We Need to Go on Offense

[Some Schmo]

It's not enough to say you reject religious beliefs. These days, with the abhorrent threat of Christian Nationalism, we have to tell these people to put up or shut up. They have to prove their religion is objectively true, or shut the “F” up about it.

You can't make laws based on personal fantasies and expect everyone to go along with it. And we, the rational people of the world who aren't convinced of things without evidence, need to be quite adamant that we aren't going to put up with BS laws based on BS premises. These people need to prove their god, then we'll talk. Until then, they can “F” right off.

The older I get and the more I see the religious nutcases trying to assume power, the more I realize that an active anti-religious stance is the only rational defense for human progress. I am intolerant of people pushing religion. We, as a society, keep carrying these deadbeats living in the ancient past.

Keep your outdated ideas to yourself, and there's no problem. The rest of us are trying to get crap done.

[High Spy]

Conquer the fortress
Laying siege to a castle was a common tactic in medieval warfare, used by armies to capture a strategic stronghold or force the surrender of its defenders. Here’s an overview of the process:

Preparation

Before laying siege, the attacking army would prepare by:

(a) Cutting off the castle’s supply lines, including food, water, and reinforcements

(b) Establishing a siege camp to house the army and its equipment

(c) Constructing siege engines, such as catapults, trebuchets, and battering rams

(d) Gathering a large enough force to overwhelm the castle’s defenses

Valo will soon commence item (c).

[Physics Guy]

At least according the the US armed forces, Offensive is indeed one of the Principles of War. It's the second of nine, though: the first one is Objective. I learned the Commonwealth version of the Principles, and in typical British fashion it expresses that first principle in a way that's less catchy but clearer: Selection and Maintenance of the Aim. Getting your goal wrong, or losing sight of it in practice, will make everything else you do pointless at best. Get your target wrong and you waste effort on unnecessary battles—effort that might have won necessary battles. And you make enemies that could have been neutral—or might even have helped you.

That's why, even though I'd also like to eliminate Christian Nationalism, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this attitude.

The older I get and the more I see the religious nutcases trying to assume power, the more I realize that an active anti-religious stance is the only rational defense for human progress.

While you do often say things like "if you keep it to yourself then I have no problem", you keep coming back to broad-brush attacks on "religion" in general. This comes across as your main concern, with any concessions as half-hearted afterthoughts.

"Religion" as a generic thing doesn't even exist. It's a fictitious bugbear, a chimera. Maybe in your own mind the "religion" against which you rail doesn't include little kids saying bedtime prayers for their grandparents or old people giving money to orphanages, but to millions of people "religion" really does mean things like those things. By calling your target "religion" you're playing right into the hands of everyone who wants to use a bunch of good and decent things, whether or not they're the smartest things, as cover for fascism.

The fascists are telling a lot of mostly decent people that the horrible liberals are coming after their good and decent religion. To me that's a ploy that should be exposed, not a cue.

[Some Schmo]

That's why, even though I'd also like to eliminate Christian Nationalism, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this attitude.

...

The fascists are telling a lot of mostly decent people that the horrible liberals are coming after their good and decent religion. To me that's a ploy that should be exposed, not a cue.

So what do you suggest?

It often feels to me like we, as a society, coddle the right and are constantly worried about how they'll react to whatever happens, like we might worry about a volatile 2 year old, or perhaps more accurately, a psychopath. Nobody gives a crap about how everyone else will react. What does that tell us about the right?

[Gadianton]

Humans will never escape religion and even if they did, the bad threads would combine into something else that isn't technically about God. We can say North Korea is more religious than it is secular atheist as we understand these terms as critics in the US, and I'd be inclined to agree, but at that point we need to pin down what religion is, why it's always the bad things that North Korea is, and why no church could escape being like that.

When I read about the rise of Rush Limbaugh, there were legitimate "religious" forces among the secular left making free speech difficult. The left would probably be more annoying today if it weren't for the right completely dominating, stealing the very word from the pages of the dictionary to only be for them.

I do see a problem with Christianity in general sitting back and letting the nutcases rush into battle, almost as silent partners who let the nuts do the dirty work for them. I recently watched a podcast hosted by a preacher who considered himself a moderate Christian Nationalist, who criticized secularists for not recognizing the distinction between the many approaches to Christian Nationalism, and assuming all Christian Nationalists are "dominionists". He pointed out dominionism is the minority.

Like a gang of thieves discussing the next house to rob, and having a difference of opinion over whether they should barge in, shoot everyone first and then tie them up, or go in quietly, take what they need, and hope for a peaceful exit from the property. The people of the neighborhood should educate themselves on the difference between home invasion styles and it's really a minority of thieves who feel violence should come first.

[Morley]

...whether they should barge in, shoot everyone first and then tie them up...

great image

I love the order that they’re doing this.

[huckelberry]

That's why, even though I'd also like to eliminate Christian Nationalism, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this attitude.

...

The fascists are telling a lot of mostly decent people that the horrible liberals are coming after their good and decent religion. To me that's a ploy that should be exposed, not a cue.

So what do you suggest?

It often feels to me like we, as a society, coddle the right and are constantly worried about how they'll react to whatever happens, like we might worry about a volatile 2 year old, or perhaps more accurately, a psychopath. Nobody gives a crap about how everyone else will react. What does that tell us about the right?

Some Schmo, I may share some of your worry about the influence of right wing fundamentalists. On the other hand, I am truly puzzled by what you mean by coddling them. By the basic principles of our country they get to vote just as you or I. They also get to shout their opinion even if others do not wish to listen to them. I think it is a cancer. I think there are right-wing political operatives who coddle the fanatics in order to derive power from them.

Our society cannot even prevent flat earthers from having conventions and making ignorant pronouncements.

I am stuck with a puzzle. The Christian religion has strong ideas that because people are sinful, weak, and proud it is dangerous to give them lots of power. People's power needs to be limited by laws and the concern of society. These observations can be shared by people with both religious or nonreligious viewpoints. They are guiding ideas of our constitution.

On the other hand, religion can appeal to people's desire for authority and command power. It is sometimes easy for a religious leader to forget they are the ones in need of being controlled and having their power limited.

[huckelberry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoaBvijT-o0
Here is a little sermon from Frank Schaeffer. It is a piece of what Some Schmo is hoping for. Well , one possible tack.

[Some Schmo]

On the other hand I am truly puzzled by what you mean by coddling them.

People often worry about how one thing or another will play out on the right, like "What if Trump loses the election?" or "What if we indict Trump?" Will there be riots? A civil war? Blah blah blah.

Or you'll get people saying, "People will vote for Trump if you say they're stupid." And that proves its own point. If they vote for Trump they are stupid, no matter what anyone calls them.

[Jersey Girl]

So what do you suggest?

Vote.

Or did you mean how do folks "get through" to Christian Nationalists?