Dave's Politics Column

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AustonT**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Huffy wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Roman or Eastern Orthodox?

I'd guess Roman, as it's more monolithic/known than the orthodox

Standard diocese structure, latin rite or primitive?

I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops over this, just making a point. There's no monolithic church in any denomination. Major categories of church all have at least 2 flavors, most have more.

Actually this is a very good point. Recently a jewish history professor and I were discussing which group of Christians were more hidebound, Protestants or Catholics. answers to questions like that might be suprising.

@Melissa you should probably accept that you have a narrow and extremist view, sooner rather than later. There's nothing wrong with it, but once you start from a known unreasonable position fewer peoplel will attempt to reason with you.

**Rented Tritium**

I disagree with a large chunk of catholic policy, but it is nothing if not internally consistent.

But again, they're a tiny part of Christianity.

**Frazzled**

dsteingass wrote:My bad sorry. Let me clarify. I am referring to "the Church" incorrectly and out of context. I understand there are a million flavors of Christianity in the US, all with their different beliefs. My problem is not with any one "church" organization, it is with Christian individuals (regardless of church affiliation) who can whole-heartedly believe that Abortion is murder and therefore evil on one hand, but simultaneously agree that we should fight/kill/invade/nuke people from predominantly Muslim nations and we are somehow justified in the eyes of God when doing so. The two things are inconsistent and anathema to each other. I don't understand how the thought process works.

Maybe they are the same only in your head?

**AustonT**

Oh yeah, the Orthodox church is more monolithic than the Roman one, they've endured less change since thier split and the Romans have constantly progressed. My wife nearly went ballistic when I told her what she needed to wear just for Latin mass.

**Rented Tritium**

dsteingass wrote:My bad sorry. Let me clarify. I am referring to "the Church" incorrectly and out of context. I understand there are a million flavors of Christianity in the US, all with their different beliefs. My problem is not with any one "church" organization, it is with Christian individuals (regardless of church affiliation) who can whole-heartedly believe that Abortion is murder and therefore evil on one hand, but simultaneously agree that we should fight/kill/invade/nuke people from predominantly Muslim nations and we are somehow justified in the eyes of God when doing so. The two things are inconsistent and anathema to each other. I don't understand how the thought process works.

It works because of a belief that the fetus is innocent and the combatants in a war are adults.

It's just like how I can be anti-war in the general sense, but my positions on individual wars are decided on a case by case basis.

**Huffy**

dsteingass wrote:My bad sorry. Let me clarify. I am referring to "the Church" incorrectly and out of context. I understand there are a million flavors of Christianity in the US, all with their different beliefs. My problem is not with any one "church" organization, it is with Christian individuals (regardless of church affiliation) who can whole-heartedly believe that Abortion is murder and therefore evil on one hand, but simultaneously agree that we should fight/kill/invade/nuke people from predominantly Muslim nations and we are somehow justified in the eyes of God when doing so. The two things are inconsistent and anathema to each other. I don't understand how the thought process works.

vocal minority in nearly every case from what I've seen...the internet hasn't helped with the spread of these ideas

**Rented Tritium**

I think you'll find that if you ask a random christian, they'll be begrudgingly ok with abortion in the case of rape or incest or for the safety of the mother and ok with war in the case where it will prevent something horrible.

So they're both anti war and anti abortion, but with exceptions to both. The war exceptions happen more often, so it gives the perception that they are pro-war.

Then there is the vocal minority that IS GENUINELY pro-war and anti-abortion in ALL cases. But that's a small group that makes everyone involved a little uncomfortable.

**AustonT**

But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

**Huffy**

AustonT wrote:But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

Not really true...depends on the sect of Christianity, some like Catholics have a set of rules that need to happen to wage "just war" others do not, and some say there should be no violence at all

**Rented Tritium**

The just war doctrine, if anyone is interested is as follows

Catholic Catechism wrote:The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

This is why I love Catholicism, even as an atheist. They write their doctrine like statute. It's beautiful.

**dsteingass**

Rented Tritium wrote:
It works because of a belief that the fetus is innocent and the combatants in a war are adults.

It's just like how I can be anti-war in the general sense, but my positions on individual wars are decided on a case by case basis.

no, sorry that logic is fuzzy to me. When a human being is murdered in the US, we expend enormous resources investigating and attempting to bring the murderer to justice. But killing during wartime is somehow NOT viewed as the same tragedy? f the fundamental Christian/Jewish/Muslim belief is in the same commandment 'thou shall not kill" How do human beings rationalize like this?

**Rented Tritium**

dsteingass wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
It works because of a belief that the fetus is innocent and the combatants in a war are adults.

It's just like how I can be anti-war in the general sense, but my positions on individual wars are decided on a case by case basis.

no, sorry that logic is fuzzy to me. When a human being is murdered in the US, we expend enormous resources investigating and attempting to bring the murderer to justice. But killing during wartime is somehow NOT viewed as the same tragedy? f the fundamental Christian/Jewish/Muslim belief is in the same commandment 'thou shall not kill" How do human beings rationalize like this?

I just posted the Just War doctrine. That might clear it up some. That's catholic doctrine, but the argument is similar in other denominations.

**dsteingass**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Then there is the vocal minority that IS GENUINELY pro-war and anti-abortion in ALL cases. But that's a small group that makes everyone involved a little uncomfortable.

This is the type of people I am talking about, people I personally know and I am related to in some cases! (see the lady in the restaurant in the OP) These people TRULY believe this stuff, and Yes, it scares me and makes me more than a little uncomfortable.

**Frazzled**

dsteingass wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
It works because of a belief that the fetus is innocent and the combatants in a war are adults.

It's just like how I can be anti-war in the general sense, but my positions on individual wars are decided on a case by case basis.

no, sorry that logic is fuzzy to me. When a human being is murdered in the US, we expend enormous resources investigating and attempting to bring the murderer to justice. But killing during wartime is somehow NOT viewed as the same tragedy? f the fundamental Christian/Jewish/Muslim belief is in the same commandment 'thou shall not kill" How do human beings rationalize like this?

So are you going to argue a poolitics column or why you think Christians are hypochrites column

? You might want to make up your mind.

**Viktor von Domm**

If the fundamental Christian/Jewish/Muslim belief is in the same commandment 'thou shall not kill" How do human beings rationalize like this?

because the whole thing in my opinion is only made to seet people... belittle them and is way out of fashion... for me at least...i know most peeps have their believes... but well believes is just the total oposite of knowing by finding out... which i think solves problems and not tries to keep a lid shiut whenever someone tries to ask an unpleasant question about a so called given truth...

**dsteingass**

Frazzled wrote:So are you going to argue a poolitics column or why you think Christians are hypochrites column ? You might want to make up your mind.

Quite the contrary, I want to understand how strong emotions and personal beliefs (real or imagined) help determine different people's political views.
There is a very real modern blending of Politics and Religion nowadays. The Christian Coalition http://www.cc.org/ is just one example of an organization dedicated to that very purpose.

**Frazzled**

dsteingass wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So are you going to argue a poolitics column or why you think Christians are hypochrites column ? You might want to make up your mind.

Quite the contrary, I want to understand how strong emotions and personal beliefs (real or imagined) help determine different people's political views.
There is a very real modern blending of Politics and Religion nowadays. The Christian Coalition http://www.cc.org/ is just one example of an organization dedicated to that very purpose.

Excellent. Count me out. This is just another bast Christians thread then. See Viktor's post above.

**Rented Tritium**

dsteingass wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So are you going to argue a poolitics column or why you think Christians are hypochrites column ? You might want to make up your mind.

Quite the contrary, I want to understand how strong emotions and personal beliefs (real or imagined) help determine different people's political views.
There is a very real modern blending of Politics and Religion nowadays. The Christian Coalition http://www.cc.org/ is just one example of an organization dedicated to that very purpose.

Dude, you're jumping all over the place. Pick a thing to argue about and stay there. Do you want to argue about the existence of monolithic churches, do you want to argue about the internal consistency of their beliefs or do you want to argue about separation of church and state?

We can't do them all at once. Please decide.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Excellent. Count me out. This is just another bast Christians thread then. See Viktor's post above.

Amusing, as I never mentioned Christianity at all but somehow it's degraded into that.

No, I was speaking of hard-liners. Most people are centrists, rather than liberal or conservative, they don't often feel comfortable with either extreme. I mean, even the liberal who agrees on harsh gun control will often say a legally acquired gun is a valid way to defend against a home invasion...

... unlike hard-liners who think all guns are evil and therefor must be taken away.

**dsteingass**

I'm sorry, my mind does jump all over the place. I have a lot on my mind.

@Frazzled, no I am really not wanting to bash Christianity, I sincerely apologize if I gave that impression.

I want to try to understand opinions different from my own. I want to defeat ignorance on my own part too.

**alarmingrick**

biccat wrote: Why do you assume that they haven't read what he believes in, listened to him speak, or given him a chance to earn their support? Why do you assume that the only people who dislike the President do so out of ignorance rather than understanding what he stands for?

I get that impression from listening to people hitting his color or i don't know, the size of his ears, as opposed to poloicy issues.

@dsteingass
Welcome to the OT. a poloitical thread.....hang on, you're in for a bumpy ride!

**Huffy**

Melissia wrote:Amusing, as I never mentioned Christianity at all but somehow it's degraded into that.

naw it was the monolithic church comment that did

**ShumaGorath**

AustonT wrote:But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

God and the prophets/apostles advocate/perpetrate numerous acts of violence within the books. The books also dehumanize large segments of the population and advocate extereme punishments for (by modern standards) utterly harmless acts (a child insulting his father, wearing mixed fabrics, etc).

Theres a lot of confliction between what Jesus did and what the 'religion' advocates at times.

**reds8n**

I appreciate that there's a strong degree of correlation/causality a'twixt a persons religious beliefs ( if they have any) and any political views ( if they have any) but, frankly, the ins and outs of Christian theology (or indeed any other major faith) have been debated, and by much, much better minds than us, for literally centuries. It's unlikely in the extreme that any of us have any bold new startling and hitherto unconsidered approaches to this thorny subject, so let's just leave the religious dissection alone for now. Fret not I'm sure a related topic will crop up soon enough where we can once again thrill to the same people taking up the sides they always do, using the same arguments they always do, then we have a huge argument and the MOD team get to step in, close the thread and/or suspend people.

.. so, let's just pretend we've already done that, and we've already all kissed and made up, and get on with the original discussion.

.......... I'm sure a calm, informative and nuanced discussion will take place. Hmm ? It's about politics ?! Oh fu..

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
AustonT wrote:But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

God and the prophets/apostles advocate/perpetrate numerous acts of violence within the books. The books also dehumanize large segments of the population and advocate extereme punishments for (by modern standards) utterly harmless acts (a child insulting his father, wearing mixed fabrics, etc).

Theres a lot of confliction between what Jesus did and what the 'religion' advocates at times.

And about 80% of that conflict is resolved by
A-The new covenant replacing the old one
B-Apostolic succession allows for god to modify the covenant through the popes

The second one is catholics only, but the first one covers most of it anyway.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote: I appreciate that there's a strong degree of correlation/causality a'twixt a persons religious beliefs ( if they have any) and any political views ( if they have any) but, frankly, the ins and outs of Christian theology (or indeed any other major faith) have been debated, and by much, much better minds than us, for literally centuries. It's unlikely in the extreme that any of us have any bold new startling and hitherto unconsidered approaches to this thorny subject, so let's just leave the religious dissection alone for now. Fret not I'm sure a related topic will crop up soon enough where we can once again thrill to the same people taking up the sides they always do, using the same arguments they always do, then we have a huge argument and the MOD team get to step in, close the thread and/or suspend people.

.. so, let's just pretend we've already done that, and we've already all kissed and made up, and get on with the original discussion.

.......... I'm sure a calm, informative and nuanced discussion will take place. Hmm ? It's about politics ?! Oh fu..

I want it noted for the record, no queso was harmed in the making of that post.

**ShumaGorath**

Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
AustonT wrote:But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

God and the prophets/apostles advocate/perpetrate numerous acts of violence within the books. The books also dehumanize large segments of the population and advocate extereme punishments for (by modern standards) utterly harmless acts (a child insulting his father, wearing mixed fabrics, etc).

Theres a lot of confliction between what Jesus did and what the 'religion' advocates at times.

And about 80% of that conflict is resolved by
A-The new covenant replacing the old one
B-Apostolic succession allows for god to modify the covenant through the popes

The second one is catholics only, but the first one covers most of it anyway.

People don't care that much about the new covenant. Being gay is still evil and the stories of the old testament are still told routinely. People take what is convenient and ignore what isn't. Some books certainly supercede others, but the texts are still taken in their totality to create the general geist of 'Christianity'.

**dsteingass**

AGREED, arguing religion is not fruitful. Let's stop. This was completely my fault and I think we all need to refer to rule#1 respect other opinions and agree to disagree on the topic of religion. This isn't the place for faith debates.

**AustonT**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
AustonT wrote:But how can Christians (it's a pacifist religion) support war?
/evil grin

God and the prophets/apostles advocate/perpetrate numerous acts of violence within the books. The books also dehumanize large segments of the population and advocate extereme punishments for (by modern standards) utterly harmless acts (a child insulting his father, wearing mixed fabrics, etc).

Theres a lot of confliction between what Jesus did and what the 'religion' advocates at times.

And about 80% of that conflict is resolved by
A-The new covenant replacing the old one
B-Apostolic succession allows for god to modify the covenant through the popes

The second one is catholics only, but the first one covers most of it anyway.

People don't care that much about the new covenant. Being gay is still evil and the stories of the old testament are still told routinely. People take what is convenient and ignore what isn't. Some books certainly supercede others, but the texts are still taken in their totality to create the general geist of 'Christianity'.

Paul was a huge homophobe, gays being evil is in the NT. The text is not taken in it's totality as I'm sure most if not all Christians do not eat Kosher.

**Frazzled**

dsteingass wrote:AGREED, arguing religion is not fruitful. Let's stop. This was completely my fault and I think we all need to refer to rule#1 respect other opinions and agree to disagree on the topic of religion. This isn't the place for faith debates.

Its too late. The demons have been loosed upon this earth. Run!

Speaking of demons:

To the topic. I am quite familiar with Obama and his policies. I was originally fearful his inexperience - colored by a political tilt that was unattractive - would prove ineffectual. Plus he was a Chicago politican. My worst fears have been proven correct, in spades.

When controlling Congress he pushed through, or attempted to push through legislation that was as harmful as it was corrupt. Yet he didn't actually work towards correcting the problems besetting the country. He has proven completely incapable of addressing the problems of our time, and blames others for it.