradicts the idea that anti-scientific whack jobs dominate religion.

    So I have no problem with resisting fundamentalist types who want to impose on us their right-wing christian version of sharia law. Who actively seek to limit the rights of women and gays etc. Who stand in the way of science. And so on.

    It’s a war, really, though we’re better off winning it with votes than bullets.

    But I think we just cloud the issues if we make “religion” the target. As I said reasonable people of faith post HERE.

    And to be honest with you, as atheistic and philosophically materialist as I am (and I am), I count lectures from atheists about why religion is bad about the same as I count conversion sermons from the zealously religious. I don’t censor it, or try to hush it, but my eyes glaze over and I go to another room.

    ,,,

    #49119
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Nittany,

    I didn’t know you moved to Vermont.

    Do you like it there?

    Culturally and politically, I think I’m probably closest to New England, if the choice is just within the US. But I really don’t like endless winters — or the much higher costs of living. I live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists. Though, I’m also close to several universities, so there is diversity of sorts here. But not nearly enough for me.

    Cost of living and the weather keeps me from moving, basically. Though I’d actually prefer Europe overall.

    #49122
    zn
    Moderator

    . I live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.

    I know what you mean since I used to live in Louisiana and went to high school in Indiana.

    In fact in Louisiana I used to live one mile from Jimmy Swaggart’s university.

    For the record I felt the same way then, that I feel now. Even though then my activities included being in demonstrations that kept a women’s reproductive health issues clinic open, and that meant going toe to toe and face to face with a group that had been thrown out of the Pentacostal church for being too radical. (I kid you not.) I was even arrested at one of those events…chosen directly by the chief of police, who was present, to be arrested. (I didn’t do anything, but the other group had a couple of battery arrests and they were just balancing accounts. So I got singled out cause the chief of police was standing right there. No charges were filed.)

    If anything in Maine I encounter the opposite prejudice. That is, it is widely assumed that the entire country outside of New England and New York is all just an overly religious version of the movie Deliverance.

    #49123
    Billy_T
    Participant

    If anything in Maine I encounter the opposite prejudice. That is, it is widely assumed that the entire country outside of New England and New York is all just an overly religious version of the movie Deliverance.

    That, of course, is not good either. But you picked a beautiful place to live, ZN.

    I love the Blue Ridge Mountains, and we have a lot of beautiful vistas to enjoy here too. But it would be nice if my fellow leftist heathens had at least a bit more representation nearby.

    ;>)

    #49124
    zn
    Moderator

    If anything in Maine I encounter the opposite prejudice. That is, it is widely assumed that the entire country outside of New England and New York is all just an overly religious version of the movie Deliverance.

    That, of course, is not good either. But you picked a beautiful place to live, ZN.

    I love the Blue Ridge Mountains, and we have a lot of beautiful vistas to enjoy here too. But it would be nice if my fellow leftist heathens had at least a bit more representation nearby.

    ;>)

    I edited my last post, the one you’re responding to here, and I wonder if you saw it. I added the bit about being arrested at a political demonstrating opposing anti-choice demonstrators.

    Anyway, Maine is beautiful, absolutely, and Portland is a great town, but, I can handle the cold. Actually southern coastal maine is not that cold. I am originally from Manitoba which was FAR colder, and I lived in Chicago which was also colder. Either way I like 4 seasons, I like snow, I like seeing the coastline in winter, it’s very Melville.

    #49130
    bnw
    Blocked

    I live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.

    Really? I’d guess Asheville, NC? (You did say South.)

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by bnw.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #49131
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.

    Really? Then you live there with your pie hole shut. This is your outlet.

    I speak my mind with my neighbors on occasion, but I don’t make a habit of it. It’s too depressing to hear the nonsense they believe about our politics and the world. A lot of otherwise very nice people, with views that just don’t have any connection to reality.

    #49132
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    One reason we don’t want to generalize about religion per se is that it takes so many forms. Actually according to one poll a few years ago “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” So for many, science and some kind of faith are not opposed things. This of course contradicts the idea that anti-scientific whack jobs

    And to be honest with you, as atheistic and philosophically materialist as I am (and I am), I count lectures from atheists about why religion is bad about the same as I count conversion sermons from the zealously religious. I don’t censor it, or try to hush it, but my glaze over and I go to another room.

    It’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.

    As far as arguments about religion go, as a rule I don’t try to convince people of faith that their diety of choice doesn’t exist. Many people ‘need’ their faith. Often they have little else in their lives so I don’t want to take something away that means so much to them. But I will argue with people about the major organized religions and the horrors they’ve caused. That’s just historical fact and thus fair game.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by nittany ram.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by nittany ram.
Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.