Are the Gloves Coming Off??

[A_Thinker]

The left demanded it for decades. This is not deniable.

The right did it in 2016. This is also not deniable.

So whether or not the left was successful in their argumentation, they still got what they said they wanted, yes?

Even if this were true, ... the Right bears the responsibility for Trump all on their lonesome ... and, of course, they divorced their vote from any sense of national morality, as well ...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Even if this were true, ... the Right bears the responsibility for Trump all on their lonesome ... and, of course, they divorced their vote from any sense of national morality, as well ...

Morality? When push comes to shove, I only have a handful of issues where I won't budge. One of them is the right to life. Trump has probably been the most aggressive pro-life President we've had in years, maybe ever. If abortion gets banned on his watch (which is certainly possible), he can do whatever else he wants and I might not criticize him too much.

"National morality", lol.

 

[RDKirk]

In some ways, I would agree with you. In others, not so much.

America has not been perfect.

But America has, also, ... not been Rome, or Babylon, or Nazi Germany, or Communist China, etc.

Thankfully, America has been on the right side of most moral global issues (Worls wars, foreign aid, provision of medical, food, care, etc.), participating in world-peace efforts, achieving advances in technology which make life better for, likely, billions of people ...

Jesus said, "I have come that you might have life, and have that life more abundantly." It seems that in this particular area of christian endeavor, America has taken a leading role ...

You're only looking at a portion of things the US has done over the years. The same things could be said (were, in fact, said) about the Roman Empire.

America is just the last province of the Roman Empire, and operations in pretty much the same fashion.

 

[RDKirk]

This is an observable reality. The left won that particular discussion, apparently. It's what they said the right should do. The right is now doing it. What's the problem exactly?

Your argument has become pretty goofy.

I think you must realize that, because you're not a goofy person.

Now me, I've never believed that my elected officials have to represent the same ideas and beliefs that I hold. I'm voting for them so as to implement certain policies. The people for whom I vote can belong to whatever religion they want (or no religion at all) as long as they advance the agendas I care about.

Have you ever found a politician whose own agenda was perfectly matched to your own?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your argument has become pretty goofy.

I have a wacky idea. How about you reply with a rebuttal to my point instead of wasting time.

It's just crazy enough to work!

Have you ever found a politician whose own agenda was perfectly matched to your own?

It's pretty rare for anybody, I would assume.

 

[zephcom]

This is extreme ... you are allowing merely a segment of christianity to define the whole ... just because they happen to be in political ascendancy right now.

Actually, I'm making the observation that Christianity is allowing a segment of Christianity to define the whole. I started the thread because it looked to me like...finally...other segments of Christianity were finally beginning to fight back.

The Eleventh Commandment...A Christian should never speak ill of anyone else who claims to be Christian...is finally is being recognized as just a tool of those who would corrupt the teachings of Jesus for physical realm gain.

 

[Ringo84]

This is an observable reality. The left won that particular discussion, apparently. It's what they said the right should do. The right is now doing it. What's the problem exactly?

Firstly, "the left" never said that. It said that the realm of politics and the realm of religion are separate and should remain separate. The government shouldn't involve itself with religion, and religious institutions (e.g: the catholic church) shouldn't involve itself with politics.

Secondly, it would seem to me that the issue is practicing what you preach. For some 38 years now, a certain subset of Christianity has made itself out to be the morality police, railing against whatever "immorality" they see. They were (rightly) fierce about Clinton's many improprieties in the '90s, and they excuse Trump's crotch grabbing and Stormy Daniels scandals. They have railed against cursing and lewd speech in public, even using that as a weak argument against the Parkland teens when they marched for their lives. Those same people are quiet as church mice when it comes to Trump's boorish, sexist, racist speech.

If you don't even live up to your own standards, what good is it to have those standards in the first place?
Ringo

 

[A_Thinker]

Actually, I'm making the observation that Christianity is allowing a segment of Christianity to define the whole. I started the thread because it looked to me like...finally...other segments of Christianity were finally beginning to fight back.

"Christianity is allowing a segment of Christianity to define the whole ... "

"other segments of Christianity were finally beginning to fight back ... "

So ... you're saying that you are gratified that other christian voices, besides the Evengelical Right, ... are beginning to be heard. I would note that the typical christian voices, including the Pope, have been voicing statements at odds to those of the Evangelical Right through this whole episode. Perhaps we jus take those voices for granted.

The Eleventh Commandment ... A Christian should never speak ill of anyone else who claims to be Christian ... is finally is being recognized as just a tool of those who would corrupt the teachings of Jesus for physical realm gain.

All through this saga, I have heard christians criticizing other christian voices for their political stances. I'm not sure how you could have missed it ...

 

[Phil 1:21]

The political left realizes that Trump couldn't have gotten elected without the Christian vote, so now they're trying to shame Christians into not voting for him in 2020. The irony of a political persuasion that applauds at the murder of millions of babies pontificating on the teachings of our Lord and Savior is thick, sad, and lacking any credibility.

 

[RDKirk]

The political left realizes that Trump couldn't have gotten elected without the Christian vote, so now they're trying to shame Christians into not voting for him in 2020. The irony of a political persuasion that applauds at the murder of millions of babies pontificating on the teachings of our Lord and Savior is thick, sad, and lacking any credibility.

The political left never claimed to be Christian, so if they don't act Christian, they're not being hypocritical.

It's not unfair, though, for them to criticize the Religious Right for being hypocritical.

For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," -- Romans 2

 

[zephcom]

Morality? When push comes to shove, I only have a handful of issues where I won't budge. One of them is the right to life. Trump has probably been the most aggressive pro-life President we've had in years, maybe ever. If abortion gets banned on his watch (which is certainly possible), he can do whatever else he wants and I might not criticize him too much.

"National morality", lol.

You are a victim of one of the most insidious pieces of propaganda the far right has ever created. The Republicans have no desire to put an end to abortion. Why should they kill the most productive Golden Goose they have ever created? Their 'base' flocks to the polls every election season like lemmings to the ocean because the leadership on the right blows the dog whistle "I'm against abortion" during the campaigns. It is like Pavlov's Dog.

First of all, being anti-abortion is NOT being pro-life. It is being pro-birth. Once a baby is born in America, everything else that goes on here is designed to kill the baby. Even our corporations are allowed to kill people without consequence. Our economic system is designed to kill people. America has the largest and most deadly military the earth has ever known and its only purpose is to kill people. There is nothing 'Pro-Life' about America.

Second, making abortion illegal will never stop abortion. It will only serve to add to an already overburden prison system that is enriching the elite and sucking the life-blood out of the masses. Abortion is the culmination of a society which abhors women and the children they have out of wedlock. It is a product of a patriarchal system in which men demand to know that the children they support are all the product of his sperm.

Third, there is no practical, useful or Christian reason to ban abortion. Abortion has been practiced as long as humans understood where babies come from and yet the Bible is completely quiet on the issue. The only Bible passage I'm aware of that even hints at abortion is somewhere in the Old Testament where it is written if that one man gets in a fight with another man and the first man causes the second man's wife to lose a pregnancy, the first man owes the second man money to compensate him for the loss of the child. There is nothing there about murdering a life.

This is a created issue designed for no other reason than a 'get out the vote' tool to elect Republican candidates. And they all use that tool during a campaign because no one on the right is willing to admit they are being lied to.

Finally, Trump is NOT going to do anything about abortion. He has unprotected sex with any woman he can. He very likely has used abortion time after time in the past because it is cheaper than child support payments. And if he is anything, it is cheap.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Firstly, "the left" never said that.

Collectively? No. But that attitude is so obvious as to be undeniable, really.

It said that the realm of politics and the realm of religion are separate and should remain separate. The government shouldn't involve itself with religion, and religious institutions (e.g: the catholic church) shouldn't involve itself with politics.

That is a standard at odds with historical practice in America.

Secondly, it would seem to me that the issue is practicing what you preach. For some 38 years now, a certain subset of Christianity has made itself out to be the morality police, railing against whatever "immorality" they see.

And in the end, what did it get them? The country did not become more conservative over the past 38 years, even though it plausibly could have. Their own elected officials threw every fight the voters hoped they would wage. These people never forgot to give tax cuts to billionaires but the issues that the average Republican Party voter cared about was largely ignored.

They were (rightly) fierce about Clinton's many improprieties in the '90s,

All of which were defended (or ignored) by Feminism, Inc. And frankly, it arguably didn't ruin President Clinton's leadership. To the degree polls can be trusted, they strongly indicated that he would have handily won the 2000 election if he'd been eligible to campaign.

they excuse Trump's crotch grabbing

I realize we can't quote Trump verbatim here. But read his quote. He never admitted to doing that himself. Was he ever in a position to have done it? Maybe so. But his quote is hardly an admission of anything.

and Stormy Daniels scandals.

Trump never campaigned as a moral authority. He campaigned as somebody who would be a good CEO for America. Voters knew what they were getting with him. This Daniels thing would've been harmful to George W. Bush or a Mitt Romney or probably even a John McCain. But it isn't harming Trump because most people figured he's got stuff like that in his history.

They have railed against cursing and lewd speech in public,

And they were shouted down.

Those same people are quiet as church mice when it comes to Trump's boorish, sexist, racist speech.

They haven't heard Trump say anything they find especially objectionable. You may find some of his statements off-putting but you (and others) really have no business attempting to dictate what other people should find offensive. If the culture war American went through established nothing else, it's that not everybody finds the same things offensive, yes?

If you don't even live up to your own standards, what good is it to have those standards in the first place?

Different factions of the right support Trump for different reasons. But I look at the GOP voters between the ages of 40-65 who supported the Republican option in most Presidential elections of the past and I see a very shrewd calculus taking place. In their view, the only side that's expected to be Mr. Nice Guy and "play by the rules" is theirs. They believe the left is able to get away with anything and will always have friendly news media and a compliant political establishment to make their excuses for them. They then ask themselves why they're bothering with a shiny, happy people public face when mostly all it gets them is defeat after defeat.

It doesn't matter if any of that is factually true. It doesn't matter that some people might disagree with them very strongly about all those things. The first, last and only thing that matters is that's how they see things they voted accordingly.

I look at the Republican voters under the age of 30... well, maybe that's a subject for another day.

As to the other, from the outside looking in, the message I'm hearing from the left is they're mad that their usual smears don't work anymore. As above, it doesn't matter what the truth actually is. That's how it looks. The left is accustomed to Literally Hitler™, sexist/misogynist and homophobe being enough to ensure a compliant (and, ideally, defeated) Republican candidate.

Those smears don't work on Trump and they haven't been working on his supporters for quite some time now. And whether the left intends to communicate this message or not, the vibe I'm getting is they're throwing tantrums that they can't engage in character assassination as effectively as they used to be able to.

 

[RDKirk]

You are a victim of one of the most insidious pieces of propaganda the far right has ever created. The Republicans have no desire to put an end to abortion. Why should they kill the most productive Golden Goose they have ever created? Their 'base' flocks to the polls every election season like lemmings to the ocean because the leadership on the right blows the dog whistle "I'm against abortion" during the campaigns. It is like Pavlov's Dog.

First of all, being anti-abortion is NOT being pro-life. It is being pro-birth. Once a baby is born in America, everything else that goes on here is designed to kill the baby. Even our corporations are allowed to kill people without consequence. Our economic system is designed to kill people. America has the largest and most deadly military the earth has ever known and its only purpose is to kill people. There is nothing 'Pro-Life' about America.

Second, making abortion illegal will never stop abortion. It will only serve to add to an already overburden prison system that is enriching the elite and sucking the life-blood out of the masses. Abortion is the culmination of a society which abhors women and the children they have out of wedlock. It is a product of a patriarchal system in which men demand to know that the children they support are all the product of his sperm.

Third, there is no practical, useful or Christian reason to ban abortion. Abortion has been practiced as long as humans understood where babies come from and yet the Bible is completely quiet on the issue. The only Bible passage I'm aware of that even hints at abortion is somewhere in the Old Testament where it is written if that one man gets in a fight with another man and the first man causes the second man's wife to lose a pregnancy, the first man owes the second man money to compensate him for the loss of the child. There is nothing there about murdering a life.

This is a created issue designed for no other reason than a 'get out the vote' tool to elect Republican candidates. And they all use that tool during a campaign because no one on the right is willing to admit they are being lied to.

Finally, Trump is NOT going to do anything about abortion. He has unprotected sex with any woman he can. He very likely has used abortion time after time in the past because it is cheaper than child support payments. And if he is anything, it is cheap.

While I don't disagree with your points regarding the politics of abortion, I would point out that Christians were actively preaching against abortion at least as early as the 2nd century, as the writings of Athenegoras point out.

Even at that time, Roman women were having both pharmaceutical and surgical abortions as well as infant abandonment. However, the Christians at the time did show themselves to be "pro-life" in that they often rescued the abandoned babies and raised them as their own children.

This practice brought on accusations of cannibalism, as the the Christians were reputed to have ceremonies involving the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood. Pliny the Younger reported to the emperor of having tortured two female "deacons" of Christianity in order to determine whether this was true (he discovered it was not).

Athenegoras, speaking before the two emperors of his day also defended Christians against this charge, pointing out that it was illogical to call them baby-killers when it was well known that they preached against abortion.

 

[RDKirk]

It's illogical to defend one's actions by saying, "I'm only doing the same thing they do," and then try to claim the moral high ground.

 

[zephcom]

"Christianity is allowing a segment of Christianity to define the whole ... "

"other segments of Christianity were finally beginning to fight back ... "

So ... you're saying that you are gratified that other christian voices, besides the Evengelical Right, ... are beginning to be heard. I would note that the typical christian voices, including the Pope, have been voicing statements at odds to those of the Evangelical Right through this whole episode. Perhaps we jus take those voices for granted.



All through this saga, I have heard christians criticizing other christian voices for their political stances. I'm not sure how you could have missed it ...

This is a level virtually unheard of in the past. Up until this point the far right has been able to hold onto the veneer of moral superiority. Now they have tossed even that away and shown themselves to be nothing more than craven political hacks using Christianity for their political gains.

Before, Christians have been polite about their differences and unwilling to exclude anyone from the 'family'. I sense that changing. I sense a willingness of some to exclude those who use Christianity for political gain from the family.

 

[Ringo84]

(Sigh) So much wrong here....

Collectively? No. But that attitude is so obvious as to be undeniable, really.

If it's so "obvious", why are people disputing that this is the case?

That is a standard at odds with historical practice in America.

No....it's not. The church and the state should be separate entities. They always have been in this country.

And in the end, what did it get them? The country did not become more conservative over the past 38 years, even though it plausibly could have. Their own elected officials threw every fight the voters hoped they would wage. These people never forgot to give tax cuts to billionaires but the issues that the average Republican Party voter cared about was largely ignored.

Yep...exactly. That's the fault of the GOP, not ""the left"".

What it comes down to is that the so-called "religious right" has been played as suckers. The GOP built a political coalition with them in ~1980 to win elections, but it was an alliance of convenience. They never intended to follow through on a lot of what the "religious right" wanted; they just needed suckers to vote for them so that they could get the power they needed.

I realize we can't quote Trump verbatim here. But read his quote. He never admitted to doing that himself. Was he ever in a position to have done it? Maybe so. But his quote is hardly an admission of anything.

Yeah...no. This is outside the issue at hand, but we all know that Trump is a crotch-grabbing misogynist.

Trump never campaigned as a moral authority. He campaigned as somebody who would be a good CEO for America. Voters knew what they were getting with him. This Daniels thing would've been harmful to George W. Bush or a Mitt Romney or probably even a John McCain. But it isn't harming Trump because most people figured he's got stuff like that in his history.

I don't care how he campaigned. The "religious right" claims that moral values are of central importance to their lives, but they willingly vote for someone who violates most or all of the morality they claim is so important to them. That's hypocrisy.

They haven't heard Trump say anything they find especially objectionable. You may find some of his statements off-putting but you (and others) really have no business attempting to dictate what other people should find offensive. If the culture war American went through established nothing else, it's that not everybody finds the same things offensive, yes?

Yeah...that's the point: the willingness to excuse anything and everything in Trump.

I also think it's interesting that after decades of arguing vociferously against the idea of moral relativism, suddenly some Christians employ....moral relativism in order to justify their hypocrisy.

Funny how that works. "Morality for thee but not for me".

Different factions of the right support Trump for different reasons. But I look at the GOP voters between the ages of 40-65 who supported the Republican option in most Presidential elections of the past and I see a very shrewd calculus taking place. In their view, the only side that's expected to be Mr. Nice Guy and "play by the rules" is theirs. They believe the left is able to get away with anything and will always have friendly news media and a compliant political establishment to make their excuses for them. They then ask themselves why they're bothering with a shiny, happy people public face when mostly all it gets them is defeat after defeat.

It doesn't matter if any of that is factually true. It doesn't matter that some people might disagree with them very strongly about all those things. The first, last and only thing that matters is that's how they see things they voted accordingly.

I look at the Republican voters under the age of 30... well, maybe that's a subject for another day.

As to the other, from the outside looking in, the message I'm hearing from the left is they're mad that their usual smears don't work anymore. As above, it doesn't matter what the truth actually is. That's how it looks. The left is accustomed to Literally Hitler™, sexist/misogynist and homophobe being enough to ensure a compliant (and, ideally, defeated) Republican candidate.

Again we see that the morality of many of the Christians who voted for Trump is situational, based on their feelings about what ""the left"" is able to "get away with". The idea that you're enabled to do whatever you want, regardless of even your own morality, because "our opponents do whatever they want", is the very definition of moral bankruptcy. I appreciate the fact that you confirmed that for me.

As for "smears" from "the left" that assassinate character, Trump has no character to assassinate. Nothing about him is vaguely Christian or even reverent. But a lot of the "religious right" has hitched its wagon to him because they've made a very cynical calculation: morality and practicing what you preach is less important than temporal power.
Ringo[/QUOTE]

 

[zephcom]

While I don't disagree with your points regarding the politics of abortion, I would point out that Christians were actively preaching against abortion at least as early as the 2nd century, as the writings of Athenegoras point out.

Even at that time, Roman women were having both pharmaceutical and surgical abortions as well as infant abandonment. However, the Christians at the time did show themselves to be "pro-life" in that they often rescued the abandoned babies and raised them as their own children.

This practice brought on accusations of cannibalism, as the the Christians were reputed to have ceremonies involving the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood. Pliny the Younger reported to the emperor of having tortured two female "deacons" of Christianity in order to determine whether this was true (he discovered it was not).

Athenegoras, speaking before the two emperors of his day also defended Christians against this charge, pointing out that it was illogical to call them baby-killers when it was well known that they preached against abortion.

However, it still remains that the Bible, which was not even in existence in the Second Century, does not address abortion. While anyone can have an aversion to abortion, my point is that if the Bible is the source of Christian theology, there is no Christian theology against abortion.

I'm anti-abortion just on practical grounds. But that does not translate into a theological devotion. I'm in favor of dealing with the social and cultural issues which conspire to make abortion an attractive alternative to giving birth.

I suspect the Second Century Christians were dealing with the issue on the same practical grounds. In today's world, Christians are not flocking to these women offering to raise the children as their own. They just want laws passed to make women criminals for having an abortion.

 

[SolomonVII]

Black evangelicals will say that Clinton is wrong about that.

And that is the difference between black evangelicals and white evangelicals.

Black evangelicals will say, "Clinton is wrong about that," while white evangelicals will not say Trump is wrong about anything.

Which black evangelical leaders are we talking about?
For the most part all evangelical leaders see sexual impropriety as wrong. What I notice about a lot of evangelicls in general is that they are in denial. When it comes to Trump the overt bias of the MSM feeds that tendency, but in the end it does not much surprise me that can deny eons of time about the age of the earth can deny Trumps peccadilloes too.
Seems to me that white republican Christian voters do not quite want to give up on the idea that character matters as much as black Christian democratic voters already have, and they have already become very adept at contorting reality to fit what they want to believe, such as been done for the last century in the evolution debate.

 

[SolomonVII]

However, it still remains that the Bible, which was not even in existence in the Second Century, does not address abortion. While anyone can have an aversion to abortion, my point is that if the Bible is the source of Christian theology, there is no Christian theology against abortion.

I'm anti-abortion just on practical grounds. But that does not translate into a theological devotion. I'm in favor of dealing with the social and cultural issues which conspire to make abortion an attractive alternative to giving birth.

I suspect the Second Century Christians were dealing with the issue on the same practical grounds. In today's world, Christians are not flocking to these women offering to raise the children as their own. They just want laws passed to make women criminals for having an abortion.

The bible addresses murder and accepts that children in the womb are human beings.
From there it is a matter of 2+2. THe bible does expect us to be able to carry out such basic logical formulations.

 

[SolomonVII]

The bible addresses murder and accepts that children in the womb are human beings.
From there it is a matter of 2+2. THe bible does expect us to be able to carry out such basic logical formulations.

Catholicism of course does not base opposition to abortion in theology. One does not need to read the Bible to see the killing of millions of unborn each year as monstrous crimes against humanity.
Even a person of the gutter such as Trump gets it that abortion is evil.
Democrats, and voters on the left? ... not so much.
So much for the value of being of good character.