0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 03:32 am
@Zardoz,
You use the term Christian instead of religious right, or fundamentalist.

When you begrudgingly acknowledge the good things some Christians have done you regard it as a tiny insignificant amount compared to the rest.

It's your insular nature you see the Christians around you and simplistically assume all Christians world wide are like that.

When I point out that over here the only Christians we see on the telly outside of Easter are Anglican bishops handwringing about things that are morally wrong that the govt should be fixing, like homelessness, your respose is to dismiss it as atypical.

What goes on in America is the only reality, other countries are just a blip, an anomoly.

It's the same cultural fascism displayed by YOUR evangelical Christians.

Stick to domestic events. Stop extrapolating your conclusions about local Christians to asdume the same is true globally.

It's not.

All you're achieving, (as far as the non American posters go, neither Vikorr nor myself are American,) is confirmation that American really are pig ignorant about events outside their own back yard, even the "liberal" ones.

You can't understand English unless it has a heavy American accent, that says it all.

As I said to Vikorr as a window into events in WV, and to acertain extent America, your posts are interesting, but when you stray out of familiar territory it's all horseshit based on false assumptions.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 03:38 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:

To say that I lump all Christians together is like saying I lump all Democrats together.

Do you think the Christians didn't lie about the Jews just as they are telling the exact same lies about Democrats today.



As you're not lumping Christians together please can you tell me the lies the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has said about the American Democrat party.

It should be easy, because he's made a **** ton of public announcements and sermons, and you don't lump all Christians together.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 03:49 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
To say that I lump all Christians together is like saying I lump all Democrats together.

A few members of the team are lazy
The team is lazy

Some parts of the company are losing money (but the whole may be making money)
The company is losing money

Many Indians are rich
The Indians are rich

Some Christians are ###
The Christians are ###

You can't redefine what "The <object/thing/group>" means in English. So your continual use of "the Christians" (rather than some/many Christians), means you apply your statements to Christians as a group. You will have to take any disagreement you have up with the English language. I didn't make the rules of the language.
Zardoz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 08:27 pm
@vikorr,
What would you have me call them? Republicans? When 80% of the evangelicals vote for a rapist and a conman. The Trump movement is very much a Christian movement with many of the top Christian leaders in America formed an advisory board for Trump. Are there exceptions, yes, but they are not the rule.

Your problem is that you think you are being attacked personally and that is not the case. Your philosophy is under attack. If I were attacking, you personally I might say you are fat and ugly. In the 50s people understood the difference. Barber shops were famous for political discussions. Whether you were for Nixon or Kennedy no one got offended. Now you make sure you don't mention politics ever in a Barber Shop because the Trump followers were brainwashed to believe Trump is their savior and the world will end without Trump.

There are no absolutes no matter what organization there will be exceptions so you must use the rule. I am not going to poll every Christian in America when I already know where the majority lies.

What can I say the majority rules, does 80% vote for Trump tell you anything about Christians?
Zardoz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 08:55 pm
@vikorr,
Since You bought it up, I had to think over 50 years as to how I concluded at 17 that the Christian religion was garbage. I did not read anything from any atheist. I did not know any atheists. For me Christianity would have to be logical, and it wasn't. I could never accept that you must believe as a little child believes. I thought would a superior being wanted to be worshiped by his subjects. I would not want even to be worshiped without a superior intelligence. Who would think a superior being wanted to be worshiped by his followers? Primitive man that lived in a transactional world and believed he had to worship to get good weather or free from droughts.

One of the keys in any logical argument is that the world could not just happen but argue God always was and always will be. That argument is like saying that a Buick is so complex that it could not just happen, but the General Motors plant could just happen. You can't believe in any religion without magical thinking. The world is based on logical thinking religions are based on magical thinking. Primitive man always covered his ignorance with magical thinking.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2024 10:01 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
What would you have me call them? Republicans?
You are very clearly avoiding the issue, which is the use of the word the <group>, as opposed to the accurate some/many etc of <the group>. Notice the group can be Christians, so it is not your use of the word Christians that is the issue (and you well know this).

You can't even bring yourself to admit you kept lumping Christians into one group, which indicates just how much it means to you to be able to lump them all into one group.

As I previously said, you (or any person) treating all people who belong to a particular group as the same is nonsensical. What you think of any religion is for you to decide. I don't particular care what you think about Christians - my reply was in relation to your extremist use of the English langauge.

Some/many etc of <group>= accurate
the <group>=extreme
(again, if you have an issue with this, take it up with the English language itself)

The larger the group, the more extreme the <group> becomes, particularly if only engaging in continual negatives.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 03:11 am
@Zardoz,
It says everything about your monochrome thinking which is what America is today.

You can't find one comment about Justin Welby disparaging American Democrats so you ignore it, like all the evidence that proves you're at best wrong and worst dishonest.

It's all extremes, I don't know what all my friends believe because I don't live in a land of extremes.

If I was to ask I probably get the reply, Oh I don't knowI don'treally think about it.

That'snormal in most of the bloody world.

Poles are extreme positions, evangelical Christianity vs evangelical Atheism with **** all in between.

All bloody extremists are bad, egotistical, humourless control freaks.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 03:36 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:

What would you have me call them?


The religious right.

It's an established term and leaves no room for doubt.

And if you were honest, it's a term you would use.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 04:23 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The religious right.
That term would be much better for most of his commentary (at least it refers to 'part of the whole' who 'lean towards x' and similar)
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 04:34 am
@vikorr,
There's an embrace of extreme positions.

His ideology seems reactive more than anything else, no search for anything deep inside one's self.

I don't think this is a political thread, it's a religious thread.

Trump's not a religious man he's an opportunist who jumped onto the religious bandwagon.

Of course he's going to get the support of a load of fascist religious leaders, they love telling peopole what to do.

Why should they be any different from the other fascists?

It's not Christianity, it's Fascism, different hues, but that's it.

When you allow ideology to take over, you take your eye off the ball. Instead of attacking fascists he's attacking Christians.

That means he's attacking the Christians who go to predominantly Black churches and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

His backwood vernacular no doubt sounds folksy to some of the other Americans, but from where I'm standing it sounds deliberately confrontational, unable to make concessions and sickenly self righteous.

Just like the Religious Right.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 04:35 am
What if there were a fire department and all the members of the department were Christians? If there were a house fire and it was extinguished it would not be wrong to say, "Christians put that fire out." It's obvious from the context that the firefighters were Christians. It doesn't mean that every person who identifies as a Christian is a one of those firefighters.

Say there was an election and it was close. One candidate was highly favored by evangelical Christians and that candidate ended up winning the election. Upon analysis it was determined that the votes of these Christians secured the candidate's victory. It would not be incorrect to say that "Christians provided the margin of victory." Even though many Christians voted against the candidate.

I think this is a frivolous objection. It's obvious from the context that the OP is talking about right-wing political Christians. There are times when we should make the effort to specify the particular brand of Christianity we are praising or condemning. And there are times when it's not necessary. Anyone who spends time reading these pages will have a good idea what's being discussed and will recognize the OP's vocabulary and use of terms. This is not an English assignment and I don't see the point of insisting that only politically correct language is allowable or that all inclusive terms be broken down and explained every time they are used.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 05:19 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


I think this is a frivolous objection.


That's the American atitude right there.

I don't see a problem, there can't be a problem, it's the rest of the world that has a problem.

USA USA USA!!!

hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 05:31 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
That's the American atitude right there.

Are you lumping all Americans together? If not, shouldn't you specify which particular Americans you mean?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 10:46 am
@hightor,
Pointing out an imperialist attitude that does cut right through.

And you and Zardoz share a hatred of religion that verges on bigotry.

There's not difference between Zardoz and those he criticises.

Over here if the fire brigade puts out a fire, it's the fire brigade who gets the crefit regardless of what religion the offers may be.

It would only be some we8rd religious publication that would publ8sh otherwise.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 11:50 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Pointing out an imperialist attitude that does cut right through.

I gave reasons why I thought vikorr's objections were misplaced. That hardly equates with "imperialism".

Quote:
And you and Zardoz share a hatred of religion that verges on bigotry.

I challenge you to provide one example where I demonstrate a "hatred of religion" or exhibit anti-religious bigotry. You know, there are bad aspects of religion as well as positive ones. I think the bad ones should be called out. I can decry the racism exhibited on British football pitches without hating the game of football.

Quote:
There's not difference between Zardoz and those he criticises.

That's pretty weak. How many library books do you think Zardoz wants to ban? How do you think he feels about income disparity? Or labor rights? Or the NRA?

Quote:
Over here if the fire brigade puts out a fire, it's the fire brigade who gets the crefit regardless of what religion the offers may be.

Same here. I thought it was obvious that I was concocting an analogy to demonstrate a peculiarity of the English language, showing that using an inclusive term without the modifying "some" is common, natural, and in some cases, acceptable.

Quote:
It would only be some we8rd religious publication that would publ8sh otherwise

Or someone on a message board trying to make his point more understandable.

I value your presence on this site – I like your historical perspective and exemplary British humor. But I've noticed that you are quick to take a disagreement to a personal level. Zardoz is "provincial", hightor is an "imperialist" – is it really necessary? What you haven't shown is why you find criticism of religion so objectionable. Seems to me you ought to be able to explain your point without insulting the intelligence or the alleged political sins of others.

So, once again:

Say there was an election and it was close. One candidate was highly favored by evangelical Christians and that candidate ended up winning the election. Upon analysis it was determined that the votes of these Christians secured the candidate's victory. It would not be incorrect to say that "Christians provided the margin of victory." Even though many Christians voted against the candidate.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 12:51 pm
@hightor,
Your ambivalent response to the slaughter of tens of thousans of )alestinians shows the extent of your compassion towards people of faith.

I suppose Muslims are even worse than Christians in your book.

They've not really taken well to American Hegemony so who gives a monkey's.

As a Socialist I'm more concerned about trying to do something about this world, not arguing hypotheticals about the nature or possibilty of any future existance.

Let's not do any of that, let's lump all Christians together as supporters of Trump, and while we're at it we can blame them for the Holocaust.

That's going to win hearts and minds.

That's what you give a free pass to.

That's what you're supporting, and it's a fascist mindset, looking at a whole group of people as one homogenous bloc and conveniently ignoring any contrary evidence as insignificant.

I think it's a product of imperialist thinking, which is a result of living in the current number one superpower.

I'm no stranger to imperialist thinking, our history books are riddled with it.

It's a well worn playbook, you're particularly susceptable to it as you can never admit to bd8ng wrong even after it's demonstrably proven.

And at the heart of someone who can't admit to being wrong beats a fascist.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 12:55 pm
@hightor,
I said Zardoz is parochial, not provincial.

These are traits that I observe, as is your cultural imperialism.

It's not a personal insult, it's a constant.

Maybe I can only see it because I'm an outsider, you've already admitted to insularity, so it's easy to see it as an attack as opposed to a criticism.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 12:59 pm
@hightor,
What's your problem with the term "religious right?"

Why can't you have a friendly word with Zardoz and ask if he uses that instead of Christians?

Is your acceptance of such a catch all term a refusal to admit being wrong, or is there a darker motive?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 02:46 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Your ambivalent response to the slaughter of tens of thousans )alestinians shows the extent of your compassion towards people of faith.

If you're referring to my "conversations" with glennn, I simply refused to jump onto his anti-semitic interpretation. In other threads I've criticized Netanyahu and the IDF for the grossly disproportionate response to Oct. 7. It's not a topic that I discuss a lot here because I have no solution and sending "thoughts and prayers" to the victims is pointless. I also know that not all Palestinians are "people of faith" yet I have compassion for them as well.
Quote:
As a Socialist I'm more concerned about trying to do something about this world, not arguing hypotheticals about the nature or possibilty of any future existance.

Pretty much the same here.
Quote:
That's what you're supporting, and it's a fascist mindset, looking at a whole group of people as one homogenous bloc and conveniently ignoring any contrary evidence as insignificant.

And yet you repeatedly condemn "Americans" (unmodified) as imperialist warmongers? What about Bayard Rustin? Father Robert Drinan? Rachel Corrie? Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr.? Noam Chomsky? You might want to reconsider your labeling me as parochial.
Quote:
It's a well worn playbook, you're particularly susceptable to it as you can never admit to bd8ng wrong even after it's demonstrably proven.

Where have I not admitted being wrong about a statement of fact?
Quote:
I said Zardoz is parochial, not provincial.

Yes, I caught that after I'd posted my previous comments. I was wrong.
Quote:

These are traits that I observe, as is your cultural imperialism.

You don't actually know me so I can ignore this sort of accusation quite easily.
Quote:
What's your problem with the term "religious right?"

I have no problem with it and use it all the time. And when I criticize political Christianity I nearly always clarify that I'm talking about Christian nationalists and right-wing evangelicals – precisely to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings.
Quote:
Why can't you have a friendly word with Zardoz and ask if he uses that instead of Christians?

Why can't you? Instead of type-casting him as a parochial mouthbreather from West Virginia and insulting him as a monochromatic reactionary. I'm not upset about his using the term "Christians" when the people he's referring to are Christians. And having read his comments for a long time, I also know that he's not including every Christian.
Quote:
Is your acceptance of such a catch all term a refusal to admit being wrong, or is there a darker motive?

Neither.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2024 04:52 pm
Language is important, it's use suggests many things.

Empires have provinces, the benighted outer fringes of said empire.

If I were to call Zardoz provincial it would suggest I still consider America to be part of the empire, the colonies and as such had a patriarchal view towards him.

Parochial means of its own locality, there's no implied ownership or superiority.

I leave that to the citizens of the empire.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:52:44