off topic The politics of terrorism

[Drunkard]

Drunkard- Two things:

 

First, A Christian Nation wouldn't replace the BoR with Leviticus. Mosaic Law (The Commandments and Leviticus) was fulfilled by Christ. A Christian Nation would instead be governed by a call to perform "works of mercy", we would be a nation that would "turn the other cheek", Americans would "love their enemies". All of this, as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount, is probably the most clear, direct, and forceful language that Jesus used when instructing his followers on how to act. He specifically says that the old law is fulfilled, and lays down these things as the new Law. It's all obviously been corrupted by a couple millennia of kings and wealth using the Church as their tool for subjugation, but the message is laid out in plain language, on documents dated from the first generation after Jesus's life.

 

Second, Jesus's words aside, I would encourage you to try empathy with the "other side". The human mind is an absolutely amazing thing, but it's got some pretty simple drivers. We are social creatures. Our brains instinctively create a sense of tribe. As a survival mechanism, this works as a shortcut to quickly identify threats. The modern result of this function is that we often misidentify threats prematurely. Unfortunately, this prevents us from accepting potentially useful inputs and information because once a source is IDed as "other" our ability to trust it falls so low that we don't even listen. If we begin our arguments from a point of degradation and belittling, we run the risk of have ourselves immediately identified as "other" by the potential recipients. We preemptively eliminate our chances of having our ideas assimilated into the other person's internal sense of "tribe". If we start our arguments not from our turf, but from the realm of the "other" we stand a better chance of moving things.

 

There is a psychological underpinning to the partisanship and stalemate we see today. We've split the country into strong identity "tribes" and no one hears what the other one is saying. Breaking this will require that we give up some of the outward themes of our tribe, in order to learn and appreciate the "other". it's why liberals are so deeply sickened when they see an Open-Carry rally in Texas, and why conservatives don't listen when they see a Black Lives Matter rally on TV. Their instincts tell them that this is "Other" and not to be trusted. When I see a bunch of people with long guns threateningly rally, my stomach turns and I think "crazy people". I need to over come that instinct as ask myself (and more importantly them) why they hold that identification, and what is motivating them to this action.

 

I'm not trying to argue that all people have legitimate and wonderful reasons to hold the positions they hold, lots of positions are held purely out of fear and/or greed. My point is only that if I don't make an effort to understand those reasons, I'm not going to help change peoples beliefs. If we all do this, nothing changes.

 

During the Triangle Shirtwaist Strikes of the early progressive era, Anne Morgan (Daughter of JP) took up the cause of the nascent labor union. She was very valuable to the strikers, not simply because she provided a high profile, but because she could readily identify with the "tribe" from the other side. When hard-line socialists began infiltrating the meetings, Morgan fought back against them, noting particularly that their appeal to emotionalism would derail the movement. This act kept the strikers focused on the things they were working for, rather than allowing an "us vs them" identity war to begin. 

 

Whiskey,

 

You make some great points and I agree with what you are saying in theory, but it's not a standard I'm going to live up to, especially when the vitriol from the other side gets my dander up. Also, I think you are mistaken about what a Christian nation would look like is today's day and age. Personally, I don't really know if Jesus actually existed or if he was just a story in the old book of Jewish Fairy Tales but I do like his message overall, even if I choose not to believe in him or worship his supposed divinity. Unfortunately those who claim to be his biggest fans ignore much of his message and focus on the things they choose to (like most religions in general). Where it would be nice to see people loving their neighbors and helping the poor, I think it would be much more likely that they'd focus on blind patriotism, war, war profiteering, guns, and discriminating against women and homosexuals. Then they'll more on to cutting services for the poor so they can give bigger tax breaks to the rich. Google image search Republican Jesus and randomly select any of the photos/memes that pop up and tell me they wouldn't try to twist his message to support their political positions. Since so many people had a cow about Raptor Jesus I'll avoid posting any of the pics in my post.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Drunkard

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Pure awesomeness in the last few posts.

 

I, as a Muslim, am confident in saying that I truly try my best to live by Jesus' example.  May the blessings of Allah be upon him.

[K-9]

A friend of mine once said something that really stuck:

 

"Even if you don't believe in God, act like you do." 

 

Words to live by, regardless of one's formal indoctrination. 

[dudacek]

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

[Thwomp!]

A friend of mine once said something that really stuck:

 

"Even if you don't believe in God, act like you do." 

 

Words to live by, regardless of one's formal indoctrination. 

 

I see the sentiment you're trying to relay, but no thanks, I'll pass.

 

 

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

 

Bingo! Well stated.  I think outsiders have the best perspective on many things.

[pastajoe]

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

It's been fine until recently when all the state gerrymandering has resulted in less moderate representatives unwilling to compromise. I still prefer it to the chaos that occurs in countries like Italy and Greece.

[Eleven]

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

 

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

 

That's exactly what it is.  I don't think I've seen it so perfectly described in just one sentence before this.

[Claude_Verret]

As an outsider, and with all due respect, I see the two-party form of democracy as it operates in the U.S. as incredibly limiting and divisive, as well as aggressively self-perpetuating.

 

 

Good observation, many of our founding fathers, among them our first president, warned about the dangers of the two party system just as you have in this post.  And yet here we are.

[darksabre]

The two party system isn't deliberate though, it's just the natural order of things. There could be more than two parties. There have even been some successful 3rd parties in recent history. Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives come to mind. But the United States by and large tends to reject parties that fall outside of the two party system because those parties tend to have messages that do not resonate with most American voters. We don't want more than two parties. We like two parties. 

Like people are trying to convince me of in the Politics thread, perhaps most people don't care enough about politics to see a need for more than two parties? 

[TrueBlueGED]

Good observation, many of our founding fathers, among them our first president, warned about the dangers of the two party system just as you have in this post. And yet here we are.

Technically speaking, Washington warned against party politics at all, not a two party system in particular. Which is about as amusing as Eisenhower warning against the military industrial complex.

The two party system isn't deliberate though, it's just the natural order of things. There could be more than two parties. There have even been some successful 3rd parties in recent history. Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives come to mind. But the United States by and large tends to reject parties that fall outside of the two party system because those parties tend to have messages that do not resonate with most American voters. We don't want more than two parties. We like two parties.

 

Like people are trying to convince me of in the Politics thread, perhaps most people don't care enough about politics to see a need for more than two parties?

I would argue the two party system is necessary for American democracy given how little attention people pay to politics. Two parties which are clearly distinct from one another make it easier for voters with little information to choose the party most aligned with them, simplifies the credit/blame attribution calculus, and contrary to popular belief, encourages participation.

 

The problem is our governmental institutions are not set up to accommodate a responsible parties (think parliamentary style party government) system.

[Drunkard]

The two party system isn't deliberate though, it's just the natural order of things. There could be more than two parties. There have even been some successful 3rd parties in recent history. Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives come to mind. But the United States by and large tends to reject parties that fall outside of the two party system because those parties tend to have messages that do not resonate with most American voters. We don't want more than two parties. We like two parties. 

 

Like people are trying to convince me of in the Politics thread, perhaps most people don't care enough about politics to see a need for more than two parties? 

 

The main reason third parties don't have any staying power is because they tend to be focused on a single issue and one of the two parties generally absorb whatever platform that third party is trumpeting.

I see the sentiment you're trying to relay, but no thanks, I'll pass.

 

 

Exactly. I don't need to pretend like I believe in something that I don't and I reject the assumption that seems to be made by most people that morality stems from belief in an omnipotent supernatural being. I've posted my thoughts on how this just isn't the case because even cavemen followed basic societal rules thousands of years before any formalized religion of today was even invented but it's easier to ignore facts and think that people are good because they fear being punished in the afterlife.

[darksabre]

The main reason third parties don't have any staying power is because they tend to be focused on a single issue and one of the two parties generally absorb whatever platform that third party is trumpeting.

 

 

Which is essentially coalition government. We just cut out the middle part of coalition forming by calling for "bi-partisan" action instead. 

[MattPie]

The main reason third parties don't have any staying power is because they tend to be focused on a single issue and one of the two parties generally absorb whatever platform that third party is trumpeting.

 

Interesting, I'd think third parties don't exist due to the "winner take all" elections in the US. Generally speaking, any third party will appeal more to people that lean towards one of the two big parties, so third parties only serve to damage "the cause" by syphoning off voters and the other big party prevails. See: Ross Perot. In more contemporary terms, I could see Trump running as a third party candidate and sucking off 15-20% of the Republican vote, but very little of the Democratic vote. The election would be a landslide in the electoral college as even the "red" states you end up with numbers like 45% D, 35% R, 20% T.

[Hoss]

A friend of mine once said something that really stuck:

 

"Even if you don't believe in God, act like you do."

 

Words to live by, regardless of one's formal indoctrination.

I'm interested to hear more of this mindset. It's not uncommon for people to think that morals are tied to religion so it must be hard to have one without the other... But I think that's rather insulting, to be honest. I once had a Muslim friend of mine ask me how I could be atheist and she went on to say that religion came before human nature.

(If that is indeed what you mean)

[wjag]

The main reason third parties don't have any staying power is because they tend to be focused on a single issue and one of the two parties generally absorb whatever platform that third party is trumpeting.

 

Exactly. I don't need to pretend like I believe in something that I don't and I reject the assumption that seems to be made by most people that morality stems from belief in an omnipotent supernatural being. I've posted my thoughts on how this just isn't the case because even cavemen followed basic societal rules thousands of years before any formalized religion of today was even invented but it's easier to ignore facts and think that people are good because they fear being punished in the afterlife.

 

3rd parties don't exist because the money machine doesn't systematically fund them (government and private).  So you get the occasional billionaire willing to throw money around, but campaigns are prohibitively expensive and the money doesn't migrate to fringe candidates,

[TrueBlueGED]

Interesting, I'd think third parties don't exist due to the "winner take all" elections in the US. Generally speaking, any third party will appeal more to people that lean towards one of the two big parties, so third parties only serve to damage "the cause" by syphoning off voters and the other big party prevails. See: Ross Perot. In more contemporary terms, I could see Trump running as a third party candidate and sucking off 15-20% of the Republican vote, but very little of the Democratic vote. The election would be a landslide in the electoral college as even the "red" states you end up with numbers like 45% D, 35% R, 20% T.

 

Correct. Combine winner take all elections with single member congressional districts and you're nearly guaranteed (there are, of course, exceptions) to have a system dominated by two parties. Then tack on the actions the major parties take to suppress third party electoral chances (primarily in the form of co-opting third party issue positions, ballot access requirements, and districting), toss in a sprinkling of the American public being so strongly attached to the two parties for good measure, and third parties just have it really tough 'round herr. 

[K-9]

I see the sentiment you're trying to relay, but no thanks, I'll pass.

 

Exactly. I don't need to pretend like I believe in something that I don't and I reject the assumption that seems to be made by most people that morality stems from belief in an omnipotent supernatural being. I've posted my thoughts on how this just isn't the case because even cavemen followed basic societal rules thousands of years before any formalized religion of today was even invented but it's easier to ignore facts and think that people are good because they fear being punished in the afterlife.

 

Interesting. I never took that quote as pointing to the bogeyman, "fear of God" aspect of belief in order to adopt a morality to live by. Guess you had to be there.

[Eleven]

30+ dead in an attack in Kandahar today.  I understand that Afghanistan lacks resources--but why are the rich countries of the Muslim world seemingly doing nothing?

[pastajoe]

30+ dead in an attack in Kandahar today. I understand that Afghanistan lacks resources--but why are the rich countries of the Muslim world seemingly doing nothing?

Because all Muslims aren't equal in their eyes. It breaks down to tribal and religious factions. Sunnis and Shites are all Muslim, and they're constantly fighting.

[Doohickie]

Well, that, and even beyond the religious divides there are cultural divides.  It's easy to understand the cultural divides in Europe, that Germans and Spaniards and Greeks are all different, but most Americans kind of see everything from North Africa to Pakistan as "Arab" nations which isn't true at all.

 

For Saudis and Egyptians and Qataris, etc., to get involved in Afghanistan would be to invite those conflicts into their own countries.

[Thwomp!]

A friend of mine once said something that really stuck:

 

"Even if you don't believe in God, act like you do." 

 

Words to live by, regardless of one's formal indoctrination. 

 

ame="EastsideOasis" post="765994" timestamp="1449670744"]I see the sentiment you're trying to relay, but no thanks, I'll pass.

 

 

 

Interesting. I never took that quote as pointing to the bogeyman, "fear of God" aspect of belief in order to adopt a morality to live by. Guess you had to be there.

 

What does the quote mean to you then?  

 

I tried to look at it several different ways and could only come up with "religious people are good people and do the right thing, act the right way, etc."  I disagree with that notion and thus disagree that those are "words to live by".

[LGR4GM]

Hi everyone! What's going on in...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MattPie]

What does the quote mean to you then?  

 

I tried to look at it several different ways and could only come up with "religious people are good people and do the right thing, act the right way, etc."  I disagree with that notion and thus disagree that those are "words to live by".

 

It's all over the news, but the American Atheists put a billboard in NC and CO that says, "Go ahead and skip church. Just be good for goodness sake, Happy Holidays". That pretty much nails it for me, I don't think a higher power is needed to tell right from wrong, just common sense and compassion.

[PASabreFan]

Isn't there an important distinction to be made between Christians in name only and Christians who truly live a Christly life? I call myself an agnostic; I've probably moderated to that point from a near-atheist stand when I was young. I think Christ's message is fantastic and live by many of those ideals — and as d4rk brilliantly pointed out, I (we) may live by and aspire to live by those ideals because they were passed down from religious people, not necessarily because they're natural laws.

 

So I refuse to take a back seat on morality to anyone who only identifies as Christian, goes to church only at Christmas and Easter, makes the sign of the cross only when Cody Franson is trying to catch up with someone on a breakaway etc. The ones with genuine faith and who live like Christ would, well, I humbly give them their props. I'm not that good.

 

You have to be religious to be a good person, or you're a good person because you're religious, is the biggest crock to ever come down the pike.

[Thwomp!]

It's all over the news, but the American Atheists put a billboard in NC and CO that says, "Go ahead and skip church. Just be good for goodness sake, Happy Holidays". That pretty much nails it for me, I don't think a higher power is needed to tell right from wrong, just common sense and compassion.

 

Agree 100% with the bold.

 

 

Isn't there an important distinction to be made between Christians in name only and Christians who truly live a Christly life? I call myself an agnostic; I've probably moderated to that point from a near-atheist stand when I was young. I think Christ's message is fantastic and live by many of those ideals — and as d4rk brilliantly pointed out, I (we) may live by and aspire to live by those ideals because they were passed down from religious people, not necessarily because they're natural laws.

 

So I refuse to take a back seat on morality to anyone who only identifies as Christian, goes to church only at Christmas and Easter, makes the sign of the cross only when Cody Franson is trying to catch up with someone on a breakaway etc. The ones with genuine faith and who live like Christ would, well, I humbly give them their props. I'm not that good.

 

You have to be religious to be a good person, or you're a good person because you're religious, is the biggest crock to ever come down the pike.

 

The bolded is essentially my feelings on the issue as well..  It seems like some of the worst people are also the most (self-professed) religious, but are so hypocritical, judgmental, and obviously incapable of introspection.