Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Pink said:

If you're a liberal now, you'll die unhappy. Liberals are miserable 

Seems to me, your the miserable one. 

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am broadly opposed to elective abortion, that is, the elective killing of in utero babies.

I think they are great in the abstract, need to be assessed on an individualized basis, and should be administered far further down the food chain, and should be carefully and scrupulously funded so as to avoid the widespread corruption, graft, theft, incompetence, etc. that is so frequently seen in NGOs and nonprofits.  Devolve fiscal oversight to a more local level.  Have volunteer and religious groups step up to reduce the number of people in NGOs/nonprofits (whose livelihoods can create perverse incentives).  Use technology and AI to our advantage.  Vigorously punish - as in financial ruin and prison time - people caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Ok. So you do support assisting the those in need beyond the birth of the child you just would have a different approach then perhaps is currently happening.  Do you think SNAP and WIC should be eliminated?

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pregnancy Resource Centers are a great idea.  And Sen. Warren tried to destroy them.

I am not aware of what you are referring to.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  I think most (all) of Mr. Trump's purported errors in firings are either trivial and procedural (which means they can be easily rectified, with no "constitutional" issue in view), or else are based on laws which create legislative encroachment into the powers of the Executive Branch, which would make those laws unconstitutional.

Well yes, closing down congressionally established agencies without congressional legislative action is unconstitutional.  And the TROs are constitutional. If Trump and team ignore them we have a constitutional crisis.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This stuff will all get hashed out.  I am fully in favor of Mr. Trump following the law.  Various pronouncements about constitutional violations are, in the main, pretexts for trying to slow down the astonishing pace at which Mr. Trump is doing what he said he would do, and for which he the American electorate put him into office.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well no, the pronouncements about certain actions being unconstitutional are not pretexts though they are rightfully intended to slow things down. And well, no, 49.7% of America elected Trump. Hardly the pretended mandate your side deceitfully keeps saying.  And as I have noted on the other thread that was locked down, conceptually I have no issue with what is happening even if I do not like some of it. Just as long as our constitution is followed.  As noted by others, be careful what to cheer on. Other presidents that you may not be as cheerful to support may make changes you won't be happy with by using a stroke of their pen. Personally I am not a fan of EOs in general.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Pink said:

I agree, I am miserable every once in a while. Especially when I can't stop thinking about the Mormon priesthood holder molesting me. I can still smell the room I was in when he pulled my pants down. I can still hear my belt being unbuckled. 

Well, I've been a bit harsh, for this I'm very sorry. And my bad, for reacting the way I have. I understand how trauma such as yours may cause your feelings to become aggressive online on this particular board. I do like "Pink" though. I believe she's probably a Liberal, or leaning towards that since she supports the LGBTQ.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Pink said:

Your side believes chicks can have ****s!

If by "side" you mean I realize Donald Trump is a conman, then sure, whatever you say.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok. So you do support assisting the those in need beyond the birth of the child you just would have a different approach then perhaps is currently happening.  Do you think SNAP and WIC should be eliminated?

No.  Food assistance should be available, but also monitored and administered to avoid waste, encourage frugality, and encourage getting off the dole.

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Personally I am not a fan of EOs in general.

I think EOs as to matters affecting the Executive Branch have become necessary, particularly given the corruption we are seeing.  

I dislike using EOs in lieu of legislation.  The Legislature Branch should stay in its lane, and the Executive Branch in its.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Pink said:

Your side lost because people are sick and tired of your bullshit! Liberalism is now a cult. 

Oh, good grief. You march onto this board with your black-and-white thinking, fully confident that you have the read on everything and everyone around here and nothing could be further from the truth. You don't have a clue whether I'm LDS, or not. You don't have a clue whether I'm a Republican, Democrat, or none of the above. You shoot first and aim later. You've been a member of this board for a whole hour and you're already more tiresome than some of the people I've been arguing with around here for the last 16+ years. Go over to the LDS Freedom Forum with your nonsense. That should make for an interesting day for you.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Pink said:

I can tell you're a liberal by how weak you come across 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

The affirmative denial of the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

Some atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  When they do, the are expressing a matter of faith.

 

I think @Analyticshas rebutted your position here.

Funny, that.  I think he's not even come close to doing that.  

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So let me ask, do you strongly deny the existence of fairies?

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is that a statement of faith since you have no evidence that fairies do or do not exist.

I think the existence of fairies is a fairly empirically testable proposition (particularly in the context in which "fairies" are discussed, such as stories in which they interact with humans, were around recently, etc.).  Ipso facto, I think we can reasonably conclude, using knowledge and empiricism, that fairies do not exist.  The same goes for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

The existence of God is, in my view, not an empirically testable proposition.  The proponent would need to present data derived from empirical efforts to explore the entirety of the universe and any other heretofore undetected/uncorroborated planes of existence.  Good luck with that.

Proving a negative is often a very difficult evidentiary exercise.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Raingirl]

5 minutes ago, Pink said:

I can tell you're a liberal by how weak you come across 

Gee, look who is back. 🙄

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Great. So, if a woman takes the morning-after pill, which prevents implantation, then no moral wrongdoing has occurred—since, by your logic, personhood begins at implantation, not conception. Do you agree?

Perhaps.  I'll think on it.

Legislation, like politics, is often the "art of the possible." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Conception.

Life begins at conception.  I don't think there's much dispute about that.

I think most those who support abortion, even those who support it only slightly, would find this as extreme as you find the term "lump of cells."

"Life begins at conception" acknowledges the humanity of the in utero baby.  "Lump of cells" dehumanizes the in utero baby.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, that would be a Million Dollar Example.  An atheist who affirmatively denies the existence of God and acknowledges that denial as being an expression of faith would be a rare bird, indeed.  I think "strong" atheists (and not a few of the other kinds) relish looking down on religionists and their stupid reliance on "faith," while not recognizing (or refusing to acknowledge) that, as I have said a few times in a few different ways not, affirmatively denying the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

You think this. So what? Give and example. Otherwise your argument  is meaningless.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be.

At this point, I'm in more of a "A Pox on Both Your Houses" frame of mind.  I think there is tons of corruption, graft, waste, etc. throughout the entrenched establishment of the federal bureaucracy and political class.  The stuff being uncovered did not arise just on the Democrats' watch.

As for the night-unto-religious devotion to elective abortion I have never really been able to understand that fervor.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  Food assistance should be available, but also monitored and administered to avoid waste, encourage frugality, and encourage getting off the dole.

I think EOs as to matters affecting the Executive Branch have become necessary, particularly given the corruption we are seeing.  

I dislike using EOs in lieu of legislation.  The Legislature Branch should stay in its lane, and the Executive Branch in its.

Thanks,

-Smac

Alleged corruption. I don't trust anything Trump or Musk are saying till I see the documentation.  So you were ok with Biden and Obama's excessive EOs because they thought they were necessary for whatever reason they used to justify them?

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny, that.  I think he's not even come close to doing that.  

Yes.

I think the existence of fairies is a fairly empirically testable proposition (particularly in the context in which "fairies" are discussed, such as stories in which they interact with humans, were around recently, etc.).  Ipso facto, I think we can reasonably conclude, using knowledge and empiricism, that fairies do not exist.  The same goes for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

The existence of God is, in my view, not an empirically testable proposition.  The proponent would need to present data derived from empirical efforts to explore the entirety of the universe and any other heretofore undetected/uncorroborated planes of existence.  Good luck with that.

Proving a negative is often a very difficult evidentiary exercise.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You sure are able to use a lot of tortured reasoning to make your arguments work.  I think what you call a strong atheist would use the same reasoning you say your assertion that fairies do not exist is not a statement of faith.

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Life begins at conception" acknowledges the humanity of the in utero baby.  "Lump of cells" dehumanizes the in utero baby.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. You use words the same as they do to make your point. You want to humanize something that maybe should not be humanized. Different sides of the same coin.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

I call him a "felon" because he was literally convicted of 34 felonies.

Tell you what, Spencer - tell me everything you know about his criminal case, and I'll tell you everything I know about it. Let's compare notes.

This could be fun!🤣

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe. Sort of like most people when it comes to religion.

Yep.  However, religiosity typically requires time, effort, money, etc.  Irreligiosity and agnosticism and atheism, and lax religiosity, let the individual sidestep such things.

The Vice-Chair of the DNC, David Hogg, has announced that he will never have kids.  That is, of course, his choice.  But it's sort of hard to view this as a "I'm sacrificing having a family for Gaia's sake," or some similar ennobling claptrap.  Instead, his announcement went like this: David Hogg vows to never have children: ‘I would much rather own a Porsche’

Quote

Gun-control activist David Hogg said on social media over the weekend that he was taking himself out of the gene pool.

In a lengthy thread, the liberal activist said children are a luxury good affordable only by the few — “the new boats,” he called them.

“Yes kids are nice but most people can’t afford them so it’s nice to have friends with one but not have one yourself. Pets are the affordable version of kids today for Millennials and Gen Z,” Mr. Hogg said.

Mr. Hogg said he has other priorities.

“Like me? I’m never planning on having kids. I would much rather own a Porsche,” he said.

Besides a belief that children are unaffordable and a preference for German sports cars, Mr. Hogg said he will remain childless as an ideological statement.

“Also BIG reason I will never have kids in the US- I refuse to raise kids in a country that values f—ing guns over children’s lives,” he said.

Not really buying this.  Getting married and having kids is hard.  Self-centered and self-indulgent plans are so much easier.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Most are adherents to one degree or another to the religion they have grown up with. Few ever think about or challenge the validity of their claims. 

The Latter-day Saints are strongly encouraged to study their faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints are strongly encouraged to study their faith.

But only from approved sources. You left that part out.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be. I guess in that twisted world as long as the leaders support the “holy sacrament” of the mass slaughter of the innocent unborn they obtain absolution for all their other sinful desires, motivations and behaviors?

On their side?  Do you even know what my side is. And if you think Trump and MAGA are not utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish then you are rather foolish.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have no interest in debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Trump and the fact that America elected him again with you. It is clear you are pretty pumped up about his second term and what he is doing. We are 180 degrees apart on this.

I'm okay with that.  

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think what he and Musk are doing are bringing us to a potential constitutional crisis. Apparently you do not. 

I think the status quo constitutes a far greater threat to the constitutional order than the efforts of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk in exposing and getting rid of massive and widespread waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, incompetence, etc., all paid for with tax dolalrs.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I guess we will watch and see how that plays out. My opposition to Trump as president boils down to one thing. I think it is pretty clear the man betrayed his oath to the constitution by his actions in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. 

He said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I was deeply disappointed by the January 6 stuff.  However, I was substantially more disturbed by the widespread violence, property damage, personal injuries, and deaths associated with the BLM/Antifa riots.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Last of all, how anyone who claims to adhere to the morals of Mormonism as well as Christianity can support the most amoral man to ever hold the office of president is beyond me.

I scratch my head at people who supported Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.  Oh, well.

I reject the characterization here of Mr. Trump.  It is exaggerated and overstated by a country mile.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

If Trump were a democrat you and millions of others who claim to value such morals never would have supported him.

I vote based on policies more than personalities.  I would love to see a presidential candidate who was a paragon of moral virtue and decent living (that JD Vance guy seems pretty nice).  As it is, though, we had a choice between two deeply flawed people, one of whom has massive accomplishments, loves America, and has a track record of fulfilling campaign promises, and the other whose career was atrocious, zero accomplishments, and got her political career going by having a sexual affair with a married man.

I do not endorse Mr. Trump's moral failings.  As a Latter-day Saint, I am somewhat spoiled in that the social leaders to whom I look for moral advice and counsel are the men and women leading The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It would be great to see political candidates who have let the upright and virtuous lives we see in the leaders of the Church.  As it is, however, we must work with what options are before us.  

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have learned that character really does not matter to those who claim such morals and that their politics is more important than their claimed morals, values and ethics.

Do you think voting for the other candidate would have been more reflective of character mattering?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And the other side promotes class warfare to distract from the war against morality.

See how that works?

There are a couple of problems with your tu quoque argument. First, Democrats aren’t promoting class warfare. As Warren Buffett famously said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” The real conflict is driven by economic inequality, not some Democratic agenda—this is a myth you’ve bought into.

Second, it’s not the federal government’s job to fight a “war against immorality,” and Democrats aren’t waging one. Blaming moral decay for social problems is just a distraction from real economic and political issues. 

Trump isn’t waging a war against immorality. True, he threw a bone at your pet issues—like restricting how local schools manage their sports leagues—but most of his energy is devoted to money and power.

Do you really think Elon Musk spent $277 million to help get Trump elected because he cares that deeply about who’s allowed to play on a basketball team in Duluth, Minnesota? What he cares about—and what you care about—are not the same thing.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I did that intentionally so you understood what it is like with your childish approach.   And you know darn well what the felonies are.

I was curious if you were familiar with the actual felonies and the particulars whereby the conviction was obtained.  I suspect you are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

The Latter-day Saints are strongly encouraged to study their faith.

But only from approved sources. You left that part out.

Well, no.  

General authorities typically give general advice.  The problem with "particulars" in this context is that that generalized guidelines get subordinated to the "particular" statements about specific persons, books, etc.  The Church is generally not in the business of publishing imprimatur / nihil obstat-style lists of "approved sources."  If you disagree, feel free to post evidence of which "sources" the Church has declared as "approved." 

I think the Church's generalized "correct principles + let them govern themselves" counsel is the better way to go.  The Latter-day Saints ought to take generalized counsel and make their own reasoned and informed decisions about such things.  Otherwise, we may end up leaning too much on the "list" rather than on our own efforts, study, reasoning, etc. to figure out which voices to listen to and otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes. You use words the same as they do to make your point. You want to humanize something that maybe should not be humanized.

I think in utero babies should be humanized.  They are, after all, human.

Thanks,

-Smac