Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
We might wanna move this to the Religion thread.
I do think churches in America tend to be slightly more left-leaning than most people would suspect (I'd argue they tend to be economically slightly left, but socially conservative), but I don't think most churches want to be particularly apolitical either.
Personally, I myself would argue being strongly apolitical defeats a very big part of the church's purpose.
Leviticus 19:34> I do think churches in America tend to be slightly more left-leaning than most people would suspect
Sure,i can see that,smaller churches which actually serve their community are going to be a little more then left wing thus tolerate then say the mega chruches that preach the prosperity gospel and largely run like a business
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverI mean, with smaller churches you also get the crazy cult-like ones that go full conspiracy theory. Like WBC and the ones you hear about people having to literally escape their influence.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.""If one truly did not believe they would not bother to deny"
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to be outspoken about disbelief in a thing if belief in the thing is so omnipresent, and especially so when it carries so much political capital.
Also, saying "Well, it wouldn't be politically advantageous to push for atheist acceptance, and besides, the New Atheists annoyed and offended a lot of people, so really it's their own fault for their poor treatment" is not the right approach. Atheists are still a persecuted minority in the US. Being openly atheist is political suicide, and it's ridiculously difficult for an atheist to hold even local government office, much less nationally. And then there are a whole host of other issues that are common to other anti-minority discrimination.
That’s true. Where I have a problem is with big name atheists who are often white men who are also sexists and/or bigots. Like, you can disagree with religion without being a dick.
“I just heard your mom has cancer; I’ll keep her in my prayers”
“That’s stupid, religion is a lie.”
No atheist I’ve met in real life acts like that, but that’s the vibe from the loudmouths like Bill Maher (also an islamaphobe).
That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons to be outspoken about disbelief in a thing if belief in the thing is so omnipresent, and especially so when it carries so much political capital.
Think of me what you will, those are my honest feelings on the matter.
Also the idea behind the quote, as I've always interpreted it is that, in order to deny something exists in the first place, your have to believe/acknowledge it does in some level. I left out the first half if the quote which notes that "Atheists think of the gods all the time, albeit in terms of denial".
Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 2nd 2019 at 10:17:05 AM
I remember a guy in uni who was a hardline argumentative atheist online - NEVER brought it up in person in my presence, though IIRC he was invited to a 'discovering christianity' group at one point.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Again, this is quite off-topic.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Going back to the Buttigeg discussion a few pages ago:
"not necessarily at gunpoint"
That's a frighteningly ambiguous wording.
His assertion that the world's choices are the American model, the Chinese, the Russian, and the Saudi, and that the American one is committed to freedom, raises a Red Square's worth of red flags.
Just for context because I was a bit lost the quote comes from a Vox interview he did with a guy named Zack Beauchamp
Beauchamp
One of the big underlying ideological questions here is how you see America’s posture towards the world. Not just in terms of moral obligations or intervention in particular countries, but whether you think it’s America’s responsibility to be managing global affairs — to, for example, maintain a dominant military that’s aimed at keeping the peace internationally.
Broadly speaking, I’m asking whether you think America should be playing a hegemonic role in global politics or not.
Pete Buttigieg I think we play a special role. I think that we should play a leading role.
That’s because I believe in the American model. I believe in American values, including American values as spread in the world — not necessarily at gunpoint, but through different means that we have. And I think that matters more than ever, because the Chinese model is being held up as a viable or even preferred alternative to some, and it includes far less room for freedom and rights that we believe are universal.
And there’s a Russian model that isn’t pretty that’s flexing its muscle. There’s a Saudi model. And, among all of these, I think the American model remains most attractive in our commitment to liberty. And so we need to regard ourselves not only as protecting the interests of one state, our own, but also providing a leadership role.
By the way, that’s an example of where American interests and values really reinforce each other. We can either resent the rest of the world or we can lead the rest of the world, but we can’t do both.
Buttigieg isn't wrong about toxic influence coming from Beijing, Moscow and Riyadh, but he could have phrased it in a less bellicose manner.
That said, an assertive (not belligerent, subtle but importance difference) POTUS is something the world dearly needs right now. The US going into even minor isolation is possibly one of the worst case scenarios for international politics at the moment.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Apr 2nd 2019 at 2:12:59 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The "gunpoint" thing seems to be a reference to the idea of USA military intervention that Beauchamp brought up.
Buttigieg's point is that we shouldn't only resort to military power in such a role. The wording is such that he's not going to rule it out completely but would rather explore other options first.
Edited by M84 on Apr 3rd 2019 at 1:12:41 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised

Yeah if ever there’s a time for an honest brain-mouth moment it’s a situation like this, don’t say a long political thing about your intentions, just go “well then, it looks like I right fucked up”.
On th Christianity thing, I’ve always liked the approach shown in the Narnia books, where a literal devil worshiper gets into heaven, because he did good things and helped people in the name of the devil, sure he workshiped Satan, but he did so by helping others and showing kindness to strangers, so to heaven he goes.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran