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

[GoldenBoy89]

1. Democracy isn't a good thing and the West (USA) is thankfully a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

That’s a form of democracy.

 

[another_lost_guy]

That’s a form of democracy.

Yeah and national socialism isn't real socialism and the sky is green. As long as we have the Supreme Court we're not a democracy. And that's a beautiful thing

 

[essentialsaltes]

1. Democracy isn't a good thing and the West (USA) is thankfully a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Ugh. Nevertheless, the Romans gave us the Republic.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Ugh. Nevertheless, the Romans gave us the Republic.

Come on I just gave you a full-sized dish and you just wanna take a nibble at one turkey leg? I would even argue the Judges era of Israel has claims over that

 

[BCP1928]

1. Democracy isn't a good thing and the West (USA) is thankfully a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
2. Natural philosophy is influenced by a belief in a universe with order and structure created by God
3. Law codes are influenced by canon law
4. Religious pluralism isn't a good thing but we can skip this one since you will never agree to it as an atheist
5. The church has historically been the largest sponsor of exploration/navigation
6. Nicole Oresme, Johannes Kepler, Bede, etc;
7. It is utter nonsense to believe the best architecture in world history is not a fruit of Christianity
8. I will throw you a bone with aqueducts

What I do believe it that Christian nationalists are traitors to their country and enemies of Christ. That will entirely explain and justify my support of any politician to you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A reply to your reply to part I of my reply to your prior post. We'll see if I can make it to the end without having a Part Ib as I reply to you ever expanding conversation...

I am still disagreeing with this premise that no one controls society.

That is a very weird hill to die on. Influence and control are not the same thing.

Sometimes an individual can have control over how something is ordered ie money. Money buys power.

But also groups have power over the government. Then you have all the academic idologues who managed to take advantage by being in positions of power. Head of Universities pushing an agenda and ideology that it influences policies and laws. Then theres lawfare.

So within this dynamic there are forces that continually jossel and have their 15 minutes of power control. But also individuals and groups that are controlling the outcomes over time. Even with the control of information through legacy media.

How do you know. If these forces band together than they are a strong force controlling society. Often it is the groups like say BLM who wield power along with those influenced by this ie celebs and activists groups echoing the same ideology that then influences policies and laws.

I said nothing about there not being persons or groups with more or less influence, with influence of more or less durability. Other than the error in equating influence with control, you examples are just reiteration of the obvious.

But also social norms to the point where people are ostrised and suffer real consequences. So there are situations where all these forces can work together to actually change or socially engineer society in a certain direction.

No one said that some won't suffer from the influence of others. That doesn't make it "control".

You don't know the history of the 'Long March through the Insitutions'.

No.

It actually relates to the OP and socialism and such ideas permeating today where a lot of young people have been brain washed under Cultural Marxism being pushed in the Insitutions like Universities.

OK, dude. I don't pay attention to the 'freaky parts' of the university.

The children of the Revolutionaries such as the Feminist and Civil Rights movements became the academic ideologues that were in positions of power and influence that engineered the institutions through the Critical theories.

That then became the basis for the institions and agencies that brought all the Woke, PC and Cancel and Deplatforming culture of certain beliefs and opinions. A form of brainwashing and propaganda.

A SILENT REVOLUTION The intellectual origins of cancel culture

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DP110_A-silent-revolution_web.pdf

The Genesis of Critical Theory and Cancel Culture

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2023/6.pdf

Oh, great, "critical theory".

What does that mean. I think if we look at the 20th century we can see a major cultural shift in terms of say religious, traditionalist and conservatism. To more liberal and progressive social norms.

What does it mean? It means that there is far more to US social change in the 20th century than the 1960s (and to some extent later.) The 1950s was not a social continuation of the first half of the 20th century because there was not simple, unchanged, social structure for the first half of the 20th century. For example the 1950s is by far the most religious decade of the entire century, since the lack of religious influence on society seem to be the main complaint.

Maybe some of that is natural in the sense of modernisation. But as the norms are so different and in a short time this shows they were engineered to do exactly what they achieved. Which was a counter culture.

"Engineered" what does it mean that a cultural change was "engineered"? To explain how this works use the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s/70s as your example. Who engineered it? To what purpose (if known)? (I choose this example because you clearly think it triggered a back reaction.)

The conversation shifts a bit, so I'll continue in part Ib...

 

[another_lost_guy]

What I do believe it that Christian nationalists are traitors to their country and enemies of Christ. That will entirely explain and justify my support of any politician to you.

Not an argument. Also, you ignored the last thing I said to you so I don't feel obligated to engage with you until you engage with my last argument

 

[BCP1928]

Yeah and national socialism isn't real socialism and the sky is green. As long as we have the Supreme Court we're not a democracy. And that's a beautiful thing

Supreme courts come and go. It's the Constitution which protects us from people like you.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Supreme courts come and go. It's the Constitution which protects us from people like you.

So are you just going to continue making non-arguments while ignoring everything I've said, or...

Also the Supreme Court does not "come and go". That's kind of the whole point. The justices are set in for life.

 

[stevevw]

The state does not perform "biblical "marriages and never has. i'm not even sure what that means. Christian marriage is a sacrament and must be administered by a clergyman. The state does not administer Christian sacraments.

I mean under the law. The law use to be aligned with biblical marriage. Its there in the vows. Or was lol. Then it was redefined around the year 2000 onwards for most western nations.

This was a redefining of marriage in the public square and social norms. So the State in changing the marriage laws was also legalising as morally good a new definition of marriage. Thus taking a moral position on marriage which conflicts with biblical marriage and the definition the State had previously upheld for generations.

And "we, the people" have to decide which of those practices are going to be allowed and which are not, in accordance with the Constitution..

That doesn't make it morally right. Yes the State laws and policies are usually a reflection of the social norms the community supports. Thats the point. Social norms change with the times and biblical norms don't. Thats why they come into conflict.

But the idea that its "we the people" will decide is unreal. The way its been going lately and being so polarised it seems half the population is devastated they are no longer in power. They feel disenfranchised and like they are living in some alien nation because Trumps in power.

The same when the Dems were in. It seems that half the population is never represented. Let alone all the smaller groups who never get a say. Or get too much say. Its all corruption and power and its no longer about the people.

 

[BCP1928]

I mean under the law. The law use to be aligned with biblical marriage. Its there in the vows. Or was lol. Then it was redefined around the year 2000 onwards for most western nations.

This was a redefining of marriage in the public square and social norms. So the State in changing the marriage laws was also legalising as morally good a new definition of marriage. Thus taking a moral position on marriage which conflicts with biblical marriage and the definition the State had previously upheld for generations.

That doesn't make it morally right. Yes the State laws and policies are usually a reflection of the social norms the community supports. Thats the point. Social norms change with the times and biblical norms don't. Thats why they come into conflict.

But the idea that its "we the people" will decide is unreal. The way its been going lately and being so polarised it seems half the population is devastated they are no longer in power. They feel disenfranchised and like they are living in some alien nation because Trumps in power.

The same when the Dems were in. It seems that half the population is never represented. Let alone all the smaller groups who never get a say. Or get too much say. Its all corruption and power and its no longer about the people.

The state has taken no position at all on the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Same sex marriage is not a new version of civil marriage, merely a reconsideration of the qualifications for it. Civil marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement, allowing couples to form a legal household with respect to the state, nothing more. No physical consummation is required, and the personal relationship between the two parties is not specified, nor are the reasons for entering into the relationship considered. There are countless examples, some known personally to me, where no emotional or intimate sexual relationship was even contemplated by the couple. For example, in the early years of the twentieth century, young women with no other prospects would marry elderly veterans of the American Civil War, to share the pension in return for services as a caregiver. Forming a civil household. provided a convenient legal arrangement. (The last Civil War widow died in 2020, 165 years after the end of the conflict). Considered as a civil contract, there is no reason to deny civil marriage to any two unrelated adult citizens. If the rights of citizenship are extended to homosexuals and homosexuality is not illegal, then it is hard to see why civil marriage should be denied them. It certainly has no effect whatever on me or my marriage.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Part Ib opens with our discussion using abortion as an example...

But this was a well founded assumption by the fact that abortions increased with the breakdown of the insitution of marriage. You do realise that for the church and Christian ethics that any sex outside marriage is a sin, is being promiscuous. That is the extent of how these two positions are conflicting.

I think you are confusing the correlation with causation. Legalization of birth control, abortion, and easier divorce all occurs in the US in a narrow window starting in the mid-1960s. I am well aware The Church (of Rome) consideres sex outside marriage to be a sin and abortion to be murder. I have heard many a homily on the subjects. That was not the point I was addressing. Rather I was addressing the false assumption that women having abortions are unmarried and not in relationships. This is not the case, then or now. Churches push this false impression all the time. Both birth control and abortions are used by married women because they don't want another child or one at the current time. Since these things have occurred, unwanted pregnancy rates are down, abortion rates have fallen and so have divorce rates. (I suspect domestic violence is also down, but I don't have recollections of reading those statistics.)

Why is saying abortion is baby killing as being wrong.

That's not what I said. I mentioned that "baby killing" was the other primary bit of propaganda used by anti-abortion Christians.

Its the exact truth of what abortion represents to biblical Christians.

What are non-biblical Christians? If that's the kind that never read the bible, then we were definitely them.

Now some churches may have used the wrong language and politicised this truth. But its a biblical truth that abortion is murder.

While churches certainly hold the position that "abortion is murder" that concept does not appear in any passage of the Bible. It is constructed by stacking conclusions upon on conclusions through theology. (That's they way theology is done it seems.) Other groups using the same sacred texts do not reach the same conclusions.

I think this is conflating all 'Revolutions' as Chinas communist revolution. Giving new meaning or rather your meaning to the word 'Revolution'.

No. Again, you didn't read carefully. You used two terms straight from Mao's revolution: "The Long March" and the "Cultural Revolution". Both are well known epoch in Chinese communist history and neither was relevant to your discussion from why I could tell, so I was trying to figure out why you kept using CCP terminology.

This all sounds like the very complaints the ideologues of the social revolutions are complaining about.

Probably because I happen to thing the outcomes of the "sexual revolution" were good things.

It doesn't matter.. We were Christian nations and not Muslims or pagans ect.

The US was not a "Christian nation", then or ever, nor was it "Muslim" or "pagan". It was and is *secular*. (your country may be different, but I am not prepared or inclined to discuss your country.)

The bible was part of our fabric

In your house, perhaps, not in mine.

so we knew the bibles position on abortion and when we did toy with laws they were never pro abortion.

Covered above

Even social norms were anti abortion as it was hidden and tabood.

and built in part on false premises

The same with sex outside marriage and homosexuality.

As I noted above, I agree with less influence of moralistic Christianity on sex and marriage.

The changes in the 20th century and especially the later part and into the 21st are profoundly different and this is conflicting with those long held norms.

This is an ongoing conflation of the mores of the 1950s with all periods before then. It just wasn't the case.

The fact we have all these culture wars over this and the same biblical/Christian norms are being used in defense against the progressive norms is evidence for this.

Nah, it's just evidence for an strongly anti-modernist strain of Christianity.

Once again an extreme claim that requires strong evidence for which you have not shown.

An extreme claim! LOL! It is a literal fact that "laws" and "social norms" are not the same things.

The fact that the political has become the personal means that the policies and laws are very much intertwined with social norms.

Not sure what that means.

Man you sure make some far out claims without any reasoning or support. Even the claim "Christianity is just" seems dismissive.

Christianity is so much more than just a variant of Judaism.

I suggest you learn more of the early history of your relgion then. In the early decades what we now call Christianity (sometimes called in these contexts the "Jesus movement" or "The Way") was a sect of Judaism. Importantly for my point in inclusion is that Judaism is from outside western culture.

Are you kidding lol. Surely this is the view of someone who is not a Christian lol.

I am not kidding and do you really need to ask? (I know you know.)

If Christianity came from say Roman philosophy and belief then why did the Romans persecute the Christians and want them to bow to their pagan gods.

It didn't and no one said it did. Certainly not me. What I said is that the things from ancient western culture that *I* find most valuable or important are most certainly not Christian -- democracy, mathematics, the early stages of science, as is the case for the best things of the Enlightenment.

Finally the Romans were quite tolerant of other religions, but the did expect everyone to make the appropriate supplications to the civic and imperial cult. Jews (including Christians) being by then monotheists refused to do so and this cause some trouble.

Why did their norms of sex outside marriage and for men to take lovers and prostitution ect conflict with Christian beliefs.
This is a bias view and one that wants to deny the massive influence God, Christ and the bible has had on humankind. Deminishing it to the same or even less than other beliefs and morals.

Roman philosophers wrote on sexual morality and family without any input from Christianity. This is reality, not some "bias view".

Christian ethics revolutionised Roman philophy at the time with social norms like all are equal slave and free, man and women and marriage and sex within marriage.

"neither slave nor free" was about salvation through the death of Jesus -- anyone could be saved. It didn't change actual social status of anyone, slave, woman, or Jew.

But why was the west the best baby. Unlike Muslim or communist nations. Why was the west the best.

You're going to ask Mr. Morrison for that. Perhaps it was ironic "best"ness given that in the same song he sings of wanting to kill his own mother.

We're going to need a part Ic as I have other things to do...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry I can't help it lol. As you can see I covered a lot of history in those posts. I think its needed for context. What is happening now is the result of that history.

It's not that you include a lot of history as background, it is about how much of that history is wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

1. Democracy isn't a good thing and the West (USA) is thankfully a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

As noted by others, democracies and republics are not mutually excusive. The US is both, Saudi Arabia is neither, the UK is a democracy, but definitely not a republic (unless the local peasants gave Chuck 3 a "French haircut" in the last hour.)

2. Natural philosophy is influenced by a belief in a universe with order and structure created by God

Natural is an old fashioned term for what is now known as science. I can assure you that we do not depend on the philosophical notion of a creator to do our work.

3. Law codes are influenced by canon law

Not to any significant extent, particularly US law.

4. Religious pluralism isn't a good thing but we can skip this one since you will never agree to it as an atheist

I would have disagreed with you when I was a Christian.

5. The church has historically been the largest sponsor of exploration/navigation

If you'd said "arts and culture (and even science)" I could have agreed at least for the Medieval and Renaissance periods, but exploration is funded by kings and princes (and later merchants) looking for power and/or wealth.

6. Nicole Oresme, Johannes Kepler, Bede, etc;

Kepler is reasonably great (don't know the other two), but I don't how his work is a product of Christianity.

7. It is utter nonsense to believe the best architecture in world history is not a fruit of Christianity

I don't really care for church architecture. Too many pointless frills. I like the modern stuff: Art Deco, Prairie style, etc.

8. I will throw you a bone with aqueducts

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

[another_lost_guy]

As noted by others, democracies and republics are not mutually excusive. The US is both, Saudi Arabia is neither, the UK is a democracy, but definitely not a republic (unless the local peasants gave Chuck 3 a "French haircut" in the last hour.)

Well I enjoy the idea of Supreme Court justices being appointed for life without voters' opinions mattering. Should be left up to the king to make decisions like that. And i guess voters technically elect the king...Oh wait no there's an electoral college too So win-win

Natural is an old fashioned term for what is now known as science. I can assure you that we do not depend on the philosophical notion of a creator to do our work.

And we have seen the fruits of that in recent years as happiness levels plummet.

Not to any significant extent, particularly US law.

Actually Catholic canon law paralleled the legal development of much of Europe, which then influenced US law.

I would have disagreed with you when I was a Christian.

Good thing I am me, then

If you'd said "arts and culture (and even science)" I could have agreed at least for the Medieval and Renaissance periods, but exploration is funded by kings and princes (and later merchants) looking for power and/or wealth.

Monarchy is based! Good to see another Divine Right of Kings enjoyer. I must point to the obvious here, Christopher Columbus was funded by Catholic Monarchs

Kepler is reasonably great (don't know the other two), but I don't how his work is a product of Christianity.

He is Christian

I don't really care for church architecture. Too many pointless frills. I like the modern stuff: Art Deco, Prairie style, etc.

Bad.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Arcangl86]

Yeah and national socialism isn't real socialism and the sky is green. As long as we have the Supreme Court we're not a democracy. And that's a beautiful thing

Uh, do you not know what a democracy is? Just because we have one counter democratic (which itself is chosen democratically) doesn't mean we aren't a democracy. And sidenote, naziism is facism, not socialism. You can tell by the fact that they banned and arrested actual socialists.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Uh, do you not know what a democracy is? Just because we have one counter democratic (which itself is chosen democratically) doesn't mean we aren't a democracy. And sidenote, naziism is facism, not socialism. You can tell by the fact that they banned and arrested actual socialists.

Let me guess: democrats were republicans when they owned slaves and the party switched as soon as democrats started doing good stuff too. Lol. The nazis also burned a bunch of pedophile books.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Let me guess: democrats were republicans when they owned slaves and the party switched as soon as democrats started doing good stuff too. Lol.

The Democrats and Republicans started as one single party and I’m pretty sure most all of them were slave owners at that time.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

As long as we have the Supreme Court we're not a democracy.

As long as our constitution begins with the words “We the People”, it can be said that we’re a democracy.

 

[comana]

Let me guess: democrats were republicans when they owned slaves and the party switched as soon as democrats started doing good stuff too. Lol. The nazis also burned a bunch of pedophile books.

Southern Democrats were conservative when they owned slaves and switched parties when progressive Northern Democrats started to support civil rights of the former slaves. Over time the Republican Party became the conservative party and the Democratic Party the progressive party.