The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to ComeBeware! The DSA will attempt to repeat Mamdani’s success in other Democrat strongholds.

[Hans Blaster]

Not sure what you mean. Is this the Vatican or the Roman Empire.

Neither, I was speaking of *Italy*. The Roman Empire has been gone for a millennium and "the Vatican" isn't a real country.

They certainly had a good run on that one and usurped a lot of immigrants lol

Or was it the perils of post WW2 and how they sided with the Nazis.

If you don't get a joke about the problems caused by Italian immigrants to Italy in a thread full of anti-immigrant rhetoric, then I can't help you. (But that is our undying theme, isn't it.)

 

[stevevw]

For me, it's not a they, it's a me. Why are you afraid of me?

I thought you said "Fortunately, the secular majority will keep things safe for everyone". Thats not a 'me' but a 'they'. The secular majority is a group and majority over the rest.

I am saying whatever it is that the secular majority determines as good and will keep us safe is not a good proposition. I would not trust them whatever the idea or basis is for how they decide to order society and reality for that matter.

In this case, the majority of secularists wants a continuation of the status quo under the First Amendment. It's Landon Caeli who wants to rewrite the Constitution.

Hum I don't know your consitution well enough to say so. But certainly some principles included are worth keeping. Like the freedoms we enjoy such as the right to religious belief. I would not like to live in a nation that denied a persons belief. Or speech or political view.

But at the same time there is something not right with the current philosophical foundation. This by the fact that it is producing a divided society. Is this the natural progression of such ideas that a nation can be both united in belief and at the same time invite contrary beliefs and ideologies. That only forsters division and hate.

A nation divided falls. If it falls is it the fault of the very foundation it sat upon. Or a lack of upholding such truths. Maybe a bit of both. Many say democracy does not work anymore.

 

[BCP1928]

I thought you said "Fortunately, the secular majority will keep things safe for everyone". Thats not a 'me' but a 'they'. The secular majority is a group and majority over the rest.

I am saying whatever it is that the secular majority determines as good and will keep us safe is not a good proposition. I would not trust them whatever the idea or basis is for how they decide to order society and reality for that matter.

No, the "secular majority" are those who realize that banning one religion at the behest of another is in no one's best interest.

Hum I don't know your consitution well enough to say so. But certainly some principles included are worth keeping. Like the freedoms we enjoy such as the right to religious belief. I would not like to live in a nation that denied a persons belief. Or speech or political view.

Yet here you are, arguing on the side of an individual who wants the Constitution re-written to do that to Islam.

But at the same time there is something not right with the current philosophical foundation. This by the fact that it is producing a divided society. Is this the natural progression of such ideas that a nation can be both united in belief and at the same time invite contrary beliefs and ideologies. That only forsters division and hate.

A nation divided falls. If it falls is it the fault of the very foundation it sat upon. Or a lack of upholding such truths. Maybe a bit of both. Many say democracy does not work anymore.

The nation is presently divided because one particular branch of the Christian religion no longer has the cultural power it once had got it's nose out of joint over no longer being first among equals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am saying whatever it is that the secular majority determines as good and will keep us safe is not a good proposition. I would not trust them whatever the idea or basis is for how they decide to order society and reality for that matter.

It seems likely you'll experience it long before we in the US do.

Religion in Australia (2021 census)

1. Christianity (43.9%)
2. No religion (38.9%)

Let us know how it turns out.

 

[stevevw]

It seems likely you'll experience it long before we in the US do.

Religion in Australia (2021 census)

1. Christianity (43.9%)
2. No religion (38.9%)

Let us know how it turns out.

Yeah I don't go by religious polls. I think theres more 'No religions in all western nations compared to past generations. Even many Christians profess a politicised religion that is not Christianity in the sense that Christians are not of this world but of Gods Kingdom.

Which is the exact opposite of what is happening in identity politics. You can be a religious groups as a political identity and be just as much a part of the world as no religions.

What your not considering is that Australia does not have the religious fundementalism as the US. Though we may have less Christians we also have less radicals. We are always around 2 to 5 years behind the US. Though its catching up pretty quickly.

I am talking more about the powers that govern and set the agenda and order for society based on their ideology. Progressive/Socialism as opposed to Conservative/Christian.

Despite the numbers it is the party which gets in that dictates the social order. The US is suppose to be a strong Christian nation. Yet they are coming out of a period that ushered in ant Christian social policies.

So Christians cannot do anything of they are not supported by a government that is open to their beliefs. Otherwise they like the pagan Romans will be subject to whatever ideology the holder of power determines.

I think primarily for all western nations we are seeing a divide and conflict between Left and Right. Conservatives and by extention Christians verses Progressives, liberals and socialists. A strange mix.

The divide will increase and it will be Christians and of course Jews as always who it will come down to as the enermy of the State power and the worldly ideology it will push.

 

[PloverWing]

Despite the numbers it is the party which gets in that dictates the social order. The US is suppose to be a strong Christian nation. Yet they are coming out of a period that ushered in ant Christian social policies.

So Christians cannot do anything of they are not supported by a government that is open to their beliefs. Otherwise they like the pagan Romans will be subject to whatever ideology the holder of power determines.

We have entered a time in which the US government is opposing some important Christian values. I agree that it's easier to carry out large social-support programs when we have the cooperation of the government -- they have financial resources, large-scale record-keeping, distribution mechanisms, all of which provide good ways to get resources to those in need.

But I disagree that Christians cannot do anything without government support. If the government stops caring for those in need, then we must care for those in need without the government's help. If the government seeks to persecute groups of people, we as Christians can still make a different choice. It's useful to have government support, but we don't have to wait for the government before we do what's right.

 

[BCP1928]

Despite the numbers it is the party which gets in that dictates the social order. The US is suppose to be a strong Christian nation. Yet they are coming out of a period that ushered in ant Christian social policies.

Allowing the non-Christian citizens of a secular state to do things that Christians regard as sin is not an anti-Christian social policy.

So Christians cannot do anything of they are not supported by a government that is open to their beliefs. Otherwise they like the pagan Romans will be subject to whatever ideology the holder of power determines.

I think primarily for all western nations we are seeing a divide and conflict between Left and Right. Conservatives and by extention Christians verses Progressives, liberals and socialists. A strange mix.

It seems strange because you are mixing social policy, economic policy and foreign policy and trying to put them all on the same left-right axis. Once upon a time in this country, conservative evangelical Christians supported left-wing labor and economic policies, with candidates like William Jennings Bryan.

The divide will increase and it will be Christians and of course Jews as always who it will come down to as the enermy of the State power and the worldly ideology it will push.

Christians and Jews should be used to that by now. They will get through it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am talking more about the powers that govern and set the agenda and order for society based on their ideology. Progressive/Socialism as opposed to Conservative/Christian.

Despite the numbers it is the party which gets in that dictates the social order. T

Political ideologies or parties don't set the "agenda for society" or "social order", no one really does. It evolves naturally. It is a free society (yours and mine.)

he US is suppose to be a strong Christian nation. Yet they are coming out of a period that ushered in ant Christian social policies.

The US is very much not supposed to be a "strong Christian nation". It isn't a Christian nation and never has been. The US is a secular nation and religion is not in charge of the government.

So Christians cannot do anything of they are not supported by a government that is open to their beliefs.

The US government doesn't regulate beliefs.

Otherwise they like the pagan Romans will be subject to whatever ideology the holder of power determines.

I think primarily for all western nations we are seeing a divide and conflict between Left and Right. Conservatives and by extention Christians verses Progressives, liberals and socialists. A strange mix.

How is that strange? Most countries have oscillated between "left and right" since those positions became coherent. Many countries do that without even being democratic.

The divide will increase and it will be Christians and of course Jews as always who it will come down to as the enermy of the State power and the worldly ideology it will push.

This has no resemblance to reality. It is (certain) Christians that aim and profess to use state power on their enemies (or at least all of us apostates, blaspheremers, non-believers, etc.).

 

[stevevw]

Political ideologies or parties don't set the "agenda for society" or "social order", no one really does. It evolves naturally. It is a free society (yours and mine.)

I don't think there is such a society. Who sets the agenda then.

The US is very much not supposed to be a "strong Christian nation". It isn't a Christian nation and never has been. The US is a secular nation and religion is not in charge of the government.

Yes this is the idea. This is what the US was built on. I disagree that the US and other western nations were not built on Christianity and the bible.

The idea that a nation or society of people can be neutral and not rely on a religious or ideological belief about how society should be ordered is unreal. We are by nature moral beings. If its not God and the bible its going to be pagan, or some other worldly ideology and metaphysical belief about how society and the world should be ordered. Which will be imposed on all whether they agree or not.

We just seen the US come out of an era of radical and progressive ideology that was being enforced at the insitutional leveland justified as for the good of society. This was every bit a religious type belief and morality imposed by the State.

The fact is humans cannot detach themselves from morality and belief. As morality lies in the transcedent and of course deeply intertwined with religion. It is a subjective metaphysical belief. That is why opposing sides see the opposing beliefs and ideas as a threat to society and reality itself.

It was radical feminism that made the political the personal and in doing so made it the spiritial. Now we are either for God or opposed to Him. For Christ and against Him. You cannot have a society with conflicting beliefs exist in peace. Its impossible. Your more or less telling people to not live their beliefs whenever they conflict.

The US government doesn't regulate beliefs.

Of course they do. The fact is as mentioned there is a ideological and moral basis for the policies and laws made. On one side abortion is promoted. On the other its murder. You cannot seperate politics from morality and belief. The academic ideologues made sure of than when they personalised politics.

How is that strange?

Sorry I mean 'progressive, liberal and socialism (cultural Marxism) is a strange mix. On the one hand there is a liberation and freedom. But on the other restrictions and uniformity of socilaims.

Most countries have oscillated between "left and right" since those positions became coherent. Many countries do that without even being democratic.

I think it use to be more within the center Left and Right. So when each party got in power it was not so different. In fact most people sort of accepted that over a generation each party would have a fair share and it balanced out. The conservatives paid down debt and got business going and the Left Dems or Labor supported the welfare and workers rioghts.

But now that the political has become the personal thanks to academic ideologues and identity politics the Left and the Right have polarised. Voters are divided and polarised. Its tribal and us against them. The opposing side is a threat and the language used is extreme like democracy is at threat, threats of Naxis and Fascism, calls for resistence ect.

Its a culture war and way different to a couple of generations ago. Even 10 to 15 years ago. Thus resulting uprising, assassinations and attempts, antisemetism, radical gands rising, threatening and terror related language bcoming more common and a growing acceptence to use violence to stop the opposition.

This has no resemblance to reality. It is (certain) Christians that aim and profess to use state power on their enemies (or at least all of us apostates, blaspheremers, non-believers, etc.).

Its interesting that instead of acknowledge that there is a growing threat to Christians you turn it around and blame Christians. Thats the exact bias and descrimination that is happening.

Its also ironic that the very ideology that is doing this to Christians claims that they stand up for all minorities who are descriminated against. But it seems everyone and including Muslims over Christians in the more radical fringes except Christians.

People choose not to listen or believe Christians when they tell people what is happening and its dismissed.

 

[stevevw]

Allowing the non-Christian citizens of a secular state to do things that Christians regard as sin is not an anti-Christian social policy.

Why. If each side is so polarised now and sees the other sides policies as a threat to democracy and even peoples existence. Then why would not each side see the other as ideas and beliefs as bad and wrong and damaging for society.

To the Christians progressive policies are sin and seen as destroying the fabric of society. To the progressives Christian based policies are seen as hateful and bigotry and a threat to identity politics and ideology. Why pretend this is not the case.

I think you allude to the real issue when you say as a society we should be willing to allow contradictory and potentially harmful ideas because we are suppose to allow all beliefs no matter what. JUst because Christians think X behaviour is sin doesn't make it sin. Because we cannot allow one single moral truth.

If the different groups are fighting over what is best and truth for society. Then what if one side is right. What if the sin that Christians percieve is actually wrong and is destructive for society. Or if the religious belief is crazy and bad for society.

It seems a silly way to determine what is allowed and how we should order society based on subjective beliefs that could be potentially destructive because we are suppose to allow all beliefs and ideas no matter what. Based on an ideological belief in itself that there is no sin or moral truth or God and moral lawgiver.

But hey thats the way the world is and Christians must accept and adjust for this. But I think in the end it will be the world who will not accept the Christians and Jews because its a spiritual battle between good and evil.

It seems strange because you are mixing social policy, economic policy and foreign policy and trying to put them all on the same left-right axis. Once upon a time in this country, conservative evangelical Christians supported left-wing labor and economic policies, with candidates like William Jennings Bryan.

When was that. I don't think it was very significant. Because primarily Dems/Labor is anti big business and corps. They are traditionalls higher taxers of the rich to support the large social programs they support. If it happened it was either on the fringe or not significant.

Otherwise who were the pro big business. A party cannot be both taxing big bisuness and pro big business at the same time. Where does the monet come from. What about the unions. They cannot be both on the big corps and the workers union at the same time.

Christians and Jews should be used to that by now. They will get through it.

Of course with Christ they can get through anything. But it won't be nice and it will be a worry for the rest.

 

[BCP1928]

Why. If each side is so polarised now and sees the other sides policies as a threat to democracy and even peoples existence. Then why would not each side see the other as ideas and beliefs as bad and wrong and damaging for society.

Only one side sees things that way. The other side just doesn't want to be told what to do by a religious faction of dubious moral credibility.

To the Christians progressive policies are sin and seen as destroying the fabric of society. To the progressives Christian based policies are seen as hateful and bigotry and a threat to identity politics and ideology. Why pretend this is not the case.

Because what is really at risk is not society but merely anglo-Protestant culture.

I think you allude to the real issue when you say as a society we should be willing to allow contradictory and potentially harmful ideas because we are suppose to allow all beliefs no matter what. JUst because Christians think X behaviour is sin doesn't make it sin. Because we cannot allow one single moral truth.

If the different groups are fighting over what is best and truth for society. Then what if one side is right. What if the sin that Christians percieve is actually wrong and is destructive for society. Or if the religious belief is crazy and bad for society.

It seems a silly way to determine what is allowed and how we should order society based on subjective beliefs that could be potentially destructive because we are suppose to allow all beliefs and ideas no matter what. Based on an ideological belief in itself that there is no sin or moral truth or God and moral lawgiver.

That why we don't do it that way and why the laws of a secular state are not considered, in themselves, to be moral precepts.

But hey thats the way the world is and Christians must accept and adjust for this. But I think in the end it will be the world who will not accept the Christians and Jews because its a spiritual battle between good and evil.

You need to think that over. ".Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." --Abraham Lincoln.

When was that. I don't think it was very significant. Because primarily Dems/Labor is anti big business and corps. They are traditionalls higher taxers of the rich to support the large social programs they support. If it happened it was either on the fringe or not significant.

Otherwise who were the pro big business. A party cannot be both taxing big bisuness and pro big business at the same time. Where does the monet come from. What about the unions. They cannot be both on the big corps and the workers union at the same time.

Of course with Christ they can get through anything. But it won't be nice and it will be a worry for the rest.

I see you have completely embraced the heresy of Manichaeism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The idea that a nation or society of people can be neutral and not rely on a religious or ideological belief about how society should be ordered is unreal. We are by nature moral beings. If its not God and the bible its going to be pagan, or some other worldly ideology and metaphysical belief about how society and the world should be ordered.

Yes, it was called The Enlightenment. That's what provided the philosophical underpinning of the United States Constitution.

In the context of the thread, one of the key ideas is Toleration.

Many American Enlightenment thinkers, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, read and agreed with John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration. In it, Locke argued that government is ill-equipped to judge the rightness or wrongness of opposing religious doctrines, faith could not be coerced and if attempted the result would be greater religious and political discord. So, civil government ought to protect liberty of conscience, the right to worship as one chooses (or not to worship at all) and refrain from establishing an official state-sanctioned church. For America’s founders, the fledgling nation was to be a land where persons of every faith or no faith could settle and thrive peacefully and cooperatively without fear of persecution by government or fellow citizens. Ben Franklin’s belief that religion was an aid to cultivating virtue led him to donate funds to every church in Philadelphia. Defending freedom of conscience, James Madison would write that “[c]onscience is the most sacred of all property.” In 1777, Thomas Jefferson drafted a religious liberty bill for Virginia to disestablish the government-sponsored Anglican Church—often referred to as “the precursor to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment”—which eventually passed with James Madison’s help.

Which will be imposed on all whether they agree or not.

What the Founders did was literally to put limits on what the government can and can't do, precisely to avoid imposing religious or metaphysical beliefs. "Congress shall make no law..." No religious tests for office.

It was radical feminism that made the political the personal and in doing so made it the spiritial.

Blaming Eve (or her descendants) all over again?

 

[PloverWing]

To the Christians progressive policies are sin and seen as destroying the fabric of society.

Some politically conservative Christians see progressive policies in this way. But many Christians are socially and/or politically progressive.

Just making sure we're not equating "Christian" and "socially/politically conservative" in this discussion.

 

[BCP1928]

Some politically conservative Christians see progressive policies in this way. But many Christians are socially and/or politically progressive.

Just making sure we're not equating "Christian" and "socially/politically conservative" in this discussion.

I think that's Steve's (and MAGA's) working definition.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think there is such a society. Who sets the agenda then.

No one. It evolves naturally.

Yes this is the idea. This is what the US was built on. I disagree that the US and other western nations were not built on Christianity and the bible.

The US absolutely was not. I can't say about the other nations, and frankly I don't care.

The idea that a nation or society of people can be neutral and not rely on a religious or ideological belief about how society should be ordered is unreal. We are by nature moral beings. If its not God and the bible its going to be pagan, or some other worldly ideology and metaphysical belief about how society and the world should be ordered. Which will be imposed on all whether they agree or not.

We just seen the US come out of an era of radical and progressive ideology that was being enforced at the insitutional leveland justified as for the good of society. This was every bit a religious type belief and morality imposed by the State.

The fact is humans cannot detach themselves from morality and belief. As morality lies in the transcedent and of course deeply intertwined with religion. It is a subjective metaphysical belief. That is why opposing sides see the opposing beliefs and ideas as a threat to society and reality itself.

It was radical feminism that made the political the personal and in doing so made it the spiritial. Now we are either for God or opposed to Him. For Christ and against Him. You cannot have a society with conflicting beliefs exist in peace. Its impossible. Your more or less telling people to not live their beliefs whenever they conflict.

Simple reality is beyond your comprehension? Perhaps you should stick to Aussie politics. Your understanding of US politics and history is extremely poor.

Of course they do. The fact is as mentioned there is a ideological and moral basis for the policies and laws made. On one side abortion is promoted. On the other its murder. You cannot seperate politics from morality and belief. The academic ideologues made sure of than when they personalised politics.

The US government does not regulate belief and nothing in that paragraph even argues counter to that. To use your example of abortion, changing the legal status one direction or the other does not change the *beliefs* people have about it. There were major changes a couple years ago and my belief didn't change.

Sorry I mean 'progressive, liberal and socialism (cultural Marxism) is a strange mix. On the one hand there is a liberation and freedom. But on the other restrictions and uniformity of socilaims.

No wonder you think it is a strange mix, you are mixing things up in your head.

I think it use to be more within the center Left and Right. So when each party got in power it was not so different. In fact most people sort of accepted that over a generation each party would have a fair share and it balanced out. The conservatives paid down debt and got business going and the Left Dems or Labor supported the welfare and workers rioghts.

But now that the political has become the personal thanks to academic ideologues and identity politics the Left and the Right have polarised. Voters are divided and polarised. Its tribal and us against them. The opposing side is a threat and the language used is extreme like democracy is at threat, threats of Naxis and Fascism, calls for resistence ect.

It is still back and forth between some stream or strength of left and of right.

Its a culture war and way different to a couple of generations ago. Even 10 to 15 years ago. Thus resulting uprising, assassinations and attempts, antisemetism, radical gands rising, threatening and terror related language bcoming more common and a growing acceptence to use violence to stop the opposition.

The Christian Right declared war on American culture a few decades ago.

Its interesting that instead of acknowledge that there is a growing threat to Christians you turn it around and blame Christians. Thats the exact bias and descrimination that is happening.

Its also ironic that the very ideology that is doing this to Christians claims that they stand up for all minorities who are descriminated against. But it seems everyone and including Muslims over Christians in the more radical fringes except Christians.

I'm not interested in your persecution complex projection. This is pathetic Steve, you are projecting your self into persecution in a country where you don't live and there is no such persecution. Here in the US we have entered a month-long season dominated by a Christian religious claim. That isn't anti-Christian persecution. Not in the slightest.

People choose not to listen or believe Christians when they tell people what is happening and its dismissed.

Too bad.