|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people.
My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people.
God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community.
|
On April 15 2019 11:58 KwarK wrote:The immigrants can’t vote. The idea that immigration is being used to import voters has never made sense.
Isn't the far right conspiracy is that the democrats want illegal immigrants who favor the democratic platform and make them citizens so that they can vote.
It's not a new idea of foreigners replacing white people with immigration and birth rate. I believe it falls under the "White genocide conspiracy theory" Or "The great replacement conspiracy theory".
|
On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community.
How can you claim to understand what God meant?
|
On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant?
The same as what you can say he didn't mean.
|
On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean.
The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious.
|
On April 15 2019 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers.
He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean. The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious.
That's a bit more than flippant. But because you at least acknowledged it we're talking about faith and religion so to be a dick enough to turn this into a "her der how do you know thats what he ment" Disqualifies you from getting a decent response in my book.
How shitty of an argument do you have to have ready if you're going to go even farther and try to bring "how can you claim to understand what god meant" 1.trying to disqualify me having a legitimate faith 2. trying to make this a fact based argument 3. trying to disqualify me from having an opinion in the first place. Nothing good is going to come next in this conversation so might as well head it off at the pass.
|
On April 15 2019 13:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean. The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious. That's a bit more than flippant. But because you at least acknowledged it we're talking about faith and religion so to be a dick enough to turn this into a "her der how do you know thats what he ment" Disqualifies you from getting a decent response in my book. How shitty of an argument do you have to have ready if you're going to go even farther and try to bring "how can you claim to understand what god meant" 1.trying to disqualify me having a legitimate faith 2. trying to make this a fact based argument 3. trying to disqualify me from having an opinion in the first place. Nothing good is going to come next in this conversation so might as well head it off at the pass.
Honestly I just caught the two, and that was my first thought. It wasn't that deep. Bugs me when other people do those posts so I can apologize.
I've grown out of my aggressively agnostic phase and just get interested in how various religious people reconcile their beliefs with the world as it is where they conflict. Or at least where they conflict to an outside observer.
|
On April 15 2019 13:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean. The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious. That's a bit more than flippant. But because you at least acknowledged it we're talking about faith and religion so to be a dick enough to turn this into a "her der how do you know thats what he ment" Disqualifies you from getting a decent response in my book. How shitty of an argument do you have to have ready if you're going to go even farther and try to bring "how can you claim to understand what god meant" 1.trying to disqualify me having a legitimate faith 2. trying to make this a fact based argument 3. trying to disqualify me from having an opinion in the first place. Nothing good is going to come next in this conversation so might as well head it off at the pass.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were explicitly saying "all that Jesus stuff about helping the poor and needy was only talking about helping people in your own community, God didn't mean we have to take in poor/needy from other communities too." If I misunderstood you, I'd certainly appreciate clarification, because otherwise, I simply don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Where does Jesus suggest his teachings only apply to ingroups? Isn't it worth noting the Good Samaritan was, well, a Samaritan (that is, for purposes of this discussion, not from the same community as the man he helped)?
If anything, basically everything in the New Testament is about spreading God's love, not just within the Israelite community, but to everyone, everywhere. How, then, can someone conclude "oh, help those asylum seekers who are showing up in our country desperately in need? Surely God didn't mean to help them"?
|
On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community.
I question a person's understanding of the teachings of Jesus when people create ridiculous statements about those teachings to serve their argument in a TL forum.
I've studied enough of that faith and other faiths to realize they all have one thing in common, love and generosity for all people. I don't know any Christians who say, "God's love is reserved for all people... except those south of the border."
When someone says, + Show Spoiler +
Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue.
If anything I'm questioning what someone believes to be Christianity, specifically their understanding of Christianity, not how much they believe that understanding to be true.
|
On April 15 2019 10:43 Sermokala wrote:
My evangelical church doesn't preach that I must vote for one party or the other. I would you wouldn't provide your view on a people whos nation you aren't even in with such conviction.
Religion in America especially protestant denominations are incredibly diverse and fractious. My church had a deep conversation about romney and obama which came to the conclusion that even if obama was a muslim he was closer to god then the heretic mitt romney. You would pay good money I believe to be a fly on the wall to that conversation dave.
The last election genuinely had people saying that they couldn't in good conscience vote for either candidate if that helps you. No one could really positively present a non-negative message for either candidate.
Sure would. Didn't mean to give the impression that it was a dyed-in opinion. Religion and power never works out well, was really my point, and it's a bit worryingly intertwined in the US. What I really meant was that the US is so big that I don't imagine that a Christian from a state at the top of the map and a Christian from the state at the bottom look very similar, because the Bible gets interpreted and read very differently.
But the hyper money 'mega churches' are really worrying as an outside observer. Money and power + religion always ends up in corruption. If you've ever been curious to see how this played out in the past, look at the history of monasticism in England. Monks were in a never-ending cycle of corruption and purification.
But personally I do find moral discussions between the religious fascinating. It's one of the reasons I love the Daredevil comic book. It's one of the only superhero properties where the whole superhero shebang is examined through an explicitly religious eye (Ms. Marvel does it too, of course, but it's a little different because Matt Murdock is a hardcore Irish Catholic).
|
This is why bringing religion into political discussion is pointless. Everyone's personal interpretation is that their god just so happens to agree with them on every key issue.
|
I know we have left this topic behind a while back, but a monster study on the feasibility of going 100% renewable has just come out. This is the result of more than a dozen researchers across different universities and countries and is publicly funded by the German and Finnish governments.
Link to the study
Link to the press release
They find that this is not only feasible but slightly cheaper than using fossil fuels without having to develop any new technologies. The two most relevant key findings, in my opinion, are:
1. 100% renewables are more cost-effective: The energy costs for a fully sustainable energy system will decrease from the current fossil-fuel based system € 54/MWh in 2015 to € 53/MWh in 2050.
2. A 100%-renewable electricity system will employ 35 million people worldwide. The roughly 9 million jobs in the worldwide coal mining sector from 2015 will be phased out completely by 2050. They will be overcompensated by the over 15 million new jobs in the renewable energy sector.
If you dig into the study they also go into decentralization and fuel independence.
In terms of where to put them, you could go the Australian way and put the new solar panels on your roofs.
|
On April 15 2019 14:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 13:14 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean. The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious. That's a bit more than flippant. But because you at least acknowledged it we're talking about faith and religion so to be a dick enough to turn this into a "her der how do you know thats what he ment" Disqualifies you from getting a decent response in my book. How shitty of an argument do you have to have ready if you're going to go even farther and try to bring "how can you claim to understand what god meant" 1.trying to disqualify me having a legitimate faith 2. trying to make this a fact based argument 3. trying to disqualify me from having an opinion in the first place. Nothing good is going to come next in this conversation so might as well head it off at the pass. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were explicitly saying "all that Jesus stuff about helping the poor and needy was only talking about helping people in your own community, God didn't mean we have to take in poor/needy from other communities too." If I misunderstood you, I'd certainly appreciate clarification, because otherwise, I simply don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Where does Jesus suggest his teachings only apply to ingroups? Isn't it worth noting the Good Samaritan was, well, a Samaritan (that is, for purposes of this discussion, not from the same community as the man he helped)? If anything, basically everything in the New Testament is about spreading God's love, not just within the Israelite community, but to everyone, everywhere. How, then, can someone conclude "oh, help those asylum seekers who are showing up in our country desperately in need? Surely God didn't mean to help them"?
Your post is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of understanding that we're talking about religion you're going to try and get us into an argument based on logic and reason. Thats not the point. Stop trying to argue reason and logic on an empethetic and belief based discussion.
|
Sanders take the lead in his first national poll, Buttigieg pulls to the front of the tier 2 candidates.
April National Poll: Bernie Takes Lead for Democratic Nomination, Mayor Pete On The Move
A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.
Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”
Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.”
If Joe Biden decides not to run, Bernie Sanders looks to be the early beneficiary, picking up 31% of Bidens’ voters. Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets 17% of the Biden vote, followed by Beto O’Rourke at 13%.
emersonpolling.reportablenews.com
|
On April 15 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. I question a person's understanding of the teachings of Jesus when people create ridiculous statements about those teachings to serve their argument in a TL forum. I've studied enough of that faith and other faiths to realize they all have one thing in common, love and generosity for all people. I don't know any Christians who say, "God's love is reserved for all people... except those south of the border." When someone says, + Show Spoiler +
Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue.
... I do question their understanding or that their faith is in Christianity vs. something they just made up to suit their mood that day. If anything I'm questioning what someone believes to be Christianity, specifically their understanding of Christianity, not how much they believe that understanding to be true.
No you didn't question someone's competency on their understanding of their religion you questioned how much they believe. You reinforce this by trying to isolate the religion of the person you disagree with from the greater religious community they ascribe to. If you're seriously questioning what someone believes their belief is in a believing way about their beliefs you've already lost the room.
Nothing about what you've studied of faiths or your opinions of faiths means anything to the faith of the person you're arguing with. I know a bunch of really dumb people who are very happy with their faith. They have insights that I admire as much as I wouldn't take their advice on the difference between Baptists and Methodists.
|
On April 15 2019 22:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Sanders take the lead in his first national poll, Buttigieg pulls to the front of the tier 2 candidates. Show nested quote +April National Poll: Bernie Takes Lead for Democratic Nomination, Mayor Pete On The Move
A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.
Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”
Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.”
If Joe Biden decides not to run, Bernie Sanders looks to be the early beneficiary, picking up 31% of Bidens’ voters. Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets 17% of the Biden vote, followed by Beto O’Rourke at 13%. emersonpolling.reportablenews.com
What do you think the odds of a Sanders/Pete ticket are?
To be honest I would feel a LOT better voting for sanders if Pete was his Vp. Granted I prefer pete as the main guy right now, but I would also be happy with the VP slot
Plus I would give SO much to see Pete/Pence debate
|
On April 15 2019 22:59 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 22:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Sanders take the lead in his first national poll, Buttigieg pulls to the front of the tier 2 candidates. April National Poll: Bernie Takes Lead for Democratic Nomination, Mayor Pete On The Move
A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.
Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”
Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.”
If Joe Biden decides not to run, Bernie Sanders looks to be the early beneficiary, picking up 31% of Bidens’ voters. Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets 17% of the Biden vote, followed by Beto O’Rourke at 13%. emersonpolling.reportablenews.com What do you think the odds of a Sanders/Pete ticket are? To be honest I would feel a LOT better voting for sanders if Pete was his Vp. Granted I prefer pete as the main guy right now, but I would also be happy with the VP slot Plus I would give SO much to see Pete/Pence debate
That's the obvious ticket for the "beat Trump at all costs" crowd imo. Personally I don't trust the FBI and such not to assassinate another leftist leader so I'd prefer Bernie's VP be even more radical than he is but that's a winning ticket if you ask me (though I would probably still vote communist since Bernie will win my state handily).
The most fascinating thing about Buttigieg's run so far is he's gotten about the same media cradling (less than O'Rourke and Harris really) as the other tier 2 candidates but turned it into the biggest national numbers. Big fundraising numbers as well, all with never getting more than 9,000 votes for office.
|
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else.
|
On April 15 2019 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 22:59 IyMoon wrote:On April 15 2019 22:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Sanders take the lead in his first national poll, Buttigieg pulls to the front of the tier 2 candidates. April National Poll: Bernie Takes Lead for Democratic Nomination, Mayor Pete On The Move
A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.
Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”
Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.”
If Joe Biden decides not to run, Bernie Sanders looks to be the early beneficiary, picking up 31% of Bidens’ voters. Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets 17% of the Biden vote, followed by Beto O’Rourke at 13%. emersonpolling.reportablenews.com What do you think the odds of a Sanders/Pete ticket are? To be honest I would feel a LOT better voting for sanders if Pete was his Vp. Granted I prefer pete as the main guy right now, but I would also be happy with the VP slot Plus I would give SO much to see Pete/Pence debate That's the obvious ticket for the "beat Trump at all costs" crowd imo. Personally I don't trust the FBI and such not to assassinate another leftist leader so I'd prefer Bernie's VP be even more radical than he is but that's a winning ticket if you ask me (though I would probably still vote communist since Bernie will win my state handily). The most fascinating thing about Buttigieg's run so far is he's gotten about the same media cradling (less than O'Rourke and Harris really) as the other tier 2 candidates but turned it into the biggest national numbers. Big fundraising numbers as well, all with never getting more than 9,000 votes for office.
I think it comes down to Pete just being really likable. Democrats fall in love after all, and he is loveable with good policy to back him up
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
Bernie/AOC dream team. I mean yes she’s too young I realise this, but the entertainment value would be immense.
On a more serious note I’m not sure the candidate matters all that much as long as they aren’t absolutely terrible, purely in terms of winning the election.
In a straight shoot-out I think the full gamut of moderate to European left style policies could conceivably win
I have my personal preferences of course, plus the political ground could shift too. I feel the never Trump and the avowed Trump supporters are pretty set in stone, the variables are the undecided but also getting those who didn’t vote last time and were unenthused, back out doing so.
Trump himself controls a lot in terms of his appeal to the vague centre, so we’ll have to see how he does. Enthusing non-voters from the Dem base is really dependent on who the candidate is, although it was such a tight election last time anyway that you could still conceivably win without a return to Obama’s turnout, or anywhere near.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
