A Question For All
Quotes? Who Needs Quotes? This is not the question
Recently, I was having a conversation in which I was trying to explain to one of my friends why another of my friends was feeling personally attacked. Basically, the conversation boiled down to the following;
- Member 1 expressed support for political policies that would, if codified into law, materially harm Friend 1 and people like him, simply for being members of that demographic class.
- Friend 2 expressed knowledge of Member 1 (from past experience/debates) and attributed these expressions of support for the policy as being related to his religious belief system.
- Friend 2 further stipulated that Member 1 bore no ill will personally towards the specific demographic that Friend 1.
- I held that because Member 1 supported said policies, it made no difference that Member 1 bore no ill will towards Friend 1 or his demographic, because the effect of supporting the policies did to Member 1 and those like him.
It seems to me if the policies that one espouses cause material harm, be the motivation derived from something religious in nature or not, these policies should be examined and placed against the “not bearing ill-will towards” the specific group.
Tags
Who is online
346 visitors
Should a person be called to account for this scenario? It seems to me ethically wrong to agree with policies that would harm someone while at the same time providing the... hmmmm, excuse of religious belief ...
What think you?
“What think you?”
For what it’s worth…
I have family members that are diametrically opposed to my beliefs, so not worth damaging a relationship though never ‘afrayed’ to state an opinion.
I think that that is the importance of sites like this.
We can argue, disagree, and vent without harming a personal relationship. With that being said, apologies to any I may have offended, and thanks for the venue but no promises I may not offend again…I trust we all get it.
Nice post, Thomas…Peace.
I haven't seen you be mean to anyone. You always have thoughtful posts. If people get offended by that, so be it.
I of course have a problem with any decisions being made for religious reasons because I believe we should all consider the facts and reason to a sound conclusion and not rely upon the words of ancient men to make our decisions for us.
The thing is, as a follower of the worldview given by an "ancient man (Jesus)" I don't have a problem with Church ideology. I could not even have a problem of with local 'in-house' theological differences of opinion. The issue problematic for us as citizens when it seeks to 'mount' and 'press down' public policy
. The church in our country was designed with "freedom of religion" granted with an intent for religious parties and affiliates to garner the means to govern itself and rule on itself within society and set apart from society. With limited interference from the surrounding state.
But, the religious political action organizations, seek power, influence, and dominance over public policy. That is an aberration. Because, clearly and certainly, our freedoms granted by the constitution are not religious in nature, character, or expression. That is, our constitution is a legal contract for unifying and binding states into one - not a collection of religious creeds.
Indeed they do. And beyond that, religious views shape our society because of the dominance of religious individuals over irreligious individuals. That is, even when not organized, the indoctrination / beliefs of religious people inadvertently affect their decisions.
On top of that (disregarding religion now) we cannot ignore the fact that there is plenty of societal bigotry. It takes a very long time to outgrow past bigotry. It operates at a generational pace. However, I think we are moving in the right direction (albeit slowly).
Don't I know it! Thankfully, it was not until I became old—er, that I came to a realization just how much of my life was taken up by struggle. That is, I, we - as humans - endure hardship and "suck it up" a great many issues of life. But, one day somewhere along the 'highway' I reflected on how much I have given up to other societal forces whose sole mission in the political stream of life is to thwart my happiness-whether they thought it harsh, disruptive, painful, or something else!
"This is not personal, it's just: politics, religion, business." - Reasoning. When someone opens with this "belief" where does the thinking immediately go? I say: "Uh-uh."
Religious belief does not provide an excuse for an action. Honor-killings, as an obvious example, are not excused due to religious beliefs.
A nuance here is the impact religious belief has on many people. There are people on this planet who personally do not harbor ill-will towards LGBTQ (for example) and hold that of course this group should have the same rights as the balance of the population. Yet these same people might vote for politicians who are more aligned with their religious views even though doing so hinders LGBTQ progress. Religion is not an excuse that makes the harm okay; it is the reason (or part thereof) for the voting decision.
We do not have direct democracy and thus cannot vote ala carte. These voters cannot vote for their religious issues and pro-LGBTQ issues. Thus voters necessarily will indirectly cause bad as part of attempting to get the most good (as they perceive it).
Sorry but I don't buy the no ill will thing.
Imo what all these religious exemptions do is give people a protected class.
There should be no protected class or exemptions. Why do some people get a special status...
This is something conservatives have been complaining against and at the same time championing and codling.
Here! Here! You nailed it
Religion be tricky like that. It is possible, as we can see in many, many instances, to hold two opposing thoughts or opinions at the same time while believing both of them. The trick, as I see it, is to juxtapose these conflicts against each other while not alienating the person whom you are trying to elucidate.
So sayeth everyone. How about the historically downtrodden? What makes Special "Special"?
I guess I just get sick of religion itself sometimes.
Some people twist freedom of religion with freedom to have rights others do not.
Yes, sometimes I do that, too. But generally I try to realize that different people have different beliefs and they are not going to be the same as mine.
When I lived in the little "city" of Newtonia, MO, I went to some church functions just to get to see someone. The Pastor or minister or whatever he was called, became a good friend of mine, even though he and I both knew the state of the others beliefs. As a matter of fact, I think that what made the friendship was the ability to question the others beliefs and get a cogent and reasoned reply.
So how do you, we, us deal with people who express this?
You would love Enoch. Hope he is doing well.
I actually don't mind people having beliefs. I just don't like when they think their beliefs take precedent. If that makes any sense. Yet they are taught that their beliefs should hold precedent.
I actually like discussing religion with people of faith. Intelligent people of faith.
In those cases where they will actually engage in thoughtful discussion. It is rare because religion (like politics) is an emotional topic.
I am just going to be blunt: There should not be any "protected" categories for people. That is, we should not have to 'fence-in" people from other people.
But. And it is a big 'but' the trouble is this: political power creates bully mindsets.
Subsequently certain sectors, classes, races, et ceteras of humanity are vexed, targeted, beset, dehumanized, and if not 'covered' by society they would never ever rise to greatness, recovery, equality, or equity! Take the black slave class. Had laws not been tailored to lift this humanity out of its bondage, the "property owners" of Old would still legally, mind you - be laying claim to the descendants of slaves as not inherently free. We, unlike other citizens here, were literally "made free" by an act of Congress. Whites and immigrants never faced such "protection" in our law. Of course, that is just the beginning and just one of our "protected status" needs.
And there were 'downtrodden' girls and women. Literally being married 'off' to men, and some of the men would be the "h" out of their girls and women - folks! So it became necessary to have "domestic violence" laws to 'fence in' girls and women.
Do you know of anyone (because I certainly do) who generally supports conservative policies (because he genuinely believes they are best for the nation as a whole) knowing full well that those policies will cause harm to select groups (e.g. LGBTQ) but having no personal desire (no personal intent) to do harm?
We are not able to run our government via ala carte options. Everything is bundled (and bundles are bundled) so voters ultimately must decide net good and net bad and operate accordingly. If not, we cannot (realistically) support anything.
I do know people that would support causes that would hurt certain communities and to them, that would be an added bonus.
I just see where there could be bills and laws that are fair and do not marginalize anyone.
I understand sacrifice for a greater cause yet there is the ability to take harm to others out of the equation, I would think.
As do I. All too many have carved out their position without even caring if it would bring harm to others, yet they would scream bloody murder if the similarly harmful laws were codified against them and theirs.
What most view as progress that creates 'a more perfect union', a minority see as threatening and that want to turn the clock back to non-existent 'glory days' when those that look like them and think like them were paramount.
It certainly is possible, but typically bills / laws are 'bundled'.
And if we go up a level, we have people who generally are conservative and those who are generally liberal. One can argue that anyone who is generally conservative is supporting anti-LGBTQ actions. My question is if that necessarily means that this conservative voter wants to harm the LGBTQ community. I say that this is not necessarily the case.
I would like that too. I do not expect to see it. We seem to be moving in the opposite direction where we are bundling more and fine-tuning less.
I am taking the bundled thing as they have a bill they think will help yet it is attached to another bill that could cause harm. They are bundled together and it is either vote for both or nothing.
I call that our elected officials being lazy. They have one job and they 'bundle' it together...Haha
Seriously though, that is something wrong with our system. Having a stand alone bill and as you said have them tweaking and working on it versus throw them all together.
What I don't understand is why anyone would be against equal rights for all. That includes marriage. What does it harm me if Adam and Steve want to get married? I would even attend the wedding if invited.
Yup, you are correct, that is what I was referring to.
It is an ugly and hobbling consequence of partisan dynamics.
I agree, the bundling works against the people. It is a systemic failure.
My brother got married in Birmingham. They actually had a gay pride parade right outside the venue.
The look on my Father's face the whole time was comical.
Bigotry.
It is not harmful. The problem is that it is 'different' and many people are set in their ways. If we bring in the religious element then there exists an incredibly powerful 'group-think' / indoctrination force that determines that Adam and Steve are an 'abomination'.
But I know of an individual who is deeply religious, votes conservative, but who does not personally seek to harm LGBTQ individuals. This individual has noted (years ago ... simply offered for another reason) that he did not vote for an item that was specific to the LGBTQ community (not bundled) because he a) does not feel it was his right to impose upon them and b) does not feel he is superior to them — that they should be able to make their own choices.
Yet he firmly believes that his God disapproves of LGBTQ and he defers to same.
Complex is an understatement here.
I do not believe this individual is unique on the planet.
I respect a person who has a belief that is contrary to mine (religious) but will not push an agenda that would harm others. It's that attitude of leave people in peace that I really respect
Because at the least those who fear "Adam and Steve" as a normal thing in the world regard it as damaging to themselves or their children to gaze upon; at the worse, they are threatened (superstition) and are confused as to whether it is safe to allow sexual liberties and freedoms or fear such activities will hinder or deplete some blessing/s from God if they do not speak out against it.
When people start to talk about indoctrination and like like I now start to think projection.
If someone thinks people and be taught or choose to be gay, they fear the tendencies they may have themselves.
I will try to explain some biblical concepts (in brief) which creates this perception:
1. Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, mind, and sold.
2. Shun evil and do not sin.
3. Cursed is the man, woman, boy, or girl who continues in sin.
4. Plagues, famines, diseases, floods, earthquake, fires, tornadoes, etceteras will come upon the 'wicked.'
5. Fear the One who can put you into Hell or Heaven (through judgement).
All of the above paint a picture of a God who is not to be 'trifled' with! And so many deeply religious people are struggling to live up to the model of God that is judgemental and regarded as 'angry' and calling to remembrance every wrong done in this life.
However, that is not the case with God whom we are equally, if not more, taught is (God of) love. That is, walking in the Spirit, we simply have to: "as much as it lies within us to keep peace with all men and women" and trust (have faith) in God to deal with the world around us. (This is the 'short and sweet' version.)
Well, CB, I have said this myriad times but will say it again.
Christianity would be much better off if it were to literally stick with the philosophy attributed to Jesus and to not abide by that of the OT.
In theory, yes you are correct. That said, in practice, my faith would be "anchored in mid-air" without its underpinnings of Judaism. Thus, it is as t'is!
Judaism and Christianity will rise or collapse together in the end, for all intents and purposes, these two faiths 'share' the Messiah.
Yup, it would be anchored in mid-air and that is almost certainly why Christianity continues its tie with the OT. But most denominations (especially Catholicism) do the next best thing and avoid the OT except for very select stories which are then sanitized and packaged for Sunday school.
Catholics (and I know many very well) are, as a whole, remarkably unaware of the OT (in my experience). Of course that makes sense since it has been historically the nature of the Catholic church to not disclose the Bible raw to followers but rather teach Catholicism. Quite a bit of blood shed over that centuries ago.
Actually, it would behoove Christians to not be offended of their Jewish background, and Judaism to not spurn its offspring: Christianity. Though, there be 'rough hewn edges' where the "cornerstone" (Jesus) connects these two "titans" together in eternal bonding.
One could argue that but they would generally be wrong. There are a plethora of LGBT conservative and LGBT allies that are conservative. They choose to be fiscally conservative while being socially progressive/moderate.
You have to then insist that the intent is pure because the conservative is ignorant of the fact that they support a policy that inherently does harm.
Anyone who participates in forums like this cannot claim that ignorance.
“ I would even attend the wedding if invited.”
…and go viral on the dance floor.”
Me too. Love is not restricted by gender, it should be celebrated wherever and whenever the magic strikes.
Thing is, much of Judaism does not rely upon the Penteteuch (at least not in a literal sense) but rather the larger collection: the Tanakh as well as works such as the Talmud. For example, it is not a normal view of modern Judaism to hold homosexual acts as 'abominations' but rather to come quite far into acceptance. Speaking with Enoch, his view is that even the ancients did not act literally on ancient Hebrew laws such as in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is not the case, per Enoch, that a homosexual sexual act resulting in the individuals being murdered.
In short, Judaism arguably is more distinguished from the OT than some denominations of Christianity (and certainly more distinguished from the OT than is Islam).
In some cultures, LGBTQ is an accepted part of life and no one bears any ill will towards them. In fact, they are considered to have special gifts and for that, they are admired.
In the Native American world, they are known as ''Two-Spirit'' people which is a direct translation of the Ojibwe Niizh manidoowag. There are five genders in many tribes but, now this is going to confuse non-natives, The Two-Spirit tradition is primarily a question of gender, not sexual orientation. Might as well really make you think, we also believe that we have two souls, one is a stationary soul and the other is one that leaves the body and searches for wisdom throughout the world.
Seems that native culture is much more advanced and accepting than those of non natives.
Native American culture has (best we can tell ... and I know you know this all too well) ancient roots (potentially 30,000 years) in the Americas and much deeper ancient roots in Eastern Asia.
My grandparents would say, ''we have always been here''. In other words, we have existed since the beginning of time.
BTW, I added a couple of bits of info after you commented, T,G.
Still, . . . . Most Christians extent of the 'unification' of the faiths merge (and separate) in the canons of the Bible. That is, we're 'stuck'!
Yes, Christians are stuck.
Born in a place where one could 'stretch' out and be happy (at least) for who one is in a sense. I once watched a 'special' on the Discovery Channel that says in the Phillippines that certain boys and men can live as women and be accepted -as long as they do not switch roles or move back and forth in gender identity. Is that something like what you are indicating above? Can you really drill down on what you mean about gender not sexual orientation? I have no idea how to process that part!
Another reason why parties should be taken out of the equation.
Indeed! Few people are as rigid as political party platforms, or perhaps more precisely the more extreme characterizations of those political party platforms.
What? You've never heard of the "Cafeteria Catholic"?
CB, moving back and forth isn't something that is done in Native culture. As for the gender vs sexual orientation that gets complicated but in our culture we believe that there are five genders. Perhaps this link can help explain it better than I can.
https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders#:~:text=At%20the%20point%20of%20contact,Two%20Spirit%20male%20and%20transgendered.
Per this:
Here I am noting that conservative politicians and policies are generally unfavorable to LGBTQ objectives. But that it is WRONG to think that someone who supports conservative issues is necessarily against LGBTQ. That people can and necessarily do vote based on a perceived predominant good even when a bad is included.
Clearly people have to deal with the bundling of policy and the obvious fact that we are limited to vote for a single representative, two senators and one PotUS (just focusing on the federal branches). If one is a single-issue voter then the task becomes easier .. especially if a candidate is clearly aligned with that single-issue. But if not then judgment is required.
Thus ...
A conservative LGBTQ voter will certainly be navigating a delicate path since conservative / GOP politicians generally are not favorable to LGBTQ issues.
Now, my point is that it is WRONG to presume that simply because a person supports conservative politicians / issues does not mean that they are anti-LGBTQ. That there are individuals who support (or at least are not against) LGBTQ who vote conservatively. And thus even though their general support harms LGBTQ causes that does not mean that the individual is anti-LGBTQ.
I understand TiG and I certainly agree. I think most folks, with the exception of partisan extremists, are more flexible than the platforms of the two political parties and most politicians who are compelled to stick to those platforms. Although I’m not sure that the Republican party platform is rabidly anti-LGBTQ, or out to actively hurt LGBTQ causes, but there are indeed some Republican politicians who parrot the sentiments of the ultra partisan religious right.
On the other hand, I also find it odd how some partisans treat a person like Kaitlin Jenner. She is the perfect example of someone not mired in the strict boundaries of partisan politics, probably like the majority of us, yet she takes shit from both partisan extremes.
The expectation that one must vote for, or side entirely with, one of these two parties simply because of one’s race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is silly. All folks are capable of thinking for themselves and weighing the issues separately and independently, and then voting for a candidate that best represents their views and addresses their concerns. I also think that it is silly that politicians who break with their strict party line and vote more moderately, like most of their constituents would likely want, are chastised by the hardliners in their party and the extremists who support them. It is well beyond time that we put an end to the two party stranglehold on our political process.
Of the two, the D party clearly is more supportive of LGBTQ than the GOP. Thus my GOP example.
Political independents are seen as opponents from both sides.
I do not have that expectation. I was pointing out the trend, not an expectation.
The key here, for me, is something that seems obvious.
Voters, in a representative democracy, cannot vote on specific legislation. We must vote for representatives. In our complex world, it is rare to find a representative who completely aligns with the voter. Thus voters necessarily vote for representatives who will do good (in their eyes) but will also do bad (in their eyes).
Given that, it should not surprise anyone that an individual who predominantly supports conservative / religious / GOP representatives and thus is doing more harm to LGBTQ rights than if one voted for a D representative is not necessarily intending to harm the LGBTQ community. That one can hold that all people should have equal rights yet still vote for politicians whose votes do not reflect that.
I certainly did not mean to infer that YOU had that expectation. I was acknowledging your observation of the trend and offering my opinion about it.
We're on the same page on this my friend.
So here is a key question underlying this seed.
If a person votes conservatively (generally goes with conservative / GOP politicians) does that mean that the person necessarily harbors ill will against LGBTQ?
My position is that it is possible for an individual to have no ill will towards LGBTQ individuals and indeed be supportive of the obvious notion of equality for all while still voting for politicians who, ultimately, end up harming LGBTQ initiatives.
And, similarly, it is possible for a person to be against LGBTQ 'behavior' for religious reasons and still support their equal rights.
We have a person in this forum who I have (elsewhere) noted is deeply religious, votes conservatively, believes that his God considers homosexual 'behavior' to be wrong/sinful yet does not see himself better than homosexuals and in fact supports equal rights for LGBTQ.
This person is responsible for the harm to the LGBTQ community as a result of his voting. So the impact of his voting is identical to that of a bigot voting conservatively. But it is significant that this individual is not a bigot. I maintain that if it were possible to unbundle our votes, this person would be acting in support of equal rights but the other 'equivalent' voter would continue to act in support of bigotry.
There is a difference here. It is significant.
An excellent read. I was at once overjoyed, glad, sad (in the middle about the European/Columbus 'angle,' and overjoyed at the end. Thank you for letting me learn of this (I did not know it). It must be nice to come into a world where you are 'fully' appreciated and deeply and richly respected and loved.
I will be honest with you. I have lived my entire life in one way or another self-conscious and partially guarded about my sexuality. Even when I was completely "at liberty" to be "uncloseted" there was a negative cost to being and doing so: Attacked 2, robbed: 1, burglarized - 3) each with the potential to end my life, respectively.
Tig, asked me (another article) if in a world where Christianity did not hinder, hamper, abominate, homosexuality would I be in a loving relationship today with another man. Well, it's hard to say in my case. But enough stalling: I would like to think I would be.
Still, there are 'tiers' and 'variations' on the homosexual theme: I, myself, am highly attracted to "hetero-types" that is, men who are least likely to go public with a same-sex relationship. Although, you may remember my past mentioning the great love of my life was a young, blue-eyed, construction worker, who wanted to want out in public with me holding hands, dating, and proposing a 'promise' of marriage.
This stood out:
(Some) Conservatives are so (damn) bull-headed.
The difference of course is that you, it seems to me, did not self-impose celibacy due to a belief that your God disapproves but rather because of the real-life bigotry that was very much in play decades ago when you made your decision.
So naturally I would expect that you would be tolerant of another Christian whose experiences cause him to believe that homosexuality is a sin and a choice and thus should be avoided (religious belief / deferring to God). But you would not be tolerant if that individual instead simply thought ill of you simply because of your orientation (bigotry).
In short, I suspect you would understand the religious belief (even if you disagree) but would not stand for raw bigotry.
TiG, I caution that, once informed conservatives need to act accordingly. Trying to 'do right' by homosexuals and same-sex marriage by denying both space to be free and prosperous will not stand the test of time-as surely these conservatives ought to understand that homosexuals 'age out' too. And, according to conservatives, who are enjoying bountiful freedoms granted to themselves through laws - they, conservatives, have 'captured' the lives and times of homosexuals (in a time capsule of sorts) and all that remains is a group of lives experienced in the sense of "make do."
As a for instance, there are many homosexuals who will never marry in this era. Because, for all intents and purposes, for them the days of their youths, were spent in the struggle for equality or acceptance that it could never be. I, they, we, were compelled to learn to live 'without' and the alternative in a world that would not have us just so. It is an important point, because all of us, who have ever been suppressed long-term have learned how to express ourselves-joys and lows-in other ways.
I am watching the confirmation of the first black woman to the SCOTUS and the deed is completed. Look how long it took to be so. And still, there were 45 plus republicans representing conservative-leaning states who voted to deny even a qualified black woman this opportunity to normalize and leave 'color' suppression behind. The harm is real, damaging, long-lasting, and can not and should not be allowed to continue - in commission or omission.
How does the average conservative voter do that with their votes other than switch to non-conservative politicians?
The problem remains that ultimately you pick one congressperson (focusing on one example) so one logically seeks a representative who approximates one's desires. If other issues are more important to the conservative than equal rights what is this individual to do?
So you are saying "this person" who believes God has instructed him or her to oppose same-sex marriages because it is a sexual sin and not sanctioned by his or her God wants homosexuals to have the same or similar rights and freedoms of marriage as s/he does to a heterosexual marriage.
How can a homosexual satisfy the deep bonding inside him or herself through civil rights behaviors designed and "approved" for heterosexual relationships?
I did not write that this person was told by God to oppose. I wrote that this:
He does not (IMO) believe that he has the right to restrict the freedom of LGBTQ individuals but rather that this is up to his God. He does, however, believe he should try to encourage LGBTQ to not engage in their 'sinful' behavior.
Key subtlety here is that he would not personally act on his religious beliefs to directly restrict freedoms; he would try to 'convert' them.
Note, CB, that this is verrrrrrry strange for me to write the above. But I am literally paraphrasing from unsolicited historical commentary. So even though you know I think acting on faith is wrong-headed and that believing the words of ancient men to be those of God is logically flawed, this is what the man genuinely believes.
So we have an individual who does indeed vote conservatively, knows that this does cause harm to the LGBTQ equal rights initiatives, believes that God views LGBTQ 'behavior' as a sin yet personally holds no malice and would not intentionally, directly act to deny them freedoms because he does not believe it is his place/right to do so because he does not consider himself 'superior' to them.
This individual, as described, is not a bigot IMO.
Actually, when I became Christian (new birth, second birth, reconstitution of my childhood faith), I was walking away from 'the ways of the world' and entering into a 'contract' with the God of the Bible. And yes, I was 'sick and tired' of being 'sick and tired' of trying to find a 'steady' love in a world where men I am passionate about were remote and not so openly passionate about me. (The great love of my life, was actually fully homosexual in his nature, but he was a 'pleasant' surprise that I could not have planned. Of course, he suffered brain damage in a motorcycle accident and was returned to his family and I forced to return to the 'single life' I was already enduring.) Thus, in the vernacular of the prodigal son: "I came to my senses." And asked God what comes 'next.' That led to a lifetime' spiritual awakening.
It is through much suffering, much dedication, much research, much reading, much listening, much thinking, much discussion, and learning to live 'self-contained' that I have come to a maturity in my faith.
That is, I seek, ask, and knock not necessarily in that order and suitable answers have been forthcoming.
This is fundamental, IMO, and cannot be stressed enough.
Soul search. Another for instance. I voted for Bill Clinton twice! You may remember back when Bill Clinton pointed his finger and lied to the public (and me - so I took it personally as a servicemember that a Commander in Chief would commit adultery in the Oval Office of all places, as I was catching "h" for wanting to be serve my nation without any 'baggage' but homosexuality stigmatized me.) I believed Bill Clinton—he got caught by his DNA you recall and afterwards 'spoke' foolishly about the meaning of the word, 'Is.' The republicans impeached Bill and the then democratic senate would not follow through on tossing his 'can' out of office.
The next election following for democrat Al Gore presidential candidate - I took a 'pass' and chose to stand by and let others decide Al's fate. I was sadden that his vote count fell short and that the vote count that year landed where it did at the SCOTUS. But I imagined a lot of voters outside of California were passing on Al too, because Bill Clinton took no RESPONSIBILITY for his conduct over an act that would have gotten any officer or enlisted person tossed out of the service and a career!
George W. Bush. Though we were a nation at war, I did not vote for him for a second term. Because he had waged war in Afghanistan for 9/11/2001. I approved of George W. Bush (he did not disturb or offend me). But. I was forced to take a pass on his incumbency and vote for John Kerry (he lost) because the "Yellow cake" explosives was determined to not exist and again I felt lied to by someone who had entered a foreign country and taken our country along through a 'complex' fabricated lie and thus, his administration needed to be held RESPONSIBLE for the deaths which ensued.
George Bush got reelected. And, did so without my support.
Soul search.
Surely, I understand the fine details of this area of discussion. But, I have one more question: In your understanding of this individual - would you say he feels he is an "agent" of God? That is, it is his duty to vote away homosexual rights, (expanding now) abortion rights, and so on and so forth rights of any person or group considered offensive to God?
Note that you are right, it is verrrry interesting to me to be in opposite stance where it appears I am questioning or not fully onboard with God whom I believe. But, I assure you I am not going against God though it will take time to explain it all.
Yes but more of a servant than an agent. That is, he abides by what he believes are God's wishes but does not presume to be an agent of change per se. He believes that he should try to help LGBTQ people turn away from their 'sin' as he is supposed to do for everyone (i.e. every sinner).
No, actually this individual noted how on a particular referendum dealing with anti-LGBTQ issues he did not approve because he believes it is not his right to infringe upon the freedoms of others and that he does not see himself as superior. This was a striking part of the commentary. Something I did not expect.
Indulge me for a moment. I, too, am 'fond' of sharing with others my stances, strong opinions even, but at the end of the day my guiding or spiritual-related principles are mine (and between me and my God). As is the case for each and every individual who has to stand before his or her version of a perfect God or Entity.
As a result, I am perfectly content with letting believers tell anybody anything they want especially if it does not cause hurt or harm to others. I tell people 'lots' too. Also, I keep myself "independent" for reasons that I am not obligated to pretend to enjoy things, matters, and situations I do not—especially socially. If a church has strange doctrine, I simply do not go no matter who is 'pastoring' or how nice s/he is or whom I have befriended who wants me to accept invite. But, I wish them well on their adventures! Hoping in my heart that at some juncture they will do better.
However, if they choose to listen that's good! If they choose not to listen I am okay with that too. Because this faith 'walk' I am on is mine to navigate, others have their own path to chart and designations to arrive at similarly.
Therefore, at the point where I see someone is not in need of my help, I pull back. And take a new tack: Let them alone.
For I was (able) to find my way through to a spiritual place that has sustained me for decades now. No one person got me where I am today. Humbly I submit it could have been a 'team' of folks unbeknown to me acting on some higher plane. Anyway I am here.
What am I saying? I am simply stating you tell people whatever it is that you 'wish' for them, help them 'to it' as much as you can, and then if they are not ready (or able) to take the journey you're on. . . release them to chart their own course. Understanding that if you believe God can not fail - then God shall not fail to find every 'soul' God sets out to change or alter.
Note: I did say indulge me? Yes, I did. I got kind of 'scattered' there, I feel sure.
Not anything I can offer to that.
I'm a little late to the party, but....
Pretty sure I'm the person TiG begins to refer to in 2.3 and in subsequent comments. ( If not, apologies, TiG .) His assessment is almost entirely accurate considering the issue he's discussing. The problem, as he has indicated, is that different topics often get bundled into one package, be it a particular bill under consideration or a political candidate. These are all or nothing affairs, most of the time. Seldom do we non-elected people get to vote directly on just one politically or socially divisive issue.
One issue were I did get to vote, or not vote as it turned out, was the issue of same sex marriage in my state, before the Federal government took up the issue. It was a heck of a moral dilemma for me at the time. Since I believe what God has to say on the subject, I felt I should vote no. But, also, I further believe God would not want me to force His moral code on someone who doesn't accept it. So, I abstained. It still left me feeling conflicted, though.
Now, many years later, I no longer feel conflicted. Not that I would have done anything different concerning that particular vote but I see the issue more clearly now. Speaking for myself and, I believe, many like minded Christians, it comes down to which of two possible realities one lives in. One is the Kingdom of God as described in the Bible and the other is everything not included in that.
Given that, I can't expect someone outside the Kingdom to abide by the commands God has for those of us who live in it. I can hardly expect a Canadian in Canada to obey US law, to use an analogy. Nor is God isn't a tyrant. If someone wants to live apart from this Kingdom, that is their choice and I have, nor would want, a say in that.
That said, given I live in the US and live under its Constitution, I don't see anything in it that precludes people in the LGTBQ community doing what they want. To be as clear as I can be, I do not see anything in the Constitution that says they do not nor should not have the same rights as anyone else and would not do anything from preventing them from gaining those rights. That, however, should not be taken to mean I'm okay with the LGBT community or on board with it in any way. I am not. Not because I condemn them but, because of my point of view, they are condemning themselves and don't even realize it or simply don't care. Worse, they are trying to drag as many along with them as they can and using the schools to do it.
I hate that, but I don't hate them. That might be hard for you to believe but it isn't that hard to understand, if you want to. You see, we all start out in the same sinful, broken place. None of us are who God intended us to be. Even now that I am saved, I still do bad things. I still have wrong desires, just like anyone else. I am no different from them or anyone else when it comes to my personal righteousness. What sets me, and other Christians who understand reality, apart is I believe God when He tells me how to escape this never ending cycle of misery we humans continually put ourselves through. We believe Him when He tells us we will never escape all this on our own. We believe Him when He tells us there's really only two ways to go and only one leads to life. So, we broken Christians hobble to the exit as best we can as we follow our Lord to something better. And while some Christians do condemn, some of us don't but, rather, say come join us. It doesn't have to be this way. I needed saving and continue to need it because I am no better than anyone else. I will never be better than anyone else. But someday, I will be better than I am now.
So, TiG is right. Because I vote for conservative issues doesn't mean I necessarily do so because I want to intentionally harm anyone. I vote for them because I think they are better than what the other side wants for our society.
Thank you for adding your thoughts to the discussion and clearly stating why you vote and think the way that you do.
Well, I am from "the other side," but your statement echoes one of my foundational principles.
And that is were the error in your logic resides. Why? Because conservatives are using lies, deceptions, political manipulations, Machiavellian expediency, dehumanizing rhetoric, and corruption tactics to divide what could be otherwise a more unified country.
For example, you mention LGBTQ "trying to drag as many along with them. . . using schools." This implies that schools are for heterosexuals to be expressive and homosexuals to be silent and marginalized. That is not constitutional. What it is, in part, is you passing a moral judgement on what schools should look like from your perspective as a conservative. But, liberals, who are citizens of this country belong in public schools too. Liberty and rights in our country aspire to homosexuals being "expressive" too!
Thus, homosexuals being free to be themselves, coming out of hiding, my startle, shock, or even surprise some you - even me, but that is what the truest meaning of diversity expression is. All of us coming to grips with legal activities that we would not choose to do or 'operate' in ourselves.
Conservative politicians are not interested in diversity of expression. They react with "by any means necessary" tactics and strategies to suppress diversity wheresoever they see it rising up. They use whatever might, power, but not spirit tirelessly to control their fellow non-conservatives.
When you support conservative culture war issues, or do not ask that such issues be pulled out of the conservative platform, you do tangible harm and injury to your fellow citizens who only want to enjoy this country, their lives, as much - if not more than any conservative person!
You are enabling conservative politicians to 'wage' aggression and terror on LGBTQ individuals with the goal being to stamp out or diminish (marginalize) their hopes and dreams. Finally, the result will be misery that spans a lifetime for the LGBTQ folks in conservative spaces, simply because conservatives can't cope with others being better at freedoms and liberties without them having something to do about it.
One more thing. This ridiculous, propagandist, LIE coming from some people and supported by conservatives that LGBTQ living out 'loud and proud' in their day to day lives, in school and out, is indoctrination, just goes to show how SHALLOW-MINDED and DESPERATE the need is for these folks to badger other people's liberties and freedoms. There are few if any heterosexuals and conservatives (even) who are 'taking one for the team' as the joke goes, because of seeing homosexual expression or liberty and freedom.
Let's dispel that lie, right here and now!
Yes, they do. So does the other side. What we are left with, if we choose to vote, is the best we can manage to do.
I don't see why it would imply that but, regardless, it is my view that schools are for teaching kids how to read, write, do arithmetic and other skills necessary to succeed in life. It is not for the purpose of indoctrinating children concerning the ideology of whoever is currently in power. Take the ridiculous "Don't say gay!" campaign. The LGBTQ community was upset because they were going to be denied access to indoctrinating children who have not the slightest chance of even understanding the topic to begin with. The most they know is that there are boys and girls and, even then, don't really understand what that means.
It is fascinating that you don't see the hypocrisy of this statement. Since what you are speaking of is what schools should look like morally, you automatically assume that your views on what it should look like are moral. That is precisely why none of this should even be a factor in the schooling of children. That should be left up to the parents and not forced by the state.
The only "conservative culture war issue" I support politically is that the State or its institutions has no business promoting one view of morality over another beyond what is necessary to do its job.
You don't even see what you are doing, do you? You're sitting here telling me that I have no right to express my morality within the public sphere, judging it as harmful and doing so on the assumption that your morality is the correct one without any evidence whatsoever that it is. And you wonder why I question your Christianity. To me, you don't obey or follow Christ but, rather, try to fit Christ into what is quite obviously humanistic philosophy. You subjugate what you claim as faith to humanism. I reject humanism. So, from God's point of view, who's really harming society the most, CB? You or me?
Well, if you mean that I'm not going to ever say that it's okay with God to be a practicing homosexual, or any other deviant sexual orientation, including heterosexuals who fornicate or who are adulterers, I suggest you take it up with the God you claim you serve.
Since you won't do this privately I'll tell you publicly. You seriously need to rethink your relationship with God because I don't think you're going to like it when you meet Him. Clue. He isn't interested in granting the desires of the human heart. If you've ever read the Bible you can't escape the fact that it constantly telling us that the human heart is corrupt. Thus, what He is interested in is fixing that situation by giving us a new one in Jesus. You seem to be missing that point. Jesus told us to turn away from the world, its ways of doing things and its desires and follow God. You're telling them the complete opposite and using Jesus to do it. Nope. I wouldn't want to be you on the last day. You are in serious danger, CB. Seriously. You need to reexamine what you really believe in relation to God.
Lastly, you're either lying or, more likely, so immersed in some fantasy you have about who I am that you aren't saying what is true about me or my views concerning what others do, whether or not they are LGBTQ or some other thing. There is only one place I would actively work against inclusion of practicing LGTBQ people and that is within the church itself. Anyone outside of that can do whatever they want. I'm not their god or something. I'm not their keeper. I've already proved this beyond doubt when I abstained from voting on the same sex marriage issue rather than vote against it. Figure it out.
Untrue. Both sides whataboutism does not work here. One side - conservatism is weighted down with provocateurs searching for opportunities to meddle and ruin the hopes and dreams of their fellow citizens. You can take some comfort in thinking that some conservatives are out for the good, helping to make this country better by persisting in hindering the peace of LGBTQ people when they use them as throwaways to win election victories, but that is just being delusional. Liberals do not give a damn about conservatives living in rural areas, even when they cast off their own children to cities, where other liberals have the heart and interest to care for them. We just do it. We don't even try to force rural families to be disturbed by recrimination. And still that does not satisfy conservatives!
The teachers are concerned to say the least that should they even deal with the subject of sex (even in passing) that somebody (conservative most likely) is going to make a public scene and sue them or their school. All in an effort to silence teachers by hook or crook!
It is your conservative politics that chooses to use provoking wording like, "indoctrination" to enflame and magnify this issue out of proportion.
Funny thing is, and I will re-introduce a different issue here, as rhetoric to be reflected on. Conservatives did not propose a damn thing to change after kindergartners through third graders died excruciating deaths at Sandy Hook elementary. Death as indoctrination by gun seems to be 'A-OKAY!' for conservatives. The silence even to today about kids dying in schools across the country from gun violence IS DEAFENING.
Surely, you conservatives are messing with liberals! The evidence of doing so is plain by the issues you choose to work up as parts of conservative ridiculous culture wars!
The entirety of what I wrote is reposted for your consideration above. That entitles a compromise that should work for all sides of the issue. Tell children the truth! They are little people who can handle the truth. What they can not properly parse out is adult political BS. Or teachers being hauled out of classes, missing from their students, suspended, led away in handcuffs over the word "gay."
The hypocrisy you conservatives can't see, because you want to control everything you possess and which surrounds you folks, is the gun deaths you all allow to occur in kindergartens through colleges, and on job sites. Conservatives pick at people trying to educate children all over a concept (homosexuality), but blood running down school hallways, loud bangs and children running for their lives, and haunted by the trauma of seeing and learning of teacher deaths - get no mention from conservatives!
You would rather argue over kids being homosexual (which some are indeed) than engage any policy position on kids being bloodied, having their tender-skinned and smooth bodies shot holes into, broken minds from seeing the horrors of gun violence from assault rifles, and the horrific sounds of rapid gun-fire. That's you conservatives hypocrisy. All yours!
Then let them teach and do their jobs. Most parents are ignorant. And can be abusive. So don't give me that 'parents know what best' crap. I wish some conservatives would take and keep their children home. . . but, then that would be 'dumbing down' the youth of tomorrow. So let the teachers do what they do best-because parents don't have the time and certainly not the inclination to home-school or teach standard uniformed education resources.
No, what is 'a-feared' is teachers will teach a generation (or several) of children how to truly love one another and love themselves rather than be little conservative 'warriors' always looking around for some section of the populace to dehumanize, abuse, and meddling in their lives and well-being.
You lack diversity, in a country brimming over with diversity. Deal with that. As to what you question about me, that is a non-issue. I don't care if you don't like my Christian 'take' on this discussion board, cities in the country, states, nation, or world.
And let me set you straight about one thing at least once. . . I am homosexual. I didn't play at it in my youth. I lived it. Performed it. And set myself apart from it later in life. And still can dream about it. And have gotten old. . er and in doing so have a life time of experience to talk about it.
How about you? What bona fides do you present us in living under conservative policies which cut you out and isolate you in society?!!! Why are you a conformist "that goes along to get along"? Why do you supporting liars and cheaters (as you say all politicians are) and take comfort that as long as the cheating is done for your 'causes' that your "better doctrine" is highly favored?
Some of you support returning a blatant threat to the country and an outrageous liar, thief, for whom the truth is not in him for a return to the presidency of the United States, and some of y'all 'comfort' yourselves that God approves of Trump?
Is Trump what you think God's view is? It is not.
God is not petty, does not need angels that are thieves and in service to liars! God, if God is God, does not need help in determining who will be in the realm of faith at the end of time! We should all humble ourselves to equip ourselves for our role in the 'kingdom' and desperately try to stay in character.
You are an enabler of conservatives who 'butcher' the lives of their fellow citizens. You vote for conservatives who have told you they will do what you can not bring yourself to do. Deal with it. You can't come clean while voting for terrorist, 'culture war-mongering' opportunist conservatives. You want to do homosexuals a favor? Tell your conservative friends to keep homosexuality out of their mouths, off their mailings, off their media platforms, and off the RNC platform. Until then, you are just as meddlesome as those conservatives who publicly strip homosexuals of freedoms and liberties.
And I have told you this before, I have a group, Christian State of Mind , that you are still invited to anytime you wish to 'lecture' me on my religion. You won't or can't accept the challenge. Indeed, none of the conservatives here will. I know why too. But, i won't go into it here. You want to teach, preach, or just mix it up - it's built already - you can-should come. Note; Don't worry. I don't bite. And no, I won't consider you as doing me a favor to stop in.
Finally, lie on you; lie on you?! Why would I have to do that? I just call it as I see it. If you are not what you put on public display, then change its perception.
Projection.
Well, what would you call teaching something to a child that couldn't possibly understand the issue in the first place?
But you can't see it as liberals (I would say progressives is mor accurate) messing with conservatives, can you? Pot, meet kettle.
Get out of your pretend world if you want to continue this discussion. A third grader doesn't even understand why they have to go to bed or not be able to eat whatever they want whenever they want it. Are you honestly going to attempt to convince me that a child, for whom the law is meant to protect, is even going to understand what is being talked about, let alone what the truth of it is? And who's truth? Yours? What makes yours "THE TRUTH!"? That's what you don't seem to get or are simply ignoring. Parents don't want their children indoctrinated by the State concerning subjects that is their purview when it comes to such issues. Your passion doesn't give you the right to force your beliefs on someone else's child.
And you want to condemn my morality? Please!
If only they would do their jobs rather than be social engineers.
Translation: Most parents don't believe what you do.
Believe me, if I had children, I would do anything it took to get them into a private school.
More humanist crap. Whatever anyone does, says or wants to be is perfectly okay. Just check your Christianity at the door, right?
I already know so step off your soap box. I don't care.
The Bible. The extent to which I am isolated from society is due to God's word and my decision to follow it. That is mostly self-isolation, caused by rejecting the way the world thinks, believes or does things.
More projection. I seldom vote so I can't be said to conform to anything political.
More projection.
I said I preferred to do this in private and this is your suggestion? What would doing it in Christian State of Mind do for privacy? It's public, is it not? And really, you should consider changing the name, since you don't appear to have much to do with Christianity other than throwing around verses you think support your point.
What can I say, it is conservatives supporting the former insurrectionist, liar, propagandist, and who can't seem to stop modeling his characteristics before an audience of a world of on-lookers.
Why not just take all conservative children and hide them away? A'ight, what will you do about the advertisements that appear on your televisions or the scenes of same-sex kissing that is prevalent in a free society getting out from under conservative suppression? What's conservatives next 'move': Make laws against it?
Kids, are not ignorant. Exception: To delusional adults kids need fakery like "santa claus." Kids see everything that goes on around them-especially now days. They only take an interest in the things which are on their level. But, you know what? Pretend you were never a kid to understand such things. Nobody cares, Drakkonis.
I don't check my Christianity at the door. You may have observed that I led with it when I came to Newstalkers! My encounters with atheists on NewsVine and Newstalkers , both, are legendary. Ask them. It was me in defense of the faith, usually an only Christ-centric voice in the room! It's you who don't get it.
What I know how to be is someone who can be faithful and in service to my beliefs, while leaving others to their own beliefs and challenges. God found me (in the nation where there is a constitution guiding) and delivered me. I would be a fool to think that God can not deliver another without me becoming a political 'terrorist' to try to expedite God's goals.
But are you a help or hindrance to your fellow citizenry when you do vote? It's a fair question only you can search your essence to answer. You can let others come to God through their own choice. I had a choice to 'follow Jesus' (as the song states). There are times when I read you that I wonder if you ever lived outside of your faith community to know what it means to make a deliberate choice to walk away from 'the world' versus just being in the church for all time. I would be a valuable statement to understanding where you are 'coming from' if you would clarify that one point along. But, I tired of asking commenters to be open and clear here. So, I won't be holding my breath!
Obviously, you will never know at this rate. Talk is cheap. Moreover, I defend my past because I will not abandon my friends in the world to join a band of so-called self-righteous folks. Jesus has not dropped that into my spirit! Indeed, as far as you or I know, my 'calling' could be to help get the Church to understand its open hostility while feigning to be nice is wrong-headed.
As Christians, conservatives have no heaven or hell to put anybody in. Leave judgement up to God, alone. Jesus demonstrated it by releasing the 'adulterous woman' as it was in his power to condemn her - he did not! He stayed the man he was confessing to be: open and honest and called the Pharisees out for their duplicity. Similarly when every new bible reader gets to the account of the thief on the cross - nobody initially arrives at the concept that Jesus would agree with his status! Atknown, Jesus granting the thief righteousness.
So you don't know what you are doing or talking about when you appear to arrogantly flaunt your ignorance of what the Bible says about believers trying to determine who will be in the kingdom of faith. You have no power to declare anybody a servant or a enemy of God. It would be advisable to you to learn, know, and then like the rest of us believers stay in your place within the confines of what you discern from the Book!
As for Christian State of Mind, I already knew you would not come, because you told me so much 'months ago' in private. But, I operate in the light of day, because I am not ashamed of what I share here, my beliefs, my 'concerns,' my person, and most definitely not of my faith. What say you? Are you ashamed to speak openly and honestly about the God you give deference?
I am sure between two brothers much can be me ironed out. Who knows you might began to see that I really don't have 'horns' sticking out of my head after all!
Brothers, huh? Tell me, what is salvation according to the Bible and why would someone want it? And, is there any other way to salvation?
Ah. But I sense a setup coming. Thus, you will fill in your own answers . . . brother, and I will affirm or deny based on what you share. Besides, my 'senses' tell me this is not a proper setting for what will most definitely come off as proselytizing (on the thread).
Note: I am thrilled you asked all the same. Christian State of Mind awaits us both! I am group leader there.
Unbelievable. Forget it.
Yeah. Rules. Blah! But I will lean in as a show of sincerity: John 3:16-21. John 10:7. (But, we can not delve too deeply here with group discussion 'material'.) Believe it! BTW nice 'work' not putting yourself out there.
Total crap, CB. No one is even paying attention to us and we would not be running afoul of any rules since we would be discussing a topic, not proselytizing. Either answer the question or don't but don't hide behind such nonsense. Tell you what. I'll post the question in your place.
How would you know who is "watching" from just off the third row seat on the back-row of the thread? You don't. Take the (two) scriptures I offered up and 'attend' to them accordingly. Let's just see how far we get! You have been served. . . will there be a proper return or will you foul out? I will I admit I would like to see what direction you are 'facing' on this one.
For the record, there is nothing I can think of that thrills me more that a delicious Bible discussion! See @2.4.19.
I'll ask you again. What is salvation according to the Bible and why would someone want it? And, is there any other way to salvation? Don't quote scripture at me. Tell me what you believe and back up what you say with scripture. Quoting verses doesn't tell me anything.
Don't hold your breath. But, the patience of Job can be useful. Or, you go first! Last chance.
There's no trap here, CB. You either stand by what you believe or you don't. It's that simple, but since you don't seem to have the courage of your convictions, I will go first.
First, the most relevant characteristic about God, for the purposes of this discussion is that He is holy.
What does it mean that God is holy? From the site Gotquestions.org.
This holy God created man in His own image and for His own purpose.
The intent was that we would rule over God's creation as His representatives on Earth. He denied us only one thing. The fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. We ate of it, of course but this event was more than mere disobedience of a rule. It's much deeper than that and explains why our world is the disaster that it is. The Tree represented a choice for humans. Would we trust God to determine what is right and wrong or not? Satan deceived us, telling us that if we took the fruit, we'd become like God, able to determine what is good and what is evil. I don't mean we'd know what was good or evil, but that we would determine for ourselves what is good and what is evil. Deciding that sex outside marriage was perfectly fine, morally, for example.
So God expels us from the Garden, which represents all that is good and right, without suffering or sorrows of any kind, so that we could see if we could do better or even as well. Of course, we haven't. Not even close.
But God did not abandon us. Through a series of events He eventually establishes the Israelites as His representatives to the nations with the task of not only revealing God to them but how good life would be under Him. They failed miserably in that. They did succeed in showing mankind that we cannot live up to God's standards. We don't have it in us. Even the heroes of the Bible were covered in flaws. In any case, Israel failed so badly that God eventually exiles them from the promised land. A remnant returned but Israel never rose again.
So, to review up to this point, a holy God created man to be His representatives on Earth and to work in communion with Him in that task. We have failed miserably to this point. But just when it must have begun to seem hopeless to the Israelites, a savior is born. But not just a savior, The Savior, predicted in scripture. Born into a world where every last person is blind due to their sin. Long story short, Jesus takes our sin upon himself, dying on the cross to pay the penalty for those sins, while those who accept it get his righteousness put upon themselves as if it were theirs all along.
To put it more graphically, imagine the foulest human you've ever heard of who did the worst things imaginable. Imagine that this individual was also dressed in the foulest rags anyone could imagine. Further, that this person was riddled with every horrible disease ever, parts of their body having dropped off from leprosy and much of the rest gangrenous.
Jesus walked up to this person, took every last bit of that upon himself and in return, gave this person his own health. His own joy. His own moral faultlessness. An absolutely perfect life. And then Jesus took the other person's faults and went and paid the price for them.
I am, of course, speaking of the moral condition of man as God sees it. But does Jesus do such a thing for another whether they want him to or not, or is it something he offers and has to be accepted voluntarily?
It has to be accepted voluntarily, of course, and now we get to the meat of it. Salvation means to be restored to the relationship God intended us to have with Himself. It is about being freed from what separates us from God. Sin. That thing that keeps making us choose against Him. The purpose of all that I said prior to this paragraph is to set up this point. There is the life God intended us to live and there is the life we've been living on this earth, generation after generation, since the beginning.
We cannot intentionally try to live both the life God intends for us and the life the world would have us live. Being saved doesn't make trying to, okay. Hence the word "repentance". Salvation means to be saved from something. Jesus doesn't save us from Hell. He saves us from what sends us to Hell. If one doesn't repent from that, how can they be saved? It would be like trying to save someone who is drowning but refuses to leave the water. Such a person is only trying to avoid the consequences of how they willingly and unrepentantly live their life. That is, they want to continue on as they have been and use Jesus as a "get out of jail free" card. This is why Jesus will say to such people, "I never knew you."
This is why I do not believe your claim to Christianity. You teach the opposite of this. You don't teach that repentance is necessary. You preach social justice, freedom, diversity according to humanism and, basically, it's all good as long as you know Jesus. You are using him as a get out of jail free card. Worse, you dull the minds of others to Jesus by presenting an inoffensive and false version of him when he himself said his followers would be hated because he himself is hated. Who hates your Social Justice Jesus, that imposter? You shape him to fit whatever is needed so you come across as all accepting and diverse and the rest of that rot. If you really believe you are a Christian, I suggest you reread your Bible, but this time, instead of trying to use it to justify your feelings and beliefs, read it as if God is real and is trying to tell you what He thinks and believes.
And, before you go all "Jesus being the friend of sinners" on me, ask yourself what that actually means.
I would like to comment on the word that you chose to use in 2.4.4 and implied in 2.4:
This word is Indoctrination and it figuratively leapt off of the page at me. Let us start by looking at the definition of the word (from Merriam-Webster. There are several more here ):
Definition of indoctrinate: transitive verb
2 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
Per your usage and context in 2.4 and 2.4.4, you do indeed imply that indoctrination is to be understood as to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle sense , namely LGTBQ issues.
You said: " Take the ridiculous "Don't say gay!" campaign." I understand you to mean by this the naming of the bill in Florida by "the Media". You further stated," The LGBTQ community was upset because they were going to be denied access to indoctrinating children ... "
That statement, no matter how you want to try and make it fact, is your (erroneous) opinion , based on what exactly? Your indoctrination to the Christian faith?
If you hold that the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, how is limiting that freedom, or the broader freedom of expression, squared with your belief that no mention of a significant portion of members of society may be made? What if a child comes from one of these families? Can the teachers not acknowledge any parents or pronouns? Saying mister is, by default, giving acknowledgement and recognition to a gender. How, exactly, is this different than acknowledging someone's parent as Mx?
If you believe that," God would not want me to force His moral code on someone who doesn't accept it ," how can you, in good conscience, force your moral code on students? Because that is what the Florida law does. It does not protect parental rights, as the proponents of the bill would have you believe, but it creates a class of people (who are in fact parents) who are denied full inclusion in a governmentally funded educational system by a discriminatory law.
I hear echoes of George Wallace in that law.
Finally, you said to CB:
I do not think that he is saying that you have no right to make your case for your argument. Rather he is saying that, as a human being he and those like him have the right to enjoy all of the constitutional freedoms that you enjoy, without facing the discrimination that still exists in the society at large. You are accusing him of judging you, yet at the same time you stand in judgement of him, the only difference being your with your judgement you can pass on the responsibility to God through the "evidence" of a book written by ancient men.
As an FYI, I am, just not opining. Others might be curious as well (and leaving you two alone to hash this out without interruption).
Oh, looks like Thomas is also paying attention.
Drakkonis, you know, I am sorry that after all this time you think so less of me. Maybe we can get somethings 'straightened out' now.
But first, you have got to stop this patronizing that you do. The lecturing, the preaching, I 'adore' it is Jesus-centered, and you can best believe I peruse it closely. In that venue, I sense you as having a leadership role of some sort in the real world. I will caution you, if you are quoting a passage of some sort, use identifying quote signs and markings, nevertheless. It may explain why you come off as speaking down to me. I digress.
You 'clustered' too many points in the paragraph above and it inflames my senses, because put bluntly, you've don't know it, but it is you who do not know what you think you know about me! This will take some time to 'flesh out' —I am sitting here wondering aloud if you will be 'pinging' me with "slights" all along the way. Okay, we'll see if that aspect diminishes incrementally or at once. Again, I digress.
Second, you insulted my comment at @2.4.26 outright by demanding I "don't quote scripture at you" - doing so without considering the content or the character of the discussion 'raging' around you and me. And, immediately launching an "introductory" (it's okay by me) on the holiness of God. 'Climaxing' in what I consider your biggest attack on my online persona your distaste for any connection between a "social gospel: and Jesus. (I will get to that in due time.)
OPENING.
I believe in repentance. I have repented. Everyone I consider as a believer I accept as 'repenters.' And, an aside- Donald Trump was asked point-blank in an interview by pollster Frank Luntz has he every asked God for forgiveness and you may know the answer was dismal: Donald Trump: 'I don't think I have done anything that I need forgiveness for, I just try to do better.' (A bad paraphrase, but you can look it up online for accuracy.)
You voted for this man in 2020 for the office of president of our country. The approximation of the quote from Donald J. Trump is an insult to every believer who understands the power of repentance. To change and going in the other direction. To looking to God (in supplication and humility) for their 'daily bread' and constitution to be better towards others. You need to explain that one in your own words.
Moving on.
"It's all good as long as you know Jesus." You err. You defame me as a humanist, without regards to anything else I have written over the years of sharing on this site. Perhaps that is why you think you can speak down to me. You can not. As of now I demand you address me as an equal brother in the faith (with whom you have some disagreement or questions) or severely curtail your discussions with me.
I respect humanists. I do so, because they have a found their voice and it comes in the form of critical thinking. They point out science and its relevance to the world around us-practically. It is a problem (for us as believers) that humanist put no stock in spirituality, but that is what repentance is about, hmmm?
What you do not "get" about me. I believe God is holy and set apart. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe in the power of the Spirit. I believe that spirituality requires growth and maturity. That is, what I was as a new believer is not whom I should be as a mature believer. We should leave the 'milk,' the elementary teachings about rules and doctrines, and move onto the 'meat' the deeper matters where we encounter 'gray' areas in the real world where people live and live "abundantly" - thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, etceteras years.
Closing. My philosophy. I fear God. That is, I revere God. Accordingly, I bow my 'knee' in spiritual service to the head of my life. Additionally, I rise in boldness, as instructed by God through Jesus the Christ, to come before the throne of God and boldly: seek, ask, and knock for wisdom, insight, and life application.
I digress to remark on this one thing. It strikes me that you think of my pronouncements on NT and my liberty on NT as participation in the world around me. You would be mistaken in the sense that you do not internalize what I write to all here, where i tell you that my body is 'kept' in Christ Jesus, even as I understand the forces pushing against it every day. (Much like Apostle Paul, explained his ordeals in the flesh. Mine, less severe I think.) I will leave more on that for another time.
This is long. Time for coffee.
One more thing (before coffee): Let's see if we can set aside all manner of rancor and allow God to be proud of the 'brothers-in-Christ' on NT. (Smile.)
Who knows? There may be "sisters-in-Christ" observing us unbeknown to us.
Well done! Incredibly powerful statement there. Thank you so much. There is much I have in mind to say to 'my brother,' Drakkonis. Just a matter of time. Your comment should enhance us all!
What I eventually need to convey across to Drakkonis, is our 'dual-citizenship' as natural citizens under our constitution and as spiritual citizens in our persons. That is, I 'contracted' with the biblical writers to be a follower after Jesus' teaching. And that following after done so to the best of my abilities. The qualifier needed because none of us are perfect and nay can be in these temporal bodies (always 'crying out' for need of something or the other!)
Importantly, as for me, I take God at word, through faith. That is, I do not sit 'crushed' at the foot of my God begging and pleading my 'case' all the days and nights long. I got (past tense) up and moved on with the business of walking and talking in faith trusting God to do those things God declared through the word only God can do.
I share my intimate knowledge of God with others, and allow others to come to God as I did by choosing. I don't fret people. I don't 'threat' people. I follow after true love as Jesus did. That is, Jesus corrected the understanding of the populace in Israel and Jerusalem about what/who God is. Then, he moved on to the next town and gathering. An illustration of letting people decide for themselves what love they would express to God in their own mind and time.
We have to allow the people of the world to make up their own minds. We do that by demonstration of true love towards them. And that truest love is carried out to its fullest when we, believers, allow others freedoms and expressions such as we utilized fully until we narrowed our paths to a pact of obedience to God.
We can not narrow the path for unbelievers, and expect them to find joy in constriction. For surely, everyone can see the push-back coming out of the believing community as a group, when they grumble and literally demand to be accepted for their beliefs!
More later.
What is this problem you have with Jesus seeing the worth of the human life experience? This is not the first time you have divulged this line of 'attack,' my brother. The time has come to take it on full-frontal.
Now are you ingesting what you wrote to me (and others reading it)? Jesus spoke of love, loving your neighbor, and being hated (he would be crucified as a point of hatred without a cause) and by others who could not accept the (his) message of love! Surely, you should fully understand and accept that Jesus was not making himself an offense because of personal displays of callousness, carelessness, jealousy, envy, meddling, strife, etceteras. Jesus was hated because of demonstrating love, care and concern for the outcasts of society which people in 'the world' considered as getting their just desserts.
Of course, if you are sitting, watching, and waiting on the return of Jesus Christ to be 'social' to all mankind surrounding you, or to let your guard down with the people in "the world" as the world continues you and I may be dead and gone first! As has happened to apostles and the first "church-age" believers.
Believe it or not, I looked up the word "indoctrination" before I chose to use it, so I know what it means, although the definition I saw differed slightly from the ones you quoted.
That was a lot of nothing, CB. Nowhere do you even attempt to explain what salvation is. Nowhere do you address the question, can salvation be found anywhere else. You've said nothing.
HOW?
Be specific.
Look Drakkonis, stop with the bull patty. First, where I agree with your commentary accept that as answer and a positive. Second, I gave you scripture of what salvation is, and I described it for you additionally as a narrative. Moreover, it is you with your 'artful' condescension which redirected my attention to 'set matters to right.' Take responsibility for that!
Salvation is in Jesus Christ.
What more do you need? Me to 'rail' again, humanists? Been there-done that. Oh, you were not around to see it? I see no need to put on a show for your appreciation.
Your Christian 101 was not needed and as I stated it shifted the frame of discussion away from salvation, per se. Deal with it.
Salvation in Jesus Christ is not a complex theory to put into practice, by the way.
I would suggest this to you: 1. If you want narrow answers, don't write a 'book' as an explanation, because it can open up other ideas that need "immediate" addressing. 2. Use discipline, and keep your patronizing 'strokes' to a bare minimum at the most! (For the same reason of avoiding immediate reply to the condescension.)
We are not children here, I daresay we're both men of a certain age so talk to me like you would a brother in the faith. Let's see if we can put aside the rancor and be a 'blessing' that others can look to as a model. I will see how this goes from this point forward.
2.4.38
Yet they are, every day and the government subsidize it. Where is the legislation to stop that practice?
Ya, I read that Drakk. It's a lot of BS.
Seriously, if your indoctrination scenario held water, there would be NOONE in the LGBT community.
Young school age children are saturated with 'heterosexual' culture, day in and day out yet a percentage of them will invariably end up LGBT Drakk. It has been that way for generations. DEAL WITH IT.
Sorry you had to read it, then. Thanks for playing.
Ah, well. Perhaps you think it's BS because this statement indicates you don't know what I was talking about.
This one, too. Might I suggest a re-read?
Sorry, what was the subject again?
I agree with this. Besides it is evidence for centuries that heterosexual "indoctrination" is acceptable in public, community, and media. Whereas homosexual "indoctrination" is considered unmentionable and taboo. (We know what these conservatives are up to yet again: repression.)
These young kids are simply being told that they can be comfortable conforming to who they are as an individual. And the comfort should 'sprang' from early childhood and maybe even remembrances. However, conservatives, always 'alarmed,' can't fathom that ":Little Timmy" would always have it in his loins to grow up to love "Jeff" or "Little Tammy" has within her make-up strong tendencies to marry "Linda." Christian Conservatives deny this 'born gay' theory to its core! That is at the heart of this "don't say gay" don't talk about it to the children. Fear that somehow straight boys and straight girls can 'turn' out something sexually that they are not!
Which completely sets aside the evidence in the world that homosexuals don't turn straight by watching a LIFETIME of heterosexual marriage, sexuality, or child-rearing around them everywhere there is an 'outlet' to society.
Now then, if these conservatives had evidence or even cause to suspect that teachers and administrators were setting out to sexualize kindergartners to third-graders they would have an argue, and a case to make! They do not have such evidence, because it is not occurring.
Drakkonis, let's get to this social justice topic, you keep associating with my comments and handle, please.
Already tried that. I see how well that worked out. I hope you find the truth someday. Goodby.
So you pretend not to 'condemn them' yet you JUDGE that their intent is to somehow indoctrinate school children.
Please explain how the fuck your square that Drakk?
All of that babble rests on YOUR judgement that homosexuals can't be REAL Christians.
Why is that exactly Drakk?
Who are you to set the standard for who is and isn't a Christian?
You set yourself apart from others. You claim to be a 'broken Christian' who is saved while insisting that Christian homosexuals cannot be, yet still insist that you're not condemning them.
You seem to think that YOUR flawed relationship with God is somehow uniquely deserving of God's grace while insisting that others have condemned themselves with no chance of redemption.
It seems to me that when God told you not to judge, you didn't believe that...
Perhaps some introspection is in order Drakk.
You're so funny. And now, I need to stop taking you seriously-you are not serious. You're some weird 'gamer' messing around. See you later.
I know exactly what you're talking about Drakk. It's BS.
Once was plenty. This was so important to your point that you said it TWICE:
It's a scurrilous LIE.
You decry religious indoctrination of children in school. Hope that gets you back on track.
Sorry, Dulay. I know your style. Rather than discuss the actual subject under discussion, you just reach for any subject you think is even remotely related and get your mad on, expecting the other to just go along with it. Your goal posts are on wheels and powered by a Hemi. Just one tangent after another. Nope.
I will do an article soon on Christian State of Mind about Social Jesus. You're invited. If you don't come. I will survive. (Smile.)
Ah, something on topic. I can respond to that easily enough. My response is, why do you think it is a scurrilous lie? I mean, you have to admit that, as a counterargument, it's pretty thin.
Close. I said I don't think it's the job of the government to social engineer morality, or words to that effect. I don't want the school system telling my child there's nothing wrong with homosexual relationships (or any other deviant relationship) any more than you would want it to tell your child that Jesus is the only way to God and that if they reject Jesus they will go to Hell.
Yes, because the first time the reply I got did not actually relate to the point I made, which was whether or not a child would even understand the subject, let alone think critically about it. And, since the child could not and would simply believe the authority figure "teaching" the subject, it actually fits the definition of indoctrination. It really isn't that hard to understand.
A rather egregious example of this is a photo in a school somewhere. The subject of the photo was a poster that said "Some people are Trans. Get over it."
Now, how much "discussion" do you think that poster invites? Zero? See the obviously young boy in the photo? What depth of understanding about the topic do you think he even has on it? And, with a poster like that, if the kid said, "my parents say that Trans isn't what God wants for us," what do you suppose the reaction is going to be? Do you think the teacher is going to say, "That's okay, too?" Or do you think he'd just be too scared to say anything at all?
It's indoctrination, Dulay, pure and simple. No different than if that poster said "Accept Jesus or go to Hell. Deall with it."
You posted this statement:
YOU placed THAT subject under discussion and YOU set the goal posts. That's how this shit works.
I replied:
Well within the subject of your comment. Yet instead of addressing my question, you deflected with a snarky comment. Based on context of your comment, I suppose it would appropriate for me to characterize your 'style' as obfuscation in order to deflect from your unwillingness to address simple relevant questions.
No response is necessary or expected, unless of course it includes rebuttal.
Nowhere near as thin as the non-existent argument you make to support your allegation. You make an unsubstantiated proclamation about the LGBT community which is a scurrilous LIE that you and yours have spewed for far too long to demonize.
Not 'close, EXACT.
I block quoted your statement verbatim Drakk. You just decried moving goal posts yet you're wholeheartedly embracing that practice.
It drips with hypocrisy.
But you don't condemn them right Drakk? /s
Again, THAT is happening every day and you've proposed NO remedy for THAT outrage.
Goal post moving again Drakk. Your statement is predicated by:
An utterly unsubstantiated and scurrilous LIE.
What's hard to understand is your unwillingness to acknowledge that you posted a scurrilous LIE about the LGBT community and that the LIE is a form of condemnation.
The ACTUAL 'subject of the photo' is as follows:
For someone who pretends to herald the need for critical thinking, I have to wonder WHY you posted this comment, that shows so little of it.
For someone who decries 'indoctrination', it seems that you're more than willing to attempt it here.
So is THAT weak shit is the best 'egregious example' you've got to refute that your comment is a scurrilous LIE?
Because THAT is an utter failure.
First off, thank you for the response.
You said
No. I wish to dispel that myth right now. Children do understand gender roles . From the MAYO Clinic website:
Without the premise of understanding gender roles, your argument reverts to "because God says it is wrong." Children do have a basic understanding of gender roles. With this noted, is it really all that horrible to support the child who is questioning by admitting to the existence of differing gender roles?
The only ideology I see being "pushed" here is accept your neighbor for who they are . If that conflicts with what some parents wish taught, so be it. You state several times that schools are now teaching a "morality that parents don't want". Beyond not accepting the above attitude, I do not see it.
You've written this twice too . First, like me, you don't have a child/ren. So no harm done there. Second, you have called homosexuality deviant TWICE! Surely understanding that it is acceptable to society, at least so, unless conservatives like you can get it classified in the minds of society as a mental disorder. Yes, I went there. It is time to stop pussyfooting around with you and your ulterior message. You mean what you write and readers should take it for what it is!
Enough of this, the Bible says it wrong, but Drakkonis does not hate LGBTQ. No one uses a term like "deviant: in the negative sense to express love, fellowship, or agreement.
You are calling homosexual youth, teens, and adults (sexual) deviants. And, you personally believe they are.
OH, are you refusing to accept all of the equivocating defense's CB?
Why aren't you acknowledging that the all-important issues are whether he hates homosexuals, has malicious intent, dislikes them?
Isn't all that more important than pointing out all of the failed obfuscation of his own words?
Note; ALL of the above is posted as SARCASM!
About the 'photo,' Drakkonis should have been more curious and honestly looked for more information. After all, Drakkonis ' "rather egregious example":
I questioned why Drakkonis assumed this poster (Drakkonis' version) had not been discussed already in class or would be so by responsible teachers or administrators. He chose to jump ahead and 'bomb throw.'
As an 'Auntie' of twins, one male, one female, I can attest to that from experience.
They also know when someone is trying to 'indoctrinate' them.
When they were just toddlers, adults tried to 'pigeonhole' them along gender lines. That is for the boy to play with or do, this is for the girl to play with or do. Being inseparable, they rebelled against those limitations in unison and were having none of it. Both wanted to sit on the stool and learn to cook. They both learned to make pot stickers and lumpia and clean chitlins at about 4. They both got a baseball glove from Aunties @ 5. Both played T ball. As they got older, they started to diverge, the girl a track star, the boy a computer geek. They had an ongoing Mario and Luigi smackdown that was epic.
Luckily, mom, dad and the 'elders' gave up on pigeonholing early on and let them do their thing. 'Auntie' gave them presents of art supplies, legos and little toy musical instruments. They BOTH excelled in music and still inseparable, went to Howard University together on full rides. Last year the 'boy' named his first child after his old 'Auntie'.
Alright now: A shout out for the lumpia and chitlins, 'Honey'! I don't do chitlins since when, but I can remember 'plated' chitlins and hot sauce.
Of course, you support forcing a moral code on children. It's done on Sundays ("Sunday school"), during the week ("bible study"), and annually ("Vacation Bible School"). It's where kids are forced to read about homosexual "deviants" (Drakkonis' word) out and about in this world mixed in with the decent folks! It's religious indoctrination. And it's the stuff you want more of, not less.
It's where little boys and little girls are taught to judge homosexuals as a group and shun them as outsiders against the norms. Of course, some of the kids will choose to move on in this "education" to outright mocking homosexuals and their 'ways,' and still others will grow up to assault and kill homosexuals.
All for which people like you will make lame excuses for why nothing can be done to stop the mockings, damages, or deaths of homosexuals. Because you can't be bothered to stop or open-minded enough to appreciate that people kept outside of your churches, don't spend their time and money trying to pass laws that will allow them to PENETRATE and harm your religion 'schools'!
Nope. Using an example to illustrate a point about a subject doesn't change the subject. One can't logically claim that using religion as an example of indoctrination of a given population under discussion (third grade and below) now changes the subject to how taxes are spent. Claiming that I placed the subject under discussion would be the equivalent of claiming I brought up the subject of Erdogan and Turkish politics because i complimented the chef about the turkey at a Thanksgiving dinner.
Okay, then here's what you need to be able to do for that to be true. Explain how taxes are spent is relevant to whether my point about indoctrination is valid or not. That is, you need to show that how taxes are spent has anything to do with determining whether an action is indoctrination or not. I've looked at a few definitions and I haven't seen taxes mentioned once. Asking a question about an obviously unrelated subject doesn't obligate me to answer and, in fact, the one introducing the irrelevancy is the one obfuscating. Just like you're doing right now. Taking us off the subject again. Good job.
You're welcome.
Then let's see if I can help you see it.
If I understand you correctly, it's about accepting people for who they are. That is a fine sentiment, within limits. To explain, let's continue looking at the same children we've been talking about. Please also note that I've highlighted the word "limits" for a reason I will get to later.
If I understand you correctly, you're fine with the idea of "teaching" children, third grade and below, about the issues under discussion because we need to accept them for who they are. You believe the MAYO clinic article you provided supports this view in some way. Assuming that you do, let's examine what "accepting people for who they are" on the basis you claim would actually mean if you meant it.
Without looking at what the MAYO clinic thinks it actually means, what the article does is speak of the way children behave on this particular subject. Apparently, the argument is that because they behave in the manner they identify in the artice it is therefore justification to support them in their behavior.
That is a problem for me because children exhibit all sorts of behavior. Some children, for example, are violent and are bullies. Are we therefor supposed to accept them for who they are on that basis? How about the one who tells lies or are manipulative? How about the one's with especially selfish natures? How about the one's who are thoughtlessly impulsive? If we are going to accept people on the basis of who they are, how they express themselves, why do we bother socializing children at all?
You may think I'm stretching things in order to validate my position but I am very much not. We call it "raising children" for a reason. If a child exhibits bullying behavior responsible adults attempt to intercede, not simply for the good of society and other children, but for the bully themselves. Same with the other examples I gave. We do such things because children do not have the capacity to do these things for themselves, generally. They have to be taught how to behave. Taught about consequences for actions. About right and wrong. Good and bad choices. We have to do these things because they don't come preprogrammed. In other words, there are limits to accepting people for who they are. Because if we actually do that, children would often grow up to be monsters because no one restrained "who they are." Some still manage to grow up to be monsters in spite of attempts to intervene.
So, validating an agenda by a minority ideology on the basis of how a child behaves isn't really a very convincing basis for supporting the agenda, especially since it says nothing about whether the behavior should be encouraged or discouraged. And that leads us right back to what this is about. This is a moral issue. Because one may believe what one does about this issue doesn't mean others do not have the right to disagree. Nor does it give one the right to impose their views on others. Especially in an institution that has no business dictating moral issues beyond what is common to that society, such as bullying is bad. If a child in the affected grades have a question about the issue the solution is simple. "That's a good question, Suzy. You should ask your parents about it." It should not be the case that anyone can say "Your children are going to accept our morality on the subject and you have nothing you can do about it."
Disregarding the dross in the rest of your statement, yes, it is religious indoctrination. Teaching a child that there's nothing wrong with LGTBQ issues is also indoctrination. The difference is that it is the parent, who has the responsibility for raising the child, who is doing the indoctrination.
And, the younger the child is, the more the teaching is indoctrination, no matter the subject. Telling a toddler not to go near the stove or they might get burned is indoctrination because the child will not have the experience to understand why they should stay away from the stove. In spite of having told the toddler to stay away, the parent will diligently watch the child anyway because they know the child doesn't really understand. In short, all instruction to children begins with indoctrination because they have no basis, in the beginning, for understanding. This, of course, diminishes over time as the child develops critical thinking abilities as they grow and experience more.
So, saying it's indoctrination isn't saying anything damning, CB.
Um...
Do you think any of this information makes it any less indoctrination than it is? Do you think that poster was made specifically and only for that school? You can get that poster, and others like it, from , for, as the site says, posting in your community.
Let's put it this way. Imagine the exact same image, except the poster says "Jesus saves! Deal with it." It happens to be in a Christian school. The boy, who is eight, is also home schooled but attends the school for socialization and academic support. How much do you think that child actually understands about Christianity as opposed to simply being able to repeat stuff that he's been taught throughout his eight years of life? Does he understand it? Does he even believe it? Is he there because he chose to be or because that's where his parents put him?
Both children are in exactly the same situation. The only difference between the two is that each is being indoctrinated into two separate views of the world and its realities. It's no good to attempt to claim one is indoctrination and the other is not and I'm sure you see the second child as being indoctrinated ( which I agree with, BTW. )
YOU are trying to change the subject to how taxes are spent.
I stated as a fact that children [third grade and below are indoctrinated with religious beliefs day in and day out.
Stop deflecting and address what I stated Drakk.
Argle-bargle.
Explain where this 'how taxes are spent' deflection come from Drakk?
I haven't asked ANY questions about taxes.
Yes.
Irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant.
See there's were we differ Drakk. I don't think your statement 'indoctrinates' any more than 'Some people are Trans. Get over it' does.
BTW, I note that before your 'indoctrination' phrase was "Accept Jesus or go to Hell. Deall with it." Why'd you change your message Drakk?
Is there any indoctrinating going on in public schools which directly leads to kids returning to church 'campuses' to mock, bully, cast Christian children out into the 'wilderness' from their families, divide kids from their love ones sworn to protect them, and (God forbid) the killing of Christians youth and/or Christian adults? If you have evidence of it do produce it, please.
And Christian indoctrination leads to bigotry against their fellow citizens. Outright harm, neglect, and outcasting. The church should no longer be given a religious exemption to teach separation that affects anybody outside its doors! If you conservatives want to be unfeeling, bigoted, and insincere brutes confine it 'in-house.'
I will stand up to Christian bigotry.
And there it is you seeing nothing where much is happening all around you in that comment. You trying to segue into rather it is my opinion that Jesus is the only way to God. Truth is: It's biblical. It's taught in churches. It's doctrine. It's creed. For me, it really does not matter. Why? Because I believe in Jesus by faith completely.
So who do you need to 'shine' for or against by pressing that singular point? You even downplayed scripture references seeking to grandstand, never realizing the irony of the scriptures being your only platform to know Jesus as Christ. Apart from scripture you have no knowledge of God, Jesus, or Spirit.
Unaffected brutes trying to foist what you imagine to be an unfeeling God upon a world brimming over with agonizing peoples - some through acts of nature, some from the actions of men and women (like yourself).
Of course, you do not wish Jesus to be seen as showing 'feelings' though feelings is precisely what Jesus put on display in his earthly ministry! Because then you would be COMMANDED to model feeling as well. Instead conservatives like you play a game of omission. You damn what you do not choose to understand or recreate in the world. For the indulgence of your own plans.
It's pathetic. It's anti-social. It's harmful. And it's downright a loser's game.
At the end of the day, we're all, for better or worse, a collection of people who eat, piss, and shit. If the 'whole' Jesus offends you conservatives, then y'all have nothing to hang your faith on when taking to holding aloft a partial Savior of your own design!
Was this not the second thing you said to me in this thread?
I believe this addresses the rest of this post as well.
Or, the other way to say the same thing, is that my statement doesn't indoctrinate any less than "Some people are Trans. Get over it." Ether more or less. Do you see that? In other words, regardless of how you put it, it's still indoctrination.
It's just an example, Dulay. Put any religious slogan you want into it. It doesn't matter. The only relevance is that it needs to be a religious one. If it makes you happy, pretend I wrote it the way I did the first time.
And your answer (coming from a religious perspective only I'm sure) will be to hand the questioning or disaffected child a bible, a pastoral visit, a set of Sunday school readers, and a summer of Vacation Bible School, irrespective of order. You reason that you can overcome their sexual nature by overwhelming their senses with your moral code. Because your code-saved you.
Incidentally, we are not made privy to how and when you were indoctrinated to your moral code of choice. Thus, I have no idea if you write in theory alone, from experience, or an amalgamation.
Accept people for who they are. That is correct.
In this case, yes. But it is larger than that. It is an identity issue. An issue of self.
Children do exhibit all different types of behavior. There are all sorts of behavior that are defined as bad from a societal perspective, i.e. Lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, all have demonstrably corrosive effects on society. Transgender individuals, by being transgendered, are not hurting anyone. They are just different. At home, certain parents, even the transgendered individuals' parents, might teach their children that transgendered individuals are bad or immoral or strange or "less than." This then leaves them questioning themselves, feeling like there is something wrong with what they feel and how they relate to society because they view things differently. The risk of self harm or harm by others is increased in this situation.
The behavioral issues you raised are all (for the most part) not identity issues (If they are, then one needs intervention on some level). Transgenderism is an identity issue. It has to deal with who they are and how they relate to society. They are not perverts. They are not molesters. They are not criminals. They are not freaks. They are just different than the majority.
Public schools are for everyone including transgendered individuals. So, in order to create the safe learning environment for all children, some mention must be made to at least acknowledge and accept all individuals. Think of it as more of a big "be nice to everyone" campaign instead of an indoctrination into some evil society.
You are of the Christian faith. As such, one of the basic tenets of your religion is to love your neighbor as yourself. To my knowledge, this does not give one the freedom to pick and choose who they love, but is supposed to be applied equally to the sinner and the pious. By pushing this issue out of the schools, you are not displaying love of your neighbor, but indifference to their plight because they are "sinners."
When you state, "This is a moral issue," I agree wholeheartedly.
This is not a strictly a behavioral issue, but an identity and safety issue as well.
Exactly. Why are you still trying? Turning the other cheek is not a directive to turn one's head to the plight of others.
Peace.
As a homosexual male, I can empathize with boys who are attracted to other males (that goes without saying really), but even though I grew up on occasion seeing other boys who 'marched' around their homes in women 'heels,' or who would carry a purse through periods of childhood, and later on becoming full on drag queens or trans-adults - I admit to barely understanding what drives these individuals to commit to going nearly, or all the way to sex change . Frankly, it is something I never thought to ask questions about back in the community.
Yet this
is not what is happening here with Drakkonis, our 'guy' for the Christian-Right perspective. Using kindergartners through third graders for cover these Christians are attempting to silence discussion about homosexuality and its associated behaviors 'in the bud.' To end its exposure.
This is not about the health of the child/ren. It is about conservatives not budging one iota from their stated "policy" that homosexuality in all its 'shading' is deviant behavior and morally abhorrent to their worldview . Remember, the Christian-Right does not want any child or adult to be accepting of its homosexuality, period . End of concept.
So this is just a different iteration of their disguise of attacking the whole of homosexuality, while pretending care and concern for those they choose to not bother to understand.
No, it was not.
How? You insist that I changed the subject. I didn't. Here's my comment again:
The 'subject' of the sentence in my reply is 'they' Drakk.
The 'they' in that sentence refers to the CHILDREN you stated 'shouldn't be indoctrinated'.
The 'practice' in the second sentence it the practice of religious indoctrination of children.
The above illustrates the fact that your comments claiming that my comment 'changes the subject to how taxes are spent' is utter bullshit and a sad attempt to deflect from a question you desperately don't want to answer.
Or the other way to say the same thing is the NEITHER indoctrinates. Do YOU see that?
Yes, YOUR example.
I don't want a religious slogan into it, you do Drakk.
It must matter to you since you are the one that interjected slogans into this discussion Drakk.
Here's a religious slogan for you:
“The purpose of religion is to control yourself, not criticize others.” Try it.
I don't have to pretend, it's right here in black and white. Just curious why you changed it.
I have known many dozens of drag queens over the years and can count on one hand the number of those have 'transitioned' in any way. The 'illusion' that duct tape and wigs can create is amazing. The vast majority are gay men who enjoy the role playing/performance and making money at it.
The 70's is the first time I met a transexual, a woman transitioning to a man. He was a man, in every way but genitalia. After years of therapy and a year on hormones, living and working as a man, he had top surgery. He was an awesome human being. The sad thing is that his partner of 6 years, a woman and a lesbian, tried to stick it out through his transition but she had to part because the hormones were changing him in ways that were hurtful to their relationship. It was heartbreaking for both of them.
That lead me to believe that his motivation to be 'his true self' overwhelmed his need and desire to stay with the person he loved. It was and still is hard to for me to understand.
For clarity:
As such, I was using it instead of LGBTQ because it is easier for me to type and conceptualize in a sentence, and because, as children, they have not yet ventured into the sexual aspects of their beings. I don't know if my reasons are deemed appropriate by the larger community, but there they are.
Are you simply choosing to ignore the issue? You present as agreeing that this is a moral issue. Agree that no one has the right to force their views on others. Yet you still seem to support indoctrination of children, even third grade or younger, into an ideology that is clearly controversial and far from accepted by at least half the population, apparently because in your view, this is settled issue and therefore justifies overriding anyone else's concerns. How do you manage to do that and think your argument is in good faith at the same time?
Umm...
First thing you said to me in this thread.
Then, the very next thing you say is...
So, in what sense was it not the second thing you said to me on this thread?
Look, I've tried giving you a chance to discuss this with me but you did what you always do. You can't even admit that this was the second thing you said to me and are able to see the evidence on one screen without having to scroll through mountains of posts. You can see 2.4.40 and 43 at the same time on your screen, in other words. You deny something so easily proven. Why do you think you'd have any credibility about who attempted to change the subject, which is also easily proven? If you can't be believed about the first, easily proven thing, why should you be taken seriously about anything else?
Like I said, you seem only interested in getting a mad on. Putting you back in the same category as CB.
Is that all you got out of my post? I do agree that this is a moral issue, and very much so.
No. I do not accept indoctrination of anyone, child or otherwise. Your calling the issue "indoctrination" is a misnomer. See 2.4.60 and 2.4.78 for my reasoning.
Fully 72% (and probably more by now) of the American population say that "homosexuality should be accepted by society".
It is not an ideology. It is not some belief structure that one may choose to follow or not. Religion is a choice. Homosexuality or transgenderism is (predominantly) not a choice .
The American Psychological Association has recognized that homesexuality was not an abberation or disease since 1975.
The above is how I make my argument in good faith. Government, doctors, mental health professionals and the public at large for the most part are in agreement with my argument.
My bad, you're right.
Now, how about addressing my comment.
Why do YOU?
I proved that I did not change the subject Drakk. You haven't refuted it because you can't.
Thank you, I'm honored.
Sexuality could be so 'comical' if it was not so serious (for society), because people span a sexual spectrum. For example, in my most stable 'state' of being sexually happy (spiritually bonded as well) I would be a 'mate' to a heterosexual man. Funny thing is I have never admitted that in 'open' conversation until this article (above somewhere). This mention makes twice I have stated it. Is this 'therapy'? (What have you wrought, Thomas?) Because the irony (of life for my 'condition) is heterosexual men, by definition, do not spiritually bond with other men, though they might routinely or occasionally like its 'release.' I am/was/was/am doomed to eternal frustration within myself!
I have known drag-queens throughout my life. Befriended. But, we just accept my 'butch-ness' and their need to ? What is it drag queens 'do'? Dress-up? Or 'sissy'? I have never thought to ask a drag queen what it is they feel about themselves. Never crossed my mind.
Now then, at my local store, I literally watched a woman transition into a man (over time before my eyes), and she kept her job until it would seem destiny has moved him on to other hopefully prosperous experiences. What was startling is watching her become him and feeling 'stirrings' of sexual tension for him. "Dude" is 'hot'!
Hm hmm.
I have known all too many who seemed incapable of being attracted to anyone that was 'good' for them. As a friend, you see the train wreck coming and all you can do is be there to pick up the pieces.
One of my straight conservative friends is perpetually enamored with airhead hotties. He's hansom, smart, interesting, well read and hardworking yet still can't seem to walk away from the 'dumb blonde trophies' who can't walk and chew gum at the same time but LOVE the 'high life'. His 'relationships' invariably end in exasperation. I've given up trying to steer him toward substance. His brain knows what's right, but he just can't seem to stop the destructive cycle.
Same as everyone else, just add glitter.
No seriously, they work regular jobs, grocery shop, pay their mortgage, mow their lawns. Some of the best drag queens I know are tops. But a couple of weekends a month, they get their grove on, dress up, perform and rake in cash.
One of my fave drag queens invited me to a show a couple of years ago. I arrived a little early and didn't think he was there yet. As I walked up to the bar, I saw this hot woman who poked out in all the right places and I sidled up next to her to order a drink and a closer look. She turned toward me and it was my buddy, dammit! Man we had a laugh.
Many transgender people are 'heterosexual' i.e. sexually attracted to the gender opposite to that which they identify.
everybody here knows I identify as a lesbian trapped in a man's body...
Take a joke break!
Joke's on me! This will make your eyes water, y'all!
Flame Monroe Can't Pass the Airport Test | Netflix Is A Joke
"He" has children of his own that he is raising. (Not mentioned in this scene, however.)
Miss Swan at a gay bar
Film quality is poor as it goes, but Swan's is fresh!
You know what I find is fun-i'resting? A woman transitioning to a male up top, but female parts down below. That's quite. . .curious. Although, it's come along way too late for my exploration.
I have seen this male-type personality on display in my past experiences. Can we talk?! You are or are you strictly lesbian porn? (Yes, this good Christian man has a 'past.')
No, I understood what you wanted me to. However, you don't seem to understand that the only reason to present what you did is to justify forcing the ideology you support onto those who don't support it. You are justifying it, in other words, simply because of how you feel about the subject, which misses the point entirely.
I disagree. Indoctrination is exactly what it is when the target demographic has little to no ability to understand the subject being imposed upon them or resist it even if they did have some inkling. Instead, it is simply presented as something to be accepted by the authority figures they are naturally conditioned to believe anyway. This is a point you have yet to acknowledge. To this point, all you have done is discuss reasoning and justification on an adult level, assuming we are both capable of a critical debate.
What you have yet to acknowledge is that what you and I are experiencing has zero chance of happening on a third grader's level or below. They have no foundation or framework from which to question what they are told to accept or even how to go about questioning it even if they did. Instead, you wish to make this about whether LTBTQ issues are legitimately moral or not. Irrelevant. What makes it indoctrination is that the children have no ability to come to their own conclusion based on critical thinking because they are not developmentally capable of it yet. In other words, what is going on is indoctrination.
Instead, you wish to bring your statistical analysis into it, which even you must realize means nothing since it doesn't define what "acceptance" consists of. For instance, I see no constitutional barrier for same sex marriage and think, constitutionally, it would be wrong to deny them the right. I'm pretty sure I'd be part of that 72% that "accepted" it, even though I think it is morally wrong. Thing is, it isn't relevant anyway. It does not address the question of indoctrination. All you are doing is saying it can't be indoctrination because you agree with the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. That's hardly a valid criteria as to whether a practice qualifies as indoctrination. Ask the Nazis.
Another example of what I am speaking of. This is not relevant to whether a practice qualifies as indoctrination or not. It is, however, justification for indoctrination. That is, it is one of the reasons for indoctrinating children and one of the things you use to justify what the left is trying to do in the public school system. One I and many others do not agree with. That's the point. You do not have the right to indoctrinate someone else's children on a subject like this because of your beliefs any more than I do. This doesn't belong in schools. This is why I use religious indoctrination in order to prove my point. I'm quite certain you see that point, too, yet choose to ignore it.
I'm completely aware of that. Perhaps more than you yourself are. This is because you're just continuing to prove my point. You aren't looking at what is occurring in the classroom and determining whether or not it qualifies as indoctrination. You are using your argument to justify the indoctrination.
You must recognize on some level that a third grader isn't going to discuss this issue the way we are right now. Not even remotely. They have neither the critical thinking skills or the life experience to do so. That fact alone is what determines whether or not what is being taught in schools constitutes indoctrination.
And I'm not arguing against the idea of indoctrination itself, either, because most of what children of that age are taught about social issues is indoctrination for the very same reasons I've already stated. Children are necessarily indoctrinated socially, especially in the beginning, diminishing over time as their critical thinking skills and life experience allows them to delve into issues more deeply. The issue is that what is being indoctrinated is a lot more controversial than you are presenting. No one is going to argue against indoctrinating a child in not pushing the other kids down in the playground during recess. That is not a controversial issue. Not so LGTB issues. The only reason for indoctrinating kids at such young age is that they would be less likely to question it later in life. It's that simple.
Probably the last I will say about this. I have to go back to work tomorrow and, really, if you still can't see this, you probably never will and we'll just have to disagree. In any case, it has been nice to have you included in the discussion. At least one person attempted to engage me honestly. Thanks for that.
Well, that's surprising. That isn't intended as sarcasm. I simply didn't think you capable of saying those words and so, my view of you is at least partially wrong. I underestimated you.
Since you tossed out that olive branch, in a manner of speaking...
Assuming the question you refer to is...
The legislation is in the 1st Amendment and it is ferociously defended by several secular groups. I'm sure you're as aware of this as I am.
As to why this is a change of subject... it has no relevance to determining whether or not what is occurring in the classroom constitutes indoctrination. It would be relevant to whether or not the government is violating the establishment clause, but it has no bearing as to whether or not a particular action constitutes indoctrination. If you believe otherwise, I'm willing to listen. So far, you haven't explained the connection.
How does the 1st Amendment stop the religious indoctrination of children Drakk? Please be specific.
YOU are the one that insisted that indoctrination is practiced by the LGBT community in schools Drakk. Asking ME to prove your posit is idiotic.
You judged me, which is against the teachings of the Bible and Jesus. Own it.
The new religious slogan of the day...
As opposed to what the right is "trying to do" — here we go.
This belies the fact that teachers are intelligent 'creatures' that know their profession and their 'audiences. I am pretty sure teachers are not discussing the nuances of penises and vaginas with kindergartners and third graders because it will probably land them individually in a court case and the administrators in a class-action suit.
But, I am sure that is not what you care about at all.
Bad teachers are 'leftists' and they are pervasive in schools.
Food for Thought: Are teachers "the Left" reading and sharing Sunday School lessons anywhere (at all) in this country?
First, you need to be more specific. To what, exactly, are you referring? Any instruction concerning religion at all, under any circumstances and in any setting? For instance, believing parents instructing their children concerning God? Or do you mean within the school system? If that, then do you mean public schools or do you mean charter or private schools? You need to be more precise because the way the question is asked, it literally means you believe the 1st Amendment is intended to prevent religious indoctrination of children. I'm assuming you don't mean that, but I cannot fathom what you do mean.
I am not asking you to to prove my perspective. I'm asking you to provide an argument for your view beyond merely stating that it is so which, so far, is all that you have done.
You are attempting to apply a standard about which you know nothing. The prohibition against judging others concerns the person's worthiness before God, not what they do or say. Were it otherwise, God would not expect us to do anything concerning murderers or liars. In fact, what point would God have in standards?
Whether you believe it or not, I do not consider myself superior to you. I find God superior to us both. My arguments come from that perspective.
Wow. Not so. Maybe you want to indoctrinate youngs kids to be 'better' kids and not little social 'thugs' into which harmful concepts are told over and over again in conservative churches and Sunday school settings,. . . and at "conservative mommy and daddy knees" —that some 'bad' kids who think they are born different, free, and born with inherent liberties in our land, well they really are second-class outcasts whose 'just desserts' are to be bullied, beat-down, stomped-on, talked to and about in socially disturbing and demeaning ways, and stigmatized as 'unacceptable' if they persist in not joining an approved conservative 'circle' and profess conservative politics.
Just let that one soak in after a week of laborious efforts by many members here. We have not been honest participants, says Drakkonis. Really, we're dishonest? Less than authentic.
We're dreaded and "the Left."
It's a thankless job trying to persuade those who have dispensed with the capacity to 'budge.' Alas! Somebody/ies ought to take up the chore.
And yet: You wrote above you voted for Trump 2020. What ought God to do about that bit of judging 'rightly' - hmm? TRUMP: Most notorious liar in the country is well-positioned in the Christian-Right church as a "righteous leader" in service to . . . the Right, and not the Left who do not want him within ten feet of their political platform. Sorry, can't allow God to be 'savaged' like that without speaking up.
These kids are presenting (with the approval of their parents, parent, or guardian) as 'trans-kids' and the schools are being challenged to deal with this in a culturally acceptable and professional manner.
However, Christian conservatives, doing what they always do, stand on the "ancients" and are inflexible. Becoming hostile and start throwing up barriers to kids being agreeable with the 'new' things the world is stuck facing or 'old' matters which were simply brushed aside like trash for decades and centuries.
Nowadays, you can watch tv shows and movies from across the planet where cultural norms are changing and allowing homosexuality to "inject" into the main-stream of sexuality, but then you have some people (conservatives) who are standing up OPPOSING, because change is not what such people have it in them to be or do!
You seem to conveniently loose the thread whenever you are asked to explain your statements Drakk.
For your review, your comments are in blue:
Stop deflecting and answer my question within the parameters ALREADY set by the content of the discussion in the thread please.
What 'view' are you asking me to argue for Drakk? Please block quote my comments that you think express this 'view' you speak of.
You are attempting to avoid a standard that you pretend to live by.
Exactly HOW is one's worthiness before God evaluated if it is NOT by what they say AND do Drakk?
Oh and BTFW, MY reading is that Jesus WARNED against judging others without practicing introspection and to be prepared to be judged with the same measure.
There is NO 'prohibition' against judging, there are admonitions to do so care, love and charity. IMHO, you ignore those admonitions.
You know that contradicts your whole 'not what they do [murder] or say [lie], right Drakk?
Your comments refute that claim.
How is that relevant to this discussion?
Yet your arguments are filtered through YOUR interpretation of God's will. As you can see from the other comments in this seed, your arguments fail to persuade [convert].
I am not deflecting. You are attempting to redirect the established topic. For instance, the following statement by you is not true.
This statement is devoid of any context. When added, we see that my objection isn't the indoctrination of children, especially since I've stated numerous times that indoctrination is the primary practical tool for educating young children. The younger the child, the more indoctrination is necessary.
What is actually true, and therefor not a deflection, is that my argument concerns what is being indoctrinated where, not the process itself. As evidence, I simply will copy and paste something you quoted from me in the post to which I am now responding.
You have here highlighted the incorrect portion of my statement in order to force your point, and in so doing deny the context of the argument. Properly highlighted, and in accordance with standard English usage, the obvious emphasis should have been placed as such:
This statement doesn't object to religious indoctrination. That can't be supported contextually by the sentence structure. It's obvious that where the indoctrination occurs is the point being made. This is consistent with my original comment concerning the indoctrination of a particular moral viewpoint in a state run facility. Therefor, your claim that it is I who is either changing the subject or deflecting from it is untrue. Speaking of whether or not children should receive religious indoctrination in any environment is a different subject. Since it is, I continue to refuse to be deflected by your attempt to change the topic.
That's simple enough. It is evaluated by what they say and do. The point you seem to be missing, however, is that the reason the Bible prohibits judging a person's worthiness before God is because we aren't qualified to judge, regardless of how much introspection we do. Jesus illustrates this point with the plank in the eye analogy. While we can and should judge a person's actions, we shouldn't judge the person's worth as a person, since we all fail God's standards at one point or another. That is, while God fully expects us to judge the actions of a person, a murderer for instance, the judgement of the person themselves should be left up to the purview of God. In other words, who are you or I to determine who is and isn't worthy before God? There is a difference between saying someone did something wrong and saying someone is a worthless piece of crap because of it.
While we can all agree, including God, I'm sure, that Joseph Mengele did horrible things, our saying the man deserves to go to Hell is a statement founded on comparing Mengele's actions to human norms. That is, we compare what he did to our human standard of what is and isn't right. But from God's perspective, our making such a judgement as if we had the ability, authority or right may seem like Stalin condemning Mengele to Hell.
Put another way, the Bible also states judge not lest you be judged. It also indicates that if you do so anyway, you will be judged according to the standard by which you judge. If we condemn Mengele as a human being, rather than judging his actions, according to our own personal standards, then God will do the same. That is, He will judge us according to His personal standard. Whether or not you believe in God, you can at least understand the concept. Imagine a perfect being who is perfectly moral. Not only does He always do the right thing, He does so for the perfectly right reason and motive. Always and without fail. I don't know about you, but I do not wish to be judged according to such a standard.
Ultimately, the point is the recognition that we are all unworthy of God's standards and therefore, unqualified to judge on that level.
Okay, but why is that you're opinion? What have I said that makes you say this?
How does it do so? Again, whether or not one believes in God, one can recognize that God, as depicted in the Bible, obviously cares about how we behave. Cares about why we do things and so on. You can hardly expect that such rules are given but not expect that we are not to make judgements about whether those rules are adhered to. That is, there's no point in God commanding that we shall not murder if we aren't supposed to make a judgment as to whether murder occurred.
I believe you think so because you don't understand where I'm coming from. You need to understand that I really believe what the Bible says. One of the things the Bible says is that if one is guilty of breaking just one point of God's law then one is guilty of breaking all of it. I break God's law every single day with just a thought, let alone actions. Given that, upon what basis can I claim to be better than anyone else? In fact, because I claim to be a Christian and a follower of God but still manage to sin all the time, I tend to be harsher on myself than I would be of anyone else.
There is nothing about me that makes me superior to you. The difference between us is that I believe in something that I believe is superior to what you believe. That doesn't make me, the person, any better than you. I still fail morally all the time. To think that I am superior to you would be to deceive myself because I could only do so on my own invented standard rather than God's.
It isn't. It's relevant to why I don't consider myself better than you.
I'm not sure what your point is. I only meant to convey information about why I don't see myself as superior to you. How does this relate to that?
Drakk has stated this sentiment several times in different ways but here it is nicely summarized.
Consider the following quote. What are the implications of someone who does not hold himself superior to you and by extension anyone else?
Although (as you well know) I think it is a mistake to hold such faith in the Bible, it is not uncommon for a believer to faithfully abide by what s/he holds as God's will. One can believe homosexuality goes against God's will without assuming a moral superiority or having animus against homosexuals.
It is clear that trans-youth who have not converted or contracted with the God of the Bible can no more accept Drakkonis's arguments to give up (ignore) their constitutional rights and privileges under states and federal laws, than a black U.S. citizen and other minorities have the luxury of ignoring the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution!
You do yourself a disservice over and over again. NT articles are replete with your whimsical comments questioning my service to the God of the Bible. You recently (TiG's article of two weeks ago on his continuing subject matter ) even "challenged" me to defend my belief in the God of the Bible which went so far as YOUR NOT ACCEPTING NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL REFERENCES in order to coax me into some version of 'affirmation' that God is Holy and Jesus is the Only Way.
Drakkonis , you would not even accept Bible references themselves as 'witness'! Is that a judgement on your part of scripture's worth?
You even got so publicly petty, that you questioned my use of the term 'brother' (in faith) in regards to our common faith.
I am sorry Drakkonis, you have repeatedly judged me wrongly! And not just me along, but every Christian you question because you choose to ignore the very quote
you are attempting to lecture Dulay over. It's sad, actually. But, I will call you out on it as often as I can.
Hi TiG, first, Drakkonis in his comment is addressing his words and his meaning specifically to Dulay. That is, he has told me recently on your article of last week that he questions whether I am a Christian or not—directly and indirectly!
Second, coincidentally, I just remarked on this @2.4.111.
Third and lastly, the actions regarding the teachers and 'trans' students and their parents are PRACTICAL MATTERS which need to happen to get through the long days, nights, months, and years of school education. It has to begin somewhere. Professionals, educators, medical doctors, and social scientists who care about the welfare of 'trans' youth in their roles as guides(stewards) make recommendations and inform with insights and inputs from parents, parent, or guardians of trans youth what can be done holistically to make school life work for trans-youth. And not just trans, but all students combined!
Drakkonis, is trying to have it both ways. He wants to academically state what the Bible says about homosexuality as disqualifying and invalidating the freedoms and liberties of homosexual youths and trans and their supporters adjoining rights and privileges, and practically call out trans-youth and homosexuals as DEVIANTS.
I call him out on the duplicity of his actions.
Do you think he is lying when he states that he is not superior to you (and by extension all homosexuals)?
Again, has he, to your knowledge, questioned my Christianity directly and indirectly on your recent article of several weeks ago and this article? If you discover evidence that he has, unless he questions his own claim to being Christian, I'd have to suggest he considers himself within the 'will' of God (closer) and me outside (farther away). Is that comparable to words like "higher" and "superior" - friend TiG, you can decide what Drakkonis is doing.
It made me sad and hurt. But, I will/did get over it. I have no choice!
Why are you refusing to answer my question?
I have not read everything between you and Drakk in this forum but I think he has indeed questioned your Christianity based on your (as he sees it) social Jesus focus. Seems to me, Drakk does not think you sufficiently understand what he believes God wants of believers.
Has Drakk ever said that because he believes he is better in tune with God that he believes that makes him a superior person? That he is superior to you? Because if so, I have not read that.
Personally, I think both of you give the Bible waaaaaaaaaaaay too much credence. Does that mean that I think I am thus superior to you both?
My question was this: Do you think he [Drakk] is lying when he states that he is not superior to you (and by extension all homosexuals)?
Well, for the longest of time now, I am under the impression that we do not use the word (lie) directly in regards to fellow commenters. But, since you insist I will answer in my own way. I only know what DRAKK is stating is a violation of the constitutional civil rights of trans-youth and the professionals who work with them in public schools.
That makes him effectively "superior" in quotes to trans and homosexuals based on his high brow reading of his religious texts. Is he actually superior to me, of course not.
______________________________________________________
Has Drakk said that he is 'better in tune with God'? If so, I would have to qo with the meaning of the word, "better" - isn't another meaning of the word, "better" - More?!
You've have to tell me in "better" (more) discussion in order for me to weight it out. That said, yes, I think your opinion is your stance on the bible is better than any believer in the Book. It is a moot point, nevertheless. You place little to no stock in the spirituality of said 'books' of the Bible. Drakkonis and me are contracted to its books-spiritually.
Okay, CB, I am done asking for a direct answer to my direct question.
I personally believe Drakk when he claims he is not superior to you (and by extension superior to anyone else). Of course, this is based on years of debating Drakk.
I can understand how someone could believe that God exists and has an established objective morality. I can also understand how an individual can believe he understands God's morality (to some degree) based (precariously IMO) on the Bible. I can also understand how an individual can believe that God considers certain behavior to be immoral (a sin) and the individual accepts that as God's will. Especially, again, if the Bible is considered divine. I can also understand how someone can deem behavior deviant (the meaning of that word is: " Departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior . ") if their God (in their belief) holds this to be true. Note: I also recognize that the use of the word ' deviant ' in this context is an ugly slur (akin to the n-word) and should not be used since it is emotive. A better choice of language would be to state that homosexual behavior is (per Drakk's belief) against the will of God: that God's objective morality is the standard of reference.
You and Drakk have very different views of Christianity. That does not surprise me a bit. In fact, I would be amazed if two arbitrary Christians were aligned at the details. Given Christianity is all over the map, I personally see no problem with viewing Christianity as following the 'Love thy neighbor' spirit of Jesus and not even believing Jesus was divine and the continuum from that to the seriously studied, deep understanding of the true message of God revealed after years of study and contemplation and absolute belief that the God of the Bible (and that of course includes Jesus) is indeed real and the entire Bible is the true word of God (the other extreme).
That said, it probably is expecting too much for someone to read an honest explanation of what someone believes is God's will when it adversely affects the reader and to not presume that the writer is simply using God as an excuse to reflect his own views.
I do not see you two ever communicating at any level. Seems to me this will continue as an exercise in confirmation bias. A similar ('wall') problem, by the way, exists between Drakk and myself but both of us have (at least) been trying to work on that.
I think that the facts (and logic) support the hypothesis that the Bible is purely a product of ancient men creating tales intended to (at least mostly) influence (control) the population. I also think that those same facts (and logic) argue against the Bible being the divine word of a perfect God who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.
So I do indeed hold that I have a better argument. Now, does that mean I think I am superior to any believer? Do you see how it is possible to believe one is correct about some topic and not ipso facto presume superiority?
In our debates over the years, Drakk has suggested that I think he is stupid for his beliefs. I keep telling him that the very last thing I think he is is stupid (which is absolutely an honest reply). But because of our differing views and my argument that his beliefs do not make logical sense he will sporadically note his offense that he thinks I think he is stupid.
And on a related fashion, do you see how it is possible for someone to not be persuaded that any god exists and not look down upon those who do? For example, imagine an individual whose friends (including best friend) and family are all (with very few exceptions) believers (at various degrees). Does this individual look down upon his friends and family because of the beliefs they hold as a result of their life influences?
No, I am presenting evidence that the scientific and mental health communities have found as factual that children as young as 18 - 24 months understand stereotypical gender roles and their "gender identity" is normally in place by 5-6 years. In that time frame, children can be and are made to feel as if they are "less than" or "abnormal" or that there is "something wrong with them" if they are transgendered and exposed to strictly "straight" people and stereotypes. These feelings of wrongness can lead to problems in mental health and social strife. Children who attempt suicide are often doing so because of gender orientation and the ill feelings engendered by nonacceptance.
So, your statement that children do not understand what is going on is proven false. Therefore, your premise that Children k-3 do not understand what gender orientation is so it is indoctrination to mention anything about gender does not hold. They do understand and their capacity to internalize can lead to emotional problems and that is what the teachers are trying to head off.
TiG, many millions of people who never thought they would 'resort to Christianity or any other 'thing' in life can soon find themselves in wholeheartedly agreement with their biggest 'adversary' or unheard of position. Remember there is a reason people call it, the "Damascus Road" event. And, also, many believers as children, who walked away from their faith, rebound to it - even as late as on their death-beds - questioning the sincerity at that point aside! Finally, I, myself, saw a 'gaping hole' in what some churches were doing to people outside of the faith by requiring them to live public policy-wise as they were in agreement to articles of Christian beliefs. Specifically, placing me in a category where I could lend my voice to push-back. As how else might some (not all) heterosexual Christians academically speaking understand the homosexual Christian's practical-living experience EXCEPT a homosexual Christian inform them?
Of course, there will be the initial 'gag reflex' to talk it down, deny it, distract, withstand, even subvert it, but change can come. Sometimes easily, sometimes with laborious efforts! I will continue to press on on this subject matter with my fellow believers.
Seems to me that any instruction given to children is necessarily indoctrination. Children do not have sufficient (if any) critical thinking faculties and are biologically suited to accept without question (not saying they do not develop defiant attitudes).
To wit, we cannot really avoid indoctrination. The question is how we should indoctrinate. Should it be parents who instruct (indoctrinate) their children in gender identity or is this the job of the state (e.g. public schools)? Same question applies to religious indoctrination.
Of course!
It is notable, that you are not a conservative, 'sworn' to support policies that strip liberties, freedoms, and/or civil rights from your fellow constitutional friends and citizenry. Drakkonis supports policy-makers 'sworn' to do all the aforementioned. On an aside, as I type this, DeSantis is on reel signing 15 week abortion ban in Florida and Kentucky GOP lawmakers are overriding Kentucky Governor veto on abortion ban. All in an effort to force the matter to a head in the SCOTUS.
I don't look down on you, a non-believer. Indeed, we 'ordealed' and strove together for years on Newsvine and Newstalkers, and today—we're friends remotely. We can to a 'meeting of the minds' in look to what we have in common. The irony is, Drakkonis and I are in a similar 'state' as you and me for years past, but for an opposite set of circumstances. One significant difference between the two of you: You always, always, commented back, whether I like it or even wanted you too! Drakkonis treats me with his 'version' of utter contempt.
Drakkonis wrote to my 'face' that he does not see me as 'in-common.' Indeed, he talks to you and Dulay and whomsoever waaaay more than he does to me. And I know why! Because he sees me as a contemptible liberal Christian who alters God's word and causes others to not come to faith in God. (He wrote so much plainly.)
Now then, do YOU understand the nuance position I am forced to uphold with Drakkonis?
What an utter load of bullshit.
THREE days ago you deflected by claiming that I wasn't discussing the SUBJECT under discussion and claimed that I went off on a tangent:
Now you're deflecting, after trying and failing to change the SUBJECT to taxes, by trying to pretend the discussion should be about the CONTEXT of your argument.
You want to concentrate on the CONTEXT of your argument Drakk?
Let's concentrate on this:
Your answer:
Then you go on blathering that I'm missing the point.
I'm not going to play your game any longer Drakk. Your comments illustrate that you're incapable of a good faith discussion.
While that may indeed be possible, Drakk's comments prove that he can't and doesn't. His scurrilous lies about the LGBT community proves that.
Yes that is well known. But he supports those policy makers because of policies such as economy and border control, not because they are prone to anti-LGBTQ legislation to deprive and further curtail equal rights. Or do you think his support for the GOP is because he is actively trying to prevent same-sex marriage, etc.? He has, again unless you think he is just flat out lying, clearly stated that he does not personally want to help legislate away equal rights. Even though he believes that God disapproves of homosexual relations, he holds that this is up to God and not him.
Maybe my years of debating Drakk allow me to better understand what he is saying. Or, possibly, since I am heterosexual and thus unable to take direct personal offense (i.e. I cannot possibly fully appreciate your feelings) when discussing homosexuality, etc. I have less personal emotion at play.
Note that there are plenty of people who are indeed trying to legislate their bigotry. And when a flaming bigot votes R to promote bigotry and another individual votes R for other reasons, it is indeed true (as Thomas has argued) that their votes are identical in effect. But the odds that the flaming bigot will engage in a manner to promote bigotry is high compared to the individual voting R for economic reasons (or whatever). To wit, intent matters. Votes elect representatives (a bundle) and are coarse measures of the detailed, nuanced positions of the voter.
You better not since I am superior to you!
People have different styles. Also, CB, there are many times when I do not comment on what you write. Sometimes it is because I do not see a cogent point. Other times because the content is, IMO, veering away from what we are talking about. Other times it is because I disagree with what you wrote but do not wish to call you out on it. And, of course, I often do not comment when I agree with what someone wrote. And this is not just with you. I personally am moving towards a style where I have far less tolerance for tangents and irrelevance and am just flat out ignoring it and focusing on the point(s) in question. That is, I am just sick of the petty fighting.
This is especially true when the discourse is inherently an attack. If one is under attack and the attackers show no indication that reason will ever make a difference, one will tend to not waste one's time in an act of futility.
Funny, given I am an agnostic atheist one would think that Drakk would hold me in contempt well before you. After all, you and he both believe in the Christian God (albeit from very different perspectives) whereas I just see no reason to believe that such a God exists (and actually see reasons why the Christian God as defined by the Bible does not exist). Drakk clearly disagrees with your understanding of Christianity and disagrees with your methods. And if he thinks you alter God's word then I can imagine he would find that to be a great sin. None of this seems unusual to me.
I think one key thing you are seeing from Drakk is frustration. I suspect he thinks it takes far too much effort to truly communicate and has decided to just not waste his time and energy. Many times, Drakk and I both got to that state with each other (I did and I am confident he did as well). This is what often happens when two diametrically opposed positions are argued with little if any headway (i.e. no real benefit in the end).
Possibly. But I likely will never see things as you do. One thing I can offer is that if two people are trying to attack each other, they are just wasting their time. Unless there is some joy or release in attacking an individual, the end result is simply hard feelings with no net intellectual benefit. To me, that translates into a grand waste of time.
I disagree and I don't need a psychology degree to do so. The problem with what you've said here...
... is that it is undefined in the extreme. What, exactly, does an 18 to 24 month old "understand" about anything, let alone something, such as sexuality, which still baffles adults? You're claiming that science says these children understand gender roles. If so, that's utter crap. They don't. They don't understand, they recognize there's a difference. By the age of five the child may understand what sex they are but that in no way means they understand the implications of it. As evidence, imagine you and I are present in a room containing 100 five year old children. Imagine that you ask each and every single one of them to explain gender roles or what significance their gender identity has and what do you imagine you will get? A conversation such as we are having? No? So, what, exactly do you mean by "understand?"
More specifically, if you took those same 100 children and explained to them the controversy you and I are currently discussing, specifically, whether it is correct for the state to impose a particular morality concerning sexuality, do you think you're going to get some sort of coherent, meaningful response?
Disagree. Either you don't understand your own sources or your sources are putting ideology before science. The primary understanding of the vast majority of five year old's (99.99%) has more to do with self-centered cause and effect than it does with a critically reasoned opinion about anything.
Since you accept your own argument, this is only true for you. It isn't hard to prove it isn't true for anyone else, even those who would agree with you. For example, it isn't hard to find YouTube vids of "enlightened" individuals trying to "educate" people who are obstensively on their own side about how they are getting gender wrong. More, in watching the vids, you get the impression that defining gender is less important than coming up with a definition for a particular "gender" that no one has thought of before, as if it were a contest.
Given that, all I need to do to dispel your claim is ask a five year old questions about what they understand about gender. All I will get in response is an understanding that they understand there's a difference between male and female but would not be able to do much more than that. Now, complicate it further by asking them if homosexuality or the trans movement are moral positions and see what you get. Ask them what a bipolar undisexual is and what it means, for instance. Ask them what it means that gender is a social construct beyond being they were told it was by an authority figure and get back to me.
The fact that Drakk's statement that he isn't superior to me is true is irrelevant because I KNOW he isn't.
What is relevant is that Drakk feels justified in lying about the LGBT community and using them as a whipping boy.
True. It is also true that you have yet to refute it beyond insisting 'nu uhh".
Very well. It isn't as if I were forcing you. I would ask, for your own benefit, to look at the difference between your comments and mine, though. While we both make statements, I at least make an effort to explain the reasoning behind mine. You just make statements that, apparently, I'm supposed to accept simply because you made them.
I'm guessing you're reading too much CB. My point has been and remains that children should not be indoctrinated about controversial issues such as LTGBQ within the public school system for the same reasons they shouldn't be indoctrinated in a religion. How, specifically, does that make LGTBQ whipping boys? Or, alternatively, does that make the religious whipping boys according to your argument?
So you are only saying public schools. I guess it is alright for private schools to indoctrinate.
Talking about gay issues or people being gay is in no way indoctrination, unless someone already has the proclivities.
I'm going to assume you've not read all the comments.
They all sound the same after a while.
That is a lie and more proof of a lack of good faith.
The biggest difference is that I answer questions and you don't and instead deflect.
Um, so... You're going to use that as proof? The very thing that shows you are attempting to change the subject? Well, I suppose it's a strategy, of sorts.
Okay, but if that's all the effort you're going to put into it...
This:
And:
That was you right? You just make statements that, apparently, I'm supposed to accept simply because you made them.
Two questions in my earlier comment.
Do you think private schools should be able to 'indoctrinate' how ever they want?
Second...
Do you think talking about gay people can make someone gay?
You didn't ask me to prove anything. You stated:
More goal post moving on your part, just another game.
The very thing that proves I didn't.
Truth isn't a strategy, it's just truth.
Waiting to see if he answers mine...
Drakkonis, is splitting 'bath water bubbles' if that is possible. If a politician, democrat or even an LGBTQ official said to me or acted out to me that he would take away the rights, privileges, liberties, and freedoms of rural conservative citizens (such as their beloved proper religious freedoms), I would stand to his or her face and tell them I don't approve of that and please remove "the offensive position" from his or her position statement. Drakkonis, stumbles through this point in discussion if not willfully ignoring it with distractions about close scrutiny of some inconsequential thing or the other. As if he can't be seen 'stalling' out on deeper penetrating points of clarification.
RESPECT. I understand this exceedingly well. I have 'desperately' tried to get Drakkonis to accept that he can not speak to what it feels to be a celibate homosexual - and I do remember him some time ago explaining his celibate 'state' though he cares not to elaborate on it. That is his business. However, as I age I 'gather in' more and more experience of what is feels like to live alone, lonely, and on a faith 'journey' and I try to tell Drakkonis and others about it in practical 'day to day' terms. He, will have nothing of it! He tries to tell me (in so many words): "Not so!" And then drills down on some trivial point of argument to the defeat of all other interests.
That is, he tries to "shut me down" or just walk away or ignores me. I can't abide that. Because I know what I am living through. I may not know Drakkonis' celibate 'journey' in faith, but I certainly know my own! (Smile.)
Um, on the first one, yes. You should just accept that one because it is a statement stating my point of view. It actually says so right in the comment you quoted. Unless you're prepared to argue that this is not, in fact, my point of view, you should accept that it is indeed my point of view. Please note that this isn't a demand that you agree with my point of view but, rather, that you believe me in that it is actually my point of view.
The second quote is, more or less, the same thing. However, concerning that one, I present it as more than my point of view. I present it as an actual fact. Something you can actually make an argument against, whereas you cannot on the first. More importantly, however, I have spent a significant amount of time explaining why I said the second statement so your accusation falls flat. That is, I didn't just make a statement and expect you to just accept it as true. I've spent a lot of effort explaining why I believe the statement is true so that you can understand why I made the statement.
What, specifically, do you expect him to change about his voting? He can vote for an R, a D or an L (sometimes) with various miscellaneous toy parties sporadically.
Realistically, the voting choices are R or D. Drakk votes R for the reasons stated. Do you insist that his voting for GOP politicians means that he wants to cause harm to LGBTQ freedom / rights? Do you expect him to vote D so as to not cause this harm and forego priorities that he believes are most important to the nation as a whole?
What, specifically, do you want Drakk to do with his vote?
You know better about your conversation history than I do. Since you both are here, it seems I need not opine on this.
TiG, as 'impossible' as it made seem you and other agnostics/atheists are perfect candidates for conservative backs and forth. Here's why scripturally (and why Drakkonis wrote me in private and 'rarely' likes to get into it with me in public):
AND NO, Drakkonis did not point out this scripture to me. I know it like the 'back of my hand,' because to this day, I have for years been a reader of the bible from cover to cover. And, when I get to the end of it - I start all over again: A little old testament and a little new testament each night before bedtime.
These listed verses from I Corinthians is understood by Christians as a 'tamp down' on disharmony and disunity in public. It is said it is better to suffer insult, loss, or just walk away and 'forego' rather make God look 'bad' over arguing. With the sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree with Drakkonis. Exception: Now conservatives have taken an "all or nothing" approach to robbing their fellow 'Americans' of liberties through the 'mechanics' of deceit, theft, and deliberate outright lies.
It breaks my heart. And I don't usually 'talk' this openly about it. It breaks my heart to speak to Drakkonis in the manner I do (and am about to do). Because I know better. But, the 'cut' is deepening on the right against the left. It's wrong. It is grievous and somebody has to stand up and make a 'call to order' - even if that call is spurned.
Anyway, that is why Drakkonis approaches me with obvious contempt, because he knows I know this is bad 'behavior' between 'brothers' in this great faith we have in common.
Your question is problematic, grammatically. Your question is not asking me whether indoctrination is justifiable but, rather, what method of indoctrination is acceptable. I don't believe that is what you are asking me. I think you mean something closer to, is indoctrination acceptable. Can you please clarify?
"No," he said, pinching the bridge of his nose in frustration and hopelessness.
And so as you should know well, no one is making lifelong decisions based on the whims of three to eight years old. Professionals are listening to these kids and watching them, examining them, and making 'course paths' for them in public school environs. Drakkonis you are simply setting up a counternarrative that does not trust the professionals to do their jobs based on what - your religious background!
Pretty simple really. Why put restrictions on and claim indoctrination in public schools yet remain silent about private ones.
It seems to me like just attacks on public schools in general.
Okay, so you're talking about indoctrination and not method. Thanks. My answer is to read my previous posts. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Yes. Or that he is apathetic to the harm which likely does no harm to himself.
Vote for civil rights and freedoms that do no harm for all citizens, thus learning to live with true diversity and not this 'sickly' version of diversity. Or, do not vote at all a few 'cycles' if it means doing harm to others in our country who deserve better than what conservatives are about today.
How, CB, does Drakk vote for civil rights and freedoms that do not harm citizens?? He, like every other non-representative (constituent), votes for a representative who in turn almost invariably follows a party platform.
He votes for an individual. It seems to me the only choice you offer Drakk is to vote D or abstain. If so, you presume he should simply adopt your priorities when it comes to what is considered best for the nation as a whole. I doubt you would do that but your words offer no alternative.
Note that if an item is raised as a referendum where Drakk could vote on a specific, isolated issue, then he has a direct choice to vote for, vote against or abstain. Drakk has already stated that he would not, in principle, vote to cause harm (as he sees harm of course) to LGBTQ if that choice is presented to him (unbundled). To wit, he is not motivated to cause harm to LGBTQ people. Other than that, the voting is all done by his representative (bundled).
A point of view is a choice of attitude. I called you out for choosing that attitude.
I also asked you to tell me HOW 'they' [the LGBT community] are 'trying to drag as many along with them [into condemnation] as they can and using the schools to do it.'
You didn't answer.
Utter bullshit Drakk. You pontificated about 'indoctrination' ad nauseam but you NEVER explained or made any effort whatsoever to support your claim that:
AGAIN, I stated as clearly as I possibly can that your comment is a scurrilous LIE.
Your comments are the same tired old bullshit lies insinuating [in the most non-condemning way of course] that the LGBT community are predators and pedophiles.
Throughout the litigation for gay rights and marriage equality, that bullshit was presented over and over and over again by the religious right. It's been debunked in many courts, by presenting DECADES of scientific study and crime data which shows that it's heterosexual males that you can blame for all that 'grooming' Drakk. Every peer reviewed study on the SUBJECT proves that fact. Which BTFW, is one of the many reasons that the courts found, over and over again, that the argument against the rights of the LGBT community boiled down to religious animus.
You and yours can pretend all you want that you hold no religious animus against the LGBT community but I offer your own comments in this seed to refute that claim.
Signature Dulay move. In pointing out the way you are wrong, you move to some other claim in order to save yoursef.
Yes, I did. Go back and reread the conversation.
2.4.96
2.4.84
2.4.70
2.4.69
I could keep going but you'd still deny the point anyway. I have posted time and again that a child is not going to understand the issues being discussed here. That is the effort to support my claim. That you can't seem to see that isn't a deficiency on my part. Since a child in the age range being discussed can't understand the issues we are discussing, any attempt to "teach" them about it is necessarily indoctrination. It doesn't matter a tinkers damn about what you understand. It's about what they understand.
Since any rational person interested in truth will understand this, the only reason the LGBTQ could possibly have for pushing their agenda on children of such a young age isn't education. It is pure indoctrination for the purpose of reducing opposition in future adult populations concerning their agenda. Further, since this is largely a Dem supported venture, it is also one of the methods the Dems are attempting to use to eradicate the Republican party. If they indoctrinate children into Dem values, they will have less opposition in the future.
Yes, you did. But, again, all you did was state it. You provided no argument to back it up. I could state as clearly as I possibly can that you are not a person but, in fact, an ice cream cone but, without a supporting argument it remains merely a statement.
If so, you should be able to easily quote me to prove your statement. The reality, however, is that my argument was, is and will be that the government has no business indoctrinating LGBTQ morality into our children. That is the purview of parents, not the state.
Trying to figure out the relevance of this but the only thing I can come up with is that because you believe this is true it somehow gives you the right to indoctrinate someone else's child into your view of what is moral. Is that correct?
In other words, if we don't support you then we hate you. Understood.
The question is, are they really teaching the children about "gender identity" at all or are they just saying that it is ok to be confused about expression of it? There is a difference.
Children notice everything around them and are very adept at reading meanings from such. That is what they do. That is their "job." So, they will notice that some people are not treated the same as others, wonder why, and figure out that the people are different in some way. If this differential treatment is negative (think stereotyping, name calling, etc.) the child learns that people who express in this way are seen as "less than". What if the child who sees this, learns this, is one of the "out group?" Do we reinforce this stereotyping or do we say, "No. That is wrong to treat anyone that way." If it is a child with a disability of some sort we would not pick on them. If they have a strange haircut, is that reason to stigmatize them? No! So what gives us the right to refuse to acknowledge a child who is gender different and to say that it is ok to be that way?
It is accepted science that children notice they are different and want to explore these differences. This not only applies to the outward differences between the biological sexes but to gender as well. The only indoctrination I see teachers performing is basically the promotion of equal treatment.
Where have I been wrong Drakk. Post the links here. I'll wait.
Not ONE of those comments explains or supports your claim that:
In fact, not ONE of those comments address the feelings of the LGBT community in any way.
Every one of your comments on 'indoctrination' assumes that somehow the LGBT community has been 'grooming' children in schools.
An argument that is based on a fabrication utterly devoid of evidence.
On what do you base your claim that 'LGBTQ morality' exists?
WHAT led you to believe that the government was indoctrinating "LGBTQ morality" into children?
Your comment illustrates that you ASSUME that LGBTQ people have a different form of morality than you and the rest of 'polite society'. It's logical to presume that you think that 'LGBTQ morality' is inferior and dangerous, otherwise why would you have an issue with children being exposed to it.
So, please cite some examples of this 'LGBTQ morality' you speak of Drakk.
Tell me all about how the LGBTQ community has enjoyed access to children so they can indoctrinate them into their form of morality. You wouldn't just make that shit us so you MUST have reviewed some kind of documentation that this abhorrent practice has been taking place in Florida schools, right? Link?
It's estimated that there are 41,000 Christian denominations, each with differences in 'dogma'. I have no doubt that you embrace at least some members of those denominations as 'brothers and sisters in Christ' without challenging their faith merely because it doesn't follow the exact dogma you adhere to.
Yet throughout this seed, you've denied that anyone in the LGBTQ community can be a 'true' Christian. Since Christianity has its basis in Judaism, I presume that you would deny that anyone in the LGBTQ community can be a 'true' Jew too. In short, you have singled out LGBTQ Christians as undeserving of YOUR privileged status as a Christian.
You assume that everyone in the LGBTQ community is inherently ungodly, amoral and a threat to the very psyche of children. Yet you insist that you don't hold yourself as superior.
Where does that put YOU then Drakk?
That's a ridiculous statement, unworthy of reply.
Nope. My own words expressed my thoughts, don't try to put your words in my mouth Drakk.
Oh and BTFW, animus does not necessarily connote hate but if that's what you want to go with, so be it.
Probably best left for the parents anyway.
In schools if a kid is being picked on for any difference it makes sense for the teachers to direct kids to not attack others and that everyone is different in their own way. That is more reactive / passive. The parents are better equipped to have one-on-one, active discussions with their children. Schools could, however, do a service by offering instructional aids for parents to help them formulate an appropriate custom way to instruct their kids.
The promotion of equal treatment, literally, would be reactive and passive. As noted earlier, that seems appropriate to me. Schools should not be allowing bigotry to fester.
Yet we all know some parents will tell their kids that those people are an abomination and to be ridiculed.
Of course. Short of the state taking over the raising of children, not sure how that is resolved.
Just my opinion but it seems to me some parents could have cared less what was going on in the school. They only drop their kids off like at a daycare or something.
Then when told to be outraged about something, jump on the bandwagon and start complaining about things that they wouldn't have even given a second thought about before.
They are doing nothing more than trying to score political points about some faux outrage of 'protecting the children'.
Does it help if you don't? I mean, the statements that you are disagreeing with are accepted science. So, while you may disagree with them, they will be held in higher regard (by me, at least).
See 2.4.155
Of course a five year old will not have a complete, accurate and nuanced understanding of gender identity. That is not what I said. They understand that they feel a certain way, that there is a sense of who they are genderwise .
I would like to think that my various postings of links and buttons to sources in the psychological and scientific community would have some weight, but it seems that you don't believe what they are (I am) trying to tell you. Talk about indoctrination.
Those are not age appropriate questions. Ask them if they who they like playing with, what toys they prefer. Ask them who they don't like playing with. Ask them why. Get right down on the floor and play with them. You will be amazed how bright and cognitive they are and how much they do understand interpersonal dynamics. It is really that last bit that is the crux of this issue: Treat everyone like a full human being.
BS.
While I could not agree more, your understanding of what they understand and my understanding of what they understand are worlds apart.
To support the concept behind the law in Florida (besides the fact that it is a wedge issue) is to support the codification of bigoted stereotypes.
True. We've all been kids before. And so we understand this. What is happening here is conservatives are expressing "no change" and thus no modernization. Let the kids 'suck it up' and keep doing what conservatives are comfortable with seeing. No diversity.
What is interesting about all this is that in the Bible you see all forms of diversity taking place in the New Testament as Jesus on the cross was crucified with a thief whom he dared to save; Christianity broke away from Judaism; Christianity went forth to all nations; all types of people at different stages of their lives are welcomed into the Faith (no matter what they have 'done'), and God is okay with all of it.
Only Conservatives are pushing back in their churches for no change in the world. And now they attack schools for their diversity and programs of inclusion of all students.
And these so-called, 'trans-youth,' come out of some conservative homes into school bringing their confusions, anger, resentments, family issues, 'full frontal,' to society. That is what schools face too!
It is good to "see the man" who has not conceded one iota of his start point since the discussion began. And not because he is correct, Drakkonis is strictly conservative and won't relent to any change whatsoever. For some other people rights and privileges are negotiable. Now, try to remove any single right or privilege of a conservative child from a public school setting and watch out!
Could they be called the "UnWoke"..??
Let's unpack this utter bullshit, shall we?
What LGBTQ agenda are you talking about Drakk?
On what basis are you opposed to that 'agenda'?
That's an interesting statement coming from someone who claims that he changed his position on marriage equality over the years. Why do you insist that the children of Florida are incapable of the same kind of evolution? What makes you think that your evolution is something unique Drakk?
What 'venture' are you talking about?
What 'Democratic values' are too abhorrent to expose children to Drakk?
Spit it out, WTF are you insinuating?
You know the . . . "AGENDA": HOMOSEXUAL/TRANSPERSONS EDUCATION DOMINATION PALOOZA !
Marching to a classroom near you!!! 
LGBTQ Agenda:
1. Equality.
2. See #1.
Here's what I find ironic about all of Drakk's bullshit about children being incapable of 'critical thinking'.
Two years ago, the Florida DOE adopted the Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking (B.E.S.T.) Standards. Those standards are available online and very interesting reading. It seems that even 1st Grade children are expected to use critical thinking. Here is an excerpt from Florida's English Language Arts standards for the 1st grade:
That sure sounds like Florida recognizes that 1st grade children should be instructed on the need to use critical thinking to me.
The BEST standards for English Language are here: AccessPointsELA.pdf (fldoe.org)
The irony that they open their standards with a quote Fredrick Douglas' speech, 'Blessings on liberty and education' while legislating against CRT is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Oh and BTW, many of the books in the BEST standards in the 2nd and 3rd grades are by or about the experiences of POV. Guess they'll have to change that too.
Based on the comments in this forum, it isn't only 5 year olds lack that understanding.
Oh course.
In any other scenario, there would be no question that one supporting a political policy must recognize that they are complicit in the effect it has on others.
Yet that doesn't stop those who demand that the government codify 'morality' as they define it and it seems that as long as they claim that their support is based on their religious beliefs, they claim a pass on being called to account.
It also seems that there are those that buy into giving them that pass. They should be called to account too.
Years ago, I posted this article in a seed:
The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality | HuffPost Communities
Here's just one excerpt from that article:
The article is 10 years old now and though the legal landscape is far different, it's clear that little has changed.
As I remember it, the discussion in that article was respectful and interesting. I highly doubt it would be the same today.
It is to this day the best argument I have read to refute the posit of 'Member 1'. There is no doubt in my mind that 'Member 1' would deny its posit while being utterly incapable of refuting it's cogent arguments.
Thanks for the link and the post.
I do not think that civility has been entirely lost, it has just been subsumed under the gross weight of bullshit that passes for commentary.
That is one "h" of an argument when you read it deeply. It has all the 'weightiness' of the expression: "that's nice-prove it" which shifts the 'burden' of proof onto the holder of the claim!
Ironically, the books of the Bible in their mentions of homosexuality are clear in stating an aversion to the act itself. That is,
none of the 'books' affirm a specific 'cut-out' for homosexual relations
. That is, homosexuality is never positively explained in the biblical books. The practice, in some form, is (highly) criticized as an act in several books, nevertheless.
Our tasks (as modern people) is to process and define what this positivity lack and criticism of 'acts' of homosexuality means or could mean in the schema of future religious directives and teachings.
Friend Dulay, what say you?
Leviticus and Deuteronomy are, of course, the two books of the OT that most argue that the Bible should not be taken as the divine word of a perfect creator but rather the words (and rules) of ancient men.
If that were to be realized in modern religions, there would be no religious objection to homosexuality. That would not immediately end the bigotry, but it would take away much of the (bullshit) justification.
Near the end of the day, the argument goes:
The canon of biblical books are set. The meaning of what constitutes biblical sexual sins in the modern era is at best "muddied" and so once having done an exhaustive study of the nature of "this" particular sin in the text, the reader should pray and seek God's guidance in prayer and meditation on the whole of the 'book' (Old & New, New alone) and come to an independent decision he or she is prepared to TESTIFY to before God if and when the day arises. For then,"the position" will have its power of sincerity to carry it forward.
I'm not the one to discuss the future of religious directives or teaching CB.
Though I have read 4 'versions' of the bible [the KJV more than once] and the Koran, none of it has ever meant more than any of the other hundreds of historical fiction novels I have read.
To paraphrase Thomas, I cannot resolve the obvious disconnect in attitude and actions.
IMHO, as long as religious directives and teachings are built on the existing morally undermined foundation of current religious doctrine, the flaws will just perpetuate.
As you, CB and others have pointed out.
I cannot resolve this apparent disconnect in attitude and actions. We are all adults and capable of using our brains to analyze situations from multiple views. As such, it should not be taboo to point out inconsistencies in logic to the people who present them here.
Where is the argument that a religious belief removes accountability for decisions?
Perhaps it's because you see it for the BS that it is.
The only way to justify the attitude is to try and divorce it from the harmful effect of the action resulting from the attitude.
Nice little trick if you can get away with it.
'They' had been getting away for a long time. But 'progressives' have won the hearts and minds of the majority now. The 'moral majority' [which never actually existed] is in its last throes and is fighting tooth and nail. Lucky for them, the real majority has been and will continue to treat them much more respectfully than they ever treated us.
There are some who are just incapable of being challenged or corrected in any way, whether in good faith or not.
Strawman.
To be honest, from what I see, there is no escape clause in the Bible that gives anyone freedom from consequences for personal actions. Also, to be honest, I haven't put forth a great deal of effort into looking for one.
By positing the question, do you mean to point out that there is in fact none? Or is this a continuation of the argument of expediency relating to governmental gridlock?
If the latter, while I agree that things need to get done, there is a part of me that says do them correctly to begin with, but that side is tempered by the realization that nothing is going to be fully right and we sometimes have to "take what we can get" or we get nothing at all....
Sometimes a question is just a question.
In this instance, I believe this to be the case.
Why do you think it is a strawman?
Peace ✌
I am making sure that nobody thinks there is an argument on the table that religious beliefs remove accountability. Because merely holding a belief does not remove one's accountability for their actions. People read all sorts of WRONG notions in words and I am just making sure that this is not on the table.
Per your last point:
Member1 is accountable for his choices. A religious belief does not remove accountablity.
Yeah, sometimes people ask questions to ensure we are all on the same page. That is because it is extremely easy for someone to go off half-cocked with presumption.
The purpose of block quoting part of your comment is to reply to that point.
The question had no relation to what was block quoted.
Highlighting 'removes accountability', in blue, italics and bold, further implies that you made said argument.
You didn't.
Hence, strawman.
Well, I can see how that works, were the only use of block quotes what you noted.
I have been TiG's friend for a very long time and I saw no attempt at building a strawman argument. I wasn't sure of his intent, so I asked him just what he meant.
I have found, through foot eating exercises of my own, that it is better to know for sure than to fly into argumentation mode....
I totally agree. I personally try to determine a person's intent. And if the individual believes I misinterpreted I ask them to then set the record straight.
Presumption so often screws up discourse.
Further, I don't do strawman arguments; I greatly dislike intellectually dishonest tactics. So if someone thinks I am engaging in intellectual dishonesty I would suggest that is the first clue to get clarification before jumping in with both feet.
I disagree that a one-word comment equates to 'flying into argumentative mode'.
OK. I didn't exactly say that you did, but I didn't say that you didn't, either. My apologies for any misunderstanding on my part.
Yet when the individual ignores any and every question, that proves impossible.
If a political policy harms people there is no debating that the political policy bring harm. If member1 supports the harmful policy then it is clear that member1 is part of a process that brings harm.
But intent is not irrelevant. Did member1 intend to cause harm? I assume that member1 was aware of the harm. So member1 knows the policy is harmful to a certain group but supports same anyway.
How is it possible for someone to not wish harm but to act in a way that knowingly results in harm?
It is possible because policies are typically multifaceted; they aggregate both good and bad elements. Supporting a policy for the good will cause unavoidable support for the bad.
So member1's support is for a policy that brings harm. No question. Does that mean that member1 necessarily harbors dislike/hatred/... for those the policy harms or does member1 hold his nose on the bad because (in his mind) the good outweighs the bad?
The answer cannot be to simply not support the policy. If that is the case then any policy that has bad effects would not be supported. Very few policies have this magical quality.
Bottom line, it is quite possible (happens all the time) that an individual supports a policy because of a perceived preponderance of good that causes harm to some individuals (the bad part) even though the person would not choose to harm those individuals.
The intent of the individual to not do harm is irrelevant to the harmed individuals but that intent itself is not irrelevant.
To reify, here are two examples:
Conservative Dilemma:
An individual believes that conservative policies are net best for the nation. Conservative policies are, however, inherently harmful to the LGBTQ community. Said individual has no desire to harm this community (e.g. by trying to deny marriage, etc.) but recognizes that support for conservative policies and politicians does indeed bring harm to this community.
Liberal Dilemma:
An individual believes that liberal policies are net best for the nation. Liberal policies are, however, inherently harmful to the immediate economy. Said individual has no desire to harm the immediate economy (e.g. by imposing restrictions on oil in support of the environment) but recognizes that support for liberal policies and politicians does indeed bring harm to the immediate economy.
In both cases the individual is stuck accepting negative consequences (to them) in order to achieve a preponderance of good consequences (as they see things).
You're asking us to accept that Member 1 is supporting a policy 'for the good'.
How is it 'for the good' to support political policies that would deny others equality under the Constitution?
Allow me an indulgence for the purpose of framing a question. I will invoke in a general sense the Constitution: Eighth Amendment provision against 'cruel and unusual punishment':
Shall Congress be constitutionally permitted to pass into law a denial of homosexual activities in the states and bring harm
and punishment for life to homosexuals based on religious warrant or freedom of religion grounds?
That clearly goes against the 1st amendment of the CotUS.
Can you elaborate?
The government is not allowed to act in support of a religion (or a set of religions or non-religion).
What is the 'standing' used to bring a case in court against same-sex marriage? (Because I presume this will be returning 'soon' to a court.) Who in the community is harmed by same-sex marriage? Or, is the 'harm' due to churches wanting exclusion from participation or recognition of these types of marriages?
Our laws are heavily biased by traditional views and those views were borne heavily of a Christian influence. That is, the vast majority of law makers were Christian (as was / is our population). But the laws themselves are not Christian laws. They are simply narrow.
So, take marriage as an example. Marriage (legally) was only conceived to be one man and one woman. Expanding marriage beyond that requires a change. People with traditional values (largely based on religion) oppose the change because a) they cannot conceive of marriage outside the traditional definition and b) they have moral / religious / emotional / ... objections.
There is no harm resulting from same-sex marriages ... it is simply perceived as such due to bigotry / ignorance / etc.
I have yet to hear a good argument for why same-sex marriage is wrong other than one that is based on bigotry, ignorance, emotion, religion, etc.
I am sure you recognize how an individual's religious views, for example, are inflexible. The same holds true for the cultural values an individual acquired while growing up under the influence of traditional parents and environment. Thus it is no mystery (to me) why there has been so much aversion to same-sex marriage. It is a change ... a departure from these comfortable world views and it takes both intelligence, effort and a willingness to grow to get beyond this. Most people are not wired for that (seems to me).
I can see these factors you mention, but not as being granted a day in court! Now, a for instance. What secular basis (health, science, medicine, biological, anatomical, psychological) will a court essentially use as standing to hear a case involving same-sex marriage? In your opinion, is there such a thing?
Potentially psychological but none of the other factors. The psychological argument would likely be along the lines that a child needs the different nurturing that comes from two different sex parents. This presumes the couple will adopt of course. But, that same argument would wind up going against single parents so on that alone it would likely fall flat.
I do not believe there are any strong legal grounds for denying same-sex marriage.
The religious person may testify in court that homosexuality denies "God's best" for humanity. It should not have standing on the basis of harm.
The non-religious person may argue there are "proven" distinctions (reinforced paths) for the two sexes to travel and these traditional 'pathways' should not be abandoned or expanded for "unknown uncertainties" beyond known gender horizon and side-effects. Can this form a case on the basis of harm to an adult or child?
Can it form a sound case is the question. In the recent past (in our lifetimes) the answer was yes. Currently I think the answer is going to be no more than yes (location dependent). Societal evolution at play.
It depends on what state you live in. The fact is, even after Obergefell in 2015, states like Indiana STILL bans on same sex marriage. So there is an argument that an Indiana resident has standing under its Constitution to bring a case against recognition of same sex marriage in Indiana.
All those who claim a 'sincere religious belief' against same sex marriage insist that it harms them.
Oh course, there is little to NO standard for what constitutes a 'sincere religious belief' so they can just make shit up and as was illustrated in the years of litigation, when one claim is shot down, they move on to another. Rinse and repeat.
Churches are already excluded from participation and recognition.
Yeah, I actually meant religious venues, but it came out: "churches." Thank you for catching that one. (Smile.) Also, when you write Indiana still bans: To be clear, what exactly is the state not allowing same-sex couples?
Now that makes sense. Being here in NW Indiana, there is an issue with 'Franciscan Health' claiming they are allowed to hire and fire based on religious belief. This is a multimillion dollar healthcare network with hundreds of employees and thousands of patients. In all too many areas here, they are the only healthcare facility available.
Just to be clear, I did not say that the state is denying same-sex couples anything.
I said that the ban Indiana passed is still on the books and could be used as a source for standing to bring suit. That is true of many states.
Indiana Code Title 31. Family Law and Juvenile Law § 31-11-1-1
Sec. 1 (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.
Ah! I see now.
SOLUTION: Freedom of religion and civil rights can co-exist together.
Religious expression is a right that should take place within confines (grounds) of sanctuaries and religiously designated and private enterprises. Civil rights are communal rights and involve all agencies of the state which are funded governmentally or through non-profit designations. NOTE: The governmental bodies of the United States should not be anymore obligated or understanding its religious citizens than it is obligated or understanding of its non-religious citizens, it shall make laws equally or equitably with proper treatment or treatments, plural, to each respectively.
I do not see that solving the problem. There is no mention of religion in the scenario. And if religion is the epicenter of an individual's conservative position it still is the individual making the choice to support or not support. Nowhere does the government have any direct tie to religion in the scenario.
The solution to that contrived 'dilemma' is for the conservative who actually doesn't want to harm the LGBT community is to reform conservative policies, so they are NOT inherently harmful to the LGBT community. There are many conservatives that are trying to do just that.
An individual, alone, is not a 'policy-maker.' By his or her one vote, apart from a collective of like-minded voters grouped together, he or she is -in the larger scheme of this discussion-is ('moot') irrelevant?
And, in order to magnify this matter, in our country, he or she needs a religious basis added to the topic to continue, right or wrong?
Hi Friend Dulay! What is 'driving' the harm (problem to be quelled) in the LGBTQ community in these conservatives: religion, health concerns, "deviancy," . . .what?
Of course, but our society is comprised of many individuals and that group is entirely relevant.
I think the religious basis shapes each individual (and does so differently per individual) and the aggregate result is the impact of religion on policy.
Bigotry due to difference and nurtured by ignorance. But of course other answers apply too: religious beliefs ("because God says so") being the most obvious.
Control, power, loss of unwarranted privilege.
There are those that need to have someone's neck to put their boot on or to blame for how bad their life sucks.
We as a nation and society, have ever so slowly, reduced the number of people and groups that the 'PTB' are allowed to do that to without being socially shunned.
Don't get me wrong, they never stopped being who they are, and probably never will. They just had to do it behind closed doors or behind hoods. Then they started to do it online, anonymously. That's why Charlottesville was such a shock to some, being so in your face.
So, what is driving the harm is there are still those that want to use religious beliefs as an excuse to go back to when it was still cool to burn faggots and there are still white supremacists that want to get back to lynching niggers. Unfortunately, there are also political groups and politicians who are all too willing to invite them into their fold in a desperate attempt to get or hold power.
The 'PTB' have always pushed back when shunned for trying to continue their ways but eventually have always been able to turn their animus to the next group down the rung.
They're running out of rungs CB. They believe that society being more inclusive and equal somehow takes something FROM them. If they have no one to look down on, they feel diminished. They can't see that those now standing with them side by side is a GOOD thing.
The concepts of machismo, chauvinism, and masculinity are in play? I have heard and seen what can happen when some animal specifics act violently when faced by their own species performing in 'patterns' they do not relate to or can't recognize. That is, it begins a 'confusion' aspect so real the animal does not know whether to interact, flee, or attack.
This is the case with black people and their opposers. The opposers of black people generally simply does not like those "patterns" they see in us, can't relate - or won't relate, or can't bring themselves to end their confusion about us.
Same 'disturbances' with 'controlling' femininity and wishing to destroy the 'confusion' brought on by transsexualism?
Is that it?
Duty beckons and I must leave. I will not lock this article and I will say that I trust everyone to be civil.
Please do not betray my trust.
Thanks for the article Thomas. I promise to be good. Haha
I'm watching you
Hey, I didn't cross my fingers or nothin...
May I introduce another, perhaps more specific term to the conversation?
I think it's a bit more precise than "malice", for this conversation. A person may act in a maleficent manner (commit harm), without bearing ill will toward those he or she harms. Maleficence speaks more to the result of an action than its intent.
Someone who attempts to abridge the rights of LGBTQ people is engaging in maleficence toward them, but may not be malicious toward them. Regardless of the existence or nonexistence of malice, however, that person is causing or attempting to cause harm.
In medical ethics, we speak of the importance of non-maleficence when attempting to resolve ethical dilemmas. No healthcare provider worth his or her salt has malice toward a patient, but they may engage in maleficence unintentionally - for example, by performing a surgery for cancer that hastens death or reduces quality of life, even if such surgery was done in an attempt to save or prolong life.
Good morning and thanks for dropping by.
So how would the word affect the argument? Or maybe, how do you feel about maleficent actions in the case of my scenario?
The word holds the person causing harm accountable, and recognizes that harm is the result of their actions, while recognizing that the harm may not be intentional, and indeed may be caused by misguided but good intentions.
It's a bit less judgmental of the person causing harm, but acknowledges that the person harmed has a legitimate grievance, caused by the actions of another.
It also acknowledges intent on the part of the person causing the harm. It doesn't allow for "I didn't mean for him to be harmed," because yes, you (generic "you", of course) did knowingly engage in actions you knew could or would cause harm.
So if a person acts with maleficence, how does this resolve itself ethically in the medical community?
It seems that, though more accurate, we are left at the same point as I was in our initial conundrum. That is, should people be made aware of (if they weren't already) and held accountable for maleficent actions?
As a total nerdy sidenote "beneficent", doing an act benefitting someone or thing, is one of my favorite words...
In the medical community, it's not always resolved. Sometimes non-maleficence, beneficence, and patient autonomy compete. Healthcare providers are expected to avoid causing harm to the degree that they're able, allowing for patient autonomy. Most of the time, patient autonomy is given highest consideration, but not always.
I think that could apply to real life - religious conservatives should allow LGBTQ folks autonomy, rather than engaging in maleficence in a misguided attempt to be beneficent.
IOW, MYOB.
That again presumes that Member 1 intent is beneficent [for the good], misguided or otherwise.
While I'm sure some would argue that denying the LGBT community Constitutional rights is somehow for the good of religious conservatives, they can't claim with any level of honesty, that it is for the good of the LGBT community.
Therefore, the first thing religious conservatives should do is admit that their support for political action against the LGBT community is for their own benefit and stop pretending they're trying to be magnanimous.
It then boils down to favoring the religious conservative's demand to codify their theocratic policies and delegating the LGBT community to a subjugated class outside of the protection of the Constitution.
Why is this a conundrum? Of course people are accountable for their actions. Actions that lead to bad consequences need to be owned by the actor.
But the intent of the actor is not insignificant. Two actors making the same general, bundled choice (what we do all the time as voters) are accountable for the consequences of their votes. But the intent of the voters is not insignificant. If one voter is driven by bigotry and another not, even though they might vote for the same politician (for different reasons) I would not blackball / cast-aside the non-bigot who made a judgment call that, against his desires, had some bad consequences.
We all must vote for what we perceive is the greater good. If a politician is predominantly doing what a voter considers 'good' even though that same politician has 'bad' qualities, voting for that politician does not mean the voter supports the 'bad'.
Yes, it does. And Member 1 may well be, because Member 1 may believe he or she is preventing LGBTQ people from engaging in behaviors Member 1 believes are harmful to themselves (the LGBTQ people, not to people like Member 1).
Member 1 may believe he or she is acting in the interests of LGBTQ people, even if against their inclination.
I, of course, disagree that LGBTQ people are harming themselves by being LGBTQ, and believe that Member 1 is presumptuous. But Member 1 may sincerely not be trying to cause harm, but engaging in a misguided attempt to do good.
I feel the word, maleficent, is helpful and is important to the discussion.
Though, I fully believe that once a person is warned about the harm their positions are doing to others, and they insist on carrying forward with their agenda anyway, that they stake out their position—damaging as it will be.
Given we vote for politicians and thus cannot fine-tune votes for specific issues / legislation, how does a person go about accomplishing your suggestion? What if they are heavily concerned about the economy / illegal immigration / traditional capitalism / ... and simply (in their minds) genuinely see the GOP platform to be net better for the nation — even though they support equal rights and other social concerns? What do they do?
I voted for Sandy's point and your point too! Because both comment merit it!
Here is a thought: I would inform (put on notice) a politician that s/he can not be a compulsive liar in my name, and s/he can not restrict legitimate freedoms and liberties from justifiable citizens equipped to receive them same as me!
Okay, but I still do not know the resolution for the dilemma faced by a voter. Ultimately the voter must pick a politician that most closely approximates their priorities and I do not see it likely (or reasonable) to expect a conservative voter to prioritize LGBTQ rights (for example) over economy, border control, etc. — especially since it requires (almost certainly) voting for a different party.
As I see it, people are not fully held to account for their actions.
There is something they could do to try to change the course of this ephemeral "bundled legislation" and make clear to the sponsors of the same that it is not what they want. This would seem to me a moral obligation if there are in fact people who will be materially harmed by said legislation. But to just sit by while one sector of society is harmed because to do differently would (theoretically) hurt your pocketbook, well, it just doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like a copout.
I guess my name should be Pollyanna.
It is all well and good for some to make the claim that they are helpless, that it is all "out of my hands", but I say that claim is false. These people elect the ones who move the levers of government, we all do. We all are supposed to have a say, but instead we cede that duty to the politicians and what do they give us? Platforms that are painted and gussied up to look like the stuff that THEY TOLD US was important instead of the actual logistical and systemic problems that we face, especially in the higher levels of office. The closer it is to affecting positive change, the further it is from Washington.
Whoops. Went off on a little rant there.
I don't have the luxury (as some Americans do) to look away from the issues that support and buoy up my life. That's specific to me, I know. But it is an important distinction.
I will offer up a 'neutral' example.
Today, I stopped by a local store where a young interracial couple (black/white) was strolling the aisles, and in my usual way, I spoke to them—both, making eye contact separately to which the young black male spoke and returned my smile.
This example is relevant, because although this is California in 2022, there are some people who are elderly and 'old-schooled' who do not agree or accept what they term, "race-mixing.' Especially, plenty black women 'cast it down.' (To their discredit.)
Now, do you think if a politician or political candidate who speaks well on other issues and law proposals, but proposes to end interracial marriage, would get these specific young people votes, or the votes of other interracial couples young and old alike? I think they will not vote for the politician/candidate positives over his negative which is powerful in relation to their live journeys.
I do not have the luxury to support 'bundled' candidates when my liberties, freedoms, and way of life is detailed' for suppression, set-back, or cancellations.
(There are not enough universal problems and issues to warrant my continuing to sacrifice and accepting 'a loss' while others lose nothing and actually garner yet more 'wins.')
What, specifically, does one do when one has only a choice of representatives? Note we are talking about voting action, not things like protests, donations, etc. People can and do engage in those activities. So unless we have a referendum (direct democracy) the decision of the voter is which candidate best fits their objectives. That candidate will almost never be perfect. So what does the voter do? Not vote?
Tell me specifically what a voter should do to elect someone who best fits their objectives while avoiding electing a person whose policies will necessarily benefit certain groups and disadvantage others.
As I noted, everyone has their priorities. So I would expect every voter to (if they are actually thinking) evaluate what they think each candidate will do relative to what they want them to do and pick the candidate that has the best fit. As I noted, for single-issue voters this is easier than for voters who have a collection of important factors at different priorities.
All candidates are bundled. When we elect representatives we are trying to predict how the representative will deal with the issues of highest priority to us and making a decision accordingly. But ultimately we voted an individual who will necessarily be voting, on our behalf, on myriad issues. We cannot, in a representative democracy, avoid bundling.
Change the way we vote for politicians.
Write letters to the appropriate officials.
Run for office.
Change the partisan dynamics that is strangling the nation.
Non Violent Protest and Non Violent Civil Disobedience
See above.
Spit it out....
These things that you note are what needs to occur. If you start at the point of choosing between the two candidates that make it through to election day, you are way too late. Anything and everything about that candidate has been chosen.
We, us,the nation, the people, need to make up the issues, not some fucking politicians focus group to see how the latest fluff plays.
I want conservative voters to prioritize people-related liberties and freedoms foremost or at their proper 'ranking' in the scheme of life. It is the diversity of people who make for prosperity and 99.99 percent of everything accomplished in our country. Conservatives try to parse out who the winners and losers are in this country, but it is a fool's errand. For everybody here in this country contributes to the whole of the issues and the solutions for problems alike. That is, before they are 'cut' out, out-casted to the periphery of life through injustices, disorders, and dehumanization.
When some politicians abuse themselves of the 'blended' workforce or diversity we requested this country has (through invitations for the poor and downtrodden to come or forced slavery of the past) - the people fail. LGBTQ rights are as important to the prosperity of homosexuals being stigmatized and "sub-setted" as being able to file "married filing jointly" is important to the prosperity of any heterosexual married couple!
I am asking about the voting; not about all the other things we can do to shape the candidate pool, influence culture, etc.
When faced with a choice of candidates (no matter how they are determined), how does one choose a candidate who will wind up doing what the individual voter considers 'good' and avoiding doing what this voter considers 'bad'? For example, a conservative voter who seeks fiscal responsibility but does not want freedoms to be infringed.
When faced with a vote (which ultimately is what will happen and this is the scenario I have described) what does the individual voter do? The candidates will be who they are, the only option for the voter is to vote for one of them (presumably the best approximation to their ideal) or abstain.
Assume we have done a spectacular job of vetting good quality statesperson candidates. The best ever. Now, with that assumption in mind, when it comes time to vote, do you acknowledge that a voter necessarily will vote for a human being and that the likelihood that the human being is going to always vote as the voter wishes is slim?
Keep in mind that one can engage in all sorts of extracurricular activities to get better candidates. But ultimately there will indeed be candidates and since these are people the voters still face making a decision of which candidate is best as they see 'best'.
In representative democracy, we will ultimately have candidates who will vote on our behalf and they clearly will not do exactly what every voter who voted for them would wish. Even if we get better candidates (e.g. more honest) we are still dealing with a single individual voting in representation of thousands to millions of others. Since voter desires are not homogeneous, it is a guarantee that the representative will please some of the constituents and displease others.
There is no possible way to avoid this in representative democracy. This is my point. Bundling is inherent in representative democracy.
So, per my original scenario, when a conservative voter casts his vote he is likely to help elect a candidate who will wind up voting conservatively and thus it is quite likely that social issues such as equality for all people (LGBTQ has been the example) will not be well supported. One can condemn the conservative voter with the allegation of screwed up priorities but that misses the point. If the voter genuinely holds that conservative issues are more important for the good of the nation and votes for the 'best' candidate based on that voter's priorities, then even if that voter is in favor of equality for all, that issue will likely not be favorably addressed. Expecting the conservative voter to abandon his priorities is, obviously, not an answer.
Of course you do. And conservative voters want you to prioritize the immediate economy. Neither will get their wish.
Do you expect conservatives to simply accept your position? That is just not going to happen. So having conservatives adopt a liberal ideology is not a solution to the problem I have presented.
Then I pick the 'best' hot mess or walk away from the 'table' leaving it to fate to decide.
Incidentally, I see something of the "independent streak" thought process in your comments of recent. It is not fully clear, but it is bleeding through. Interesting.
There is no 'human' in the world "economy." I ought to expect humans to relate to their humanity first, because at the end of each day it is all you, me, these conservatives are. Most certainly, when they lie rotting into the dust of the ground - stripped of the material world surrounding us, things move on in this world, but we perish. And all that is remembered if anything is a name and what for what we stood! By definition being human is not about being liberal, conservative, or independent. Such ideologies are illusions people hoist upon or foist upon others to carry the times. We are better than this. Get back to what truly matters: decency.
As does everyone else. Voters have no choice but to pick an approximation.
So consider this. Do you want to make life difficult for people who are middle to lower income levels? Of course not. But note that these people are the ones most affected by the price of oil (especially the price of gasoline and diesel fuel). The price of oil is a major factor in inflation and thus affects most every good. The price of fuel is directly consumed by individuals thus there is an immediate economic effect when prices rise.
Now consider the environment. Actions (long overdue) taken to reduce carbon emissions necessarily have a direct, immediate effect on the medium to lower income levels in our nation. These are the people with little discretionary income and also people whose budgets are indeed affected by inflation. In contrast, the upper middle class and above can far more easily accommodate the higher prices and thus are not harmed.
Would you change your priority on the importance of reducing carbon emissions because the actions taken will necessarily bring harm to the medium to lower income levels?
Of course not. So you will, like everyone else, make the best decision you can based on the priorities as you see them. Very few people are lucky enough to have their priorities succeed with no downside for others.
Sorry, you lost me with this comment. As to my mind, you are setting up the same scenario twice and approving of the 'contrast'? Can you rephrase it?
What part of my comment is not clear? I will rephrase that part.
My point, by the way, is that those who support actions right now to reduce carbon emissions necessarily support actions that will cause inflation and that inflation hits the middle and lower income levels far greater than the upper income levels.
So doing the right thing for the environment (and essentially life on the planet) will absolutely cause economic hardship immediately for the majority of Americans.
You do not want to make life difficult for these folks so will you forego support for reducing carbon emissions (basically vote GOP)?
Tig, just so you know I have been using a 'backup' computer since Friday last week. Today, this evening after 4 PM PST, I got my Windows 10 computer back after a failure occurred on it. So I am mildly distracted as I am setting it up. This being the first new message on it! (My SSD crashed.) Bear with me through my 'ordeal.'
Does @6.1.25 help?
No. I have found fault with the manner of how the GOP conducts itself. I do wish them to come back down to Earth where decency and truth resides. But, as it stands right now I can not support a party that pampers and collaborates with the biggest liar (and then makes dishonest agents of themselves). For Pete sake, the GOP senate nearly to a man or woman just dissed a highly qualified judge and let her standing in the 'cold' to make some delusional point!
Therefore, we all have to suffer together to do what is right . Sometimes it is required (to make the hard(est) choices in solidarity). I hope I got your point right. If not let me know.
Also, remember in California we pay high gas pricing all 'day' long with a gas tax.
Yes!
Agreed. I know of several individuals who are hard-core GOP voters who bear no ill will towards LGBTQ yet they are ultimately supporting politicians and policies that are detrimental to LGBTQ causes.
Exactly. The person is (indirectly) causing harm and is responsible for their actions. But it is not their intent, specifically, to cause harm - the harm comes because it is bundled with the perceived greater good (that which they support).
And in contrast to the article, this IS significant. Take two voters who are party-line GOP voters. One is a bigot who 'hates fags'. Another is more sophisticated with social issues and has the attitude of leave people alone to be who they are. In terms of the votes and the consequences of the votes, the two are equivalent. But the attitude of these two is very significant. I would like to see a nation populated with people who have no motivation to deny rights to others rather than one populated with bigots.
If you bear no ill will toward the individual, then you have no basis for wishing ill will toward that set of individuals. So I see it.
Friend 2 has a lot of internal reconciliation to attend to.
Here is a more accurate representation:
To be clear, Member 1 has no power to vote for BOTH the economic and border control policies of Trump and also get the social freedom policies of the D party. He, like everyone else, had to make a choice.
The effect of Member 1 voting for Trump is exactly the same as a homophobe bigot voting for Trump. Both are helping Trump and thus his policies (and thus any policy that is detrimental to LGBTQ).
The opinion of the author is that it does not matter that the two have wildly different intent because the effect is the same. The author is certainly correct in terms of the outcome. But is the author correct in claiming that the intent of the voter does not matter in any way?
Personally, I see a significant difference between Trump voters who do not wish to harm select groups but accept that possibility to get the policies (e.g. economy and border control) they seek versus bigots who do seek harm. I would prefer Trump voters all be the former and none of the latter. That is, I see intent as significant.
IMO, it is inappropriate to present your scenario as MORE accurate.
This is Thomas' seed. He presented a scenario and a question.
It's his to represent.
I was slightly more nuanced in my presentation of the situation. From my article above:
But...
I was allowing for your "Bundling" concept (a little). You have been most clear in expressing that you see a difference between a person who votes because they have bigoted reasons and one who does not have intrinsically bigoted reasons, and that people need to make concessions to both morality and political wishes because we have a representative democracy that does not allow us to pick how we would like to vote on individual policies. (I am not placing any judgement here, if it sounds it, I am sorry. I am too lazy and distracted to go back and reword it.
)
My whole thing is that I feel that the person should be reminded of the consequences of their vote if they state that they bear no ill will toward a group and legislation passes that harms this group. It is more of a moral/ethical type of question that I wish to pose. For me, I hold rights to be just about the most important part of living, so I get a bit touchy when I see the rights of people abridged for no good reason whatsoever and people washing their hands of it by claiming, "Sorry. Didn't mean for them to do that, even though that is what they ran on. That is what my religion tells me to do anyway."
I realize that a representative democracy is imperfect, as is every form of government. I don't have to like the course of the nation as it spins down the drain toward a more imperfect union of people who don't bear ill-will, but still cannot be bothered to act when those people are harmed.
Many thanks for recognizing my position Thomas. No need for agreement, just fair acknowledgement.
Certainly. It is quite valid to remind someone of the consequences based on the politicians and party they support.
In the case of member 1 (just to stick with the nuance), member 1 freely states that he believes his God is against homosexual behavior and that he defers to same, but he also is unwilling to infringe upon personal freedoms ... he holds that his God will take whatever actions He deems appropriate and that member1's role is simply to help sinners find their way (through talking, not imposing legislation).
( Of course you know that I do not buy any of the above nonsense, but I do indeed hold that these are genuine beliefs of member 1. )
Agreed. Note, however, that it is next to impossible to provide nuanced situations because people tend to ignore the nuances. In this case we are talking about bigotry and negative actions of same. By providing the nuances of member 1 one finds that certain individuals will be triggered and behave as though the nuances were not stated and that the commentary was categorically a defense of bigotry.
Happens all the time on social forums.
Emphatically. Why should a politician be negotiating away, outright removing, or not allowing to come to be rights and liberties of groups of citizen populations? If a politician (and a political party) is out to do right-do right by all. That is, remove any offending rights and liberties 'line item' from its platform!
It is reasonable to ask why is the offensive rights and liberties policy proposal or stance in the party platform anyway. It would seem to be there to 'serve' to garner the support of bigots and haters who do not want some citizens to have access to the same equality and opportunities as they find in the constitution to enjoy.
Some brighter points in the world:
What if member 1 agrees with universal equal rights for all people (all of God's creatures as he might see things) and does not consider himself superior to anyone else based on gender, race, income, orientation, etc. but holds to the quintessential Christian (Jesus) philosophy of Love thy neighbor ... ?
What if member 1 is one of the conservatives who is against anti-LGBTQ bills and has voted against like referendums?
(Both of the above are supported by hard evidence.)
To me, that suggests that member 1 is NOT a bigot even though he knowingly supports politicians who are inclined to advance bigotry because those are the only politicians (bundling) who will advance his top priorities of economy and border control.
Per your links, maybe there is hope for the GOP.
Remove the offending proposal or proposition and proceed. Surrender the bad and save the good. Stand up for the powerless! Or, okay, elect the "bum" and fight on to cut the 'poison' out of his or her 'system' or legislative or leadership proposals. One man or woman in a crucial job at the right juncture of time and space can do great evil to society.
Consider an example from the more liberal perspective. We are talking about voting for a representative. If one supports climate change legislation, one is helping to bring harm to most Americans whose income levels are greatly affected by gasoline prices and general inflation.
One can avoid the financial hit on most Americans by surrendering the good (by ignoring the climate problem).
What do you do?
The answer in principle of course is that you try to do the most good and minimize the bad consequences. But look at this from the perspective of one who either supports a liberal candidate or a conservative candidate. How does the voter vote? Liberal ⇒ climate responsibility but inflation impact on lower income people. Conservative ⇒ inflation checked but climate ignored.
Which policy proposal is going to cause a greater impact on life as we know it across the spectrum? Climate change or Inflation? The answer is simple: Pass climate change policy and then turn to getting a handle on inflation. (That last may involve "emergency powers" of the presidency.) My answer is not from a political point of view. Climate change is fundamental to environmental scenarios that are, at their least, frightening when they appear sporadically, at the worse matters involving mass casualties!
Incidentally, you can get my principle position from @2.3.43 above. I supported Bill Clinton twice and would have loved to support Al Gore following Bill Clinton, but not after the Monica L., Oval Office, Impeachment fiasco. I bowed out of the democratic process in protest of Clinton, but did not at that time support conservative George W. Bush.
Okay, now try to put yourself in a conservative mindset and ask which has greater impact on life across the spectrum: the economy and border control or the potential for anti-LGBTQ legislation?
Either way, the voter is stuck and ultimately it boils down into priorities. My underlying point in all of this is that we should NOT presume bigotry based on voter preference for party or politician because it is not necessarily so. Reality is complex and and voters have coarse and few choices. We must pick one bundle or another (when voting).
The question before this scenario is this:
Are human in general, and specifically civil rights for LGBTQ folks (women, people of color, etceteras), causing conflicts with the U.S. economy and control of its borders?
Is that correct assessment of the 'concern'?
The conflict is with partisan policies. That is, if one prioritizes social concerns such as equal rights, diffusion of bigotry, etc. over fiscal concerns and national security then one would vote D. Otherwise one likely would vote R or L.
Your question raises my key issue of partisanship. That is, the conflicts exist because of partisanship ruling over statesmanship. We should, if we were truly looking to do the best for all, have political parties that would both work on these issues (albeit with different priorities). It is only because of vulgar, stubborn, insane levels of partisanship that voters must wind up picking short term fiscal over social (for example).
To wit, the issues are not inherently so conflicting ... it is the people and politicians who force the conflict.
Then, the people and the politicians who force the conflict, should be called upon to legally cease and desist manipulation of government power (for evil). Because if we can do not just one thing but the other things, plural, it is rightly the nation's responsibility to do so. For either freedoms and liberties are aspirations looking to become tangible, or the freedoms and liberties are pipe dreams and lip-service dripping from the mouths of lying, deceitful, rhetoric-driven men and women.
The issues are not inherently conflicting, and still, hard-working citizens of this country are being denied their proper freedoms and liberties.The imbalance throws the economy and a myriad of other issues out of proper alignment. That is, until we start treating honest, hard-working citizens the right way-this nation will continue to suffer from a curse of dissatisfied citizens constantly being at the 'gate' demanding to be heard and those forces that arise to profit from creating distractions and chaos. due to it.
How long do the citizens of this country have to wait for justice? When shall the politicians stop with these and other indulgences as citizens suffer neglect because some political party/ities want to restrict, hold-back, suppress, and otherwise maintain some of the population as a second-class status?
I would love to hear ideas on how to get rid of the current crop of politicians and get statespersons in their place. Our government should consist of representatives who work together, with honest intent, to resolve real differences. Cooperation, unfortunately, no longer seems to exist in our government and I personally have no idea what we can do to change that other than the people actively pushing to get decent people to run for office and then supporting them (because they will not be supported by the major parties).
Too many voters vote based on name-recognition, party, what talking heads say, etc. That ignorance is the immediate stumbling block.
It will take a collective effort. That is, just like we band together as people to carve out this as the predominate political reality, we will collectively get 'sick and tired' of being sick and tired of the stalemate-eventually. Then, we will seek a new way out of our muck and mire political warfare.
This country can not advance without its wisdom of the 'majority' and its diversity. The question is this: How long will it take our collective to exhaust its selfish, individualistic tendencies for a more advanced holistic approach to making good work for all of us?
I don't have an answer to the time involved. But, it is what is essential to getting back to being a better, more sustainable government of, for, by the people.
And it is hampering us as a nation from 'breaking forth' into our greater and unimaginable set of destinies, plural, without delays! We, the citizenry, are our own worse enemies.
Many of our national politicians are 'aging out.' Others should be removed for lack of energetic service, 'overly-developed' egos, and finally serving to keep staff-workers in an office career position. That last one is noble, but uh-uh. Not good for the country! Case in point: I love me some Senator D. Feinstein. I saw her 'moving' behind another old soul, Senator Leahy, and I am thinking those two need to let it go already. Give it over to some relative newcomers already. Don't wait to be 'told' to leave, or die out—just step out gracefully!!
As long as you are talking "theoretical effects in the mind of the conservative voter" then I have no beef with this statement. As a statement of fact, I would take issue from a conservative vs. liberal standpoint and note that the economy is a separate beast from politics and that economies, though they respond to political changes, also respond to many other factors both predictable and not.
From another comment:
From the same comment:
The partisanship issue is stifling our nation.
I agree. Economies are complex. But they can be influenced in the negative by political actions. So voting for someone who will 'fix' the economy is a bit silly. However, engaging in actions that cause the price of oil (and products) to rise will (and does) negatively affect the economy.
My biggest issue.
How, exactly, does the liberal position affect the economy differently than the conservative position?
From my observation, neither the Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or any other group have any kind of handle on economies. Astrology may be a better economic indicator than most of the stuffed suites that prognosticate like they know what is going to happen.
It seems to me that, no matter the policy (short of "here is everything for FREE!!!") a substantial portion of the efficacy of that policy is related to the amount of buy-in from the public at large.
The liberal position is to take immediate actions to combat climate control. The actions necessarily lead to higher oil (and of course fuel) prices and ultimately inflation. This is one example.
Agreed. We can influence economies a bit to the positive (albeit with a delayed effect) but we can certainly take actions to harm an economy. Sucks, right? We can easily do harm but doing good is largely beyond our reach.
I agree.
Oil? I can see how the price of oil may be related to climate control, but it seems to me that there are other, much more aggressive, issues that affect oil price. Looking at the world oil markets right now, I see the OPEC nations restricting (not increasing) supply and a war being the largest factors that are driving oil (speculation) and resulting in inflation much, much more than any climate initiative would ever do. I see more and more alternate energy sources coming online and the subsequent prices getting less as they scale up, decreasing the impact of oil on the overall price of energy. Transportation still remains the large user of oil, though, and that is the gotcha point.
So, overall, I really do not see liberal policies as driving inflation.
Climate control mitigation measures is one of many factors. This may not turn out to be the dominant factor, but it certainly is a significant factor (and that is what I posited). The measures reduce the supply in the longer term by diverting usage away from the consumption of oil. The intent is to reduce the supply to force a reduction in usage; this will eventually force / coerce a reduction in demand due to the resultant higher prices. Note that there are also more bureaucratic measures posed such as a carbon tax on energy companies. This naturally will also be passed on to the consumers.
In the abstract, now, just consider the infrastructure in place on the planet. We have a modern version of the industrial infrastructure built in the late 19th century. Crude oil is fundamental to this infrastructure. Given mitigation methods necessarily drive a change of paradigm (from oil-based infrastructure to renewable infrastructure) there is no way to avoid an increase in prices in virtually every aspect of our economy. We can manage this change (and the costs) but we cannot magically switch infrastructures without significant cost.
How do you see us effectively dealing with the climate by moving away from oil-based infrastructure to renewable infrastructure without experiencing higher core, essential costs that ultimately are reflected in consumer prices?
Sorry, but would not diverting usage away from oil consumption increase the supply, thereby making it cheaper? This is a real question. Am I missing something?
Who's intent? Is this an actual, stated intent?
I see lots of fingers in the oil pot, and maybe it is just from lack of looking, I see no formally stated policy on this intent.
I do agree that oil is fundamental to the infrastructure, and in many and complex ways. I see expense related to change as being able to be spread out over time, I just don't see the "Sky is Falling" price rise that everyone is predicting. (I find it odd that the majority of people who are predicting this magnificent increase in prices are precisely the ones benefitting from our current (no pun intended) paradigm.)
One way to address this change of paradigm is to truly change the paradigm and move away from centralized distribution (grid tie) to locally generated and stored power. Sure, it has a higher upfront cost than just a transformer and some cables, but the cost can be spread out. Solar energy is not just solar panels and passive. There are existing methods of solar heat/energy production that produce much more than a photovoltaic array that can be used to power homes. The un-green thing about these being the most common method of energy storage is a battery, and battery chemistries are for the most part pretty toxic. But in recent years, there has been much research and advances in batteries.
All of the green technologies (Wind, solar, geothermal) are ripe for investment and would benefit from the same. If we got off our collective asses and pushed, we could all be rich, but instead, we listen to the negative nellies of the outdated power structure who are crying because they won't make as much money off of infrastructural investments as they once would have. Tough shit. Everything ages out eventually. Time to change.
Not as I described it. If we could somehow encourage people to consume less oil then surplus would indeed drive cheaper prices. Do you have thoughts on how that is done?
For example, take most middle to lower income Americans (the people I have been considering during this entire exchange). If we could seduce people into buying electric vehicles (assuming, for the moment, that the net Carbon impact is reduced by doing this) then oil prices will drop and thus fuel prices will drop. But lower $$ at the pump encourages consumers to keep using internal combustion engines because they are inexpensive to operate. For people who are affected by the price at the pump, what do you suppose they will do? They will not go with alternatives. They, the majority of Americans, will continue to use fossil fuels for energy.
How, exactly, will the majority of Americans (less discretionary income) choose a more expensive alternative to fossil fuels?
What is the point of debating this Thomas? If you do not currently believe that Climate-focused concerns seek to raise the costs associated with fossil fuels to make alternative energy more palatable then I am not willing to try to convince you. California's excise taxes on fuel is probably the most obvious example of this in broad daylight.
I doubt that any formally stated policy would be so blatant and honest.
I have not made any reference to anything like this, so I do not know where this is coming from. My point was that liberal policies such as climate mitigation necessarily will cause an increase in consumer prices. And note that I am for climate mitigation in principle and as a major priority.
I separated this part since we are now on a different topic. Ultimately the theme in the above is what I have suggested as well. We need to actively pursue a paradigm shift but to do so with a steady, competent hand. We need to get away from fossil fuels and on to an infrastructure based on clean, renewable energy. I do not share your concerns over centralized distribution. I think the best solution is one where we have centralized distribution for sharing as well as local sources. As with computer technology, all client is not the best paradigm; all server is not the best paradigm either; turns out that the proper balance of server and client (broad sharing and local sharing) is best.
I have argued for years now (over a decade) that the USA can solve its indebtedness problem only by first controlling its fucking spending and then growing the economy. The best way, IMO, to grow the economy is for the USA to be the premier source of energy technology for the planet. Technology AND actual energy. Of course to do this (to encourage businesses to pursue this direction) the government would need to provide leadership and suitable support. We are not there.
Didn't mean to make you swear...
By making the alternatives to fossil fuels less expensive than the fossil fuel versions (not the other way round) through scale of production, competition and tax breaks. (Remember? I said my name was Pollyanna.)
The bozos in Congress ... they deserve more than my swearing at them.
Trouble is, reduced costs are naturally a function of economies of scale which are a function of predictable demand. I do not have a number but I suspect that we could not even come close to triggering the sustained demand necessary to naturally reduce costs by economies of scale by propping up the market with subsidies.
We are talking about a whole lot of demand in the next 25 years. I don't see how you could want more.
My recommendation has been to keep a sustained push on the move to renewable energy in a practical, managed fashion over time.
Great article! Some much needed discussions are taking place. I love it!
