So, a couple things that I've been thinking about, and would be curious to see what others think.
Background:
1. I visited my sister last week. She is my older sister, and is a born again Christian right wing anti-covide vaccine Trumper. I mean a True Believer - not just in Trump, but in her religious views. She truly believes in all the evangelical Christian dogma. She believes that America's problem are because it has turned away from its god and kills babies, etc., etc., etc.
We don't talk politics, for obvious reasons, but every now and again we slide into it. It generally does not go well, again for obvious reasons. We don't talk religion either, for the exact same reasons.
But my last day there, the subject of the 2020 election came up, and she told me all about some Youtube video that absolutely proved that the election was stolen. Nothing I said mattered, not one bit. Pointing out that 60 some judges had thrown out cases for lack of evidence did not move the needle even one little bit. And I ended the conversation, and I am sure she is totally convinced I am just not willing to look at the obvious evidence she knows proves that Trump should be the elected President.
OK, that isn't all that interesting per se, but it did remind of a recent Harris podcast where his guest, who was a Conservative Christian, talked about the pervasiveness of Trumps support among the religious right.
2. So I found his point really interesting. He said a couple things that I thought was illuminating in light of people like my sister and others like her.
Back to the 2016 election. During the primaries, when it was clear Trump was going to be the nominee, he actively campaigned for the religious vote. During that time, several Pentecostal/Evangelical mega-church types claimed that they had been told by God via revelation that he was chosen by God to "fix" America - and specifically to the abortion issue. This is not that interesting per se, crazy religious people say crazy religious crazy stuff all the time.
But right before the election, the media and conventional wisdom was that Trump was going to lose by a decent margin. When he won, all of us sane people were stunned. WTF just happened?
But put yourself in the shoes of the religious right. They also thought Trump was going to lose, right? The day before the election, we were all feeling relieved that Trump was likely to lose, and they were feeling despair that their guy had little or no chance.
But then he won. We were all thrown into despair, but imagine how they felt. The media said he could not win (not true, but that is what their propaganda is saying). He was doomed. But then he won anyway!
This was clearly an act of God. Trump really IS the chosen of God! They were exultant. The media said he could not win, and yet he did!
Now lets fast forward to the 2020 election. Trump is gods choice. But now....he lost? How can THAT be? That doesn't make any sense at all! He was supposed to lose, and then won, because God chose him. Now he is supposed to win, and lost. Clearly there MUST be some kind of cheating happening, or else how can you explain his losing?
None of this makes any sense....except that it does. It makes perfect sense, as long a you accept the foundational "truth" that God chose Trump to rescue America. If that is true, then the rest simply follows.
Beliefs matter.
I don't really know what to do with any of this. I don't see any way to sway these people. Mostly it just reinforces by long held belief that religious beliefs vary between barely useful to downright dangerous, and the faster we rid ourselves of them, the better off human society will be (and any other dogmatic belief system for that matter).
Yeah - it makes sense. I think a distinctive feature of evangelical Christianity (at least in the US) and also actually fundamentalist Mormonism is the belief that the Bible is literally happening now.
I could be wrong but my impression is that it's not the case with all other fundamentalisms. They often think their text is absolute true and to be applied literally. But I think the interpreting the world through the Bible and all of those books of biblical analogies seems really distinctive and more common than just the premillenarians.
The biblical analogy for Trump for evangelicals is Cyrus - a pagan king who delivered the Jews from Babylon. Just like Trump may not be a good Christian but will deliver (and is delivering - maybe by appointing this court he's done his bit? :hmm:) the evangelicals from Babylon.
I think the providentialism matters for sure but I think the understanding the world and all human history as variations on themes and patterns set out in the Bible is another important angle with the evangelicals and Trump.
I wonder whether teaching people critical thinking completely outside of the context of the cult they've chosen to build could help.
It is notable that educated people in all fields tend to be less liable into developing these authoritarian personalities.
Or maybe this is just due to their also tending to be in more secure financial situations so have their nascent authoritarianism go unactivated.
We're in a difficult point in that the 'threat' that has been built to activate nascent authoritarianism isn't a group like Jewish people where it is possible to produce a counter-narrative to show they're obviously not a problem. Rather its the evidence itself that all this fascist stuff is bollocks which is the core threat. What we've got is a self-reinforcing fascism where once you fall in its very hard to get out.
QuoteBut right before the election, the media and conventional wisdom was that Trump was going to lose by a decent margin. When he won, all of us sane people were stunned. WTF just happened?
But put yourself in the shoes of the religious right. They also thought Trump was going to lose, right? The day before the election, we were all feeling relieved that Trump was likely to lose, and they were feeling despair that their guy had little or no chance.
But then he won. We were all thrown into despair, but imagine how they felt. The media said he could not win (not true, but that is what their propaganda is saying). He was doomed. But then he won anyway!
This was clearly an act of God. Trump really IS the chosen of God! They were exultant. The media said he could not win, and yet he did!
Now lets fast forward to the 2020 election. Trump is gods choice. But now....he lost? How can THAT be? That doesn't make any sense at all! He was supposed to lose, and then won, because God chose him. Now he is supposed to win, and lost. Clearly there MUST be some kind of cheating happening, or else how can you explain his losing?
Even strip away the god and it makes sense. It was the same in brexit in the UK- before the vote its supporters were spreading rampant disinformation about how the whole thing was going to be fixed so of course it'd lose.
This was quietly pushed aside and never thought of again after the vote. Maybe as you say it just reinforced the correctness- that he won despite all the corruption shows he must have actually won by a huge margin!
The subsequent election where he lost...the corruption didn't come from nowhere, it is already believed to be there, Trump has spent the past few years with all this deep state nonsense.
QuoteYeah - it makes sense. I think a distinctive feature of evangelical Christianity (at least in the US) and also actually fundamentalist Mormonism is the belief that the Bible is literally happening now.
I could be wrong but my impression is that it's not the case with all other fundamentalisms. They often think their text is absolute true and to be applied literally. But I think the interpreting the world through the Bible and all of those books of biblical analogies seems really distinctive and more common than just the premillenarians.
The most worrying interpretation I've heard about them is it explains their active hostility to attempts to tackle climate change.
Climate change is to be actively encouraged, its a good thing, it means the end times. The world is but a temporary 6000 year old holding pen and the sooner its over the better it'll be for us all.
I do think Islamic fundamentalists also tend to hold this in common however. Except their apocalypse involves an ultimate religious war that they have to do their best to encourage by setting the west against muslims and forcing moderate muslims to stand together with the extremists.
As I say I'm not sure that it's about critical thinking or education or anything like that. I don't think their worldview is due to poor thinking. It is more that their frame for understanding the world is different: it is providential and it is biblical.
There's plenty of critical thinking skills applied within that framework/worldview.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2022, 10:07:25 AMAs I say I'm not sure that it's about critical thinking or education or anything like that. I don't think their worldview is due to poor thinking. It is more that their frame for understanding the world is different: it is providential and it is biblical.
There's plenty of critical thinking skills applied within that framework/worldview.
If it was just religious people being drawn to this stuff that might be an explanation. But it isn't.
Religion does make one more likely to fall victim, its one of the 'core things to look out for when identifying potential fascists', but as we see in the UK it isn't necessary.
As to thinking... I mean critical thinking in the scientific sense rather than just not thinking at all.
In the scientific sense you look at the evidence and then come to a conclusion, you adapt to meet new evidence as it emerges.
In the authoritarian sense you have your truth, and then you bend over backwards to make any evidence that emerges fit it.
It's all very interesting, but protestants make up 42% of the population. Most of them are probably not zealots, but I don't know.
The rest of the Republican voters presumably contain large amounts of non-protestant and/or non-zealots, they seem to be drinking the cool-aid precisely as much as the religious nutjobs do.
The nutjobs might get their candidates through the primaries, but without the non-zealots they would not get into office.
The same with climate change, lots of non-christians drinking that cool-aid.
Edit: Jos beat me to it...
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2022, 09:28:37 AMI don't really know what to do with any of this. I don't see any way to sway these people. Mostly it just reinforces by long held belief that religious beliefs vary between barely useful to downright dangerous, and the faster we rid ourselves of them, the better off human society will be (and any other dogmatic belief system for that matter).
Of course that is your take-away Berkut.
You should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
You could also check out a theologian named Russel Moore. He was a high up in the Southern Baptists until very recently.
Look - I am deeply disappointed at many in the Church who have started adopting deeply conspiratorial views about the world. I'm also deeply concerned about how many look away from the Bible in favour of visions and voices (hey guys - if you're hearing voices and receiving prophecy, consider that God might not be the one sending them).
But the fact you just immediately jump to the fact that all of religion is wrong says more about your own views than anything else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2022, 09:44:09 AMThe biblical analogy for Trump for evangelicals is Cyrus - a pagan king who delivered the Jews from Babylon. Just like Trump may not be a good Christian but will deliver (and is delivering - maybe by appointing this court he's done his bit? :hmm:) the evangelicals from Babylon.
The whole Trump is Cyrus, a sinner who nevertheless is sent to save us, really seems an echo out of 2016. From the pro-Trumpists I don't hear that anymore. Instead they've adopted his sins as in fact virtues. It's all very depressing.
People can twist an anthology with its first writings reflecting bronze age beliefs into justifying pretty much anything. News at 11.
But Berkut's point stands, the American right (and to some extent the Canadian right) has become a theocratic political movement and that has significant ramifications - as has already happened...
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMBut the fact you just immediately jump to the fact that all of religion is wrong says more about your own views than anything else.
Well he did say it could be barely useful.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou could also check out a theologian named Russel Moore. He was a high up in the Southern Baptists until very recently.
First article I found talked about how he was essentially forced out because his anti-trump views were having a negative effect on offerings from the faithful. So, sorta makes Berkut's point doesn't it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 11:17:30 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou could also check out a theologian named Russel Moore. He was a high up in the Southern Baptists until very recently.
First article I found talked about how he was essentially forced out because his anti-trump views were having a negative effect on offerings from the faithful. So, sorta makes Berkut's point doesn't it?
[cloaking device off]
Well that depends on what Berkut's point is. I don't think he had a single thesis statement.
If his point was that there is something deeply troubling going on in evangelicalism, then I completely agree.
If his point was that this proves that religion is wrong and the sooner we get rid of it the better, I think someone like Moore is a perfect example of how one can be a thinking conservative evangelical who helps make the world a better place.
[cloaking device on]
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMQuote from: Berkut on July 15, 2022, 09:28:37 AMI don't really know what to do with any of this. I don't see any way to sway these people. Mostly it just reinforces by long held belief that religious beliefs vary between barely useful to downright dangerous, and the faster we rid ourselves of them, the better off human society will be (and any other dogmatic belief system for that matter).
Of course that is your take-away Berkut.
You should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
You could also check out a theologian named Russel Moore. He was a high up in the Southern Baptists until very recently.
Look - I am deeply disappointed at many in the Church who have started adopting deeply conspiratorial views about the world. I'm also deeply concerned about how many look away from the Bible in favour of visions and voices (hey guys - if you're hearing voices and receiving prophecy, consider that God might not be the one sending them).
But the fact you just immediately jump to the fact that all of religion is wrong says more about your own views than anything else.
The interview with Sam Harris was with....David French.
I don't think I "jumped" to anything. You can argue that I am wrong, but my views are not based on "jumping" to anything, or any pre-conceived belief system. Indeed, I *started* from a belief in faith.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/
That doesn't dispute Beebs point.You can be a thoughtful evangelical conservative and be grossly wrong about any number of things.I don't doubt that David French is a thoughtful evangelical conservative.I don't see how his existence is somehow a refutation of anything I said though....I mean, we knew that there existed such things, so pointing one out doesn't really argue to anything, as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2022, 11:40:21 AMQuote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/
That doesn't dispute Beebs point.
You can be a thoughtful evangelical conservative and be grossly wrong about any number of things.
I don't doubt that David French is a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
I don't see how his existence is somehow a refutation of anything I said though....I mean, we knew that there existed such things, so pointing one out doesn't really argue to anything, as far as I can tell.
He expanded by saying deeply committed to equality but I guess now reading he meant racial to apply to equality as well.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/
I did say he was "deeply conservative".
I find him very thoughtful, but I doubt very much that no matter how many of his article you might read that he'd convince you to become an evangelical Christian garbon.
It's an interesting article though, and you have to consider when it was written - April 2015. Which was very shortly before Trump came down that fucking golden escalator to run for President. The thesis of the article (French says it better) is that he thought gay marriage was a common-sense accommodation towards the left, but that instead of the left being satisfied with that accommodation the left continues to push against any expression of Christian morality.
It's the kind of argument often produced by Trumpists. And they're not necessarily wrong at times. But French often says to the MAGA-types 'look I might agree with your goals - but Trump? This guy? Seriously?'
I also very much doubt David French would write that exact same article in 2022. Here's the only thing I could find (in 60 seconds of googling) that French has written on gay marriage since: a piece saying the Dobbs decision on abortion is not a threat to gay marriage (French is a lawyer by training). https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/627535eb95033600218457a5/roe-v-wade-obergefell-gay-marriage/
It is odd because in most of the US, gay marriage wasn't a concession to the left but something enforced by the Supreme Court. It is disingenuous to suggest that states would vote in legislation bringing in similar equality.
Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 11:50:44 AMIt is odd because in most of the US, gay marriage wasn't a concession to the left but something enforced by the Supreme Court. It is disingenuous to suggest that states would vote in legislation bringing in similar equality.
This is part of a longer debate, but as we have seen - what the USSC gives, the USSC can take away.
I don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
Same sex marriage was also passed in Canada by Parliament. It was perhaps pushed by lower court rulings, but there was no SCC decision that made gay marriage legal across Canada - it was a law.
The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were also passed by congress.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.
Fair.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
And I'm pretty sure the states that granted those were Dem states. According to wiki it looks like most republican states still have overriden laws banning same sex marriage and unions. So we all know what that means if the Supreme Court changed its point of view...
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:56:28 AMI don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
And American support for abortions stands at 61%. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 12:05:31 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:56:28 AMI don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
And American support for abortions stands at 61%. :hmm:
Exactly.
I think it's going to be messy, but I'd be surprised if in 10 years all 50 states didn't have some level of legalized abortions. You might disagree with where they draw the line, but the GOP is just barely discovering how unpopular the maximalist pro-life position is in the wider population.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:58:53 AMQuote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.
What gives you that degree of confidence?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:16:39 PMWhat gives you that degree of confidence?
David French is actually BB's pseudonym. The give-away is the last name "French" which is a reference to BB's well known Francophilia.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 12:11:18 PMQuote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 12:05:31 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:56:28 AMI don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
And American support for abortions stands at 61%. :hmm:
Exactly.
I think it's going to be messy, but I'd be surprised if in 10 years all 50 states didn't have some level of legalized abortions. You might disagree with where they draw the line, but the GOP is just barely discovering how unpopular the maximalist pro-life position is in the wider population.
What is the maximalist pro-life position, and who holds it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:16:39 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:58:53 AMQuote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.
What gives you that degree of confidence?
Familiarity with the man's work? As a fairly regular reader of The Dispatch (founded by him, Jonah Goldberg and a couple of others)?
And I did fudge it by saying "the same way". Maybe he'd still write that he still opposes same-sex marriage. But I'm quite confident he wouldn't do so because of how poorly Christians are being treated. Because that kind of "whataboutism" argument has really been badly exposed as being intellectually hollow during the Trump years.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
TBH this was my favoured solution for a long time.
Ideal world gay marriage of course, but in terms of practicality did it really matter what you called it? If the word marriage was what was causing all the trouble then just do the same thing but by a different name and let gay people have all the rights they want already.
Thankfully this is one issue where I have been pleasantly surprised by humanity as attitudes on this came on a lot quicker than I thought they would.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:18:43 PMWhat is the maximalist pro-life position, and who holds it?
No abortion from conception onwards, no exception for rape and incest.
Hard to say who holds such a view, but several states seem to be passing such laws, or at least proposing such laws.
Quote from: Josquius on July 15, 2022, 12:37:06 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
TBH this was my favoured solution for a long time.
Ideal world gay marriage of course, but in terms of practicality did it really matter what you called it? If the word marriage was what was causing all the trouble then just do the same thing but by a different name and let gay people have all the rights they want already.
Thankfully this is one issue where I have been pleasantly surprised by humanity as attitudes on this came on a lot quicker than I thought they would.
Given how many Republican states took steps to ban unions, the issue was clearly not just the term.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 12:35:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:16:39 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:58:53 AMQuote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 11:56:13 AMYeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."
I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.
What gives you that degree of confidence?
Familiarity with the man's work? As a fairly regular reader of The Dispatch (founded by him, Jonah Goldberg and a couple of others)?
And I did fudge it by saying "the same way". Maybe he'd still write that he still opposes same-sex marriage. But I'm quite confident he wouldn't do so because of how poorly Christians are being treated. Because that kind of "whataboutism" argument has really been badly exposed as being intellectually hollow during the Trump years.
But I think that is the basic inconsistency Garbon identified. Why do you think this man has a deep commitment to equality when he is opposed to same-sex marriage? Isn't the answer that he has a deep commitment to his interpretation of Christian beliefs and where those beliefs intersect with issues of equality, his religious beliefs will always prevail?
And to follow the logic further, isn't that the point Berkut is making?
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 12:38:56 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:18:43 PMWhat is the maximalist pro-life position, and who holds it?
No abortion from conception onwards, no exception for rape and incest.
Hard to say who holds such a view, but several states seem to be passing such laws, or at least proposing such laws.
The reason I asked is you mentioned that the GOP is beginning to see how unpopular it is. I was wondering if we had a different understand of the term, but you and I agree on what it means. And so where I think we differ is how the GOP analyzes the popularity of that stance. From the reports I am seeing out of the GOP controlled states, it looks like it is very popular within the GOP because (and this is the important port that brings us back to Berkut's original post) the GOP has become deeply committed to evangelical Christian theology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:55:28 PMBut I think that is the basic inconsistency Garbon identified. Why do you think this man has a deep commitment to equality when he is opposed to same-sex marriage? Isn't the answer that he has a deep commitment to his interpretation of Christian beliefs and where those beliefs intersect with issues of equality, his religious beliefs will always prevail?
And to follow the logic further, isn't that the point Berkut is making?
I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful for either of us. Have a great day CC.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 01:02:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:55:28 PMBut I think that is the basic inconsistency Garbon identified. Why do you think this man has a deep commitment to equality when he is opposed to same-sex marriage? Isn't the answer that he has a deep commitment to his interpretation of Christian beliefs and where those beliefs intersect with issues of equality, his religious beliefs will always prevail?
And to follow the logic further, isn't that the point Berkut is making?
I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful for either of us. Have a great day CC.
I don't know why? If you find it difficult to answer a civil question, you might want to think about why that is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 01:03:57 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 01:02:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:55:28 PMBut I think that is the basic inconsistency Garbon identified. Why do you think this man has a deep commitment to equality when he is opposed to same-sex marriage? Isn't the answer that he has a deep commitment to his interpretation of Christian beliefs and where those beliefs intersect with issues of equality, his religious beliefs will always prevail?
And to follow the logic further, isn't that the point Berkut is making?
I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful for either of us. Have a great day CC.
I don't know why? If you find it difficult to answer a civil question, you might want to think about why that is.
Because clearly my views are immoral and lack any intellectual rigor and I don't want your brilliant cross-examination of me to expose that fact.
Really I'm just a coward. That's why I prefer to not engage with you.
Why do you force me into such painful self-flagellation CC? :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 01:07:50 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 01:03:57 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 01:02:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:55:28 PMBut I think that is the basic inconsistency Garbon identified. Why do you think this man has a deep commitment to equality when he is opposed to same-sex marriage? Isn't the answer that he has a deep commitment to his interpretation of Christian beliefs and where those beliefs intersect with issues of equality, his religious beliefs will always prevail?
And to follow the logic further, isn't that the point Berkut is making?
I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful for either of us. Have a great day CC.
I don't know why? If you find it difficult to answer a civil question, you might want to think about why that is.
Because clearly my views are immoral and lack any intellectual rigor and I don't want your brilliant cross-examination of me to expose that fact.
Really I'm just a coward. That's why I prefer to not engage with you.
Why do you force me into such painful self-flagellation CC? :cry:
There are considerable logical leaps there.
Do you believe the same as the author you have attempted to defend? I would not have thought so.
The purpose of the discussion is to delve into the validity of your claim that the people you have chosen to throw out as examples are in fact contrary to Berkut's assertion.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 12:18:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 12:16:39 PMWhat gives you that degree of confidence?
David French is actually BB's pseudonym. The give-away is the last name "French" which is a reference to BB's well known Francophilia.
Sometimes I forget that BB and Valmy are the same person. :frog:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 01:32:41 PMThere are considerable logical leaps there.
That's just the shitty kind of person I am. Why must you keep pointing it out? :(
You are right BB, best we just go back to ignoring eachother.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2022, 02:04:26 PMYou are right BB, best we just go back to ignoring eachother.
:hug:
It's for the best.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 10:28:22 AMYou should check out a writer named David French. Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical. Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump. Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer. And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.
Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/
QuoteUnfortunately, the conservative argument against gay marriage often reeks of hypocrisy. Our society stopped viewing marriage as a sacred (God-ordained) institution long ago. Since the invention of no-fault divorce laws, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Now, almost half of all marriages end in divorce.
So...60 years ago no-fault divorce was introduced and divorce rates increased but that was something that happened once 60 years ago and remained pretty steady. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of marriages won't make it to death-do-us part but as far as I know it ever actually reached 50% at any point, in 2019 it was 44%. But for some reason it is some kind of talking point that "half of all marriages end in divorce" despite it not being half and despite the fact we are talking about a lifetime commitment undertaken by young people in an era where people can expect to live well past the age of 70, as if that is comparable to previous centuries when people would barely make it to 50. I feel like he is being just a little dishonest here and misrepresenting the issue and also coming to one conclusion that clearly this means that society doesn't value something. They stick to it 56% of the time, that's pretty damn good. Would people one hundred years ago have stayed married as much as they did if they lived as long as people do today?
I also hate this line of thinking. That marriage is this sacred thing more important than petty things like your safety and health and all that? So your partner is a liar? Abusive? Fuck you, fix it for God. I think the accusation and conceit is that we are all taking this thing lightly and not taking it seriously. I disagree, I think the overwhelming number of people who get divorced do not take it lightly and consider it a terrible thing.
And I guess I should add that the number of divorces is much higher in the more religious areas of the country, but granted there are also a lot more marriages there and particularly young marriages. So that's logical. More marriages mean more divorces. But the issue is that if this was a "sacred" versus "secular" thing where the problem is people not taking it seriously because of a lack of religious faith well one would expect the less religious areas to just take it less seriously and divorce more readily and that doesn't seem to be the case.
So that right there makes it hard for me to take him as a shining example. I am not seeing the evidence that religion produces stronger marriages. Nor that it produces weaker marriages.
Or maybe his claim is the government needs to undo no-fault divorce and use the coercive power of the state to force people to stay married for God. And that is how we would signify we think marriage is sacred? That seems psychopathic.
Of course he is also using it as the reason his past self for supporting gay marriage. Because our society sucks on marriage already why worry? Weak.
QuoteMy thesis was rather simple: Since the advent of no-fault divorce, the secular definition of "marriage" had become nothing more than a voluntary arrangement less binding than a refrigerator warranty. Adding same-sex couples to that already thoroughly secular institution would be, at most, an incremental, largely irrelevant cultural and legal change.
:x The progressive version of this guy sucks. He really has nothing but contempt for everybody who isn't part his group.
But now he opposes it! Because it makes Christians be oppressed:
QuoteChristians must lose their jobs, lose their businesses, and close their schools, unless they bend the knee to the sexual revolution.
But now he reverses course because accepting gay marriage might hurt Christians and Christianity. Well if something hurts me than FUCK GAY PEOPLE, clearly he and his group are more important than them. Also I think it is already illegal to discriminate based on religion. I think there already a zillion special privileges and benefits religious organizations get. But apparently we have to have gay marriage illegal or Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. But if:
QuoteBonds of friendship and loyalty are meaningless if the cultural conservative holds the wrong view on same-sex marriage, and Christian clubs are vile discriminators if they simply want to be led by Christian leaders.
And this would end and gay marriage supporters would suddenly embrace his values and nobody would ever be mad at Christians again or think they are vile discriminators? The culture war would immediately cease and we would all embrace David French and his pals and their views. All we have to do is sacrifice the Gays. A small price to pay to save the people who really matter.
And of course people with views I disagree with shouldn't have to worry about their jobs, businesses, and schools. I think that's wrong. I just don't see how ending gay marriage will solve that.
QuoteIn the "blue" sectors of America, particularly the academy, some Christians feel that they have to live under deep cover to protect their careers.
Just because some Christians feel that way doesn't mean it is true. But granted in at-will employment states I guess you can just fire anybody for any reason you like. It is still wrong and I agree that nobody should have to do that. Can you imagine the horror of having to hide who you are to escape persecution? If only we could outlaw gay marriage then nobody would ever have to do that again.
QuoteI agree with the notion that gay couples should be able to make health-care decisions for each other, write each other into wills, solemnize their relationships if they wish, and otherwise enjoy many of the same bundle of rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, but it is easy and simple enough to write those protections into law without changing the very definition and nature of marriage.
So it is just semantics. We just can't call it a marriage, but it should be identical in every way. Because if we don't have strong semantics then:
QuoteCultures that have sought to alter marriage from its fundamental norms do not have a happy history. Polygamy has hardly proven conducive to enduring cultural strength, and when segments of the young American nation changed thousands of years of marriage traditions by injecting white supremacy into what was once a color-blind institution, it commandeered marriage into the unsustainable and ultimately ruinous practice of race-based chattel slavery and race-based economic, cultural, and legal discrimination.
Where is the proof that Polygamy has not been conducive to enduring cultural strength? I don't like polygamy but is he saying that Islamic cultures do not have enduring cultural strength? What is his measurement of enduring cultural strength? Besides Moses had multiple wives. The Law given by God in the Old Testament allowed for Polygamy. King David, who God seemed to think was pretty cool, had multiple wives. Isn't the very culture he is participating in have its roots in Polygamy? Seems like it has been pretty enduring culturally. What a weird and bizarre thing to say. I could think of many reasons I don't like polygamy but the idea it produces weak and non-enduring cultures is a really weird one.
And what made the history of Jim Crow and slavery unhappy was that they fucked with the "thousand year old" color-blind institution of marriage? I mean yes they did shitty things with marriage. Yes the history is unhappy. But if they had done everything the same way but didn't screw with the color-blind sacredness of marriage everything would have been fine? Besides, it is not like once inter-racial marriage was legalized all the unhappy things about racism disappeared. Another very weird example.
QuoteBut now we're racing off on our own cultural experiment, one that began two generations ago when Baby Boomers decided they needed to shed their spouses at will, and continues now with the equally radical step of redefining who a "spouse" can be and re-ordering marriage to center completely and totally on adult emotional contentment.
Ok look it is not that everybody thinks they should end their marriage on a whim, it was just that maybe the government shouldn't get to decide what a good reason was. And why are you calling it radical when you have already stated you want the exact same thing just call it a different name. It sounds like you are 99% in approval but going 1% farther suddenly makes it radical.
QuoteAnd we're racing on despite the clear record that families who maintain the traditional bonds do far better — in aggregate — emotionally, socially, and economically than families who shun tradition to carve out their own definitions of "ideal."
I am confused because of the euphemisms used here, "families who maintain the traditional bonds." What exactly is he talking about? I mean it sounds like he is cool with gay couples but is he saying that gay people do far better in heterosexual couples? If a gay man marries a woman he is just going to do so much better emotionally, socially, and economically? And we have clear evidence for this? I am highly skeptical we have a clear record showing this result. If he is talking about something else then I am not sure what. Is he saying don't get divorced? Be nice to your dad? Don't cut off your cousins? I mean fair enough but what does that have to do with gay marriage?
QuoteAs I said once before when discussing my own intellectual journey, the tides of history and opinion are not irreversible. It's not inevitable that everyone will follow the Obama/Clinton path to transform the very nature of this "foundational institution." People can, in fact, move back towards time-tested tradition. I'm living proof.
But why though? Nothing you said here makes any sense at all. He wants to move back towards the time-tested tradition of accepting and wanting rights for gay couples but just to not use the word marriage. I don't know how much of a time-tested tradition this one particular stance is. It seems very 1990s or 2000s. And the reasons why it is bad are barely coherently articulated. And frankly the reasons he once supported gay marriage seem really ridiculous as well. I don't have to agree with you for you to make sense.
I mean if he had just said, "look I love gay people but I think the Bible said marriage is for one man and one woman, so I am sticking to it no matter what. Sucks for the gays but that is just what God wants." I don't agree with that but I understand it, it is logically coherent. Instead he goes on about Christians being persecuted, polygamy being bad for cultures, and Jim Crow having shitty marriage laws. Huh? What?
I don't know about David French BB. I am sure I would agree with him on other things but man it would be nice if he made sense. Granted this article is from seven years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2022, 03:05:28 PMI don't know about David French BB. I am sure I would agree with him on other things but man it would be nice if he made sense. Granted this article is from seven years ago.
I mean... you just spent a lot of energy attacking a 7 year old article that no one here is defending. He's also gone through an evolution in some of his thinking due to the Former Guy. As mentioned I'm 99% sure he would not write the same article today.
I mean if somehow I interested you in the guy here's a bunch of his more recent writing:
https://thedispatch.com/people/5849328-david-french
I searched and can't see that he's said anything about his personal views on same-sex marriage since this 2015 NR article. He's still though a guy hated by most on the right for his willingness to attack right-wing shibboleths, and hated on the left for being a right-winger.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 03:25:20 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 15, 2022, 03:05:28 PMI don't know about David French BB. I am sure I would agree with him on other things but man it would be nice if he made sense. Granted this article is from seven years ago.
I mean... you just spent a lot of energy attacking a 7 year old article that no one here is defending. He's also gone through an evolution in some of his thinking due to the Former Guy. As mentioned I'm 99% sure he would not write the same article today.
I mean if somehow I interested you in the guy here's a bunch of his more recent writing:
https://thedispatch.com/people/5849328-david-french
I searched and can't see that he's said anything about his personal views on same-sex marriage since this 2015 NR article. He's still though a guy hated by most on the right for his willingness to attack right-wing shibboleths, and hated on the left for being a right-winger.
But you said he was thoughtful and deeply committed to equality. At least in the last year pre-Trump, he didn't show many signs of either unless going with idea that thoughtful just means one has many thoughts.
And in 2018:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgender-debate-conservatives-cannot-compromise-truth/
QuoteWhile I'm utterly opposed to boorish behavior, the use of a pronoun isn't a matter of mere manners. It's a declaration of a fact. I won't call Chelsea Manning "she" for a very simple reason. He's a man. If a person legally changes his name, I'll use his legal name. But I will not use my words to endorse a falsehood. I simply won't. We're on a dangerous road if we imply that treating a person with "basic human dignity" requires acquiescing to claims we know to be false.
I don't know any serious social conservative who doesn't believe that a transgender man or woman is entitled to "basic human dignity." No one is claiming that they should be excluded from the blessings of American liberty or deprived of a single privilege or immunity of citizenship. Any effort to strip a transgender person of their constitutional liberty should be met with the utmost resistance. But that's not the contemporary legal controversy. Current legal battles revolve around the state's effort to force private and public entities to recognize and accommodate transgender identities. The justification for this coercive effort is often the state's alleged interest in preventing so-called "dignitary" harm. Thus, men are granted rights to enter a woman's restroom, even when gender-neutral options are available. Thus, private citizens are forced to use false pronouns. Girls are forced to allow a boy to stay in their room on an overnight school trip, or they're forced to compete against boys in athletic competition.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/trump-transgender-military-service-announcement-botching-good-policy/
QuoteWhy Must Trump Do the Right Things the Wrong Way?
...
Take, for example, the first version of his so-called travel ban. While I agreed with the fundamental policy goals — a slight moderation on refugee admissions, general re-evaluation of security-screening procedures, and a pause on entries from specific jihadist nations — the actual implementation was so chaotic and incompetent that it not only triggered national hysteria, it undermined public support for even relatively modest immigration reforms. Trump's administration dropped a poorly written, poorly supported policy into the public square, interpreted it as cruelly and maliciously as possible, and has been on the defensive ever since.
...
I had travel-ban flashbacks this morning as I read Trump's series of tweets announcing that transgender Americans may not serve "in any capacity" in the military. As a general matter, I agree with the policy. The American military has a specific and violent purpose. It pushes human beings to the limits of their emotional, spiritual, and physical endurance to defeat our nation's enemies. Successful combat operations require not just physical and emotional fitness but also an extraordinary amount of unit cohesion.
Transgender Americans, though undoubtedly as patriotic as any other Americans, are disproportionately likely to suffer from mental illness, are more prone to attempt suicide, abuse alcohol and drugs at higher rates, and often require extensive medical care and comprehensive medical intervention during and after their "transitions." An infantry soldier, for example, could be sidelined for weeks as he purports to transition from male to female — taking hormones that could make him physically weaker and undergoing painful, debilitating surgery that would prevent him from serving in the field and training with his unit for long periods of time. This is not a formula for successful military service, and while there are certainly extraordinary individuals who are able to serve effectively, that is no argument for opening service to a group that would collectively degrade military readiness.
Opening the military to transgender service members would repeat the terrible, social-justice-driven mistake of putting women in ground combat. Despite copious evidence that mixed-gender units are less effective in basic military tasks than single-gender all-male combat units — including in vital tasks such as marksmanship and evacuating casualties — the Obama administration powered through anyway. It imposed new, social-justice-based requirements on a military that will face enemies who don't care about diversity but instead ruthlessly exploit weaknesses. Trump was right to step back from this new transgender brink.
Is this what deep commitment to equality and opposition to Trump's policies looks like?
Aside, does Cheslea still have a dingaling?
See, here's the line I would take most offence to:
QuoteI don't know any serious social conservative who doesn't believe that a transgender man or woman is entitled to "basic human dignity."
Really David? Because I don't hear very much about basic human dignity towards trans people from a lot of social conservatives. Or otherwise the word "Serious" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
But otherwise - he lays out the social conservative argument. Agree with it or not.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 04:12:45 PMBut otherwise - he lays out the social conservative argument. Agree with it or not.
I don't have to as I'm not in argument with his musings. I'm raising issue with your description of him being thoughtful and committed to equality.
Quote from: HVC on July 15, 2022, 04:10:20 PMAside, does Cheslea still have a dingaling?
I believe that's nobody's business except Chelsea's... and possibly any potential intimate partners she may have.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 04:14:36 PMQuote from: HVC on July 15, 2022, 04:10:20 PMAside, does Cheslea still have a dingaling?
I believe that's nobody's business except Chelsea's... and possibly any potential intimate partners she may have.
Well it was pretty public that Manning had gender transition (or gender affirming) surgery as there had been a big thing about whether the prison would have to pay for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2016%E2%80%932018
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2022, 04:14:36 PMQuote from: HVC on July 15, 2022, 04:10:20 PMAside, does Cheslea still have a dingaling?
I believe that's nobody's business except Chelsea's... and possibly any potential intimate partners she may have.
My train of thought, as derailed as it might be, is that he'd be more willing to affirm her gender identity if she was anatomically "correct"
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2022, 04:18:48 PMWell it was pretty public that Manning had gender transition (or gender affirming) surgery as there had been a big thing about whether the prison would have to pay for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2016%E2%80%932018
I guess that's fair enough, and if Chelsea believes making that public is worthwhile for whatever reason (as opposed to feeling it was an unpleasant but necessary step she was forced into to have her needs met) then that's entirely her prerogative. So yeah, if it's public knowledge it's public knowledge. I still hold to the notion that the status of people's genitals is their private business by default.
My complaint about religion is that it teaches faith; that is, it trains people to believe what they are told in the absence (at best) and in contradiction of (at worst) the actual evidence. Now, that's pretty harmless when such faith is restricted to the realm of supernatural beings like gods and angels and saints and whatnot, because we all realize that there will never be, and can never be, actual evidence (else they wouldn't be supernatural any more). But once trained to have faith in one kind of unevidenced phenomenon, a person becomes, IMO, more susceptible to being convinced to have faith in other unevidenced phenomena and even counter-evidenced phenomena.
I think that that is what Berkut is seeing in his sister. She's been trained to believe in unlikely religious ideas (here, I'm talking about the Bible literalists, not mainstream religious types) and so is much more easily persuaded to believe other highly unlikely ideas, like that Trump was on a mission from God and only fraud could possibly account for him having less votes in 2020.
I use several Russel Moore YouTube videos for my Comparative Religion course because I think that he is exactly the kind of preacher who stresses what Christianity is about as a religion and rejects the idea (with scriptural support) that religion has any place in the public sphere. To him, Christianity is about salvation and a personal relationship with God/Jesus, not about Supreme Court seats. I don't have to believe him to admire his clarity of thought.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 11:56:28 AMI don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
Some will, some won't, just like abortion.
Now one can argue that is democracy in action, hooray! At least if we close our eyes to the effects on people's fundamental rights and their sense of personal integrity and dignity.
But there is another consideration here, one that definitely influenced institutionalists like O'Connor, Souter, Roberts. That is what is the effect on national integrity when large numbers of marriages contracted in one state have no legal validity in others?
We have already seen the opening shots in an interstate war over abortion policy with states using bounty hunting and threats of criminal prosecution to impose their policies on other states. As I suggested earlier, this is just the early stages of an interstate shitshow. The Supreme Court may get its head out its ass to redress this (or it may not!) but some of the damage will be hard to contain. Add gay marriage and other issues to the list and the scope of interstate conflict grows.
American federalism works best when different states are free to express their distinctive characters without causing a lot of spillover. If Alabama wants to preserve some dry counties, OK - the growers in Napa can figure out how to live with that. But problems arise when federalism manifests in a way that causes states to get at each other's throats on matters of principle. That's a problem that poses a grave threat to the American system. The last time interstate conflicts got out of control, America had its Civil War. Most national political figures sense then took the lesson. The current Supreme Court, with its precious optimism about the wonders of allowing free play to let states work things out, seems to have lost the script.