Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Violence Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?

[perplexed]

I fear there will be an increase in left wing nutjobs committing physical violence. I don't see any solution to this, Some are hoping that more people will abandon the democrats and join the Trump train and the main stream media will lower the temperature. This would not reduce violence from the left wing nutjobs because the extreme media would just get more feral.

 

[stevevw]

I think over history we have seen acceptence of violence and use of violence from both sides. I think each era has its own reasons but fundementally it is a battle of the established and traditional as opposed to the liberal and progressive.

Fundementally liberal can mean different things and I believe traditionally in the true spirit of Christianity that it is quite liberal in that there is no political identities and offers fullness of life as the bible claims.

But I think liberalism can easily be skewed and become defiance. An objection against authority that is natural and necessary because people disagree ideologically.

I think at least for most of history we were grounded in God and Christs liberty. Though there were still some who abused this with their positions of authority. But still generally this moored us to some greater good that human ideas.

Things changed and we exposed the hypocracy of the church and its abuses. This brought about the beginning of reflection and getting back to the true spirit of Christ.

While at the same time the public square was progressing further away from this fundemental truth and replacing this with human made ideologies. Now we are seeing the end result of progressive ideologies on the extreme end of the political spectrum after being cultivated for decades.

The ultimate idea of liberal and progressive ideas is to defy the status quo. Which is good. But like anything if its not grounded in something beyond humans then by nature humans rebel against God. It will become liberation from God.

 

[rjs330]

Bottom line is that the left right now is more likely to commit and support political violence. That doesn't mean that the right hasn't and that no one on the right will commit it in the future.

I think we've seen a shift in it. Whether it remains so or decreases remains to be seen.

Neither side wants to admit they have violence on their team and both sides want to point the finger at the other and say your side it worse than my side.

Let's just look at what it is currently because that's what really matters. What is going on right now. And what does it bode for the future?

The answer is unknown, but it is concerning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think over history we have seen acceptence of violence and use of violence from both sides.

A classic "both-sides" argument. Hmm.

I think each era has its own reasons but fundementally it is a battle of the established and traditional as opposed to the liberal and progressive.

"traditional" and "progressive/liberal" sure, but the "traditional" is not as "established" in this country as you imply.

Fundementally liberal can mean different things and I believe traditionally in the true spirit of Christianity that it is quite liberal in that there is no political identities and offers fullness of life as the bible claims.

matthew 10:34

But I think liberalism can easily be skewed and become defiance. An objection against authority that is natural and necessary because people disagree ideologically.

The US is largely a liberal order. That does not make liberalism defiance of the authority.

I think at least for most of history we were grounded in God and Christs liberty. Though there were still some who abused this with their positions of authority. But still generally this moored us to some greater good that human ideas.

This might be the most broken thing I've seen you write about history (and that says a lot). The notion of "Christ's liberty" is at most 2000 years old. Civilization was well more than 2000 years old when Jesus lived.

Things changed and we exposed the hypocracy of the church and its abuses.

A continual process...

This brought about the beginning of reflection and getting back to the true spirit of Christ.

No thanks. Luke 14:26

While at the same time the public square was progressing further away from this fundemental truth and replacing this with human made ideologies.

Replacing one human ideology with another. Nothing new here.

Now we are seeing the end result of progressive ideologies on the extreme end of the political spectrum after being cultivated for decades.

Progressives are not at the extreme end of the political spectrum.

The ultimate idea of liberal and progressive ideas is to defy the status quo.

It isn't. You are only assuming that the traditional/conservative position should be the status quo.

Which is good. But like anything if its not grounded in something beyond humans then by nature humans rebel against God. It will become liberation from God.

There are many ways to be liberated from God and liberalism is not necessary for that.

 

[stevevw]

A classic "both-sides" argument. Hmm.

Why are you so cynnical lol. You question everything lol.

"traditional" and "progressive/liberal" sure, but the "traditional" is not as "established" in this country as you imply.

Not now but was.

matthew 10:34

lol This verse is not about physical conflict, but about a spiritual conflict between Christs truth and opposing ideaologies.

So that those who stood with Christ in among a secularised ideology there would be a fundemental difference that triggered hate towards those who stood with Christ. Even family members would conflict between those who believed and those who did not.

The US is largely a liberal order. That does not make liberalism defiance of the authority.

Not automatically. But of the two positions liberalism is more likely to support violence as a means for achieving change. Its more related to liberation and revolution from oppressive regimes.

But the right or traditionalist can also use violence or abuse power because they are more likely to be authoritarians at the extreme.

This might be the most broken thing I've seen you write about history (and that says a lot). The notion of "Christ's liberty" is at most 2000 years old. Civilization was well more than 2000 years old when Jesus lived.

Ok lol. I was speaking of the west and the influence Christianity had. Obviously we can't be influenced by Christs liberation from sin before Christ lol.

A continual process...

Yes of course like every institution. But I was referring to a watershed moment in the church that exposed abuse and from that changes had to be made. People had to become more accountable and safeguards put in place' Like when any organisation is busted. Make amends and take responsibility.

I think this was at least a time of reflection for many and along with the now questioning or hating of Christian beliefs and morals as a result Christians have not only had to take account but also have to reprove their belief under fire. Which means they doubly have to be sure and prove their faith.

No thanks. Luke 14:26

I realise you have no tolerance for Christians and don't think they can ever change lol.

Replacing one human ideology with another. Nothing new here.

Not all ideologies are the same. But the point is as you have just admitted. That its not a neutral game when it comes to belief about morality and how society should be ordered. The no religions who complain about the church are every bit as religious about their ideas and beliefs in the same way.

So if you say the church was bad then imagine an ideology with no God or gods. At least Christianity has Christ who is above all humans. It seems we thought this was the truth up until 5 minutes ago and since then God has been rejected from the public square. We know what happens in the bible when societies and nations reject God.

Progressives are not at the extreme end of the political spectrum.

I said the extreme end of the political spectrum for progressive politics is violent uprisings. Just like the extreme end of the right is violent authoritarianism.

It isn't. You are only assuming that the traditional/conservative position should be the status quo.

No I said nothing about assuming conservative or tradition is the norm. I am saying regardless of politics liberalism is more likely to want to change the status quo or established order.

Marxism for example is part of the spectrum of Liberal ideologies. At its extreme its violent uprising against the percieved oppressors. This is well known. Liberalism is about freedom and individual and group Rights to challenge and change the world order by its very nature.

“Cultural Marxism is Consistent with Liberalism”
Liberalism, following Danilo Castellano, is the affirmation of “negative” freedom, that which has no rule other than itself, meaning without a rule. The political-legal formulations of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, or Hegel demonstrate the reformulations of man’s liberation, culminating in self-determination. Certainly, during the time of the so-called “Strong Modernity,” the ownership of “negative” freedom remained in the hands of the State as an indirect guarantee of individual freedom. After World War II, “Weak Modernity” shifted the focus to individual self-determination, to which politics and law became subordinate. Nonetheless, the Liberal core of all ideologies is undeniable, as they all have liberation as their goal, with the revolutionary subject changing from the individual to the State, passing through the proletariat or the Nation.

“Cultural Marxism” is, therefore, consistent with Liberalism. Gender ideology, transhumanism, the dissolution of the family, etc., as contemporary phenomena, are directly related to individual autonomy, inherited from ideological Liberalism.

“Cultural Marxism is Consistent with Liberalism”: Interview with a Carlist

The duty of the layperson is, pre-eminently, political.

onepeterfive.com

There are many ways to be liberated from God and liberalism is not necessary for that.

It seems to me today the meaning of liberalism is liberalism. It has so many meanings its lost its meaning. But certainly liberation in Christ cannot be violent in achieving its ends. It demands the complete opposite. But liberalism and especially related to individual and group human rights over all else can at its extreme be violent.

Because ultimately the aim is individual and group liberation and if there is a perception that this is being denied then it is designed to achieve that identified liberation no matter what. Especially if its percieved there are bad actors who are standing in the way of that liberation. It becomes personal, a matter of life and freedom to have life.

In the end if the church or Christians or any political ideology who may represent a conflicting belief or barrier that may deny the liberation of the individuals or groups within society. Then they will rise up against such denials. That is why denying say SSM or abortions is now seen as hateful and denying individual and groups rights.

So if politics becomes polarised and radicalised then the extremes rise up and violence becomes a means as they will percieve this as a matter of not just denials of rights but of life itself, of freedom to exist.

Actually not just Christians but sometimes conservative and traditional beliefs overlap. Like marriage. Conservative, Christian and traditionalist will support traditional marriage and family of father, mother and children ect. These beliefs are now outdated and seen as hateful or a denial of more progressive and liberal ideas about these issues.

 

[Fantine]

Simple. The ones who own all the guns.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why are you so cynnical lol. You question everything lol.

I am questioning your claims, not "everything".

Not now but was.

We are talking a generation back at least.

lol This verse is not about physical conflict, but about a spiritual conflict between Christs truth and opposing ideaologies.

Sure it is, sure it is.

So that those who stood with Christ in among a secularised ideology there would be a fundemental difference that triggered hate towards those who stood with Christ. Even family members would conflict between those who believed and those who did not.

Not "secularized". Religion.

Not automatically. But of the two positions liberalism is more likely to support violence as a means for achieving change. Its more related to liberation and revolution from oppressive regimes.

This is your core claim. Don't repeat it. Demonstrate it.

But the right or traditionalist can also use violence or abuse power because they are more likely to be authoritarians at the extreme.

So maybe it isn't just one side then?

Ok lol. I was speaking of the west and the influence Christianity had. Obviously we can't be influenced by Christs liberty before Christ lol.

The thread is about the modern US and US history in general. It is not about the entire history of the West dating back to Athens.

Yes of course like every institution. But I was referring to a watershed moment in the church that exposed abuse and from that changes had to be made. People had to become more accountable and safeguards put in place' Like when any organisation is busted. Make amends and take responsibility.

It was more dodge and avoid responsibility. And there are so many orgs just like that "first one".

I think this was at least a time of reflection for many and along with the now questioning or hating of Christian beliefs and morals as a result Christians have not only had to take account but also have to reprove their belief under fire. Which means they doubly have to be sure and prove their faith.

There was no notable departures from the church at the time, nor from any of the other churches with the same problems.

I realise you have no tolerance for Christians and don't think they can ever change lol.

Oh, Steve, it is not Christians I have no tolerance for. It is bad arguments. Bad analysis. Irrelevant claims. These things you post in spades.

Not all ideologies are the same. But the point is as you have just admitted. That its not a neutral game when it comes to belief about morality and how society should be ordered. The no religions who complain about the church are every bit as religious about their ideas and beliefs in the same way.

Is that last sentence supposed to mean something? I can't make heads nor tails of it.

So if you say the church was bad then imagine an ideology with no God or gods. At least Christianity has Christ who is above all humans. It seems we thought this was the truth up until 5 minutes ago and since then God has been rejected from the public square. We know what happens in the bible when societies and nations reject God.

It really didn't help the church, now did it? (no need to answer, let's get back to the topic)

I said the extreme end of the political spectrum for progressive politics is violent uprisings. Just like the extreme end of the right is violent authoritarianism.

Again, you have mischaracterized "progressives" as the extreme of the left.

No I said nothing about assuming conservative or tradition is the norm. I am saying regardless of politics liberalism is more likely to want to change the status quo or established order.

How does that work when the established order is a liberal one?

Marxism for example is part of the spectrum of Liberal ideologies. At its extreme its violent uprising against the percieved oppressors. This is well known. Liberalism is about being being freedom and individual and group Rights to challenge and change the world order by its very nature.

“Cultural Marxism is Consistent with Liberalism”
Liberalism, following Danilo Castellano, is the affirmation of “negative” freedom, that which has no rule other than itself, meaning without a rule. The political-legal formulations of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, or Hegel demonstrate the reformulations of man’s liberation, culminating in self-determination. Certainly, during the time of the so-called “Strong Modernity,” the ownership of “negative” freedom remained in the hands of the State as an indirect guarantee of individual freedom. After World War II, “Weak Modernity” shifted the focus to individual self-determination, to which politics and law became subordinate. Nonetheless, the Liberal core of all ideologies is undeniable, as they all have liberation as their goal, with the revolutionary subject changing from the individual to the State, passing through the proletariat or the Nation.

“Cultural Marxism” is, therefore, consistent with Liberalism. Gender ideology, transhumanism, the dissolution of the family, etc., as contemporary phenomena, are directly related to individual autonomy, inherited from ideological Liberalism.

“Cultural Marxism is Consistent with Liberalism”: Interview with a Carlist

The duty of the layperson is, pre-eminently, political.

onepeterfive.com

I don't care about your discourse about "marxism". This is ridiculously far from the topic of the thread.

It seems to me today the meaning of liberalism is liberalism. It has so many meanings its lost its meaning. But certainly liberation in Christ cannot be violent in achieving its ends. It demands the complete opposite. But liberalism and especially related to individual and group rights over all else can at its extreme be violent.

Because ultimately the aim is individual and group liberation and if there is a perception that this is being denied then it is designed to achieve that identified liberation no matter what. Especially if its percieved there are bad actors who are standing in the way of that liberation. It becomes personal, a matter of life and freedom to have life.

In the end if the church or Christians who may represent a conflicting idea or barrier that may deny the liberation of individuals or groups within society. Then they will rise up against such denials. That is why denying say SSM or abortions is now seen as hateful and denying individual and groups rights.

So if politics becomes polarised and radicalised then the extremes rise up and violence becomes a means as they will percieve this as a matter of not just denials of rights but of life itself, of freedom to exist.

Actually not just Christians but sometimes conservative and traditional beliefs overlap. Like marriage. More traditionalist will support traditional marriage and family of father, mother and children ect. But anyway. These beliefs are now outdated and seen as hateful or a denial of more progressive and liberal ideas about these issues.

As is all of this. TL;DR.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So how is/was the political breakdown of support for the killings of suspected drug smugglers? Or the sabre-rattling against Panama and Denmark? Or the bombings of the Iranian nuclear enrichment infrastructure?

These violent actions or threats of violence was all done to further political aims.

 

[stevevw]

I am questioning your claims, not "everything".

We are talking a generation back at least.

Yes thats right. A complete change in the public square from acceptance and even promotion of God and Christian values. To anti God, Christ and Christian values to whoevers gods and values manages to be pushed. All fighting in the market place. Even to the point of taking out those who disagree.

Certainly not this neutral public square where all beliefs are welcome that was proclaimed as the best way to order society.

Sure it is, sure it is.

Are you saying the verse tells Christians to take up arms against others.

Not "secularized". Religion.

I am talking about belief. The beliefs behind political ideology for example. Do you think thats based in objective fact and reality. They are all beliefs about how we should order society. Thus making them also moral which is also not something we can objectively determine.

So when God or Christian meaning and morality is taken out do you think that this void just remains empty. That its not replaced with another ideological belief and morality. I gave you a real life example.

At present we have two conflicting beliefs and morals on say marriage. They conflict with each other even to the point where people and even the State will have to make a determination as to which ideology they stand with. The State use to align with Christian beliefs on this. Now they align with secular ideology that allows the conflicting belief to exist at the same time in law and policy.

So naturally they are competing and conflicting in the market place. Even to the point of people being legally charged or cancelled for not holding the right belief on this. Now times that by all issues today like abortion, Trans, DEI, immigration ect. There are competing beliefs that are now fighting in the streets.

This is your core claim. Don't repeat it. Demonstrate it.

Already did in this post.

So maybe it isn't just one side then?

Never said it was one side.

The thread is about the modern US and US history in general. It is not about the entire history of the West dating back to Athens.

This is silly. How can you know what todays US is like if you don't compare it to its history. Its history is what makes it what it is today lol. It did not just pop into existence out of nowhere.

It was more dodge and avoid responsibility. And there are so many orgs just like that "first one".

There you go, your belief is coming out. Your cynnical of Christianity. You only see the negative. All along even when abuses were happening this did not define Christs church. We have ample examples of the very best of humans within the church. But cynnics ignore all that.

There was no notable departures from the church at the time, nor from any of the other churches with the same problems.

You don't know the church. You are outside the church looking in. Yet you seem to know everything about them.

Oh, Steve, it is not Christians I have no tolerance for. It is bad arguments. Bad analysis. Irrelevant claims. These things you post in spades.

No I think its Christians perse lol by the obvious bias you have in only seeing bad and always looking for it. You just proved that above. I don't think you could see the good of Christianity if it was starring you in the face. Which it is but you never notice it or wich to say it. Any reasonable person would see that there are many examples of Christlike Christians who have changed the world.

But then of course you would even argue that this was not God or Christ but human imagination and an evolutionary belief that is designed to make us believe such things for the sake of survival and cooperation. Is that about right.

Is that last sentence supposed to mean something? I can't make heads nor tails of it.

Yes. That even 'No religions' or any human or society of humans will have their own set of beliefs about how society and the world should be ordered. You don't have to be an organised religion to impose an ideological belief as the basis for how society and the world should be ordered metaphysically and morally. Its part of the fabric of being human and reality itself.

It really didn't help the church, now did it? (no need to answer, let's get back to the topic)

No it damaged it a lot. But heres the thing. The church is certainly capable of being like Christ and have done it before and can do it again. But the world cannot because it relies on itself which we know will always decend into evil as by nature humans are fallen creatures.

What I am saying is that we had the churches turn and they messed up and were rejected. Now we have had maybe a few generations of the secular public square and its messing up just as bad if not worse.

So now everyone is tarred and cannot be trusted. Both systems have failed. So now all is left is that the true church of Christ that has always been there to shine. They have been exposed like the secularist so now have to prove themselves. Reprove their faith and get back to the basics and truth. This is all that is left. If we look at the secularist or no religion world and its future. Its all doom and gloom no matter which way you look at it.

Bringing this back to the OP I think this is partly why there is division, conflicts, hate, and violence. Because everyone is divided about how we should order the world because we have lost all moral compass in rejecting God and Christ. Even if it was not Christianity. A society of people and a nation needs a unified, belief, mind and spirit otherwise in the end its always going to be divided and conflicted.

Again, you have mischaracterized "progressives" as the extreme of the left.

Is the Left more progressive ie more likely to support progressive ideas and values from the tradition or conservative ie pro abortion, SSM, LGBTIQ+ ideas and beliefs, green policiies. Generally open to modernising and alternative ideas and beliefs.

In fact would support the equality of all religions and beliefs. This is related to the fact they also support the inclusion and diversity of beliefs. But more importantly Equity. Which is the lifting up of minorities even by bringing down the rest of the system to accommodate this.

This is the aspect of liberty or liberation of the disadvantaged culturally that flows from Marxism to cultural Marxism which forms the basis for uprisings and revolutions against the system.

How does that work when the established order is a liberal one?

Lol its never liberal enough for liberalism. Besides do you really think the system is as liberal or liberated as you think. We have never been more bound up in regulations, policies and laws restricting everything and even our private and social lives now.

This is the problem. That liberalism is self defeating as it has to allow just about everything in the market place. Its a mindfield of do's and don'ts even down to not saying certain words or you could lose your livihood or even be killed now it seems. Give me a break.

The idea of Christ is a trigger today and yet He said He would give true freedom. People reject the very thing that they are looking for because they are told 1,000s of lies about what is freedom when its not. Then they get angry when they realise.

I don't care about your discourse about "marxism". This is ridiculously far from the topic of the thread.

Hum, thats you opinion and that you say you don't care about my opinion only supports what I am saying.

 

[Larniavc]

Simple. The ones who own all the guns.

Americans. One day it will have to acknowledge that as a country Americans are a violent people prone to killing each other as a way of settling disputes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes thats right. A complete change in the public square from acceptance and even promotion of God and Christian values. To anti God, Christ and Christian values to whoevers gods and values manages to be pushed. All fighting in the market place. Even to the point of taking out those who disagree.

This did not happen in my lifetime and probably not in yours either, at least not in the US (the subject of the thread). The only thing that has changed is that there is less *presumption* that everyone else is also Christian. The "public square" did not directly promote Christianity in the 40+ years I can remember clearly. And there is *still* a significant deference to Christians in US society.

Certainly not this neutral public square where all beliefs are welcome that was proclaimed as the best way to order society.

Which is not persecution or suppression of Christians.

Are you saying the verse tells Christians to take up arms against others.

That is how it spread.

I am talking about belief. The beliefs behind political ideology for example. Do you think thats based in objective fact and reality. They are all beliefs about how we should order society. Thus making them also moral which is also not something we can objectively determine.

So when God or Christian meaning and morality is taken out do you think that this void just remains empty. That its not replaced with another ideological belief and morality. I gave you a real life example.

The thread is not about religion, but about politics.

At present we have two conflicting beliefs and morals on say marriage. They conflict with each other even to the point where people and even the State will have to make a determination as to which ideology they stand with. The State use to align with Christian beliefs on this. Now they align with secular ideology that allows the conflicting belief to exist at the same time in law and policy.

The US state is not aligned to religion and has not been.

So naturally they are competing and conflicting in the market place. Even to the point of people being legally charged or cancelled for not holding the right belief on this. Now times that by all issues today like abortion, Trans, DEI, immigration ect. There are competing beliefs that are now fighting in the streets.

You have at best made an argument that politics are leading to violence, but not to the question of imbalance in the directionality of that violence.

Already did in this post.

You haven't.

Never said it was one side.

Then why are you arguing with me as you apparently disagree with the claim that "liberals" are more violent.

This is silly. How can you know what todays US is like if you don't compare it to its history. Its history is what makes it what it is today lol. It did not just pop into existence out of nowhere.

It didn't, but the understanding of American politics and current affairs you write here is very poor and the historical background you write is, if anything, worse. It is best we keep it to the near present.

There you go, your belief is coming out. Your cynnical of Christianity. You only see the negative. All along even when abuses were happening this did not define Christs church. We have ample examples of the very best of humans within the church. But cynnics ignore all that.

You don't know the church. You are outside the church looking in. Yet you seem to know everything about them.

No, Steve, this isn't about my cynical view or distaste for your religion. When the RCC got caught hiding abusers there was condemnation in the public sphere, but there was no mass exodus from the pews. No glance at membership numbers or attendance counts will show the obvious signal of a mass rejection of active Catholics of their church when the truth became known. There was no rush to other churches or disconnection from religion. It is an undetectable effect on the slow and continuing decline of the Church in the US. When modern ex-Christians (particularly those who came of age after or during these revelations) indicate why they left, when there is a non-theological/belief reason, it is the Churches treatment/attitude of LGBT people, which wasn't a significant emphasis before the scandals. Abuse scandals in other church organizations also don't seem have impacted their adherents either, though there is less adherence to a specific sub-branch, so some smaller entities have been wrecked by scandals.

As for the "good people in Christianity" claim. No one is disputing it, nor is it relevant, or evidence of anything.

No I think its Christians perse lol by the obvious bias you have in only seeing bad and always looking for it. You just proved that above. I don't think you could see the good of Christianity if it was starring you in the face. Which it is but you never notice it or wich to say it. Any reasonable person would see that there are many examples of Christlike Christians who have changed the world.

But then of course you would even argue that this was not God or Christ but human imagination and an evolutionary belief that is designed to make us believe such things for the sake of survival and cooperation. Is that about right.

No Steve, it is you and your posts.

Yes. That even 'No religions' or any human or society of humans will have their own set of beliefs about how society and the world should be ordered. You don't have to be an organised religion to impose an ideological belief as the basis for how society and the world should be ordered metaphysically and morally. Its part of the fabric of being human and reality itself.

And water is wet. None of this says anything about violence, just how you'd like organized religion forced on society. I don't. I never have.

No it damaged it a lot. But heres the thing. The church is certainly capable of being like Christ and have done it before and can do it again. But the world cannot because it relies on itself which we know will always decend into evil as by nature humans are fallen creatures.

What I am saying is that we had the churches turn and they messed up and were rejected. Now we have had maybe a few generations of the secular public square and its messing up just as bad if not worse.

So now everyone is tarred and cannot be trusted. Both systems have failed. So now all is left is that the true church of Christ that has always been there to shine. They have been exposed like the secularist so now have to prove themselves. Reprove their faith and get back to the basics and truth. This is all that is left. If we look at the secularist or no religion world and its future. Its all doom and gloom no matter which way you look at it.

Not relevant and covered above to the extent I wish to discuss it.

Bringing this back to the OP I think this is partly why there is division, conflicts, hate, and violence. Because everyone is divided about how we should order the world because we have lost all moral compass in rejecting God and Christ. Even if it was not Christianity. A society of people and a nation needs a unified, belief, mind and spirit otherwise in the end its always going to be divided and conflicted.

Summarized: "American culture is violent because it doesn't have enough Jesus." I can refute this easily by pointing out that American society clearly had *more* civil violence during the 1950s and 60s when Christian religiosity in the US was at a peak (and likely an all time historical peak).

American society HAS NEVER BEEN UNIFIED on religion. Even when it was a few small colonies, those colonies (Plymouth and Virginia) had very different religious views.

Is the Left more progressive ie more likely to support progressive ideas and values from the tradition or conservative ie pro abortion, SSM, LGBTIQ+ ideas and beliefs, green policiies. Generally open to modernising and alternative ideas and beliefs.

None of these things, either for or against them, leads directly to violence. Well, with one notable exception: There is a history of violence against abortion providers going back about 50 years that has included terrorism.

In fact would support the equality of all religions and beliefs. This is related to the fact they also support the inclusion and diversity of beliefs. But more importantly Equity. Which is the lifting up of minorities even by bringing down the rest of the system to accommodate this.

All religions and beliefs are not equal. Some are clearly worse than others (more harmful, less true). What *is* equal is the rights of persons in the US to *hold* those beliefs. That has not changed and I will not let it. Come to my country and worship whatever you want. I don't care. Try to force me or anyone else to join you, and I will oppose you.

This is the aspect of liberty or liberation of the disadvantaged culturally that flows from Marxism to cultural Marxism which forms the basis for uprisings and revolutions against the system.

Lol its never liberal enough for liberalism. Besides do you really think the system is as liberal or liberated as you think. We have never been more bound up in regulations, policies and laws restricting everything and even our private and social lives now.

This is the problem. That liberalism is self defeating as it has to allow just about everything in the market place. Its a mindfield of do's and don'ts even down to not saying certain words or you could lose your livihood or even be killed now it seems.

"be killed"? Seriously, get real dude.

Give me a break.

You have gotten more than you deserve.

The idea of Christ is a trigger today and yet He said He would give true freedom.

I learned about freedom at school and Jesus in CCD. There was no overlap. Jesus wants obedience, which is not "freedom".

People reject the very thing that they are looking for because they are told 1,000s of lies about what is freedom when its not. Then they get angry when they realise.

Hum, thats you opinion and that you say you don't care about my opinion only supports what I am saying.

 

[Fantine]

The group that actively supports the violence of ICE workers--the Alligator Alcatrazes, the zip tying naked children in Chicago, the racial profiling.

 

[Valletta]

The group that actively supports the violence of ICE workers--the Alligator Alcatrazes, the zip tying naked children in Chicago, the racial profiling.

With the human trafficking allowed by the Biden administration the cartels and gang involved gained a much stronger foothold here in the United States. In Chicago ICE was reminded of that fact:

Bounties worth up to $50K on ICE officials came from Mexico: DHS

Bounties placed on ICE in Chicago originated in Mexico, and local gangs are actively trying to carry out the assassinations, according to DHS.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[stevevw]

This did not happen in my lifetime and probably not in yours either, at least not in the US (the subject of the thread). The only thing that has changed is that there is less *presumption* that everyone else is also Christian. The "public square" did not directly promote Christianity in the 40+ years I can remember clearly. And there is *still* a significant deference to Christians in US society.

Then you don't understand how culture develops and changes. Its not a case of once there was the church and Christian norms and values and then next theres secular values and norms.

This is a long process, a gradual chipping away at the old and engineering the new beliefs and values according to a new foundation that is without God. It began with the 60's revolutions like the sexual revolution, womens liberation and feminism.

It moved into the institutions and became the critical theories which formed the basis for the new religion of Wokism and PC and Trans and DEI and all that which goes into making up the replacement values and beliefs that the church and Christianity once occupied. Do you think that a society can function without this belief and religion void being filled and replaced by an alternative one.

Which is not persecution or suppression of Christians.

Do you think the State can be biased against Christian beliefs and morals. Like we have seen with individuals and organisations being descriminated for their Christians beliefs. For example if a Christian organisation only wanted to adopt to traditional couples.

That is how it spread.

I don't care how it spread. People say all sorts of things but its not reality. I am asking you what the verse means. Are you saying that this means Christ supported taking up arms.

The thread is not about religion, but about politics.

Lol, its about commiting violence against opponents because they disagree. This is a moral issue and the most obvious connection to morality is religion. Is ethical systems or a belief about how the world should be ordered. Its fundementally the same as religious belief. Whatever belief system that replaces religion will act in everyway like that religion.

We see in in the ideology pushed which demand people say the right words, behave in a certain way, not associate with certain identities and be morally outraged over certain identities who hold the wrong beliefs. Everybit like a religion lol.

The US state is not aligned to religion and has not been.

Really. Do you remember Woke. It was very much like a religion. Still in in its other personificationsl. Humans are religious creatures and we cannot have a society without some form of religious basis for meaning and morality.

Sure looks like bending the knee to some higher authority that is about morality and how we should order society. We seen cancelations, deplatforming, people losing jobs for saying the wrong words, witch hunts and exposing people for little indiscretions decades ago, Mee Too, BLM, Celebs virtue signalling. Give me a break. Its all religious. Its just disguised as political correctness.

You have at best made an argument that politics are leading to violence, but not to the question of imbalance in the directionality of that violence.

Whats at the foundation of politics. Is this about morals or how we should order society and the world. The political became the personal and spiritual long ago. Thats why now according to many that simply holding the opposing view is enough to disown and wish harm on them. Thats more than politics.

Do you honestly think the rise in antisemetism, hate, division, violence is just politics. It seems more life and death than that. Like the enermy is satan himself and must be stopped otherwise democracy and the world will end lol.

You haven't.

I have lol. If you can just make two word claims so can I. We could go on and on if you want.

Then why are you arguing with me as you apparently disagree with the claim that "liberals" are more violent.

No your arguing with me because I mention that the Left is commiting violence. I said both sides commit violence and its the Left who are rising in the violence right now with their rhetoric and actions. You don't like that I pointed this out.

It didn't, but the understanding of American politics and current affairs you write here is very poor and the historical background you write is, if anything, worse. It is best we keep it to the near present.

This is still fallacious reasoning. It is common practice fullstop that we look at the history leading up to understand the present. Whether thats a culture or individual.

It cannot be wrong because it is actually Americans who are saying this. Expert analysis. But sometimes its also better that an independent outsider can give a more balanced view as they are not caught up in the biases of each side. We analysis the IRA situation and we learn from the history of how it got out of hand. We learn from the history of war. Well hopefully we do. But we constantly delve into the history of how it happened.

No, Steve, this isn't about my cynical view or distaste for your religion.

Hum when you give stereotypical and constant negative views I am not sure. Never a positive and always a negative.

When the RCC got caught hiding abusers there was condemnation in the public sphere, but there was no mass exodus from the pews. No glance at membership numbers or attendance counts will show the obvious signal of a mass rejection of active Catholics of their church when the truth became known. There was no rush to other churches or disconnection from religion. It is an undetectable effect on the slow and continuing decline of the Church in the US. When modern ex-Christians (particularly those who came of age after or during these revelations) indicate why they left, when there is a non-theological/belief reason, it is the Churches treatment/attitude of LGBT people, which wasn't a significant emphasis before the scandals. Abuse scandals in other church organizations also don't seem have impacted their adherents either, though there is less adherence to a specific sub-branch, so some smaller entities have been wrecked by scandals.

Even this explanation shows the lack of understanding and stereotypical ideas about religious belief. People did not rush to change religion because they did not blame the religion. You can't seem to fathom that despite the abuses this did not make the belief itself wrong. It just meant some bad actors breached their own religion.

You can't even contemplate that there were good people or that those who may have allowed this to happen can still be Christians and make amends and do better. You have to have a complete collapse to satify that they have learnt. Which shows the unreality of the way Christians are seen.

As for the "good people in Christianity" claim. No one is disputing it, nor is it relevant, or evidence of anything.

If then the majority of good then why would people abandon a good religion.

No Steve, it is you and your posts.

And water is wet. None of this says anything about violence, just how you'd like organized religion forced on society. I don't. I never have.

No one is saying there needs to be a religious forced society. That was tried years ago and failed. The point is whats come in its place is like a religious forced society while not having a religion. Its hypocracy to then call out bad religions from a place thats doing the same.

Why are people committing violence. Why are they morally outraged that they would want to destroy property or harm and even want the opponents cancelled. Is this not moral outrage. About right and wrong and good and evil. Thats all religion is. We are fundementally religious and moral creatures.

Summarized: "American culture is violent because it doesn't have enough Jesus."

No it does not have a unified belief in morality and how society and the world should be ordered. It is a battle or ideologies about morality and how the world is and should be ordered. That automatically brings religion and Christianity in. Listen to the rhetoric about Christian white nationalism being touted. If it wasn't about religion and Christianity the language sure sounds like it.

I can refute this easily by pointing out that American society clearly had *more* civil violence during the 1950s and 60s when Christian religiosity in the US was at a peak (and likely an all time historical peak).

Yes this was the other side of the coin. The abuses of the church and power. What we see today is the extreme end result of that. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The church abused and it was rejected and pushed to the fringes. Then the new religious ideologies were cultivated to fill the void.

American society HAS NEVER BEEN UNIFIED on religion. Even when it was a few small colonies, those colonies (Plymouth and Virginia) had very different religious views.

Why did they put on their money, "in God we Trust" as a nation. There must have been a national consciousness about God in society and as a nation at one point to even consider this. Its more or less saying we trust God over money. God is the supreme being in Americans belief.

Did not the US like most other western nations only support traditional marriage, anti abortion and homosexuality, frowned on sex before marriage, teen pregnacies ect. Was this not based on Christian values. Now these have changed and are no longer the dominant norms. Did not Christianity spread from the cross into the Roman Empire and into the west to become the dominant belief as opposed to Islam or Hindu ect. Maybe I was living on another planet.

All religions and beliefs are not equal. Some are clearly worse than others (more harmful, less true). What *is* equal is the rights of persons in the US to *hold* those beliefs. That has not changed and I will not let it. Come to my country and worship whatever you want. I don't care. Try to force me or anyone else to join you, and I will oppose you.

Do you think that a society can realistically allow different beliefs and ideologies to co exist with equal rights. Won't one groups rights breach anothers in applying those rights.

For example say both the secular ideology and Christian belief were the basis for a new adoption agency. Each wanted equal status in using their beliefs as the basis for policy in adopting. Christians only adopting to traditional marriages and parents. Secular ideology having LGBTIQ+ friendly policies.

Do you think both would have the same rights to exist in the public square. Would each cause conflicts with each other and lead to division and trouble between them.

"be killed"? Seriously, get real dude.

Being killed is the extreme end. But certainly we have seen a glut of cancellations, lives destroyed witch hunts on those who have said the wrong thing or held the wrong beliefs. Its there is the real life situations.

After a decade or more of this cancellation mentality for just holding opposing beliefs its not a surprise that things are becoming violent. If people believe that someone is denying them their rights and freedoms and they believe the opposing view is a threat and hateful. What do you think the end result would be if people really believed that there was an imminent threat.

I learned about freedom at school and Jesus in CCD. There was no overlap. Jesus wants obedience, which is not "freedom".

Just more evidence of how outdated and stereotypical you views are on this.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why did they put on their money, "in God we Trust" as a nation. There must have been a national consciousness about God in society and as a nation at one point to even consider this. Its more or less saying we trust God over money. God is the supreme being in Americans belief.

What's really weird, Steve, is that the reason is literally in the sentence prior to the one to which this was your reply as I stated in that sentence (paraphrased) "religiosity in the US was at a peak in the 1950s/early-60s". The reason for that was general post-war religiosity and the start of the Cold War. This is when the "X-Nats" pushed hard to plaster their dominance on the whole of the country by smearing "God slogans" all over the place.

The quoted text was placed under my statement about the non-existence of religious uniformity in the US and its predecessors. You response to my sentence about peak religiosity in the 1950s was to write some unrelated statement about church abuses of power.

You ask why I state your understanding of American history is severely flawed. This is a perfect illustration.

 

[Fantine]

I am always suspicious of those who keep invoking Jesus while completely ignoring his commandment:
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31

Not only do those who keep invoking the name of Jesus ignore this commandment--they go one step further, deliberately trying to hurt the poor--demonstrated today in their having a $6 billion USDA contingency fund at their disposal to continue distributing SNAP benefits but preferring to starve people so they can turn around and deny ACA and Medicare to over 25 million who need medical care. Republicans call that ploy--starve the hungry, deny the sick, give tax cuts to billionaires--a "win-win."

 

[Always in His Presence]

Which groups had the most violence in the last decade?

1. Looting and burning cities
2. Violent assaults on Federal law enforcement
3. Murder of Police officers
4. Two Assignation attempts
5. Shooting a Republican Congressman at a ball game

There is your answer.

 

[Fantine]

Which groups had the most violence in the last decade?

1. Looting and burning cities
2. Violent assaults on Federal law enforcement
3. Murder of Police officers
4. Two Assignation attempts
5. Shooting a Republican Congressman at a ball game

There is your answer.

Gee, one insurrection more than covers all those allegations. Policemen killed ane beaten. Federal police...extreme vandalism and destruction of the Capitol. And the treasonous traitors were pardoned.
The murder of Minnesota state officials and the kidnapping plot against Whitmer are more than Scalise's shooting.
The assassination attempts have never been completely verified--and the golf course incident has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Valletta]

When the RCC got caught hiding abusers there was condemnation in the public sphere, but there was no mass exodus from the pews.

It was the same when Judas betrayed Our Lord, there was no mass exodus of followers of Jesus.

 

[Valletta]

Gee, one insurrection more than covers all those allegations. Policemen killed ane beaten. Federal police...extreme vandalism and destruction of the Capitol. And the treasonous traitors were pardoned.
The murder of Minnesota state officials and the kidnapping plot against Whitmer are more than Scalise's shooting.
The assassination attempts have never been completely verified--and the golf course incident has been greatly exaggerated.

The violent rhetoric, hundreds of riots in the United States, real insurrections against federal authorities in blue cities, as well as the assassination threats and attempts on Trump, top officials, supporters of Trump, on ICE, on their spouses and children, the attacks against Jewish students--the downplay narrative isn't working against the truth.