monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@engineer,

We can be whatever religion we want to, we're not forced to be C of E. That's not how state religion works, not today anyway.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Yesterday's NYT had a pretty good piece on the Abandonment of natural science, Agriculture and medicine by the TRUMPIAN PARTY.

The theory is that too much science causes regulations. So they've removed more standards on Arsenic and Mercury , for example. Now we shall be paying for it in patient care.

0 Replies

A fair amount of intense anger and intolerance evident in the posts above. I wonder if the posters involved recognize the degree to which their words here reflect the same narrow-minded judgmentalism as they so energetically accuse of others. This obvious projection of their own starkly evident faults on others is truly remarkable.

It's been a while since I encountered the intense, mindless anti Catholicism voiced here by Blatham. Nothing yet new or novel evident in it - perhaps we, and the world, will have to wait for his book to find out where it will lead. (I'm reminded of Edwin Arlington Robinson's poem "Miniver Cheevy".)

I'll agree there's no shortage of material for all this out there (both now and during most periods in life). However most observant people are able to see that it is more widely distributed than the narrow-minded posters above allege.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Our Fundamentalists actually believe their ****.

Indeed they do. Some years back, I traveled from Portland to Dallas with an Evangelical woman of my age. Even though this woman is a typical Evangelical nutcase, I love her dearly. She's a truly nice person who grew up in the wrong place. Carbon dating came up in one conversation and I pointed out how tree rings provided a simple means of verifying that dating technique. She didn't quite know how to deal with this and I expect she manged to forget it quite quickly. She'd never to the coast before and at one point she pondered a new question. "Why", she asked me, "doesn't Texas have any mountains?". I told her, "It doesn't deserve them."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

the intense, mindless anti Catholicism voiced here by Blatham.

Have I ever said "**** you, george" before?

You are such a careless reader. Of course, I didn't voice anti-Catholicism in what I wrote above. I wrote about a small segment of your faith group who are, beyond any shadow of doubt, theocrats. Barr is one. Leonard Leo is another. Scalia another. Paul Weyrich another. Many other Catholics are not of this sort at all. As I also noted above, Stephen Colbert voices a faith stance I find not at all disagreeable.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Your characterizations of other peoples comments are stunningly bitter and self-serving. I was raised Catholic, and you as a fellow Catholic should be able acknowledge that the church has a few zealots who believe tax payer monies should be doled out to the churches as they see fit. I don't recall the Church advocating lying, but Barr glories in his obvious disrespect of the Constitution. Apparently it's OK in Barr's warped view of Christian values to lie to people he wishes to deceive. Even you should be able to see the hypocrisy, the lights are flashing and the bells are clanging.

3 Replies

Trip Gabriel
‏

@tripgabriel
2h2 hours ago
More
Because the 2017 tax overhaul was sloppily written, corporate lobbyists were able to carve out even bigger breaks, potentially reducing revenues by hundreds of billions more than projected. The deficit has already grown by 50% under Trump.

0 Replies

I was going to write up a piece on Leonard Leo but it's simpler to just link to the followingfrom July 2018. This really is a must read.

Quote:

The Secrets of Leonard Leo, the Man Behind Trump’s Supreme Court Pick

A Catholic fundamentalist who controls a network of right-wing groups funded by dark money has put three justices on the court. He’s about to get a fourth.

When President Donald Trump nominates a justice to the Supreme Court on Monday night, he will be carrying out the agenda of a small, secretive network of extremely conservative Catholic activists already responsible for placing three justices (Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch) on the high court.

And yet few people know who they are—until now.

At the center of the network is Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, the association of legal professionals that has been the pipeline for nearly all of Trump’s judicial nominees. (Leo is on leave from the Federalist Society to personally assist Trump in picking a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.) His formal title is executive vice president, but that role belies Leo’s influence.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Your characterizations of other peoples comments are stunningly bitter and self-serving. I was raised Catholic, and you as a fellow Catholic should be able acknowledge that the church has a few zealots who believe tax payer monies should be doled out to the churches as they see fit. I don't recall the Church advocating lying, but Barr glories in his obvious disrespect of the Constitution. Apparently it's OK in Barr's warped view of Christian values to lie to people he wishes to deceive. Even you should be able to see the hypocrisy, the lights are flashing and the bells are clanging.

Intolerant zealots infect nearly all groups of people; religious, political and merely social. They are, however, wearyingly similar in their mean-spirited hatred and condemnations of "others" - and do so often because they merely disagree with them on some topical issue. Such irrational judgmenatlism is, sadly, a common human fault. Wiser people are more able to disagree, without all this baggage, and to be more able (or merely willing) to consider different points of view on the issues involved, and do so without rancor. Very little of such wisdom is evident in the last few pages of this thread.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

A fair amount of intense anger and intolerance evident in the posts above. I wonder if the posters involved recognize the degree to which their words here reflect the same narrow-minded judgmentalism as they so energetically accuse of others. This obvious projection of their own starkly evident faults on others is truly remarkable.

A one two punch and a kick in the gut. Well done George.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

All this reminds me of my school time, more than 50 years ago.
Even our teacher in religious sciences (an ordained priest, PhD both in theology and philosophy, "part time" canon in a parish church) agreed with us that the US Catholics were more liberal than those here.

Nowadays, it's a lot more the other way around with many.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Some of us will recall that the anti-nuke and anti-war movements had many Catholic figures in the forefront of those movements.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
the intense, mindless anti Catholicism voiced here by Blatham.
Have I ever said "**** you, george" before?

Yes, as have several others. I usually think of the speaker's state of mind and get over it quickly

blatham wrote:

You are such a careless reader. Of course, I didn't voice anti-Catholicism in what I wrote above. I wrote about a small segment of your faith group who are, beyond any shadow of doubt, theocrats. Barr is one. Leonard Leo is another. Scalia another. Paul Weyrich another. Many other Catholics are not of this sort at all. As I also noted above, Stephen Colbert voices a faith stance I find not at all disagreeable.

On the contrary, I'm not careless at all. The obvious fact is that, in both your words above and your comment on Stephen Colbert above, you are merely using a convenient, but intolerant Religious label to express disagreement with them on topics unrelated to their faith. You also evidence a strange and nearly constant inclination to find dark conspiracy behind those who hold views different from your own. History reveals that to be a sadly common factor behind mindless persecutions and civil strife in human affairs. I find it a bit odd that you are evidently so unaware of it.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Your characterizations of other peoples comments are stunningly bitter and self-serving. ….

High praise coming as it does from a constant source of self-serving bitterness.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You're a sad case George.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Brilliant retort !

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Intolerant zealots infect nearly all groups of people; religious, political and merely social.

Well, that's certainly true. But the observation is of little use if we don't allow ourselves to apply it to our own favored communities.

I presume that when you speak of "intolerant zealots" you must be referring to those who maintain a very severe framing of proper belief - "This is the only legitimate interpretation of scripture and all others are false and profane". The extremist branches of the Muslim faith are a modern example. Or there's the species of Christian evangelism found mainly in the south which holds that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

In the modern American Catholic world, who could you name who'd fit such a description?

2 Replies

@blatham,

Well, I've spent some pleasant times with Antonin Scalia up in the Redwoods a few years before his death, and I wouldn't label him as you did. Based on what I have, remotely, observed I wouldn't put AG Barr in that category either.

My problem with what you wrote is that you appear to dump anyone whose political positions you oppose in such prejudged categories without knowledge of or regard to the values that led to the political positions you so ardently oppose, and view them as part of a dark, conveniently labeled, conspiracy based on them. Based on my experience in life, I find that to be a narrow minded and superficial position, and recognize it as a frequent ingredient in the worst events in human history.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

The extremist branches of the Muslim faith are a modern example.

The extremist branches are the true face of Islam. The religion is extreme and it's literature is to be taken literally. Muslims telling you any different are wrong. They do not speak for Islam, it speaks for itself. Muhammad is the first and last word and any disagreement with Muhammad concerning Islam is simply wrong.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Lovely. Any chance you'll answer the question I just put to you?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know