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
Former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has endorsed Biden. He's been Never Trump since 2015, but did not endorse or vote for Clinton.
Is this likely to work in Biden's favor in Pennsylvania?
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.At best it pulls a few fence-sitters to Biden's side, at worst it just further solidifies the defectors already planning to vote for Biden from changing their minds. It's not a three pointer, but it still keeps the ball in Biden's hands.
It also gives me the impression that Trump's SC nominee isn't having the rally around the conservative flag affect he was probably hoping for.
The hatred of atheists by the American people is not exactly partisan. Twitter's leftist community can't stand atheists. They complain about what they call "New Atheists," yes, with capital letters, and some derisively call atheism a religion. Hopefully this is just Twitter being one big asshole convention where people get clout by being perpetually embarrassed and contrarian, though.
Let's not fall into fallacious thinking, all New Atheists are atheists but not all atheists are New Atheists. Hating New Atheism is in no way the same as hating all atheists, I'm an atheist (and anti-theist) and I despise New Atheism. Because the majority of their thought leaders (Harris, Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc) are bigots who have associated with neo-cons and even alt-lite or alt-right figures.
Some Twitter leftists may indeed hate atheists, statistically they'd have to considering how common anti-atheist discrimination is in the US. But let's not conflate hating atheists with hating New Atheism.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 27th 2020 at 11:25:22 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWith regards to religion in politics, what I take issue with is the fact that we afford so much tolerance to religious/philosophical beliefs even in cases where they are in direct conflict with empirical science. It's one thing to turn to religion on questions that are presently unfalsifiable and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future—the ultimate origin of existence for example—but there's a troubling degree of tolerance for beliefs that are demonstrably false as long as they aren't overtly harmful, (i.e. Creationism), or even in some cases where they are such as the states where religious or personal belief exemptions from vaccination requirements exist.
Personally, I consider religion in politics to be cancer. You can't argue against an argument that is based on some level of "God did it", as long as religion is part of the public sphere it will always cause harm. The only way that irrationality can be avoided is if it's a strictly private manner that doesn't intrude into the public sphere.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWhat is actually needed is a firm dividing line between things that are necessary for an individual’s religious practices (such as certifying foods as kosher) and things that exist only to force religious requirements on people not necessarily within that religion (such as anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination).
My musician page![]()
'Their status as religious leaders is why they ended up on the board'
Why should religious leaders be more qualified or be considered to have priority to be on such a board in the first place, though? If there's a reason, I'd like to hear it. It's a board about a secular matter, and moreover a government matter. If the want to understand what the community thinks about police accountability, such a committee should be a cross section of the community.
Edited by PointMaid on Sep 27th 2020 at 2:41:27 PM
Generally because religious leaders are considered to be respectable and well-integrated parts of the community. Quite possibly useful for collecting peoples' viewpoints. i.e. they're themselves considered representative of a cross section of the community.
And probably more available to come to committee meetings etc.
Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 27th 2020 at 7:45:42 PM
I understand your point, PointMaid, but the counterargument is that religious people are also part of the community. A council like that shouldn't be dominated by religious viewpoints, but nor is there any reason to keep, say, the neighborhood's rabbi of 35 years from joining up if he's well-regarded.
It's been fun.Smokey Cut didn't say anything about being more qualified than everyone else though.
Regardless, if boards like that are to be made up of well respected and regarded people withing the various communities they're supposed to be representing, it really shouldn't be surprising that religious leaders in the community are often thought of in that regard.
Edited by LSBK on Sep 27th 2020 at 1:57:57 PM
Now, I'm speaking as a Christian here, but: I'd argue the mixing of religion and politics is...necessary, and probably inevitable. If a church isn't out to influence people's values in such a manner that it would effect the political sphere, then the church is absolutely not doing its job. The purpose of religion is to make a better society, which is intrinsically political.
Leviticus 19:34Certain things like large-scale religious veganism and statutes to prevent the mixing of meat products, or legal protection against the violation of areas considered sacred to certain peoples are hardly a matter I'd call private.
Obviously, exceptions will exist, but the only reason that religion cannot be kept 99.9% private is that religion wants to force itself on everyone else. The only way to have a peaceful, tolerant, and rational state is to keep it aggressively secular. That way people have to justify their positions logically and cannot attack other groups on religious grounds.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 27th 2020 at 12:19:55 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMaybe it's my conception of informal leaders 'representing parts of the community'.
I have no conception of anything like that or resembling it. Nobody can speak for me. My only representative is the ones I choose by voting.
My conception of such a board would be as a board of individuals from across the community representing their own varied views. Not representatives of certain communities.
I realize that's not necessarily the conception that is meant by those creating these boards.

Keeping them apart is more a matter of having moved away from the implications of religion as related to US politics than the idea that they are somehow completely separable.