Christianity is a disease that warps the mind.
I'm a clear example. So is ACB and all who support her and her ways of thinking.
Speaking as your friend, Ben, what are you looking for in these discussions? What role do you want us to play? Because I think we can all agree to these basic assertions:
- Religious extremism usually leads to bad outcomes that may include persecution, murder and genocide
- Christian religious extremism exists in the United States
- Christian religious extremists seek to impose their extreme views on those who are not religiously extreme
- Everyone should be vigilant of the agents of extremism lest they bring about negative impacts upon the rest of us, be those negative impacts mild or catastrophic
I think the sticking point we always fight is your assertion that Christianity is always bad. I further think that you refuse to acknowledge the breadth of Christian beliefs, instead choosing to define those who aren't extreme as "not Christian." And I think these discussions get contentious because we cannot engage in this discussion with you without your attempts to force us to defend Christian extremism as defined fluidly by you.
So... speaking only for myself. I would like to give you the discussion you crave, so long as it's actually a discussion, rather than "I've been banned from all other forms of social media and am feeling pugnacious so somebody hold this straw man for me so I can feel better about myself."
So dig deep, my friend. What are you looking for here? Because if we can give it to you without you putting words in our mouths or accusing us of positions we don't hold, I for one am here for it.
Here's your title, 21 days ago, Ben:
"ACB is ALREADY enforcing christian morality over the rest of us"
(emphasis yours)
What you wrote three weeks ago was untrue. If you wrote it today it would still be untrue: what ACB is doing is asserting that religious freedom trumps safety. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to argue how ACB's position represents "christian morality" particularly when the plaintiffs in the case were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America."
You might also want to take a flyer at the fact that Amy Coney Barrett rejects the Ninety Five Theses, so whatever version of "Christian" she represents predates your particularly-loathed version of charismatic evangelical Christianity by a good 400 years. In ACB's universe the Anglicans are heretics. Religiously speaking she's closer to the Copts than to your family.
Doesn't mean she isn't a religious conservative. Does mean that your sloppy imprecision undermines your arguments, which only those of us who love you are even humoring at this point.
They are all plague rats. They all spread disease willfully. The exact flavor doesn't matter because they act as one political entity.
This is the stalling of dialogue that I've referred to before. A theocrat, installed by a president brought to power by theocrats, is installed to push theocracy and somehow its' MY responsibility to prove that it's a religious motive that drives her to keep churches packed to the brim every sunday and legally protect plague rats who continue to do so?
WE ALL USE THE SAME HOSPITALS. I HAVE BEEN DENIED MEDICAL CARE THAT I DESPERATELY NEED BECAUSE THE FACILITIES THAT I NEED ARE EITHER SHUT DOWN DUE TO COVID OR OVERBURDENED.
THIS IS DIRECTLY DESTROYING WHAT REMAINS OF MY HEALTH.
Fuck this.
- A theocrat, installed by a president brought to power by theocrats, is installed to push theocracy and somehow its' MY responsibility to prove that it's a religious motive that drives her to keep churches packed to the brim every sunday and legally protect plague rats who continue to do so?
No, your responsibility is to attempt to have a meaningful discussion.
I'm no fan of ACB, nor how she got there, nor the people who put her there, nor the climate that let them. I am deeply sympathetic to your health, and I agree that there's a direct line of responsibility between ACB's ruling and the very threats to your life. I'm sorry. I truly am. I understand your viewpoint 100%. I empathize with it completely.
But there flavors of evil here other than "evangelical christian." Here's a script:
BEN: I hate sushi. Sushi is disgusting.
KB: There's definitely some gross sushi out there but I actually kinda like alaska rolls -
BEN: All sushi is disgusting and anyone who defends sushi is a traitor to cuisine.
KB: There are plenty of people who eat sushi who aren't terrible humans-
BEN: and plenty of people that eat sea urchin which is proof positive that sushi is fundamentally disgusting!
KB: Dude I'm no fan of uni and never will be but I mean, I've met people who eat uni and they aren't terrible. Terrible people eat uni, good people eat uni, plenty of people eat uni without becoming terrible people-
BEN: I WAS FORCED TO EAT UNI AS A CHILD THEREFORE ALL SUSHI IS AN ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF GOD
EVERYONE: (why does KB keep engaging Ben in discussions of sushi)
I've written drafts of this five or six times and deleted them all.
I love your lil bullet points. I'd love even more to believe that anybody actually FEELS that any of that is true. I wish you didn't understate 'mild or catastrophic' so much when the end goal of the people who instructed ACB is an American Taliban. It really seems like the 'Y'all Qaeda' jokes have desensitized us to the reality that it describes.
So honestly, I don't know. I don't know because I don't know what is actually possible with regard to discussion on these topics. Even in this thread we have apologia for ACB already, just to give her the benefit of the doubt like we did Trump himself. We refuse to learn from history.
This actively threatens my life because a belief in Christianity now correlates to a predisposition to spreading Covid in the United States and I am especially vulnerable.
To add a last bullet point to your list, that I would ask anyone reading this to consider.
-Political Christianity is actively attempting to suborn and undermine the democratic processes of the United States and numerous other nations to force non-Christians to live according to their laws and beliefs. They are actively being enabled by constant fighting over who is and is not a 'true' christian which blurs the lines between those who simply call themselves christian and are otherwise sane and pro-social members of society, to vaguely right wing occasional republican voters, to full fledged fascists in pursuit of theocratic domination of government.
But I don't expect any of this to be heard. It's all just 'anti christian bigotry' because the name describes the entire spectrum, and any attempt to discern the 'true christian' is fruitless and stupid, doubly so for everyone who does not actively claim the title and belief structure.
I hope very badly that your Y2K prediction about election-theft is correct. I am terrified that ACB will be used to steal the election, as she was put in place to do.
I appreciate every draft. Thank you. You have clearly considered this, have given it a lot of thought, and have attempted to broach an honest answer. "I don't know" is useful.
Could I draw your attention to a quote?
"I wish you didn't understate 'mild or catastrophic' so much"
"Catastrophic" is not a term of understatement. While our modern language leans towards hyperbole, catastrophe is still understood to be akin to the worst possible outcome. "Mild" means mild; I was expressing a range of outcomes. Religious extremism injecting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance is, de facto, milder than the catastrophe of the Muslim ban. These are relative expressions, however: compared to pogroms, a Muslim ban is mild. So. I use the word "catastrophe" but, in your opinion, "catastrophe" is a term of understatement.
An "American Taliban" would indeed be a catastrophe. What do you really know about the Taliban, though? They're followers of Wahhabism. They think reading anything but the Koran is a sin. They believe educating women is a sin. Amy Coney Barrett, whose politics and values do not align with my own, has a JD from Notre Dame. She has therefore read more than the Koran, and has been educated. The phrase "American Taliban" is evocative, but it is also hyperbole. Much like you accusing J5 of issuing an apologia when he was simply pointing out that at the time, ACB had yet to rule on anything as a Supreme Court justice.
An observation? These conversations go sideways because you have internalized the hyperbole and view anyone who attempts to move past it as an enemy. You are clearly demonstrating concern. Many of us are concerned. However, we aren't framing it in terms of your hyperbole... so even if we're framing it in terms of our own hyperbole we can't be on the right side with you. Here's an example:
"Political Christianity is actively attempting to suborn and undermine the democratic processes of the United States and numerous other nations to force non-Christians to live according to their laws and beliefs."
This is not accurate. Political Christianity is actively attempting to force non-Christians to live according to their laws and beliefs, agreed. Problematic, agreed. Something to be stopped, agreed. Something to be concerned over, agreed. But the battle is being fought within the democratic system through democratic means. ACB was appointed according to the legal procedure in place in the United States of America. Norms were violated to do so, intentions were disregarded and it was a craven power grab, but no democratic processes were "suborned" or "undermined." I can hear you objecting from here as I type those words but the problem is not that the jesusfreaks are cheating, the problem is that the system lets them do what they're doing.
We're on the same side of this. 99% of the time. You just prioritize allegiance to your hyperbole over minor quibbles. Which makes it very hard to have these discussions with you. We can say "I mostly agree" and your answer is "you are a horrible sheeple because you aren't signing 100% onto my interpretation."
If anything? I think the basis of these disputes is that we go "Dumb, also Christian" while you refuse to humor anything milder than "Christian therefore Dumb" but much prefer "Christian therefore literally Hitler." Which is really sad because we support you, we support many of your points, we agree with some of your points but unless we scream to the heavens that every believer of Jesus is a mass murderer waiting to happen we get scorn.
We see the problems, man. We agree they're bad. You wanna try finding the points where we agree and start from there? You might discover that there's actually a lot of support for your viewpoints if you offer them, rather than demand fealty to them.
The dialog doesn't advance.
Christians spread plague. They are seeking legal protections to do so before the Supreme Court.
My fellows who work in Healthcare suffer because of a religion that they don't practice.
My fellow disabled people die because of a religion that they don't practice.
And both sides are the same. Manslaughter on one hand, mean names on the other.
What dialogue are we talkin' about, buddy? Because as I said before, you seem to ... need something from these discussions but you don't seem to be presenting them in a way where you get anything but shut out. I hope you can see that this is a genuine attempt to shape this conversation into a dialog that does advance but that requires participation on both sides.
Christians - 'We seek the ability and legal protections to freely spread plague and commit manslaughter, endangering the sick, the poor, the elderly, the very young, and everyone who works in healthcare. AND, if so much as a peep of complaint is raised to the structural violence we seek to perpetrate that the reaches LITERALLY into the Supreme Court, the leadership of both houses of Congress and the white house, we will raise accusations of anti-religious bigotry.
Me - 'Please wash your hands, wear a mask and practice social distancing to the best of your ability to do so. Please value the lives and wellbeing of others or at least act as if you do.
You - 'If you just ignored the christians they will go away.'
No, dude. Not even. Nobody here is at "if you just ignored the christians they will go away."
You clearly have a passion for preventing the greatest harms perpetrated in the name of religion. I think everyone here can get behind that. Things run aground when you say religion only exists to perpetrate great harm. 'cuz then we point out that no, that assertion is not supported by evidence, we recognize great harm and condemn it is it possible for you to have a discussion about even, oh, the degree of harm?
'cuz you mostly seem to work yourself up. And that's not good for you. You're a walking F7U12 cartoon. I'm just trying to point out that there are humans around you who would love to have this conversation IF you can find a way to avoid "jesus therefore apocalypse"-style rhetoric.
How exactly is she enforcing anything via a case that hasn't even been heard yet, much less ruled upon?
This is how.
Christianity exists to spread disease and naught else.
People said the same thing about Roberts and Gorsuch too.
You really need to climb off your high horse. Or did you forget your using a full-on slur regarding your straw religious people in a private message to me recently?
Funny, they'd probably say the same thing about a gay person. But that's ok because you're doing it for a good reason, right?
So your defense is that you're being a bigot, but it's okay, because you're not as bigoted as some of the people you're bigoted towards?
Why was this Supreme Court Justice slammed through the senate while RBG's corpse was still cooling on the slab?
Because HER BELIEFS AND RULINGS ARE ALREADY KNOWN.
Yurtle the satanic turtle doesn't leave things as important as theocracy up to chance and opinion.
I thought I knew exactly how John Roberts would rule on cases, but it turns out I didn’t. Hyperbole on either side of the political coin is hyperbole.
Also, I know some Christians that are pretty amazing. They’re New Testament types. They actually try and follow the teachings of Christ. They’re more liberal than I am.