Well, that escalated quickly
Apparently, in this post, some of you took a throw away comment I made, but didn’t expand upon, wrong. I have no problem with religious people or fundamentalists. I share Oleg’s sentiment that they are the least judgmental of sorts. Of course, saying they’re less judgmental than liberals isn’t saying much. Liberals are more judgmental than any group. Anyhoo, point was not that I had an issue with religious fundamentalists. They are my friends. My family. And, generally, the nicest people around. Look at how the church goers reacted to the SC shooting.
They are in no way a part of the problem. However, TN politicians do an obscene amount of pandering to them, passing or trying to pass laws that require teaching creation, making the Bible the state book, and non-believers can’t hold public office. (guess which one is actually a law). The politicos pandering to them by making their beliefs law, I take issue with.
July 20th, 2015 at 7:48 pm
I’m with you on the pandering — as a religious guy.
But a lot of my reasoning comes from a history of “social conservative” politicians turning their back on fiscal conservatism the first chance they get.
July 20th, 2015 at 7:48 pm
Is it not judgmental to judge others for being judgmental? Yes it is. And all government and laws are based on a morality. My judgment is to have my legislators to make laws, or better yet, repeal many of them to favor the belief, which happens to have a Biblical basis, that “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty”. Actually, everyone is judgmental, the only difference being from what basis of morality. Being for liberty based upon God-give rights, I’m for the freedom of everyone to judge and be free to interject those judgments into the legislative process by democratic means. But Legislators shall be restricted by their delegated powers, by our State Declaration of Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
July 20th, 2015 at 8:18 pm
It isn’t just the local politicians… most of the current crop of GOP Presidential contenders (the Donald being the one exception I am sure of – and no, that isn’t an endorsement of the Donald, as he’s an idiot in his own way) seem determined to fall all over-themselves to prove which one is the bigger fundi Christian.
That is probably one of the reasons that the Donald was leading in the pols – at least prior to his disrespect for all veterans.
July 20th, 2015 at 9:42 pm
“…some of you took a…comment I made…wrong.”
“The becoming our own country part sounds appealing. Except we do have a higher per capita of religious fundamentalists.”
Hard to take that any other way than than snide bigotry in a post ironically decrying the same. And as I said before it did seem to echo the more militant unbelievers in many gunnie/libertarian blogrolls.
And while we’re on irony, I’m not sure how pols pandering for religious voters is any different than for gun-rights voters, or gay rights voters, or any other single-issue group that a candidate thinks he can buy by…pandering to it.
But I’ll accept your saying that it was a thoughtless quip not intended as the hurtful slight that it seemed, thanks for the clarification.
July 20th, 2015 at 10:08 pm
As a rule, i ignore you. You presume I give a fuck what you think. I don’t. Given your treatment of my friends, know this. Otherwise go away. Or I’ll send you away
July 20th, 2015 at 10:37 pm
I have lots of fundamental christians that I love. Friends, family, and the like. Any misgivings I have about a high preponderance of fundamentalist christians is rooted in the fact that they don’t share a faith with me- I strongly suspect that they would object most vehemently to me basing the rules on MY faith. There was a very good reason that our current nation’s founding documents renounce the idea of an official religion for the country. At that time, the historical records left by the Inquisition, the Conquistadores, Oliver Cromwell, and the still extant Ottoman Empire were as current as the invention of Mustard Gas is to us. Those examples are still useful in that most of the time, when a religious dogma is used to make the rules of a society, it looks a lot like them.
July 21st, 2015 at 12:19 am
Got it; you don’t give a fuck about me. That is mutual, if irrelevant.
But yes, I guess censure and censor is the standard and expected response, considering.
Mustn’t let legitimate challenge and debate interfere with personal feelings and blind loyalties.
See ya.
July 21st, 2015 at 12:31 am
If you think Uncle isn’t capable of holding his own in an open, rational debate, you’re a damned fool.
That isn’t the issue here.
July 21st, 2015 at 12:42 am
Christians by definition are non judgmental, and they don’t try to force their ways on anyone.
On the other hand there are a lot of fake Christians, and they are the ones to look out for.
Political pandering makes everyone look bad, which may be part of the game being played. Pass a bunch of supposedly “pro Christian” laws, get people pissed off at Christians and Christianity in general. Pretty clever if you ask me, and deliciously evil.
Regarding pandering in general, no matter the imagined group being pandered to (the panderers call it “reaching out”);
“Liberty And Justice For All” is just that. It’s for everyone. Equally. It requires NOT seeing people as members of this or that group, NOT judging them based on group affiliation, NOT making special laws, rules and dispensations based on group identity. Some people seem to find that concept repugnant.
July 21st, 2015 at 8:57 am
“And while we’re on irony, I’m not sure how pols pandering for religious voters is any different than for gun-rights voters, or gay rights voters, or any other single-issue group that a candidate thinks he can buy by…pandering to it.”
It’s not different, and that’s the problem. Something being your favorite cause, or reason for the season doesn’t mean it needs to be (or should be) law. I’m all for more freedom to carry guns around, I’m not in favor of the federal government ordering all states to recognize CCW permits issued by other states any more than I’m in favor of the federal government ordering them to recognize marriage licenses. A distinction that has been lost over the years is the difference between what is right and good and what should be law.
July 21st, 2015 at 10:01 am
Well, it was fun the first time around to note the difference between fundies/evangelicals who can laugh at themselves (and me) versus those whose undies are apparently a few sizes too small, who have no sense of humor.
Now we see that concept illustrated here.
I’m gonna get me a 10-foot pole and make sure I’m not touching this discussion any closer than that.
July 21st, 2015 at 11:27 am
“Snide bigotry” is an excellent two-word description of the comment that got this rolling.
While I have read here for years for Uncle’s Second Amendment advocacy, it’s been obvious to me for just as long that he has a bug up his ass about Christians and Christianity.
Certainly our host has the right to post anything he pleases. Apparently he hasn’t yet realized that some of his Second Amendment friends are tired of being insulted about their Christianity, just as Southerners generally are getting tired of being insulted for being Southerners.
July 21st, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Hell, cannot believe I am doubling down on this one…especially considering a lot of you know my Full Name(tm).
I love how the same people who claim anti-Christian vice are to the same to take offense from someone who has been a friend.
Eff y’all. Seriously.
Looking for slight is not a Christian concept (and I am a Christian through an through). Looking for excuse to feel aggrieved is something the other side employs. Maybe you should join with the SJW crowd?
You seriously need to buck up and stiffen that spine. Really. The conservatives I hang with are not ones to wither and whine when – aghast!!! someone says something they might take offense to.
Man up. Don’t get upset by words from a man who has had your back about 1000 to 1.
If you know me, please contact me directly if you now hate me.
July 21st, 2015 at 6:19 pm
And, now you are all reminded of the old saw, about never argue politics or religion. We fight wars over that stuff. I would not be surprised if most/all of you argue about that with close family, so why expect different in public? (there goes 90+% of the internet, sigh…)
Stick with facts, and tone down the opinions, eh? I like this blog, and most of the commenters that regularly talk here, so keep the civility, please.
Remember this: MOST people are wrong on what they think is factual on religion, and on political history. Somewhat due to our shitty school systems, of curse. THANKS, Progressives!
July 21st, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Mariner, you’ve been here for a long time and I appreciate your input. I don’t really have anything against Christianity other than I don’t want their positions on social issues being codified into law.
July 21st, 2015 at 7:24 pm
I’m not currently very religious, but even when I was, I didn’t want the government involved in religion. If your religious beliefs are important to you, why in God’s name would you want politicians or public teachers involved in promoting them?
July 21st, 2015 at 8:10 pm
Siergen, thank you. Caesar should not be Pontifex Maximus. Theocracies destroy both the church and the state. That’s what the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is all about.
July 21st, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Uncle, I’m glad you received my comment in the spirit I intended it.
Why not?
Someones’s positions on social issues will be codified in law, and as a whole I can’t see Christians’ social positions as any worse than other groups who want their social position codified into law.
Since you don’t have anything against Christianity, will you consider refraining from gratuitous slurs against Christians? (You know, just as you’d like others to refrain from gratuitous slurs against Southerners.)
July 22nd, 2015 at 9:49 am
I think the issue is with (anyone’s) morality being codified into law. The reason that fingers get pointed at Christians in this is because, in America at least, they represent the majority. Sure, basic Christian morality has some (perhaps even a lot of) overlap with good law. That “Thou shalt not kill” thing… I’m a fan, but not because killing is “immoral” (it is in many cases, but that’s beside the point). It is good law because killing someone denies that person the basic right to live. “Thou shalt not steal” is good law in a similar vein. People have the right to their own property. If you steal it, you are denying that right. In a free society, general criminal law should stick to protecting rights (real ones, not fuzzy made-up ones). Outside of that, follow your religious/moral beliefs and leave others to follow theirs as long as they don’t deny other people their rights.
As a counter example, Christian morality generally does not allow same-sex marriage, or marriages that go beyond one man, one woman. However, in other moral belief systems, multiple husbands/wives and/or same-sex marriages are allowed. This is a purely moral issue, and as such, codifying into law that marriage be restricted to one man one woman is enforcing Christian morality rather than protecting rights, and thus is not good law.
July 22nd, 2015 at 10:04 am
I feel like the odd one out, here, since I automatically assumed that by “religious fundamentalists” Unc meant the folks who want to use the government to force everyone to abide by the dictates of their particular variation of Christianity (i.e., the “my religion says gay marriage is bad, so no one can get gay married, even if they’re not followers of my religion!” crowd, or, for a less hot-button example, the “no hunting on Sundays, because people should be in church!” folks).
Either some people are far too sensitive, or they see something of themselves in the comment and don’t like that fact.
July 22nd, 2015 at 12:22 pm
I suspect that the sensitivity of some Christians is akin to some of those folks of non-caucasian pigmentation to seeing the entire world through a lens of, “everything is racist”. Get burned enough times and you see the whole world as a fire. Thus follows untrue and unjust accusations of anti-Christian and racism (as if we aren’t all humans, sheesh).
July 22nd, 2015 at 8:58 pm
Politicos pander to what Jesus called “the traditions of men”, religious rules and regulations of nominal Christianity. The fundamentals of the Chistian Faith, i.e., fundamentalist Christianity, should lead its believers into a basically libertarian attitude toward people, but resistance against tyranny.