Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

You have a lot of freedom in the US - especially in Utah - to live your life according to your religion, but religious people there have clearly imposed their sectarian ideas on the rest of the population. If religious people would learn to live and let live, we would all be better off.

Same for godless folks too, of course, but you don't see armies of secular missionaries going out trying to talk people out of Mormonism or whatever, or non-secularists being told to "friend" their neighbours in the hopes of de-converting them. Britain (and other countries) never had the equivalent of a secular "baseball de-baptism" program. I think that there's reason to believe that secular folks are more likely to leave the religious alone, to let them make their own choices, than the other way around.

Utah has been an example to the rest of the nation in upholding and supporting rights for people of all ‘stripes’.

Governor Cox leads the way.

I do question your last statement/sentence.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The Bible has been used to justify horrific things. Christian mores have been used to justify horrific things.

No question that this is true.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Hey huckelberry. I don’t think Res Ipsa has included explicit mixed messages like Jesus did. I can’t help that Jesus preached both love and hate, and violence and peace. And I can’t help that people honor such confusion as if it came from an all knowing god. I’d question whether pointing out that Jesus’ messages were clearly confused amounts to complaining. That is the mythic character, wholly expected in his time and place, but definitely not expected if he were actually divine.

dasterdly stem, I find myself puzzled as to why you see Jesus combinations of love and hate as reflecting a mythic character of some specific time and place. It seems to me instead to reflect a normal reaction to the situation of being human in a time with dangerous conflicts where people die over them.

History bares about the mythic character. Historians tend to agree even if there was an actual historic person who is at the root of the Jesus character, the character was mythologized, including stories of magic and wisdom (which I'd say don't prove very wise, a la the mixed messaging inherent in his teachings). My point is since scholars have demonstrated the mythological source or sources of the Christ character, it is quite understandable that this character gave mixed messaging. THat's what we'd expect from the era. On the other hand if the writings in the New Testament truly are messages from God, then God has some explaining to do (and his explaining wouldn't need to stop there). It doesn't seem likely Jesus was God or was giving messages from God.

[Doctor Steuss]

I suspect that in any case the problem is extremism, and that we all have at least as much to fear from religious extremism as from "godless" extremism.

On that point I think we are in full agreement. And either one encapsulated within the framework of a federal/national government is dangerous. In the United States we have a Constitutional government beholden to the Bill of Rights and the Natural Rights of Man.

The question for me is whether a ‘leftest’ progressive secular humanist government vs. a conservative government based on tried and true principles of freedom and liberty for all has the greater potential to lead us down a path of no return towards governmental control over our liberty and freedom given to us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is an open ended question which is being tossed back and forth rather forcefully in the United States as we speak.

Both sides speak of upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet both sides cannot be right at the same time.

I tend to come down as moderately conservative rather than a secular progressive radical leftest.

But that should come as no great surprise.

Regards,
MG

That'd be pretty cool if there had ever been a conservative government based on tried and true principles of freedom and liberty for all within the US.

Unfortunately, we've had exclusionary policies and a steady march of extremist theocrats with a penchant for authoritarianism and fascism legislating morality, and working to gain control over our liberty and freedom given to us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

While worrying about an existential threat of so-called "secular progressive radical leftists," there is a coordinated effort to legislate against the 1st Amendment, and individual freedom and liberty by the purported "conservative" governments.

ETA: Personally, I don't want a purely "Conservative" or purely "Liberal" government. I want a pluralistic government that isn't beholden to ideological purity, and rigid dogmatism. One that looks to the past for ideas that have worked, and to the future for ideas that may work better. One that innovates and grows while maintaining a responsible tether to past experience. One where "isms" (Capitalism, Socialism, etc.) can be mixed and matched as opportunity or circumstance may dictate. That's my TED talk.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s another lie akin to when MG would claim he wasn’t an apologist, nor here to evangelize. But let’s give MG a fair shake!

MG, please bullet point the difference between your ‘moderate’ Republican and ‘not moderate’ Republican.

- Doc

Bullet point what YOU believe a moderate Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Bullet point what you believe a far right ‘racist, bigoted, white supremacy’ Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Go for it.

Regards,
MG

Once again, MG shows himself to be a troll and a liar. He’s obviously not a mOdErAtE rEpUbLiCaN.

God. The lying never stops with this guy. Everything about him is a fraud.

- Doc

[malkie]

I suspect that in any case the problem is extremism, and that we all have at least as much to fear from religious extremism as from "godless" extremism.

On that point I think we are in full agreement. And either one encapsulated within the framework of a federal/national government is dangerous. In the United States we have a Constitutional government beholden to the Bill of Rights and the Natural Rights of Man.

The question for me is whether a ‘leftest’ progressive secular humanist government vs. a conservative government based on tried and true principles of freedom and liberty for all has the greater potential to lead us down a path of no return towards governmental control over our liberty and freedom given to us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is an open ended question which is being tossed back and forth rather forcefully in the United States as we speak.

Both sides speak of upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet both sides cannot be right at the same time.

I tend to come down as moderately conservative rather than a secular progressive radical leftest.

But that should come as no great surprise.

Regards,
MG

The founders of your nation seemed to think that it wasn't a good idea to bind government and religion together.

My knowledge of US history is a bit shaky, but I'm sure that other folks here could easily put some meat on the bones.

In any case, as far as I know, none of them were Christians, or thought that they were founding a Christian nation (regardless of what a lot of the religious right seem to think), but rather were Deists or Unitarians.

I suspect that they would be horrified at the modern Republican party - especially in the southern states, and places like Utah and Idaho.

[malkie]

...
MG, please bullet point the difference between your ‘moderate’ Republican and ‘not moderate’ Republican.
...

Bullet point what YOU believe a moderate Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Bullet point what you believe a far right ‘racist, bigoted, white supremacy’ Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Go for it.

Regards,
MG

Once again, MG shows himself to be a troll and a liar. He’s obviously not a mOdErAtE rEpUbLiCaN.

God. The lying never stops with this guy. Everything about him is a fraud.

- Doc

Doc, do you mean to say that you won't do MG's homework for him, and assume the burden of proof for his claim?

How dare you!

[MG 2.0]

Of course government-sanctioned atrocities could happen in the "good ol' USA." They have already happened. Slavery, Jim Crow, Native American genocide, etc. These weren't done under "State atheism," or so-called "godless" people taking ahold of government institutions. It wasn't so-called secular humanist liberal progressive Marxist [insert snarl buzzword salad continuation]. These were done primarily by Christians. In many instances (like that of France) the pull towards a state atheism was specifically because of the corruption of religious originations and government (particularly in that instance, Christianity).

I’m assuming that you are not a supporter of state supported atheism and/or Marxism? And that you might have cause for concern for any cultural/societal indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be the path we are on?

First Amendment concerns.
Academic Institutions with a leftest/liberal leaning.
ESG in Government and business/corporate institutions.
Legacy media and social media with a leftest/liberal slant in reporting the news having close ties with government ‘players’.

The list could go on.

Sure, radical extremists left or right, religious or non theists, can be forces against liberty and freedom for all.

My point is that there are indications that as a society we are going down a path towards secular humanist progressive politics and support for government control over our lives, liberties, and freedoms. We ALL ought to be concerned with that rather than succumbing to forces that could ultimately lead towards any form of state sponsored atheism.

Right now we may see this as an impossibility. But I’m guessing that other folks throughout history thought so too. Until it was too late.

We don’t have to step very far off the coast of Florida to see the consequences.

I hope we don’t take our freedoms lightly or take them for granted.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[MG is] obviously not a mOdErAtE rEpUbLiCaN.

I figured you wouldn’t play.

I’m a moderate Republican.

You’re a liar.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

On that point I think we are in full agreement. And either one encapsulated within the framework of a federal/national government is dangerous. In the United States we have a Constitutional government beholden to the Bill of Rights and the Natural Rights of Man.

The question for me is whether a ‘leftest’ progressive secular humanist government vs. a conservative government based on tried and true principles of freedom and liberty for all has the greater potential to lead us down a path of no return towards governmental control over our liberty and freedom given to us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is an open ended question which is being tossed back and forth rather forcefully in the United States as we speak.

Both sides speak of upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet both sides cannot be right at the same time.

I tend to come down as moderately conservative rather than a secular progressive radical leftest.

But that should come as no great surprise.

Regards,
MG

The founders of your nation seemed to think that it wasn't a good idea to bind government and religion together.

My knowledge of US history is a bit shaky, but I'm sure that other folks here could easily put some meat on the bones.

In any case, as far as I know, none of them were Christians, or thought that they were founding a Christian nation (regardless of what a lot of the religious right seem to think), but rather were Deists or Unitarians.

I suspect that they would be horrified at the modern Republican party - especially in the southern states, and places like Utah and Idaho.

The founding fathers:

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

https://thedailyhatch.org/2012/05/23/we ... christian/

Regards,
MG