Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

Well, this is my thread. I think it may have reached an equitable end (to coin another phrase that should be amenable to progressive secular humanists ) to the point that I will bow out again to observe where the thread goes. If I see reason to step back in, I will. But for now, carry on. I’ve got to go do some other things.

Best

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Ah, the Doubting Thomas ploy: "If you don't agree with me, you don't care about the CHILDREN!!!!!"

Pro tip: ranting on the internet does not constitute "caring."

No rant.

And yes, I do have a concern for future generations. My point is that progressive secular humanists ought to also be concerned about the health and vitality of future generations also. If this thread is any indication, however, there are a lot of folks that don’t see any harmful trends in society, and where many of our youth are headed.

Absolutely no response to the actual substance of my posts except for cherry picking here and there to twist things around to support the progressive secular humanist agenda. But there’s not much there. Unless you count ethical/moral relativism as being a good option for the future. For this purpose there has been a bunch of finger pointing and concern with definitions rather than the ‘state of the children’. Very little has been said in this regard.

It’s as though ‘all is well in Zion’ to coin an LDS phrase.

I think we will continue to go around in circles on this merry go round. That’s to be expected. What else can a merry go round do?

Regards,
MG

I see harmful trends in society. I see people making death threats against librarians, teachers, district attorneys, city council persons, local health officials, hospitals, etc. I see good Christians spreading a 100% false rumor claiming that last Friday's Transgender Day of Visibility was actually a "Trans Day of Rage" in which the "transgenders" were planning a violent rampage to target and slaughter Christians. And I see you making non-stop bigoted claims that "the" problem is that people don't believe in God. Tell you what, person of God, pluck the beam out of your own eye first. Start being a peacemaker like your leadership directed you to just last weekend. Stop demonizing people who don't believe in your God and focus on bringing people together instead of making your fellow humans out to be existential threats.

by the way, Haidt, for whom you appear to show great respect, is an atheist. You're happy to rely on him when you agree with him, and then turn around and portray him as an existential threat to civil society.

[Res Ipsa]

Well, this is my thread. I think it may have reached an equitable end (to coin another phrase that should be amenable to progressive secular humanists ) to the point that I will bow out again to observe where the thread goes. If I see reason to step back in, I will. But for now, carry on. I’ve got to go do some other things.

Best

Regards,
MG

Oh, is "progressive secular humanists" the new enemy du jour?" Yet another new term you will fail to define over and over and over....

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trump just posted the judge’s daughter’s face on his un-truth antisocial account. Is this civil society?

- Doc

[Marcus]

Trump just posted the judge’s daughter’s face on his un-truth antisocial account. Is this civil society?

- Doc

Dear god.

Donald Trump Jr shared on social media a picture of the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan as he claimed that his father was being subjected to a “hand-picked Democrat show trial.”

The former president’s eldest child posted the picture, which was attached to a Breitbart story that claims that the daughter of Judge Merchan worked on the Biden-Harris presidential campaign, on Twitter and Truth Social on Tuesday.

“Seems relevant… yet another connection in this hand picked democrat show trial. The BS never ends folks,” Don Jr posted.

The posts came as prosecutors raised concerns during his 45-minute arraignment hearing that Mr Trump’s “threatening” social media posts could have an impact on jurors or witnesses.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office accused Mr Trump’s social media posts of “threatening our city, our justice system, our courts and our office.”

Before the hearing, Mr Trump posted a fake image of him swinging a baseball bat at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s head. He has also previously called Mr Bragg an “animal” on his Truth Social platform.

But Judge Merchan said he would not issue a gag order that would prevent Mr Trump or his lawyers from speaking publicly about the case.

The former president has officially been arraigned on 34 counts of falsifying business records and conspiracy, making him the first former US president to be a defendant in a criminal case.

Mr Trump pleaded not guilty in proceedings before New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the same judge who last year presided over the criminal tax fraud trial of two of the ex-president’s companies.

I hope they provide security for the judge's daughter.

[honorentheos]

If you dig deep into some of the links, without cherry picking as honor has done, you will see that there is general consensus that we are approaching a ‘tipping point’ in which secular thought theorists are fighting…and even demanding…to rule the day. Along with their media, government, and university sycophants.

Rich. The sources you link to draw conclusions you are saying demonstrate the concern are themselves cherry picking from sources to draw those conclusions. I'm fairly familiar with Haidt's corpus of work and can say with confidence your source did not present the argument he makes accurately. Stem has called out other instances where your sources misrepresent the information, often in ways that impose an interpretation that favors Evangelical Christianity. That makes sense as being your most readily available source given they are the front line of making religion political in the US, asserting some form of Christianity is synonymous with American values which is ahistoric.

To put a point on the discussion, it seems clear your view of what is threatened is religiosity and religion-based community. You characterize this as being "civil society" in order to assert what threatens religiosity is dangerous to society as a whole. And then you dipped and dashed.

[Marcus]

Oh my god.

In recent days, Mr Trump and his sons have posted aggressive messages online about the officials in the New York case.

On 23 March, the former president shared an article on Truth Social which used an image of Mr Trump holding a bat next to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

“He wasn’t swinging a baseball bat at anyone’s head,” Trump lawyer Joseph Tacopina said on Tuesday outside of the courthouse in Manhattan. “That was a picture of him showing off an American-made bat.”

[MG 2.0]

To put a point on the discussion, it seems clear your view of what is threatened is religiosity and religion-based community. You characterize this as being "civil society" in order to assert what threatens religiosity is dangerous to society as a whole.

I think in a nutshell you’re correct. And the impact this would have on society over time. Ethical/moral relativism being the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one wants to talk about. I’d be interested in listening/learning from you folks as to what you might see as the benefits vs. risks of a society in which right isn’t always right and wrong isn’t always wrong. Moral/ethical relativism.

Personally, I see progressive secular humanism as a threat to the religious traditions and moral/ethical fiber that have held our nation together up to this point in time. I’m not going to get down in the trenches any more at this point and argue about it. I’ve been ‘in it’ for way too many pages and way too long.

A new thread would be good so that the topic can remain intact.

I’ll more than likely not participate unless I can’t help myself.

I need to pace myself with online activity. I get in here and find myself buried in responses, etc.

If you don’t think moral/ethical relativism and progressive secular humanism are synonymous then just dovetail them together as much as possible for the sake of discussion.

I do some dovetailing here and there. I give you permission to do the same.

If you and others don’t feel that makes for an interesting discussion because it takes you places you’re uncomfortable with, it’s just not that interesting, etc., that’s fine. Maybe another time.

I enjoyed this thread discussion. Thanks to all that participated in a civil manner. I appreciate that.

Until a later date.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

To put a point on the discussion, it seems clear your view of what is threatened is religiosity and religion-based community. You characterize this as being "civil society" in order to assert what threatens religiosity is dangerous to society as a whole.

I think in a nutshell you’re correct. And the impact this would have on society over time. Ethical/moral relativism being the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one wants to talk about. I’d be interested in listening/learning from you folks as to what you might see as the benefits vs. risks of a society in which right since always right and wrong isn’t always wrong. Moral/ethical relativism.

Personally, I see progressive secular humanism as a threat to the religious traditions and moral/ethical fiber that have held our nation together up to this point in time. I’m not going to get down in the trenches any more at this point and argue about it. I’ve been ‘in it’ for way too many pages and way too long.

A new thread would be good so that the topic can remain intact.

I’ll more than likely not participate unless I can’t help myself.

I need to pace myself with online activity. I get in here and find myself buried in responses, etc.

If you don’t think moral/ethical relativism and progressive secular humanism are synonymous then just dovetail them together as much as possible for the sake of discussion.

I do some dovetailing here and there. I give you permission to do the same.

If you and others don’t feel that makes for an interesting discussion because it takes you places you’re uncomfortable with, it’s just not that interesting, etc., that’s fine. Maybe another time.

I enjoyed this thread discussion. Thanks to all that participated in a civil manner. I appreciate that.

Until a later date.

Regards,
MG

So, not believing in God is a threat to religious belief, which MG 2.0 equates with civil society. Amazing what one can accomplish if one is free to define terms any way he wants.

I can’t wait to see how he defines moral relativism and then tries to reason from his so called objective absolutes to The results in specific cases. He’s just as much a moral relativist as I am. That’s another conversation I’ll enjoy.

[Morley]

To put a point on the discussion, it seems clear your view of what is threatened is religiosity and religion-based community. You characterize this as being "civil society" in order to assert what threatens religiosity is dangerous to society as a whole.

I think in a nutshell you’re correct. And the impact this would have on society over time.

At last. Thank you.