The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » He loves ...... the police (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9..15..21..27..31~32~33
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Tom, not meaning to be a dick, but assuming it's all true.

"April 2008—Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

If he said that, it was insensitive.

"April 2009—When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech."

Since he identified as Christian, that was hypocritical.
Perhaps he was being sensitive to the secular minded.
You'd have to ask him.

"May 2009—Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House."

No prayer day, for ANY religion, should be established my federal law I'm a secular country.

"November 2010—Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law."

No trust, in any god, should be established by federal law, for the reasons above.

"August 2011—The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception."

In private practice, I agree. People should decide whether to visit whatever doctor they want.
For federal employees, exactly the opposite, because...this isn't a Christian nation.

"June 2011—The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery"

People's burials should follow whatever wishes the deceased chooses.
I have no problem in that respect.

"September 2011—Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains."

They should have access to whatever spiritual counselors they want, but NO federal dollars should go towards paying those counselors.

"February 2012—The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin."

Again, secular country. No god allowed.

"February 2012—The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U.S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do."

If true, hypocrisy.
Secular country, burn whatever you want.

And I’m sure some may be debatable or needed law but it does give some reason to question the fairness to believers.

The problem with fairness to believers, of any one faith, it's that it's unfair to others; and completely dismiss non believers.
We're Americans too.

Do you think this is a Christian nation?

And you never really addressed my point about mortal sin.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2570 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Twister,

Do you think this is a Christian nation?
Yes, just like we have Muslin majority countries we are a Christian majority country.

And you never really addressed my point about mortal sin?
You really need to talk to a Catholic to better understand Mortal sin.
I’m not Catholic.

Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://thedaycaremagician.blogspot.com/
Home Business Quick Start
https://boleware.blogspot.com
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Twister:
No worries about you being on your phone. Smile

Let's try it this way -

A)I don't see how my quote about being confused as to whether or not you ever called Trump a xenophobe or Islamophobe has anything to do with your point below?
Have you ever referred to Trump as xenophobic and/or Islamophobic? If not, apologies. If so, I humbly suggest you avoid that language else you get to be called Christianophobic, and all such terms are a bit stupid IMHO (unless used for real psychiatric conditions).

B)I agree that Trump is a political opportunist. As regarding his personal beliefs I don't real,y have a clue, and am pretty reticient to judge some other guy's soul. From his behaviour I'd be very suprised if he was actually Christian in any meaningful sense, though. More like he has some sort of residual, cultural faith, maybe some loose sentimentalism of the spiritual sort, but nothing concrete. Or he might just be really bad at being a Christian, in which case I really sympathise with him, lol. There's not much we can do than take his word for his own beliefs, and then see how far short his behaviour falls of his own standard.

C)Sure, there's greater scrutiny on all paradigms. I just don't think that's much to do with the decline of Christianity in the West.

D)Agree about apatheism.

E)We half agree about free speech protections, I'm just more fundamentalist than you about freedom of speech/thought etc.

F)It's irrelevant whether the majority are informed by religion or any other worldview. Everyone is informed by a metaphysical worldview, whether religous or non-religious. If religious ideas win out in the market place of ideas, then this will obviously affect democratic choices, as would non-religious paradigms. You can't load the dice in favour of one set of metaphysics over all others - secularism necessarily means an equal playing field for all worldviews. If 90% of people believe X, and this means they also believe Y, and if Y is a case of fundamental human rights (like slavery or abortion) then it's acceptable for a secular government to pass laws regarding Y. Democracy has to work like that. It's up to the market place of ideas to try and sway the majority of the country into accepting 'truth'.

G)Lol - not that hard to make a living, I'm in education. Smile

H)I agree world peace is theoretically possible, it could easily be achieved by just killing everyone for example Smile. But in any foreseeable future, not a chance.

I)A lot depends upon how you interpret 'supernatural'. Sure, if you take it to mean just 'something actually possible but not yet understood', then sure, nothing can be by definition suoernatural, but that's not how most people use it, nor does it make sense to use that definition with atheistic critiques of supernaturalist worldviews. So long as one carefully defines their terms first, I'm happy to discuss supernaturalism versus naturalism etc. Not that probably has much to do with Trump, lol. Smile


A) Like I've said I don't think his positions are firmly glued to him, except in the ways they might further his brand.
In any event, it's not unreasonable to take the leap when someone wants to build a wall to keep out those rapists and thieves; and uses the words Muslim ban.
Could be he's just good at reading the wind, but doesn't care.
As far as how I'm viewed, well you know.

B) I said he may not really believe, so to him a vow before god, or mortal sin, may not be a big deal.
My point was never about his belief, it was about the reaction of those to whom it's the biggest deal.
For example Mike Pence, identifies as a Christian above all.
I can't understand how he can just ignore even the allegation of adultery.

C) I don't place one religion over any other. Most here with something to say are Christian, so it tends to rise to the top, and become an issue.
But they are accepted ways of thinking, so I'll lump then in with other paradigms.

D) .......

E) Should discrimination due to beliefs have any place in a secular government?
If not, then we agree.

F) If secularism is equal for all, then it's equal for all.
I may be mistaking you but I think we disagree.

G) Well that explains everything. Smile

H) Hence the need for global objectivity.
If Allah's will trumps that, then death and dreck, according to the interpretation of some.
You're probably right about peace through extinction, but it'll be a dammn shame.

I) Supernatural in the sense of gods, ghosts, unicorns, etc.
That believed without evidence that all can accept.
Maybe Allah exists, but until you can prove it, don't try to use it to affect shared reality, or I'll be there to call shenanigans.
You're right about how going down different metaphysical rabbit holes leads to chaotic thinking, but humans need hobbies.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, TomBoleware wrote:
Twister,

Do you think this is a Christian nation?
Yes, just like we have Muslin majority countries we are a Christian majority country.

And you never really addressed my point about mortal sin?
You really need to talk to a Catholic to better understand Mortal sin.
I’m not Catholic.

Tom


Yes, but you DO understand that we were founded on the principle of secularism, right?
The founders designed it that way to prevent any ideology from gaining power.
In other words, might should never equal right.

The fact that it's turned out to be primarily composed of Catholics/Christians is beside the point.

If we were primarily Muslim, would you want your beliefs to be marginalized?

That is why I pointed out that your examples of christianophobia are not actually an attack, or any kind of phobia.

I won't ask which particular interpretation of Christianity you and your church believe. That's your business.

But if the ten commandments apply, then the point stands.

Look at it this way. I think we both can agree the the president is someone who we should be able to point to as an example for children.

How can we tell them not to lie, if he lies?

That's why morality matters, absent of any standard of purity.
Right and wrong isn't that hard, no matter what you believe.

It's not just him, it's what we've become as a society as a whole.

We tell them work hard, but they see those with no inherent worthwhile skills become rich, while their parents suffer, often because they do work hard and follow the rules.

We tell them don't steal, but they see thieves go unpunished, and worse, seen as being smart.
(Speaking generally.)

We tell them don't hit anyone who doesn't hit you. But they see us dropping bombs on people whose only crime is being from a country where some did wrong, and sometimes not even that.

It's a problem that all of them will have to deal with, and I think we owe then better than we're leaving them.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1920 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
I'll just pick up the places where we have substantial disagreement or confusion.

A). Have you ever used the terms xenophobic or Islamophobic of Trump (or anyone)? If so, you need to stop (or be ok with being called a Christianophobe).

E). Discrimination, no. But protections to avoid government discrimination of religion etc and to allow for genuine freedom of conscience. Secularism means freedom to as well as freedom from. Teachers shouldn't be sacked for joining certain associations; nurses shouldn't be mandated to perform abortions; police shouldn't be sacked for saying stuff etc. Robust freespeech laws.

F) I think you may be mistaking me. Basically, in response to your querying whether it mattered if a popular opinion was religously based or not. Basically, it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned. A vote is a vote, a law is a law.

I) I'm sure the interpret ion you e given suoernatural here is the same you were using before. Smile. If it's any help, I think one can hold to 'supernaturalism' rationally through argument and evidence, just as one can hold to materialism through argument and evidence. But I'm not really sure what it is you're concerned with here.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26546 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
@NYCTwister - sometimes it looks like you're throwing old small stones against an old fortified wall. If you don't understand the perspective of those who live with the words of prophets and belief in a god then ask questions that respect their inner worldviews as valid for them. You don't need to start off by complaining about chapter 9 in the Koran or Genesis 21 ... or the iron law of bureaucracy.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26546 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
...nurses shouldn't be mandated to perform abortions...


wait a second. If you're hired to perform a job and you're not going to do your job claiming it's in conflict with a personal (or religious) belief .... that looks wrong somehow.

if you work at a bakery you're there to bake cakes. if someone wants two girls on the cake top instead of what comes in the set you buy for cake decorating - maybe charge them for two sets of figures (wow an extra dollar) and offer them the pair of figures you don't use... but why the fuss? You're there to bake the cake - not validate their choices in spouses.

I respect the personal choices in beliefs of those who live in/with a Faith. Those relate to what they hold as good for themselves. When internal values project onto others... we get a conflict of interests.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'll just pick up the places where we have substantial disagreement or confusion.

A). Have you ever used the terms xenophobic or Islamophobic of Trump (or anyone)? If so, you need to stop (or be ok with being called a Christianophobe).

E). Discrimination, no. But protections to avoid government discrimination of religion etc and to allow for genuine freedom of conscience. Secularism means freedom to as well as freedom from. Teachers shouldn't be sacked for joining certain associations; nurses shouldn't be mandated to perform abortions; police shouldn't be sacked for saying stuff etc. Robust freespeech laws.

F) I think you may be mistaking me. Basically, in response to your querying whether it mattered if a popular opinion was religously based or not. Basically, it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned. A vote is a vote, a law is a law.

I) I'm sure the interpret ion you e given suoernatural here is the same you were using before. Smile. If it's any help, I think one can hold to 'supernaturalism' rationally through argument and evidence, just as one can hold to materialism through argument and evidence. But I'm not really sure what it is you're concerned with here.


A) I've toned down my rhetoric, and I have been calling him President Trump.
I'll retain the right to define my own limits.

E) I agree, if they can keep it out of their job.
Write whatever you want on your FB timeline.
How your co-workers react, and the subsequent fallout it's yours to deal with.
But a government clerk has no right to invoke their beliefs when denying a marriage license to a gay couple.
You can quit, but you can't refuse.

F)Then how do you prevent might from becoming right?

I) If we can dismiss flying spaghetti monster's because no one has ever seen one, then we can do it for anything else that fits the same criteria.
Again, believe it, but keep it completely out of my life, because I'm a people too.

You forgot about G.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1920 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Jonathan:
But you can't have laws that put whole groups of people out of the public sphere. It might work different in America you might have the choice to go to various private practices etc, but in Europe and the U.K. it can be problematic.

For example, in at least one European country one cannot even train/qualify as a nurse without doing abortions, and certainly one cannot work in state sector universal health care systems. Thus no pro-life person, which means most religous people from most religions, can become a medical practioner. A huge swathe of people are totally cut off from a whole arena.

If there was an overwhelming majority of public opinion, if it involved a democratically mandated law, then it would be acceptable to enforce a certain lack of freedom of conscience upon state employees (so if 80% of the populous were pro-choice, and if it was democratically passed into law that all nurses had to perform abortions, then so be it). But if the populous is split on an issue of fundamental human rights, and if the health care system is wholly or near wholly state controlled, then robust protection of freedom of conscience needs to apply so as to prevent the tyranny of a tiny majority (or even large minority).

Does that make sense?
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@NYCTwister - sometimes it looks like you're throwing old small stones against an old fortified wall. If you don't understand the perspective of those who live with the words of prophets and belief in a god then ask questions that respect their inner worldviews as valid for them. You don't need to start off by complaining about chapter 9 in the Koran or Genesis 21 ... or the iron law of bureaucracy.


I do, and I have, and I'm usually called a phobe just for questioning.

I look at it as shattering a boulder by striking the weak point over and over.
You may laugh the first time you see it, but you don't laugh when they strike the second boulder for the first time.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1920 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Twister:
A) Cool. Keep away from those -phobe terms. They're bad for everyone, and you don't want to end up getting a taste of your own medicine from the cultural Marxists.

E). Agreed, though the clerk thing is a little more complex given the specifics, but generally I agree. However, I think the far more secularist and pragmatically sensible solution that would please everyone (as much as that is possible), is to remove the state from marriage altogether. What's the point of the state having any say-so over people's personal relationships? Ugh! That's bound to be a fail. What can't I marry three women or men, for example? Why is it limited in number? Or why can't I marry my sister (ugh, but still)? All inheritance and divorce stuff can be dealt with under contract law and religous ceremonies from people that care about either, the government has no lace in people's bedrooms or marriages.

F). Strong secular democracy and robust freedom of speech, thought, association and religion. Least worst system at the moment for modern Western countries.

I). Silly. If you think the God of the philosophers or classical theism or rational Judeo-Christianity is comparable to the FSM either in terms of philosophical arguments or evidential warrant, then you're just ignorant, lol Smile. Not that it matters much, other than it makes you sound a bit of an under-educated jerk. It's that kind of mentality that gives hipster New Atheism a bad name compared to the more interesting atheism of Hume or Russell or Nietzsche. But hey, if you want to make atheism look bad then you're doing my worldview a favour. Just like anti-Trumpers are Trump's greatest asset, ignorant atheists are theism secret weapon in the culture wars, lol:)
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Twister:
A) Cool. Keep away from those -phobe terms. They're bad for everyone, and you don't want to end up getting a taste of your own medicine from the cultural Marxists.

E). Agreed, though the clerk thing is a little more complex given the specifics, but generally I agree. However, I think the far more secularist and pragmatically sensible solution that would please everyone (as much as that is possible), is to remove the state from marriage altogether. What's the point of the state having any say-so over people's personal relationships? Ugh! That's bound to be a fail. What can't I marry three women or men, for example? Why is it limited in number? Or why can't I marry my sister (ugh, but still)? All inheritance and divorce stuff can be dealt with under contract law and religous ceremonies from people that care about either, the government has no lace in people's bedrooms or marriages.

F). Strong secular democracy and robust freedom of speech, thought, association and religion. Least worst system at the moment for modern Western countries.

I). Silly. If you think the God of the philosophers or classical theism or rational Judeo-Christianity is comparable to the FSM either in terms of philosophical arguments or evidential warrant, then you're just ignorant, lol Smile. Not that it matters much, other than it makes you sound a bit of an under-educated jerk. It's that kind of mentality that gives hipster New Atheism a bad name compared to the more interesting atheism of Hume or Russell or Nietzsche. But hey, if you want to make atheism look bad then you're doing my worldview a favour. Just like anti-Trumpers are Trump's greatest asset, ignorant atheists are theism secret weapon in the culture wars, lol:)


F)Secular - denoting things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
End of story.

I'll never settle for least worst as good enough.

I)Why silly or ignorant?
(Are we going back there?)
Same evidence, same criteria.

Besides how many religious people came to their own conclusions? Most believe what they were told, by those who believed what they were told...down through the generations.

I've argued with theists of all beliefs. Most have never read the books they follow, they just highlight the passages that feel good.

Like all of the skeptical philosophers I agree with some of what Hume and Russell posited.
Nietzsche was too much of a dick for my taste.
Imo, the greatest philosophers are yet to be born.

Under educated?
Do a search for studies about the correlation between religiosity and education level, quality of life etc.

Atheists don't speak for other atheists.
Ron and I are friends. We disagree on a lot of things, but neither of is worried about giving straws and paper balls to anyone.

You still forgot about G, and I'll still set my own limits as to verbiage.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1920 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
F) Sure, in system, not in dictating the reasons why people vote for X or y or z. Least worst is all you'll get in the real political world. Think of what Churchill said about democracy.

I). Really? Because the arguments and evidence for the God of the philosophers, classical theists, and the more nuanced religionists are incomparable to the arguments and evidence (ie none) for the parody FSM.

Most religious people believe only because it was what they were told? Evidence please. And even so, that does nothing to argue against theism, it is a textbook genetic fallacy.

You've only met uneducated religionists then. Not really a reflection on the educated religionists, nor the religions as a whole, and certainly irrelevant to the question of whether religious metaphysical worldviews are irrational.

Shame, I like reading Nietzsche.

Yes, you're clearly under-educated if you seriously compare the FSM to the God of Descartes, or Swinburn, or Aquinas, or Plantinga, or whoever. There's no real other way to say it.

Yes, some religions in some areas (notably modern Western Judeo-Christian beliefs) generally get you a net positive in many life areas, such as life expectancy, happiness, less divorce, better sex life, more money given to charity etc. Judaism is probably a great boost to educational success. So what? There is some arguable correlation between slightly lower IQ and religion, and there's a similar correlation between atheism and autism. I'm not sure any of this has anything to do with either the rationality of religion itself, or your lack of education concerning the more intelligent forms of theism. At best we're entering into some Jamesian pragmatist reasoning, at worst we're hanging around ad hominem and generic fallacy land. And I don't see what any of this has to do with Trump, lol Smile
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26546 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
There are expressions in a different culture which translate to "yell at the street" and "go pound sand". Picking up old stones painted "throw me" and throwing them at a well maintained wall painted with targets looks trite. Old ideas in old books...get expected results. Many such patterns were written about from Roman times through Pascal's wager. What's new?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1920 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Jonathan:
If you're asking (I find it difficult to follow you) is there anything new in the philosophy or religion, then I'll say yes. Not a lot, perhaps, but there's definitely new arguments and evidence and research. Indeed, that discipline has gone through quite a renaissance in the late 20th and early 21st centuries - on both sides of the debate Smile.

But how off-topic is this thread gonna go ... Smile
NYCTwister
View Profile
Regular user
117 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
F) Sure, in system, not in dictating the reasons why people vote for X or y or z. Least worst is all you'll get in the real political world. Think of what Churchill said about democracy.

I). Really? Because the arguments and evidence for the God of the philosophers, classical theists, and the more nuanced religionists are incomparable to the arguments and evidence (ie none) for the parody FSM.

Most religious people believe only because it was what they were told? Evidence please. And even so, that does nothing to argue against theism, it is a textbook genetic fallacy.

You've only met uneducated religionists then. Not really a reflection on the educated religionists, nor the religions as a whole, and certainly irrelevant to the question of whether religious metaphysical worldviews are irrational.

Shame, I like reading Nietzsche.

Yes, you're clearly under-educated if you seriously compare the FSM to the God of Descartes, or Swinburn, or Aquinas, or Plantinga, or whoever. There's no real other way to say it.

Yes, some religions in some areas (notably modern Western Judeo-Christian beliefs) generally get you a net positive in many life areas, such as life expectancy, happiness, less divorce, better sex life, more money given to charity etc. Judaism is probably a great boost to educational success. So what? There is some arguable correlation between slightly lower IQ and religion, and there's a similar correlation between atheism and autism. I'm not sure any of this has anything to do with either the rationality of religion itself, or your lack of education concerning the more intelligent forms of theism. At best we're entering into some Jamesian pragmatist reasoning, at worst we're hanging around ad hominem and generic fallacy land. And I don't see what any of this has to do with Trump, lol Smile


At least we can dispense with the letters now.

You say nuanced, I say weak sauce, or maybe pragmatism...all things considered

You really put too much stock in those who came before.
Pull them into the future and show them a "death to infidels" sign, or a "god hates fags" tee shirt and see if they don't revisit their positions.

You still haven't shown the evidential difference, but I'll ignore the sideways insults and ask you -

Were you always Christian?

How about your family?

And, to open myself to more insults -

Why do you believe the god of the bible to be real?

How do you know she's real.

How do you know Allah isn't the one true god?
Horus? Ganesh? Xenu?

How do you reconcile the contradictions?

Why do YOU believe you're right?

If your answer is "I just believe" then you've said nothing, to me at least.

Sorry for the elementary questions, but what you say smacks of credulity.
Your willingness to invoke old men as a counter point doesn't mean anything to me.
It like "All accepted thinkers say..."

So?

If you want evidence of the unquestioned acceptance I spoke of, go stand outside any church tomorrow and play devil's advocate. Lmk what you get.
First hand experience is always best.

I'll bet that after the first few questions anger will start to enter their voices.

As far as what this has to do with President Trump?
Your pretty new here. You'd be surprised how many times we go north from Canada, and end up in Georgia.
"Don't ask America, cause we're to busy catching up. Swearing up and down we're on top, while others laugh at us." - Greydon Square
R.S.
View Profile
Elite user
CT one day I'll have
442 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote:
RS:
Yes, I think Christians and Christianity is 'under attack' in the US, in the sense that I think Christianity has faced a rather unprecedented amount of popular criticism (esp via new atheism), in that the church is losing numbers, in that it has become an easy and regular target of ridicule (some of which is spiteful and unfair), in that some Christians have been subject to unfair treatment at work or through legislation which has stifled free expression of faith or conscience in rights conflicts (often with LGBT issues), in that secularist organisations are far more motivated and equipped to ensure separations of church and state which up to now were largely ignored (more loss of privileges than deprivation of rights), in that the Christian cultural backdrop of America is changing rapidly especially in terms of sexual morality.

Do I think this is an 'attack'? Only in the weakest sense. A lot is just loss of privileges which shouldn't really have accrued in the first place, or the result of the general weakening of Christianities hold over the West, or legitimate and understandable criticism. But there is enough stuff which I find problematic and illegitimate (see the freespeech thread), especially in rights conflicts with LGBT issues, that I think it fair to characterise the current cultural zeitgeist as containing an anti-Christian element.



I think only one who wishes to play the victim card would characterize the free expression of opinions (in the form of criticism and ridicule), or a loss in church members, as an “attack” on Christianity.

Do you consider it an attack on science/secularism when Christian Creationists mount a concerted effort to impose their agendas on public school science curriculums? (this despite having 300,000 churches where they are free to preach whatever they want!)

If the Church has lost members (and the numbers do reflect an increase in “nones”), then that’s more a reflection of a general diminishing attraction to Christianity than a result of a concerted “attack” against it. Seriously, do you think I (or anyone) can simply hector a Christian into giving up their faith?

What specific “privileges” have Christians lost due to their Christianity? What legislation has stifled Christian’s ‘free expression of faith at work’? And why on earth should anybody be expressing their faith in the workplace to begin with?? Isn’t the workplace for work? Are you OK with Muslims expressing their faith in your workplace? There are places to express one’s faith. They’re called churches, mosques, etc.

And how about the fact that 8 states have provisions in their laws banning atheists from holding public office?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/......ice.html

Sure, they’re no longer enforceable, but the states refuse to remove them from the books. What does that say about the “zeitgeist”?

“Mississippi’s Constitution states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” Arkansas' Constitution goes even further; it bars atheists from testifying in court.” Do you see that as problematic?

As far as a ‘cultural zeitgeist containing an anti-Christian element’, that’s simply your opinion – not evidence of an “attack” on Christianity. Do you have a problem with the bigger cultural zeitgeist containing an anti-Muslim element?


Quote:

In Europe it is far, far worse, with a lot of genuine, sometimes violent, Christianophobia (largely coming from Islamists, but also a fair whack from secularists) - you can see the Observatory on Religious Intolerance and Discrimination's report and presentation to the European Parliament for details.

I focussed on critiquing your points rather than Tom's because, a) I thought Tom was unfairly being attacked, b) I choose the leftist cultural Marxist narrative as my opposition, and I'm happy to have the enemy of my enemy as my friend, and c) because I'm a Christian, and thus clearly have a horse in this race.



How is a rebuttal (to Tom) an “unfair attack”?

As a Christian, what religious activity can you not do today that you once used to do as a practicing Christian? Do you still have the freedom to pray, attend church, or partake in religious ceremonies? If not, who, or what, stopped you from doing it, and when?


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Elite user
CT one day I'll have
442 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jan 20, 2018, TomBoleware wrote:
TW, Thank You.

And I agree that when we say ‘under attack’ we don’t mean chopping off heads like they do in some countries. Yes we do have it much better in the USA than many places.

But anyway, comparing Trump to Obama, and the reason I say Trump was the best choice for Christians, I found this list an interesting read. Not sure if all is completely true or not, I didn’t fact check, but I did see many that were: The jury is still out on Trump and what he will do, but so far it does look good.


News flash - Trump wasn’t running against Obama. So not sure why the comparison.

Quote:

April 2008—Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”


In full context:
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

IMO, not as egregious as:

"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed -- what the hell do you have to lose?" Donald Trump

Obama apologized and admitted that his words were ill-chosen. Trump did no such thing.


Quote:

April 2009—When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.


Q: Did Obama ask Georgetown University to remove all religious symbols before he would speak there?
A: A religious symbol was covered at the Catholic and Jesuit institution after the White House asked for a neutral TV backdrop.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/obama-at-georgetown/

“CNSNews.com noted that while the "IHS" behind the president’s podium wasn’t visible, "the letters ‘IHS’ are posted elsewhere around the hall approximately 26 times" and that Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in his remarks. There are also religious paintings visible high above Obama’s head in MSNBC’s video of the speech.”


Quote:

May 2009—Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House.


Debunked:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/prayer......ncelled/


Quote:

November 2010—Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law.


It’s true he said that, BUT…

https://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/mottoletter.asp

“In 1782, the U.S. Continental Congress proposed the use of the Latin phrase E pluribus unum (commonly translated as “out of many, one” or “one from many”) on the Great Seal of the United States as a reference to the original thirteen American colonies’ having joined together as a single united entity. The phrase is still a component of the Seal of the United States and has appeared on U.S. coinage since 1795.

However, although E pluribus unum was long considered the de facto national motto of the United States, it was never officially established as such by legislation. The only legislatively established national motto the United States has ever had is “In God We Trust,” a phrase which first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1864 (and is now a part of all U.S. currency and coinage) and which was adopted as the official U.S. national motto through a law passed by Congress in 1956.

(The fourth and final stanza of the U.S. national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, contains the line: “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’.)

Other modern presidents have made reference to E pluribus unum as the U.S. motto with little or no comment, such as President Ronald Reagan, who, in an address to the National Forum on Excellence in Education in 1983, said: “The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, from many, one. Well, more than any other institution, our schools built that one from the many.”


Quote:

August 2011—The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception.


Again, this is more nuanced than your headline indicates:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377......72/full/

“The ACA requires most employer-supported health plans to cover certain preventive care—such as vaccinations and HIV screening—without copayments, deductibles, or cost-sharing. This includes all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures prescribed for women—including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, implantable devices, barrier methods, and emergency contraception—but not abortifacients. “


Quote:

June 2011—The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery


This is so silly it’s amazing anyone fell for it! Debunked:
https://thinkprogress.org/no-the-obama-a......98bedae/


Quote:

September 2011—Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains.


Debunked:
http://christianfighterpilot.com/2011/09......trality/

This references a memorandum for “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.”

It notes that leaders at all levels “must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion”, which is substantially similar to previous military positions.

“The memorandum then raises new content: First, it acknowledges the value of “religious studies.”

Chaplain Corps programs, including activities such as religious studies, faith sharing, and prayer meetings, are vital to commanders’ support of individual Airmen’s needs and provide opportunities for the free exercise of religion.

That is the most blunt statement to date from the Air Force supporting the “free exercise” of its troops to participate in such programs. However, the next statement in General Schwartz’s letter is the most significant:

Although commanders are responsible for these programs, they must refrain from appearing to officially endorse religion generally or any particular religion. Therefore, I expect chaplains, not commanders, to notify Airmen of Chaplain Corps programs.


Quote:

February 2012—The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin.


Apparently this was done to be more inclusive of the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of other military personnel. Would you be OK with having the word “Allah” on the patch (even if it was in Latin)? And why have a reference to a god anyway?


Quote:

February 2012—The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U.S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do.


IMO, the administration should NOT have offered apologies for Koran burnings. No book is beyond burning. It’s a form of freedom of speech, imo. As far as bible burnings by the military, there is a sound reason for that. The fact that you (or your source) chose to sensationalize it and characterize it as nefarious speaks to it’s agenda.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-gr......d-bibles

“Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.

The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.
Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.
“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright told CNN on Tuesday.”

So in summary, your sources are lousy and you need to do more fact checking.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2570 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Ron, you need to run for President. And maybe get Twister as your running mate. Y’all have an answer for everything and could solve the world problems in one day.


But seriously Ron, if you don’t think Trump was running against Obama and all his administration then you don’t know much about politics. Trump beat Obama, The Clintons, the FBI, the Media, all the Democrats, and half the Republicans.


Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://thedaycaremagician.blogspot.com/
Home Business Quick Start
https://boleware.blogspot.com
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » He loves ...... the police (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9..15..21..27..31~32~33
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.46 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL