Religion and Politics


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was looking into who voted for and against the recent House "Respect for marriage" act which repeals the Defense of Marriage act and codifies same-sex and interracial marriage into law. *  I looked at the religious affiliation of members of the house, and was surprised to find that house members across the entire nation identify as something, except for one localized black mass in a certain part of Cali.  Nobody identifies as atheist, the black mass is 12 house members who just respond "unaffiliated" when they're asked. 

Sort of goes against the mainstream conventional wisdom that religion, especially Christianity, is an outdated trend that is fading fast.

 

image.thumb.png.02a7dd18e72fcde681aaaf2a2bace165.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

* BTW, there are 6 LDS House members, and 5 of them voted for the bill.
N - Andy Biggs - AZ
Y - Mike Simpson - ID
Y - Blake Moore - UT
Y - Chris Stewart - UT
Y - John Curtis - UT
Y - Burgess Owens - UT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One bit of context here:  the law does *not* require states to permit new gay marriages to be solemnized within their borders.  Rather, it repeals DOMA and requires states to recognize gay marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where the marriages were legal at the time of solemnization (the latter of which, I’m inclined to think was already required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One bit of context here:  the law does *not* require states to permit new gay marriages to be solemnized within their borders.  Rather, it repeals DOMA and requires states to recognize gay marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where the marriages were legal at the time of solemnization (the latter of which, I’m inclined to think was already required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution).  

More context: gay marriage and abortion are vastly different issues. The right won a victory on abortion recently, but gay marriage is a totally different fight. 
 

@NeuroTypical-this is very fascinating, but I’m still terrified that religious belief is in a free fall. I know I’ve said it before and I apologize, but the Southern Baptists down here put cotton in their ears, blamed a liberal conspiracy, the media, etc, and are just now waking up to the reality that their churches are in a death spiral. The Catholics up north are learning this too. Blame “the gays”, blame “the left” blame whatever you want, but the pews are still empty. 
 

We can ignore reality, but reality doesn’t ignore us. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

More context: gay marriage and abortion are vastly different issues. The right won a victory on abortion recently, but gay marriage is a totally different fight. 
 

@NeuroTypical-this is very fascinating, but I’m still terrified that religious belief is in a free fall. I know I’ve said it before and I apologize, but the Southern Baptists down here put cotton in their ears, blamed a liberal conspiracy, the media, etc, and are just now waking up to the reality that their churches are in a death spiral. The Catholics up north are learning this too. Blame “the gays”, blame “the left” blame whatever you want, but the pews are still empty. 
 

We can ignore reality, but reality doesn’t ignore us. 

What's been happening is that adherents of a number of religious groups haven't been paying attention to broader social trends outside of their little circles. As a result, they missed the fact that society as a whole is being bombarded with more and more messages mocking traditional religious beliefs as a whole and encouraging secularism, if not atheism. While many of these messages are from people who themselves never felt at home in any sort of traditional religious system, others are coming from people who are deliberately seeking to destroy religion as we know it because they see it as an obstacle to getting their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

What's been happening is that adherents of a number of religious groups haven't been paying attention to broader social trends outside of their little circles

Yes, agree fully. When you swim in one fishbowl only you begin to delude yourself. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

others are coming from people who are deliberately seeking to destroy religion as we know it because they see it as an obstacle to getting their way.

Nope. With the exception of the professional atheists like Dawkins and Mahr, the average atheist in America would protest in the streets if the government banned religion. 
 

The awful truth is that apathy is far more destructive to religious growth than the atheist who screams in rage at God. A growing amount of people simply don’t care about religion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this color pallet is soooo bad.  I thought for sure it was claiming most representatives were Hindu.

I'd like to see this plot normalized to population instead of geographical area.  I think you'd get the impression of much more religious diversity than is apparent of it in this format.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yes, agree fully. When you swim in one fishbowl only you begin to delude yourself. 

 

Nope. With the exception of the professional atheists like Dawkins and Mahr, the average atheist in America would protest in the streets if the government banned religion. 
 

The awful truth is that apathy is far more destructive to religious growth than the atheist who screams in rage at God. A growing amount of people simply don’t care about religion. 

It's not just the theological atheists who want religion out of modern society. 

It's a broad swath of self-described "progressive" individuals who know that traditional religious values are the direct opposite of what they want to see in society and so try to eliminate it as much as possible. 

If this was, say, 1982, and someone said that in the future we'd see "Drag Queen Story Hour" at libraries, people being charged with hate crimes for not baking wedding cakes, and schools teaching that kids had the right to choose their gender & pronouns, no one would have believed them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

It's a broad swath of self-described "progressive" individuals who know that traditional religious values are the direct opposite of what they want to see in society and so try to eliminate it as much as possible. 

We agree in part, though I think the progressives out there aren’t as evil as Christians make them out to be. Also, this goes back to what we said about fishbowls. If you don’t know any LDS, then it’s easier to paint them as crazy or worse. If you don’t know any progressives, same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

We agree in part, though I think the progressives out there aren’t as evil as Christians make them out to be. Also, this goes back to what we said about fishbowls. If you don’t know any LDS, then it’s easier to paint them as crazy or worse. If you don’t know any progressives, same thing. 

I've had the misfortune of meeting quite a few self-described "progressive" individuals. 

That's *why* I'm saying what I'm saying. 

I say "self-described" as what these people envision as being societal progress is an extreme hedonism with no one to tell them what they can or can't do. 

Even many people who are traditionally politically progressive are frustrated with and in some instances disgusted by what these people are pushing for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ironhold said:

If this was, say, 1982, and someone said that in the future we'd see "Drag Queen Story Hour" at libraries...

As recently as 2016, I actually had this discussion with my ex-mo, liberal friend.  I said that children will become sexualized and have adults teaching children about homosexual relationships in schools.

He thought that was ridiculous.  His position was,  "We've always been about adult consent and leaving children alone." 

I stood my ground and promised it would happen in the not too distant future.  Today, he probably wouldn't even be aware of it because you just don't hear about it on CNN.

I don't talk to him anymore because he finally couldn't keep up the appearance of having a conservative, LDS friend anymore.  I thought we actually were friends.  But it turns out, it was all an act for him.  All the lunches we had together, all the times we worked together.  I even gave him a watermelon from my garden.  But no.  It was just an act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In startlingly relevant timing, yesterday President Oaks delivered this talk on religious liberty at the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit in Rome:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/dallin-h-oaks-notre-dame-religious-liberty-summit

I'm not going to grab and quote any excerpts, the whole thing is as worthy a full reading, as any General Conference talk.

Video: 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@NeuroTypical-check out what happened in Kansas recently regarding abortion. This is Kansas, one the reddest states out there. Can’t blame “the left”’ for this one. 
 

https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_No_State_Constitutional_Right_to_Abortion_and_Legislative_Power_to_Regulate_Abortion_Amendment_(August_2022)

Not only did it not pass, it got slapped in the face. This should be a major red flag (no pun intended) for the GOP. 
 

If the right wants to put gay marriage on the ballots…well, I call their bluff. Go for it. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

@NeuroTypical-check out what happened in Kansas recently regarding abortion. This is Kansas, one the reddest states out there.

I was in favor of Roe's overturn, to return the matter to the people.  Kansas is off happily voting what they want into law on the matter.  Good for them.

Kansas law allows for an abortion up to 22 weeks after the last menstrual period. After that point, only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health may an abortion be performed, with this limit set on the belief that a fetus can feel pain after that point in the pregnancy.  It's more than just legislation, it's written in to the state constitution.  Honestly, that ain't bad reasoning.  If God's gonna allow humans to make up their own minds on when life is worth protecting, "as soon as it can feel pain" seems like something folks wouldn't mind being judged by the Almighty about.

Kentuckians wanted to enshrine such things in their constitution, so whims of whatever legislature is in power currently can't just change things with legislation.  Kentuckians have what they want.

Many Kentuckians wanted to change their state constitution to kill abortion entirely, they couldn't find enough to get it done.

Good for Kentucky, getting exactly the law they want, with exactly the hurdles they want to change things.  Get bent, federal government, and bad SCOTUS decisions.

Hooray for states rights!  And hooray for protecting the life of the fetus once it can feel pain!  It doesn't exactly align with my personal take on things, but it's not bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I was in favor of Roe's overturn, to return the matter to the people.  Kansas is off happily voting what they want into law on the matter.  Good for them.

Kansas law allows for an abortion up to 22 weeks after the last menstrual period. After that point, only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health may an abortion be performed, with this limit set on the belief that a fetus can feel pain after that point in the pregnancy.  It's more than just legislation, it's written in to the state constitution.  Honestly, that ain't bad reasoning.  If God's gonna allow humans to make up their own minds on when life is worth protecting, "as soon as it can feel pain" seems like something folks wouldn't mind being judged by the Almighty about.

Kentuckians wanted to enshrine such things in their constitution, so whims of whatever legislature is in power currently can't just change things with legislation.  Kentuckians have what they want.

Many Kentuckians wanted to change their state constitution to kill abortion entirely, they couldn't find enough to get it done.

Good for Kentucky, getting exactly the law they want, with exactly the hurdles they want to change things.  Get bent, federal government, and bad SCOTUS decisions.

Hooray for states rights!  And hooray for protecting the life of the fetus once it can feel pain!  It doesn't exactly align with my personal take on things, but it's not bad.

Those are all great points. 
 

To me, this is like when Utah voted to repeal probation in 1933. You might think you know how “the people” will vote. But never ask a question you don’t want the answer to! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSKgp3tEzY

What can you say about Elon.  He's doing a lot of good.  But is he a "role model"?  

Lots of pretty morally crappy people do good things.   I wouldn't call them role models, though.  Then again, society considers many depraved individuals to be role models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSKgp3tEzY

What can you say about Elon.  He's doing a lot of good.  But is he a "role model"?  

Is anyone a role model in 2022? No, because the masses look for any reason to tear someone down.  We place foolishly high expectations on people than act shocked when we find out they aren’t perfect. So we’ve created a society where no one can be a role model. 
 

I find his personal behavior reckless, and yes,I’d call it morally troublesome. But, I’ve got my own issues so I’m in no position to lecture him.
 

I also see the fruitlessness of it. Elon Musk loses no sleep over people calling him immoral. So what’s the point? Yup, religious people find having babies out of wedlock immoral. Nothing new here. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Is anyone a role model in 2022? No, because the masses look for any reason to tear someone down.  We place foolishly high expectations on people than act shocked when we find out they aren’t perfect. So we’ve created a society where no one can be a role model. 
 

I find his personal behavior reckless, and yes,I’d call it morally troublesome. But, I’ve got my own issues so I’m in no position to lecture him.
 

I also see the fruitlessness of it. Elon Musk loses no sleep over people calling him immoral. So what’s the point? Yup, religious people find having babies out of wedlock immoral. Nothing new here. 

Shouldn't being a role model be specific to whatever role is being modeled? I look up to certain composers as composers. That doesn't mean I want to emulate their personal lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Shouldn't being a role model be specific to whatever role is being modeled? I look up to certain composers as composers. That doesn't mean I want to emulate their personal lives. 

Oh, I agree personally 10,000%. But that’s not how society views it, sadly. People can’t separate the athlete from their athletic skill, the musician from their music, or the comedy from the comedian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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