US Politics: For Whom the Bell Tolls

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

The majority of American Christians are not fundamentalist. Evangelicals are estimated at anywhere from 25% to 30% of the overall population, but that's self-reporting and does not necessarily encompass the actual beliefs they have, just what they loosely associate themselves with. I'm unaware of any survey attempting to quantify what percentage of Americans would share Moore's belief, but I'd guess the number is very much a minority opinion.

 

I admit I know very little about Moore, or what his actual beliefs are. I just don't believe that only Evangelical Christians believe that all other religions are false. It is kind of the basic principle of the entire religion, after all. That doesn't mean they would feel the need to treat Muslims, for example, badly. Just that they would be compelled to try and convert them to Christianity to save their souls, or some variation thereof. I don't believe that is an extremist position as such.

Anyway, not my intention to further side track this topic.

[Ran]

The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has official doctrine regarding the validity of other faiths, so not sure how to square that with "the basic principle of the entire religion".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well thanks for your opinion.

You don't think advocating that Muslims be barred from voting, that LGBT be made illegal, that Evangelical Christian moral precepts be codefied into US law are not extremist positions?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has official doctrine regarding the validity of other faiths, so not sure how to square that with "the basic principle of the entire religion".

Exactly.  Heck, Orthodoxy is more stringent in its view on this matter and even we don't claim to know the only path to salvation. 

[OldGimletEye]

Now the reason we have to throw people off of medicaid, reduce SNAP, etc, is because heart breaking and gut wrenching stories like Kristi Noem's.

Folks, get your tissues out. You're going to need them. This is going to be a real tear jerker.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/11/kristi-noem-poster-child-estate-tax-repeal-but-sad-tale-doesnt-add-up-chuck-collins-column/930472001/

Quote

Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota is one of the negotiators trying to reconcile the House and Senate tax bills. No doubt House Speaker Paul Ryan views her as a strong voice for estate tax repeal, because of her personal story of how her farming family struggled to pay the tax.

The inhumanity of it all.

Quote

Noem perpetuates the “estate tax hurts farmers” argument using her life experience. The story she tells, however, does not line up with some very basic tenets of the tax code. Now, 23 years later, it is high time to get the facts. It’s also an important time to understand just who is subject to the estate tax and what its repeal really means.

Stop with the facts. Stop. I'm too busy crying right now to deal with facts.

Quote

Noem is now at the center of the national debate over estate tax repeal and her personal story is regularly repeated as an example of how the estate tax hurts family farmers and ranchers.

No more Kristi Noem's people. No more. We must put a stop to this outrage.

[Which Tyler]

Quote

I had to laugh at a report on Roy Moore on Sky News. It just showed the massive gulf between the liberal establishment and people in the religious heartlands of America. The matter-of-fact style of the British reporter made it even more striking. His intention was to state all the reasons why Roy Moore is a terrible candidate, by listing some extreme beliefs of the man

SkyNews? Liberal establishment?

Blimey, I guess there's a first time for everything then with that accusation.

 

You do realise that Sky News is the TV mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch yeah? Not quite as right wing as Fox News, but that due to British law.

 

 

Beyond that though, you may need to realise that "Christianity" has more than one flavour. A lot of what you say is standard for all Christians goes directly against the Church of England's (and several / most other flavour's including Roman Catholic) position.

Care to guess which flavour of Christianity is dominant in England?

I'll give you a hint - it's not evangelical fundamentalism

[DMC]

The reason Alabama kept on electing Democrats statewide for so long is because the state was a single-party system from Reconstruction until the realignment following the Civil Rights Era.  Richard Shelby was a Democrat until 1994 (which, not incidentally, I often cite as an inflection point for when the parties fully realigned, more or less).  Alabama as a whole did not vote for Democrats because they used to be any less racist (or voted less on social issues) than they are now - George Wallace was the Democratic governor as recently as 1986.  That's gone now, around 90% of whites vote Republican and around 90% of blacks vote Democrat in the state.

[mormont]

I think the problem is FN is struck by the idea that these positions are regarded as extreme, because he doesn't realise that they are in fact regarded as extreme. 

The best example is the idea that all or most Christians regard other faiths as 'false', inherently. That doesn't seem controversial to him, because most Christians he knows agree with it. But in Europe, at least, many Christians believe that Islam shares some important truths with their faith, and believe the same for Judaism, for that matter. I doubt that FN would find the latter idea as absurd as the former, but he probably knows more people who'd subscribe to that view.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I didn't see this posted yet, but the much awaited CB polling update says:

https://cbpolling.press/2017/12/10/roy-moore-builds-significant-lead-doug-jones-alabama-senate-race/

Thats a weird hyperlink, because the title of the story is: "Democrat Doug Jones on verge of clinching Alabama Senate race tomorrow". But essentially, for three turnout models they get Jones ahead in 2 (the one Moore is up in has 2016 turnout).

 

[Maithanet]

I'll predict:

Moore 49

Jones 48

Saban 1

Strange 1

Trump/Sessions/Busby 1

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think the problem is FN is struck by the idea that these positions are regarded as extreme, because he doesn't realise that they are in fact regarded as extreme. 

The best example is the idea that all or most Christians regard other faiths as 'false', inherently. That doesn't seem controversial to him, because most Christians he knows agree with it. But in Europe, at least, many Christians believe that Islam shares some important truths with their faith, and believe the same for Judaism, for that matter. I doubt that FN would find the latter idea as absurd as the former, but he probably knows more people who'd subscribe to that view.

Well, it was not my intent to side track the thread, but since matters of faith are clearly a lodestone of strong opinion, and because it is always an interesting discussion, let's play with the statistics then, as everyone seems to be doing.

From my cursory Googling, there are around 900 million Protestants in the world. And of them about 500-600 million are Evangelicals. And another 70-80 million Calvinists and roughly the same number of Lutherans, it seems. By default all Evangelicals would strongly believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation, and the majority of Calvinists seem to follow that teaching too. Of Lutherans I am less certain, but I would guess a substantial number of them are of a conservative mind set too as far as this issue is concerned.

It would then be quite accurate to say that among Protestants, a significant majority believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are therefore false. To label someone an extremist based on that belief would therefore be unwarranted, in my view.

But of course, to a non-religious person, the very idea of such a worldview would obviously invoke the label of "extremist".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, it was not my intent to side track the thread, but since matters of faith are clearly a lodestone of strong opinion, and because it is always an interesting discussion, let's play with the statistics then, as everyone seems to be doing.

From my cursory Googling, there are around 900 million Protestants in the world. And of them about 500-600 million are Evangelicals. And another 70-80 million Calvinists and roughly the same number of Lutherans, it seems. By default all Evangelicals would strongly believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation, and the majority of Calvinists seem to follow that teaching too. Of Lutherans I am less certain, but I would guess a substantial number of them are of a conservative mind set too as far as this issue is concerned.

It would then be quite accurate to say that among Protestants, a significant majority believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are therefore false. To label someone an extremist based on that belief would therefore be unwarranted, in my view.

But of course, to a non-religious person, the very idea of such a worldview would obviously invoke the label of "extremist".

To many religious people the very idea of such a worldview invokes the label of "extremist".  Any time someone feels justified to force their faith upon another I view that position as "extremist" and I'm a regular church goer, a tonsured reader in the Orthodox Church in America.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

To many religious people the very idea of such a worldview invokes the label of "extremist".  Any time someone feels justified to force their faith upon another I view that position as "extremist" and I'm a regular church goer, a tonsured reader in the Orthodox Church in America.

Well you basically reject the entire concept of missionaries that went out to the world to spread the Faith then, over the ages. And note that your use of the term "forcing"  is incorrect. But actively trying to convert others is a basic part of the Christian faith. The very instruction that was given to the disciples by the founder of the faith Himself.

Anyway, this belongs in the religion thread, as I said.

[Dr. Pepper]

To bring this back to politics, I have reached a point where I'd fully support the banning of evangelicals from holding office.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well you basically reject the entire concept of missionaries that went out to the world to spread the Faith then, over the ages. And note that your use of the term "forcing"  is incorrect. But actively trying to convert others is a basic part of the Christian faith. The very instruction that was given to the disciples by the founder of the faith Himself.

Anyway, this belongs in the religion thread, as I said.

It depends on what you mean by spreading the faith.  I've always liked the phrase "Preach the gospel always... when necessary use words".  It is how we live our lives that are our witnesses to the power of Christ not the billboards that attempt to frighten people into churches.  

[King Ned Stark]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

To bring this back to politics, I have reached a point where I'd fully support the banning of evangelicals from holding office.  

And that, is extremism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

To bring this back to politics, I have reached a point where I'd fully support the banning of evangelicals from holding office.  

How?  You could certainly start a group effort to deny any Evangelical votes to keep them from office but an outright legal prohibition upon Evangelical Christians holding office would be facially Unconstitutional.

[LongRider]

Enough religion already!  Back to politics. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How?

How what?  How could I be interested in preventing a christian sect that is known for religious extremism from holding office?  It seems like the answer would be self explanatory.  It's self protection.  

Or do you mean How could I prevent evangelicals from holding office?  Well that answer is obvious as well.  Can't be done, but it definitely feels good to voice the opinion that evangelicals, especially the nazi branch of them, shouldn't be in public office.

 

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'll predict:

Moore 49

Jones 48

Saban 1

Strange 1

Trump/Sessions/Busby 1

This does bring up the interesting (albeit minor) question of which write-in name gets the most votes. Saban is a good guess, I think Shelby will get a decent amount too.