Hatred of Christians in America?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

I actually agree with Godless that the “good men DIED under that flag!” is a bit of a non-starter for me.  When conservatives stake out policy positions, they often pride themselves on the fact that they are acting out of facts and data rather than raw feelings.  Thus, waving the bloody shirt doesn’t really become us as conservatives.

The stronger position, I think, is merely to point out the historical truth that once the very symbols of voluntary unity morph into symbols of division or oppression, and it becomes unfashionable to appear to ”buy into” the commonalities of culture, history, language, ideology, etc. that have previously kept us together as a country—inevitably, even (especially) in a democracy, people start wondering why those guys get a say in how live my life.  At that point, the only way to hold a nation together is through brute force or bribery.

And we’re running out of money.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Just to add— morally, I do agree that part of the reason the flag deserves respect is the blood of those who have died to defending it; and I agree it’s churlish to burn it, knee for the anthem, etc.  But  eradication of merely churlish behavior is rarely grounds for a political movement.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's not what I got out of his statements.  I've explained it to you already.

I get that. Thank you for explaining your side. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you're not a huge fan of the method of protest then you should stop defending it.

Agreeing with a protest (or method, assuming it's peaceful) is not a prerequisite for supporting the right of that protest to take place. I don't agree with the protestors up the street from my apartment holding pictures of dead babies outside Planned Parenthood, but I would defend their right to protest if they were ever called traitors for doing so. And in this case I happen to agree with the cause of the NFL protesters, just not necessarily the method. And even then, it's apparent to me that the method doesn't bother me as much as it does some other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It is interesting to me that you go full-blast attacking your perceived misrepresentation of Jefferson's character but did not say anything about the accusation that Trump disrespects the disabled and all the other misrepresentations of Trump's character.

The irony of you calling our fake news while you continue to spread fake news. Again Jefferson was not an adulterer.  His vow to his wife was until death. She had already passed away. It still doesn't make what he did right but it doesn't make him an adulterer, that is fake news!! I will call our those who misrepresent Trump. But something's aren't  misrepresenting, they are fact, you just choose to ignore it.

 

I believe part of being a good leader is having good morals, you don't. I believe the Rebulicans has been the party that seeks out a higher moral ground. But when we elect a president who's morals are questionable we downgrade the Repulican Party, and more importantly, sadly, the nation. This nation has two primary political parties that hold it up and when both parties start slipping we know this nation is heading for big problems. 

There is no sense arguing because nether of us are going to agree, but I wish the best for Trump and his administration, as I did for Obama and will for the next president after.

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, miav said:

The irony of you calling our fake news while you continue to spread fake news. Again Jefferson was not an adulterer.  His vow to his wife was until death. She had already passed away. It still doesn't make what he did right but it doesn't make him an adulterer, that is fake news!! I will call our those who misrepresent Trump. But something's aren't  misrepresenting, they are fact, you just choose to ignore it.

 

I believe part of being a good leader is having good morals, you don't. I believe the Rebulicans has been the party that seeks out a higher moral ground. But when we elect a president who's morals are questionable we downgrade the Repulican Party, and more importantly, sadly, the nation. This nation has two primary political parties that hold it up and when both parties start slipping we know this nation is heading for big problems. 

There is no sense arguing because nether of us are going to agree, but I wish the best for Trump and his administration, as I did for Obama and will for the next president after.

Of course, part of a good leader is having good morals.  But I don't hold all my leaders to the same standard as MY morals.  Leadership qualities don't exist on a lot of moral men.  And leadership qualities exist on a lot of flawed men.  The USA has had so many effective Presidents that doesn't come close to standard morality.  This is not a new trend.  Heck, Paul killed Christians and Jesus still called him to lead.  Alma apostatized and drove people out of the Church and he was still called to lead.

Did you vote for McCain?  How about Gingrich?  George W Bush?  Ronald Reagan?  Do you believe they have impeccable morals?

This is the problem with Republicans.  A lot of Democrats are immoral people, they don't pretend otherwise.  A lot of Republicans are immoral people and they hide them and pretend they're squeaky clean to maintain the image of impeccable morality.  That's why it is SO EASY to demonize them.  You can just dig up one of their proclivities and they're politically dead.  A lot of Republicans are tired of it.  That's why when Gingrich's marital infidelities got brought up on the debate and he lambasted the moderator for it he got cheers for days.

Another question - do you believe Trump mocks the disabled?  Do you believe Trump did not help Puerto Rico because they're "brown"?  Do you believe Trump is an islamophobe?  They've been assassinating his character for over 2 years trying to politically kill him and they have not succeeded.  That's because Americans woke up and got wiser.  If the media can make Romney out to be a bully and animal abuser who leaves his employees to die, what chance does anybody else have?  Well, you are lucky you got Trump.  People don't expect him to stand up to Republican "pretend" moral standards so he can't be rendered politically dead even as they make Fake News out of him quadzillion times worse than they did any other Republican of recent memory.  And if you're a Republican, or a conservative, you just got a grand political gift that will bring you victory for generations IF YOU CAN JUST PASS HIS AGENDA!  Of course, you'll have to drain the Republican swamp first.  You know, like McCain whose corruption is legend.  Talk about immoral.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those looking for a logical non emotion drive reason to respect the flag, anthem etc... There is an easy one.  The desire to create a MonoCulture.  When people look at the problems the USA has compared to other country's... The different is almost always the fact that the other Countries are largely MonoCultural.  When can see this effect when the other countries get a large refugee influx have increases is violence and demands to seal the borders.  Things the USA is very familiar with.

The USA is a large mix of various cultures, races, idea, etc.  As long as these different cultures, races, ideas are given supremacy, there will always be violence.  In order to match the success some other countries have USA also needs a predominate MonoCulture.  The only logical MonoCulture to build is one based on citizenship in the USA. The logical symbols of this MonoCulture would be things like the Flag and the Anthem. (which is why they should be respected)

The USA has been described as a big melting pot where all the various difference Cultures blend together into one whole.  The problem we face is people driving wedges and refusing to let thing blend.  The ultimate outcome of these wedges will be war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

For those looking for a logical non emotion drive reason to respect the flag, anthem etc... There is an easy one.  The desire to create a MonoCulture.

IMO, this was a significant contributing factor in the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  The Russian Republic was big enough to overpower the others, but there was never a "mono-culture".  Pressure from the outside may have ended communism, but that didn't have to end the "union" - that was ended by the fact that they were never united to begin with - they were only held together by brute force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

For those looking for a logical non emotion drive reason to respect the flag, anthem etc... There is an easy one.  The desire to create a MonoCulture.  When people look at the problems the USA has compared to other country's... The different is almost always the fact that the other Countries are largely MonoCultural.  When can see this effect when the other countries get a large refugee influx have increases is violence and demands to seal the borders.  Things the USA is very familiar with.

The USA is a large mix of various cultures, races, idea, etc.  As long as these different cultures, races, ideas are given supremacy, there will always be violence.  In order to match the success some other countries have USA also needs a predominate MonoCulture.  The only logical MonoCulture to build is one based on citizenship in the USA. The logical symbols of this MonoCulture would be things like the Flag and the Anthem. (which is why they should be respected)

The USA has been described as a big melting pot where all the various difference Cultures blend together into one whole.  The problem we face is people driving wedges and refusing to let thing blend.  The ultimate outcome of these wedges will be war.

During my life time, I have seen the notion of the individual as opposed to the notion of community become more acceptable in our culture.  I have hopped that in strong societies the concentration of individuality or the community is a pendulum that swings with decreasing momentum rather than increasing.   Like seeking revenge for wrongs – I believe that when individuality (rights and responsibilities) as opposed to community rights and responsibilities becomes more the norm than the desire to cooperate; that war is the inevitable consequence.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@prisonchaplain 

Not all scripture is intended as a blueprint of individual salvation – G-d also gives revelation to his children as a map to navigate through the challenges or mortality they face.  Just as there is a time to build and a time to tear down there are many things that if our emphasis is incorrect we will suffer consequences.   This is one reason I appreciate the LDS theology of living oracles in balance with written scripture.   Historically Traditional Christians have not done well with challenges of any particular era and it is my observation that are more driven by the winds of time than by divine enlightenment.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is a most important document to help navigate the map piacular to our time but I do not believe it is enough – without living oracles in balance with scripture – the good of our society will not survive any more that the many forgotten societies (including Christian societies) of the past.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've moved from disrespecting the national anthem to dismissing national spirituality--with the latest salvo of "We're beyond thoughts and prayers," after the Las Vegas. Perhaps there is a pattern--at least on the fringe Left:  tear down the sacred cows of traditionalism. Even Antifa, with its violent opposition to free speech could be linked to such a paradigm. I'm really beginning to wonder if all of this isn't being stoked by the election of POTUS, and a visceral hatred towards him and all the "deplorables" who selected him. Perhaps the thinking is that if so many Americans are that wrong it's time to destroy the emblems, symbols and ceremonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 1:35 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 When conservatives stake out policy positions, they often pride themselves on the fact that they are acting out of facts and data rather than raw feelings.

I do not believe this is correct. It may be the current trend. Conservatives are passionate about conservative ideas just as liberals are passionate about liberal ones. The fact that conservatives tend to have facts on theirs side is a bonus -- and in some cases part of why they have passion. But not in all cases -- as in religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

We've moved from disrespecting the national anthem to dismissing national spirituality--with the latest salvo of "We're beyond thoughts and prayers," after the Las Vegas. Perhaps there is a pattern--at least on the fringe Left:  tear down the sacred cows of traditionalism. Even Antifa, with its violent opposition to free speech could be linked to such a paradigm. I'm really beginning to wonder if all of this isn't being stoked by the election of POTUS, and a visceral hatred towards him and all the "deplorables" who selected him. Perhaps the thinking is that if so many Americans are that wrong it's time to destroy the emblems, symbols and ceremonies.

 

A little LDS history – When the Martin and Willey handcart companies were caught in an early winter storm crossing the plains in the Mormon migration to settle the West.  The Prophet Brigham Young declared that provisions, strong mule teams and wagons were needed to save those Saints in need.   Providing prayers without wagons would damn an otherwise Christian sole.  I have not found anywhere in scripture where it says we (anyone) will be judged for the prayers we utter rather than by the things we do.  Saying you will pray for someone in need without extending help – I believe is the attitude of the Pharisees that Jesus criticized in his parable of the Good Samaritan with the examples of the priest and the Levite going out of their way to avoid assisting the man in need.

I wonder about Las Vegas – how many first responders and others helping were born again Christians or at the other end of the religious spectrum (atheists).   Sometimes reality is different than expatiations.

However, I saw something the other day – it said that if we took all the guns away from Democrats and those that vote Democrat – we could eliminate 90% of the gun violence in the USA.  A hard look at reality and we can understand why the mentality of Democrats is for taking guns away from law abiding citizens – since they think they are the best examples of law abiding citizens.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not believe this is correct. It may be the current trend. Conservatives are passionate about conservative ideas just as liberals are passionate about liberal ones. The fact that conservatives tend to have facts on theirs side is a bonus -- and in some cases part of why they have passion. But not in all cases -- as in religion.

Respectfully disagree.  Our lack of patience for political correctness, “participation trophies”, communism, gay “rights”, etc; all come from a recognition that the “feelings” of certain interest groups do not supersede the cold hard facts of policy and its real-world consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Respectfully disagree.  Our lack of patience for political correctness, “participation trophies”, communism, gay “rights”, etc; all come from a recognition that the “feelings” of certain interest groups do not supersede the cold hard facts of policy and its real-world consequences.

How do you apply religion to that equation then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Respectfully disagree.  Our lack of patience for political correctness, “participation trophies”, communism, gay “rights”, etc; all come from a recognition that the “feelings” of certain interest groups do not supersede the cold hard facts of policy and its real-world consequences.

Since when have cold hard facts or real-world consequences have any place in politics?  Laws created by human societies are a driect reflection of their morals - not cold hard flcts or real-world consequences.  If this was not so - laws would not be necessary - real-world consequences would - all by itself be enough.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, when talking about facts, most Democrats would say the exact same thing about Republicans, that Republicans are driven more by emotion while it is the Democrats that have facts...

Ala...education and teen pregnancy rates

Ala...Global Warming and scientists and scientific reports

Ala...Gun Deaths in the US as per capita vs. almost anywhere else in the world

Ala...the quality of healthcare for those with a median salary or lower in the US compared to the rest of the world.

Both sides use "Facts" when they want to back something up.  The question we should be asking isn't whether the FACTS back things up, but whether the Law of the Lord and the Morals imparted by such are things that we hold important.  There is a huge push by some to try to paint religious matters as political matters, however, political matters are almost always antithetical to the Lord.  The Pharisees and Sadducees were almost all very Conservative.  The things the Lord says about them in the New Testament are not always what I would call filled with praise.  At the same time, there were others who had many strong feelings against the government, the church, and otherwise, and they were not always praised either.

In fact, I'd think the render to Caesar what is Caesar's is more pertinent in how religion and politics are connected than anything else.  Government does not necessarily need to be governed by politics...but, unfortunately in our society it is.  As politics move further and further from the morals of the Lord on BOTH sides, we will see worse and worse dictates against the morals and laws that we should be living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, I'd think the render to Caesar what is Caesar's is more pertinent in how religion and politics are connected than anything else.  Government does not necessarily need to be governed by politics...but, unfortunately in our society it is.  As politics move further and further from the morals of the Lord on BOTH sides, we will see worse and worse dictates against the morals and laws that we should be living.

Government is created for the mortal man.  Religion is the spiritual man.  They won't align until the spiritual man succeeds in harnessing the natural man... which is promised in the millennium. 

So, when discussing and exercising our political activism, we should always be cognizant that most people are still slaves to their natural selves.  The government is to govern all of these people into a semblance of order while they themselves may also be slaves to their natural selves.  Therefore, it is prudent that the government remain small and simply present to PROTECT inalienable rights and not be looked upon as a source of moral compass or even providence.  This was the error of the early Christians and their grip on the governments of Europe and continues to be a problem in Islamic states.  The United States of America and its Constitution showed us the fault of these theocratic governments trying to dictate morality.

Teaching morality remains the work of the Saints with the government simply making it possible for the work of the Saints to flourish on the land which is the design of the US Constitution.  Therefore, to say that because the government/politics is moving farther from the morals of the Lord that we will see worse and worse things is not an indictment of government but rather an indictment of the people and a measure of the success/failure of our Missionary work on the land.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you apply religion to that equation then?

The religious right is a subset of modern conservatism; and arguably, no longer the dominant one.  And even they generally know enough not to argue “because God wants it that way!” on matters of, say, tax policy. 

For better and for worse, religious fiat doesn’t get you very far in modern American political discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I wonder about Las Vegas – how many first responders and others helping were born again Christians or at the other end of the religious spectrum (atheists).   Sometimes reality is different than expatiations.

 

There was a great mainstream media article highlighting the effectiveness of Christian relief organizations, in the aftermath of the TX and FL hurricanes. Convoy of Hope, the Methodists, and the Adventists got specific mentions--not just for their good work, but for coordinating with each other. It can be found in the September 10th edition of USA Today.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The religious right is a subset of modern conservatism; and arguably, no longer the dominant one.  And even they generally know enough not to argue “because God wants it that way!” on matters of, say, tax policy. 

For better and for worse, religious fiat doesn’t get you very far in modern American political discourse.

 I'm speaking more to the argument for religious freedom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Since when have cold hard facts or real-world consequences have any place in politics?  Laws created by human societies are a driect reflection of their morals - not cold hard flcts or real-world consequences.  If this was not so - laws would not be necessary - real-world consequences would - all by itself be enough.

 

The Traveler

It might be better to say that policy is how we synthesize a few core values with the factual world in which we live.  To see conservatives here pooh-poohing facts in such an apparently cavalier way, really surprises me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 I'm speaking more to the argument for religious freedom. 

Ok, but even if we assume there is no fact-based/rational basis for religious freedom in a society (an assumption I disagree with, by the way)—is that single issue really representative of conservatism as a whole?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ok, but even if we assume there is no fact-based/rational basis for religious freedom in a society (a point I disagree with, by the way)—what does that that have to do with conservatism as a whole?

It's moral based.  And morals are from feelings.  The very right to life itself is not a fact. Why shouldn't we be able to kill the distasteful? Factually? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share