US Politics - All He Wants for Christmas Was His Two Dead Sheep

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

One of the few bright spots of the Trump Administration is that he’s made it unmistakably clear that the leaders of the religious right are completely full of s***.

Seriously, you all don't know what you are talking about in terms of Christianity Today. That magazine has never been a flagship of the "Moral Majority"  and this editorial does not come out of the blue in terms of its stand on important issues.  On September 30 it published an online article protesting the Trump administration's lowering of the USA's refugee ceiling:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/september-web-only/ripple-effect-refugee-ceiling-reduction-international-churc.html

It has published many articles about care for the environment and accept the reality of climate change such as:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/december/clean-energy-churches-wea-initiative-solar-power.html

I don't agree with CT's positions on abortion or GLBT issues. But they have not been "Trump cheerleaders" and you can't just lump them in with "Religious RIght" leaders. Not all "Evangelicals" are alike any more than any other large group in our society.

[Corvinus85]

US Steel Group announced it's shutting down its Great Lakes Works mill near Detroit. I'll be shocked if Michigan still goes to Trump next year. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/business/us-steel-mill-closing/index.html 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

42 minutes ago, Ormond said:

 

Not all "Evangelicals" are alike any more than any other large group in our society.

This is very important to remember.  And also, one editorial does not a trend make.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Seriously, you all don't know what you are talking about in terms of Christianity Today. That magazine has never been a flagship of the "Moral Majority"  and this editorial does not come out of the blue in terms of its stand on important issues.  On September 30 it published an online article protesting the Trump administration's lowering of the USA's refugee ceiling:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/september-web-only/ripple-effect-refugee-ceiling-reduction-international-churc.html

It has published many articles about care for the environment and accept the reality of climate change such as:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/december/clean-energy-churches-wea-initiative-solar-power.html

I don't agree with CT's positions on abortion or GLBT issues. But they have not been "Trump cheerleaders" and you can't just lump them in with "Religious RIght" leaders. Not all "Evangelicals" are alike any more than any other large group in our society.

I’m not talking about the article. I’m talking in general.  While I’m sure there are some prominent evangelicals who’ve spoken out against him, it seems like most have defended him, going so far as to say it’s evangelicals duty to god to vote for him.  

And yes, not all evangelicals are the same, but when over 80% of white evangelicals vote for a guy who is the antithesis of their faith, it’s telling.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not talking about the article. I’m talking in general.  While I’m sure there are some prominent evangelicals who’ve spoken out against him, it seems like most have defended him, going so far as to say it’s evangelicals duty to god to vote for him.  

And yes, not all evangelicals are the same, but when over 80% of white evangelicals vote for a guy who is the antithesis of their faith, it’s telling.

See I'm not sure the evangelicals in question would agree that he is the antithesis of their faith...

[Zorral]

Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham bedbug's great xtian buddy-buddy, has attacked and poo pooed this simultaneously, pointing out that this magazine has never been  a voice of Bible-based evangelicals, has a circulatuon of about 130,000, and is WRONG! and hasn't had any connection to real evangelicals and Christians, like his family who originally founded it many years ago. 

The magazine's editorial staff also believed Bill Clinton should be impeached and said so back then.

Again, it's only the media that twitter pats all over this because, like last night's "wine cave' flap, oooooo looky look, a talking point sound bite! so that's all any of them talk about.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

See I'm not sure the evangelicals in question would agree that he is the antithesis of their faith...

A lot of them do, but they were happy to make a deal with the devil in exchange for judicial nominations.

For example, note that none of the House Republicans defended the morality of what Trump did or is.

But then again these people have been warping their faith for a long time now.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I think it comes down to what the Christians in question think of as the most important aspects of their faith.

For many, it is not taking a life. That means they will support anyone who is a pro-life and can work to see that our courts become pro-life again.

For all his moral (and legal) failings, Trump has and will continue to work make the courts lean pro-life.

 I have also worked under the mistaken view that being a good Christian meant trying to live by Jesus' teachings...to try and live like he did...healing the sick, feeding the poor, making sure your buddies get drunk at parties.

 

eta: or, you know, what Tywin said

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 minute ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I think it comes down to what the Christians in question think of as the most important aspects of their faith.

For many, it is not taking a life. That means they will support anyone who is a pro-life and can work to see that our courts become pro-life again.

For all his moral (and legal) failings, Trump has and will continue to work make the courts lean pro-life.

I am not saying their view is correct, but it is always the first thing they are clamoring about.   I have always felt that if YOU think something is wrong, YOU shouldn't do it, period.  I have also worked under the mistaken view that being a good Christian meant trying to live by Jesus' teachings...to try and live like he did...healing the sick, feeding the poor, making sure your buddies get drunk at parties.

 

eta: or, you know, what Tywin said

This just seems like what literally every story in the Bible says is bad, ie, you don't make a deal with evil/devil/whatever even if you think the greater outcome is "good." I haven't been to church or Sunday School in 20 plus years, but I'm certain there's a story or two about this...

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

14 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

This just seems like what literally every story in the Bible says is bad, ie, you don't make a deal with evil/devil/whatever even if you think the greater outcome is "good." I haven't been to church or Sunday School in 20 plus years, but I'm certain there's a story or two about this...

Priorities man, it's all about priorities. 

 

Which just proves how full of shit they all are.  (I was trying to be nice, but man it just gets me that they can justify supporting him for any reason what so ever. no, no matter what, you do not make a deal with the devil)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, no, Sheen has the tiger's blood. Jace has the snake's venom. Totally different.  

Somehow I think the Full Metal Jacket reference evaded you, or you chose to ignore it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Somehow I think the Full Metal Jacket reference evaded you, or you chose to ignore it.

I haven’t seen it in ages and it seems obscure. Besides, Sheen wasn’t in that.

[Zorral]

How everybody in the world owning a mobile can be tracked, and everything about them known, including identity, and is -- this includes the resident of mar-a-largo. Everything about you is known by data brokers, and they buy and sell the information and your identity all day, every day.

This is part of a NYT's special series.  The quote below is from part 2.  More coming on Sunday.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/20/opinion/location-data-national-security.html?

Quote

 

THE DEVICE’S OWNER was easy to trace, revealing the outline of the person’s work and life. The same phone pinged a dozen times at the nearby Secret Service field office and events with elected officials. From computer screens more than 1,000 miles away, we could watch the person travel from exclusive areas at Palm Beach International Airport to Mar-a-Lago.

The meticulous movements — down to a few feet — of the president’s entourage were recorded by a smartphone we believe belonged to a Secret Service agent, whose home was also clearly identifiable in the data. Connecting the home to public deeds revealed the person’s name, along with the name of the person’s spouse, exposing even more details about both families. We could also see other stops this person made, apparently more connected with his private life than his public duties. The Secret Service declined to comment on our findings or describe its policies regarding location data.

The vulnerability of the person we tracked in Mr. Trump’s entourage is one that many if not all of us share: the apps (weather services, maps, perhaps even something as mundane as a coupon saver) collecting and sharing his location on his phone.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Sad day for political podcasts. Joshua Johnson has hosted 1A since its inception three years ago, but he's leaving now for bigger and better things on T.V. It was the replacement show for Diane Rehm's show, and I never expected it to be as good. It turned out to be even better, and the one through line between the two shows are the Friday news round up podcasts covering domestic and international affairs. It was the latter show that inspired me to make the first international news thread here. I'm really going to miss him, and if you've never checked it out before, I encourage you to do so when you need to kill time. The archive has some excellent shows to listen to. I'd suggest his visit to the new dinosaur exhibit at the Smithsonian in D.C. for starters.

[Jeor]

8 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

Priorities man, it's all about priorities. 

Which just proves how full of shit they all are.  (I was trying to be nice, but man it just gets me that they can justify supporting him for any reason what so ever. no, no matter what, you do not make a deal with the devil)

As someone who identifies as a Christian, albeit in Australia, the particular flavour of American evangelicalism is a little perplexing to me. In Christian circles in Australia, people are denouncing Trump at every turn, so the Christianity Today article is no surprise to me.

Christianity is an exceptionally broad church (pun intended!); depending on how one reads the Bible, you could be a radical left-wing communist because of the economics (helping the poor and marginalised, or "caring for God's creation" i.e. environment), a fanatical conservative on social issues ("traditional values" manifesting in views on abortion "sanctity of life", gay rights etc) or anything in between.

At least to me, Christianity doesn't lend itself to any particular political ideology, which is why I think Christian political parties or those that claim to be Christian are weird. The Bible wasn't intended to be a political manifesto (despite what some Christians may say or do), and thus you will find Christians on both sides of most political issues.

Yet somehow in the USA, the vast bulk of Christians have become fused with the political right-wing. This is odd, because I think the general trend for Christians is to be left of centre on economics, and right of center on social issues which should result in an even split depending on which you prioritise. What's even harder to understand is that, having identified with the right presumably because of its stance on so-called "moral" and social issues, they don't have a problem with Trump, who is just about as bad as you can get when it comes to personal moral values.

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

As someone who identifies as a Christian, albeit in Australia, the particular flavour of American evangelicalism is a little perplexing to me. In Christian circles in Australia, people are denouncing Trump at every turn, so the Christianity Today article is no surprise to me.

Christianity is an exceptionally broad church (pun intended!); depending on how one reads the Bible, you could be a radical left-wing communist because of the economics (helping the poor and marginalised, or "caring for God's creation" i.e. environment), a fanatical conservative on social issues ("traditional values" manifesting in views on abortion "sanctity of life", gay rights etc) or anything in between.

At least to me, Christianity doesn't lend itself to any particular political ideology, which is why I think Christian political parties or those that claim to be Christian are weird. The Bible wasn't intended to be a political manifesto (despite what some Christians may say or do), and thus you will find Christians on both sides of most political issues.

Yet somehow in the USA, the vast bulk of Christians have become fused with the political right-wing. This is odd, because I think the general trend for Christians is to be left of centre on economics, and right of center on social issues which should result in an even split depending on which you prioritise. What's even harder to understand is that, having identified with the right presumably because of its stance on so-called "moral" and social issues, they don't have a problem with Trump, who is just about as bad as you can get when it comes to personal moral values.

Not quite.  Two decades ago, for personal reasons, I made a study of Christianity, its history, theology, and place in US society.  

First, despite immense effort to mask over differences, fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity in the US is very deeply divided.  One common example: many fundamental Baptists do not regard Catholics as Christians at all, but rather as deviant demon worshipers or heretics.  (The feeling is mutual).  True, lasting unity between these fundamentalist factions is impossible.  

Second, the number of 'moderate Christians' - the rational ones - far exceeds the fundamentalists.  The fundamentalists, for their part, view these sorts as 'false Christians' or 'weak in faith.'  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I haven’t seen it in ages and it seems obscure. Besides, Sheen wasn’t in that.

Are you John Wayne, is this me.

Was the original movie line. I swapped John Wayne for Charlie Sheen because of Jace's Denise Richard's rant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZYlXEUo-Lo

[Jeor]

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Second, the number of 'moderate Christians' - the rational ones - far exceeds the fundamentalists.  The fundamentalists, for their part, view these sorts as 'false Christians' or 'weak in faith.'  

Thanks, yes I wasn't sure exactly how the Christian landscape played out in the USA.

And I would agree with this - there are a very large number of moderate Christians, who are generally the quieter ones but who are a great benefit to society. You'll still find a lot of charities are faith-driven (Christian or other faiths) and there are an abundance of churches that look after the poor, advocate for refugees, care for the marginalised and so on. It's just a pity that the Christians in politics are generally the fundamentalist right-wingers who get a lot of airtime and are generally single-issue people, which really turns off non-believers and does a lot of damage to Christianity in general.

[DMC]

22 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is that really still the case? I thought they kind of got neutered once the GOP lost the House.

I don't think so - they still initiated then held the line for Trump on the shutdown, and many of their members are among the loudest whiners on impeachment.  Other than that, there's not much that's gone on in the House over the past year to gauge whether they've been "neutered."  I guess between the budget deal and NAFTA 2.0 there has been the past week, and they held their fire on each, but that sort of just reinforces they are Trump's strongest allies in Congress and he didn't want them to raise a stink.

8 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Second, the number of 'moderate Christians' - the rational ones - far exceeds the fundamentalists.  The fundamentalists, for their part, view these sorts as 'false Christians' or 'weak in faith.'  

The data doesn't really support this.  Among white protestants, 56% identify as evangelical or born again.  Now, overall, 65% of white adults identify as Christian - 46% protestant and 17% catholic.  And, of course, Catholics are considerably more moderate in general (although certainly not all of them).  But, as Ty pointed out, the fact that 8 in 10 white evangelics support Trump (and literally 99% opposed impeachment back in October) indicates "moderate" Christians decidedly do not "far exceed" the evangelics that overwhelmingly compose the Christian right.

As a result, white Christians overall are becoming remarkably less bipartisan.  In 2009, white Christians made up 40% of Democrats.  A decade later, that number has dropped to 25%.  34% of Democrats are now religiously unaffiliated.  Obviously, even if 80% of white evangelicals support Trump, that means 1 in 5 do not, so it's hardly a surprise that an evangelical magazine Billy Graham explicitly founded to be "middle of the road" would support impeachment.  But that doesn't change the fact white Christians are continually becoming staunchly partisan - especially when you throw religiosity into the mix.

[Freshwater Spartan]

Right wing Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are the loudest voices for Christianity in America. Most of the media and our culture is secular and unchurched so they assume they are the default example. Christian America is far diverse then most atheist types would assume. See mayor Pete. Evangelical and Republican do not always go together as Christianity today shows.