Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Awesome. Alienate the religious, and lose votes. Lie about others.

    I am an atheist. Think that is religiously unaffiliated. However, I don’t share almost any of the DNC values.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Temlakos 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      I've noticed that. Atheists who also are students of and aherents to Objectivism are the only ones who have an once of respect for the lives, liberties, and properties of themselves and of other people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        There are no non-athiests in Objectivism, but if an "ounce" of respect is the standard there are many more who qualify. The better conservatives are fighting for private property and freedom in many realms, if not consistently. American Christians still embracing the American sense of life are mostly much, much better than the other-worldliness of the Dark and Middle Ages.

        That excludes some conservative religious evangelists and anti-abortion crusaders who are shameful, but there is a rising movement of the religious left that takes its altruism and irrationalism very seriously and is promoting it in politics https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      You're just an Uncle Tom, then: a disgrace to all non-affiliated individuals. For that you must be heckled and castigated using relentless ad hominem and pejoratives simply because you dare to disagree! You are a traitor to your kind!

      [/sarcasm]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Hmmm, maybe a non religious religion, like baal, moloch, witch craft, giaia, environmentalism, progressivism, communism, marxism and who would forget, Post Modernism and many others too numerous to mention.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 1 day ago
      Those aren't non-religious religions as that would just be a contradiction.
      The things you listed either are also religions (e.g. baal, moloch, gaia) or are the secular descendants of religious ideas (e.g. communism, environmentalism are just modern and more consistent versions of Christianity).

      In other words, unless you are anti-religious, you can't be anti-any of the things you've listed.

      You already agree with them on all the fundamentals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        There are religious battles between religious sects all the time. Of course they can be anti-any of the things listed. There are also people of mixed premises, at least in this country, who are generally civilized and are very "anti" the primitive beliefs in that list.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 2 weeks, 4 days ago
          Of course you can be anti-anything, I mean they can't do so and be consistent.
          In other words, they are people of mixed premises.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            Someone who holds mystical beliefs is not consistent when he rejects some other mysticism for being mysticism. But most American Christians in their actual daily beliefs and actions they normally live by are practically atheists in comparison with the other worldliness of the originals, and are justified in their rejection of rabid Muslims, viro nature worshipers, etc. who are out to destroy us along with themselves. They reject that from from rational standards. If that were not the case America could not have become the country it did. Everyone who holds some religious belief in this country is not a ranting witch doctor of no value and unqualified to reject those who are. Far from it. I hope you agree with that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    I've been considered deplorable to one group or another for just about forever. If I gave a damn what people think of me I wouldn't measure up to my personal valuation of myself. With statements like these one has to consider the source. Let freedom ring. In this case, like most others,it helps highlight the useful idiots so you know who not to vote for, who to work against, and whose voice isn't worth hearing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kddr22 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      I constantly am trying to teach my young patients this as so many are bullied. The current teaching climate is unfortunately encourages this aspect. The old saying sticks and stones... but words can never hurt me. , needs to be taught more
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        Post modernists are infecting young minds with the thought that speech is a weapon, does hurt, and is worthy of physical assault in "defense." It's damaging and encourages violence. It's completely counterproductive to civilized behavior.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        Its a herculean task teaching children properly these days, and for quite some time. I actively taught my kids for many years about this country, what we believe, who we are intended to be as a people as structured by the Constitution and I all but failed. College was the killer for my influence on them. Their natural desire to define themselves by opposing their parents was used by Colleges to insert its liberal idiotology under the guise of open mindedness, education and 'enlightenment.'
        Needless to say the Bachelors degrees that should fill my heart with their joy of accomplishment is tainted by the prospect of my having added to the nations cancer. Depressing, but as a parent you have to try.

        Incidentally, I had a $1000 no questions asked deal with my son for any black eye, far lip, or knocked out tooth of any punk who tried to intimidated or his sister. He never took advantage but I have had summits with every teacher, guidance councelor and principal to put them in their place. My children were never victims. One lesson that did take was that being a victim was a personal choice fed by fear. Unacceptable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kddr22 3 weeks, 2 days ago
          I always try with my patients and my own kids. I remember the scene from The Fountainhead where the kid on the bicycle was looking at Roark's new resort and gained the courage. Even if it is 1/100 or less that one makes the difference
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kddr22 3 weeks, 2 days ago
            I also have a case this last week where an older brother was defending his younger sibs from verbal abuse and got too involved and was stabbed though his abd aorta and wrists slashed by the other kid. Luckily he is ok. but they try to spread there wings and do not quite know how to do it
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 3 weeks, 3 days ago
    Just when I thought the Democrats couldn't insult more potential voters, they do something like this. There really should be a dumbass award for stunts like this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      The resolution was carefully crafted to embrace the "nonreligious" as "unaffiliated" without attacking the religious. To them the "unaffiliated" are just another cultural pressure group in what they politically organize as an alliance of ethnic tribes otherwise at each others' throats.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      I wouldn't be too disappointed if they created a new category of Darwin awards for things like this...

      Then again, some 30% of America is stupid enough to go along with this...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    This reminds me of a circumstance of 2 or 3 election cycles past. The D's were taking a vote in a televised convention on some religous concerned process and they actually had to take 3 votes to get the one result that they wanted. Anyone remember this??
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      The issue in question was whether or not to include a party policy against late term abortions. What they got was a lot of abstentions from Democrats from districts with more religious voters, and it took arm twisting galore and threats of yanking the financial plug to get the result they wanted, which was a wholehearted acceptance of abortion in any circumstance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    On top of that, these people are rewriting other religious texts to be more woke.

    Here is a write up of their “Inclusive Bible” which is much much more politically correct,
    “While this new Bible is certainly an inclusive-language translation, it is much more: it is a re-imagining of the scriptures and our relationship to them. Not merely replacing male pronouns, the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths. The Inclusive Bible is a fresh, dynamic translation into modern English, carefully crafted to let the power and poetry of the language shine forth”

    https://eewc.com/the-inclusive-bible/
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      How are they going to resolve things like condemnations of extramarital sex, homosexuality, and other such passages? If those are eliminated of rewritten to fit woke concepts, then it's meaningless - not really scripture.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Solver 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        Like when they corrupt, rewrite and smash artifacts of history, then it becomes not really history. It becomes more like what they feel it should’ve been, but was not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        What is in the first translation an abomination,
        will become something 'woke enough to be taught in junior school.
        This is a serious case of unresolved contradictions.

        A deep flaw for Objectivists but not of concern to the post-modernists/leftists/progressivistas who now control education and mass media.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    The other groups that should be included are the New Agers(fluffy bunnies), nature-based spirituality groups(Wicca, Goddess groups, & pagans etc). The Dems are trying very hard to pick up every fringe element, saying that they have representation in the Demon-crat Party. I find this amusing see that in Northern Europe and Russia pagan groups are growing in number as an ethnic identity. Druids in Great Britain, Asatru in Scandinavia, and Rodnovery in Eastern Europe and Russia. Putin is allowing these groups to grow in Russia because they are a ethno-centric. The most popular pagan metal band in Russia is Arkona. Songs like Slavsia Rus, and Oj, Pechal Toska(Oh, My Sorrow). Arkona and other Russian Metal Bands end their set with Oy Da Ne Vechen( a Russian folk song) which the entire audience sings along. So, maybe the Dems will have to create a unifying song(never happen).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    I agree with Thoritsu: This is wonderful news, and we need to make sure it is spread around as widely as possible. There are tons of people who value a personal or traditional link to a religion and who will be offended by this exclusionary behavior.

    The problem with conservative groups is that they have been so unfriendly to gay, minority, feminist, and non-normative groups that those groups have had no alternative but to adhere to the Democratic party vote. Conservative organizations need to have a blue-collar and religious plus techie, and non-normative "ya'll come on in here" sort of attitude. The only thing that matters is whether the individual believes in freedom and responsibility.

    I guess I am saying that it is nice to see the opposition say something really stupid, but we need to clean house ourselves - and then capitalize on it.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      I would argue that conservatives haven't been unfriendly to the groups that you cite. It's the extremists in those groups that make it hard to welcome them. Black Lives Matter consider white people devils, so how do you develop a friendship with that minority group? I've had plenty of minority friends who aren't radicals. I've had gay friends and transexual associates I've worked with, but they aren't the ones who insist on parading near naked down city streets and having public sex. I've worked with lots of admirable, intelligent, strong women, and am married to a strong woman, but none of them refer to me as a pig, like many feminists do, just because of my sex. I have relatives with left wing views, but I treat them courteously, and discuss any subject they bring up in a logical fashion.

      The NRA forcefully supports the right of minorities to defend themselves by force of arms if necessary. It's liberal city officials that make self defense nearly impossible in urban areas.

      Evangelical Christians risk their lives in dangerous parts of the minority world here and overseas to relieve pain and suffering. I think you've bought into the image of conservatives sold by the Democrat-media cabal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        I would try to make an insightful reply to your post, DrZ, citing outside examples...but a brief scan of just the entries on this Objectivist thread is a pretty comprehensive tour of the rejection of homosexuality and pagans.

        You and I and many others have friends who are gay and/or Wiccan, but the very first post (olduglycarl) equates witchcraft with communism and, if you read down the list, you can easily see what the reception these people would get in our Gulch...and we are probably more broad minded than the Republicans are.

        All of these people do not want to be 'liberals', but if the liberals are the only people who will accept them, then that is where they will go.

        Objectively speaking, what does someone's religion or sexual preferences have to do with valuing freedom and responsibility? Nothing, in my mind. So why do we slander them and make sure that anyone in those categories knows not to hang out with us?

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 weeks, 1 day ago
          Not being Christian, I will still borrow from their lexicon of hating the sin, but loving the sinner. I gauge people on their actions, as do many more religious folk. It's ironic that liberals who purport to love the groups you note, but don't really do anything that helps them.

          I had a black friend who was physically disabled and had worked his way through two PhDs. He was fascinated with how black representatives who represented poor districts seemed to be able to mount expensive reelection campaigns. His research discovered that they were backed by real estate investment trusts (REITs) that invested in prisons and low cost housing. His conclusion was that these backers needed to keep those minorities poor and criminal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 3 weeks ago
            Your points are clearly made and perceptive, but do not address my point of minorities, gays, pagans, and strong women feeling that they cannot be Republican (or Objectivist) because they would not be accepted or welcome.
            What initiated this discussion was the Democrats making a statement that would alienate anyone who was religious. If 'we' (for some value of 'we') make a point of accepting people who are religious, people who are not, people who are gay, pagan, whatever as long as they believe in freedom and responsibility then we will have a strategic advantage.
            Then I looked at the comments on this very list...and realized that we had to take the beam from our eye before the mote from another's (to also quote the Bible as an agnostic).

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 weeks ago
              Have you been following the walkaway movement? It was started by a young gay man who suddenly realized the Democrat party didn't stand for things he believed in, such as personal responsibility. Since he started it, he's been joined by many minorities and members of the LGBT community who have discovered the Republican party has welcomed them with open arms. The problem isn't with Republicans, or conservatives in general, but with the image of them broadcast repeatedly by the Democrat-media propaganda machine that tells these groups not to bother associating with them.

              The difference is that the number of media agents that tell a coherent message about conservatives being more tolerant and charitable is small, compared to the bulk of left wing propaganda machines broadcasting a very negative image of conservatives without letup. It's true that some people fit the description, but I've found conservatives in general to be much more kind and tolerant than their progressive counterparts, from personal experience.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 3 weeks ago
                "The problem isn't with Republicans, or conservatives in general, but with the image of them broadcast repeatedly by the Democrat-media propaganda machine that tells these groups not to bother associating with them."

                I agree that this is a Big part of the problem - possibly more than half. (eg I have been told by some liberal friends that I cannot possibly be a Republican because I don't belong to a born-again religion,) But I have been among Conservatives at home and in the military, and many of them are decades behind liberals socially.

                Race: Almost everyone, conservative and liberal, thinks that racial profiling has no place at work or in public life. We are, as a culture, finally looking at laying this bugaboo to rest.
                Gender. Many many Conservatives are still struggling with the concept that a woman should not build her identity around 'husband and family'. Women are still pressured by their families into having children, so that they can be 'happy and fulfilled'. And they mean it.
                Homosexuality. Most conservatives have reluctantly come to accept that homosexuals exist, and that they may not be sick or evil. That is about the best I can say for conservatives on this point - I know a lot of gay people who have to deal with this. (One of the reasons the SCA has a lot of gays is our enthusiastic acceptance of gays, as far back as the 1970s. Now we also have Trans.)
                Religion. This is humorous. I do SCA -medieval reenactment. Each person gets to chose a 'persona' from before 1650. It is difficult to tell the Episcopal minister who happens to have a 'viking' persona from the genuine neopagan who has a viking persona.

                I had forgotten about the walkaway movement - thank you for reminding me, DrZ. It is wonderful and hopeful.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 3 weeks ago
                  Since Richard the Lionhearted was gay, the SCA should be friendly to the LGBT community, just to be consistent : ) .

                  The Log Cabin Republicans have been around for quite a while as gays who support the constitution, and they get their worst treatment from the LGBT community, that considers them turncoats. Not everything is peaceful in the LGBT crowd, as "Mayor Pete" is taking flak from lesbians, who believe its more important to elect the first female president than the first gay.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Democrats say they want to keep religion out of politics and yet as a political party they denounce people who are religious? But the headline is misleading because reading the carefully crafted resolution they passed shows that they are promoting the "religiously unaffiliated", trying to ingratiate an entire segment of the population as if it was equivalent to "Democrat values".

    They are tying to promote themselves as the voice of science and reason but don't dare attack the religious as such because of their own religious left driving their altruist moral appeals. Where would Al Sharpton go? "Liberation Theology"? The viro nature worshipers and their alliance with Pope Francis? The militant religionists who forcibly occupied Sen. Collins office demanding higher taxes on the rich?

    Search on "religious left" and you find an ugly trend that is on the rise and being heavily promoted as part of the spread of irrationalism, such as https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    Deplorables?

    It stands for everything people hold important to their existence: Honor, love of country, love of your neighbor, honesty, sacrifice, all the things that are missing from the agenda of the left.

    People who love America - I am excluding the left, Omar, Tlaib, Lemongrass etc who are not Americans by principle. They may have been born in this country as they like to boast about it but that is immaterial to what they represent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Russpilot 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Hmmmm. I wonder if they focus grouped and polled this first? Doesn't really sound like something that would be a winner with many. But then, considering all of the things that the left seem to be opening up about what they believe, I guess religion isn't really high on the list of things that they worry about too much.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    Making a play for atheists as if that alone is sufficient to "share the Democratic Party’s values" is a smart move on their part and is a massive danger to Objectivists.
    Atheism is necessarily one of the first steps a rational mind takes and without it you cannot built the philosophical foundations required to achieve a proper understanding of ethics or politics.
    By tying something so fundamental to their values they are making a play for the support of rational people.
    This is something the religious left (ie conservative movement) has no counter to.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 weeks, 1 day ago
      The only truly rational person is Agnostic, since the Atheist is a believer in that which he cannot prove. The Agnostic recognizes that arguing the existence/nonexistence of an entity without physical evidence is in itself irrational.

      The Democrats, while trying to attract secular humanists, should have avoided any statements about religion altogether. As it is, they now can't avoid the perception they are antireligious, potentially alienating the majority of voters. I'd say this was a dumb, unnecessary statement that will only have a negative effect.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 1 day ago
        No. No.
        Once again- Atheism is the absence of belief in theism.

        Not having a defined belief is not the same as having a belief.
        A machine that does not have any widgets is not the same as it having a type of widget.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 weeks, 1 day ago
          People who profess an absence of a belief in theism should be indifferent to the beliefs of others. However, there are those who profess Atheism that feverishly attack those who do not believe as they do. I have never found an Agnostic with such passion, as they regard theistic arguments a waste of time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 1 day ago
            should be !
            No- to telling others not just what they believe but what they should do.

            Regarding those who want to attack feverishly, exhibit passion, or regard anything with indifference, they have that freedom.
            Whatever floats your boat.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by 3 weeks, 1 day ago
              Atheists haven't fared any better than theists when they try to tell others how to live their lives. The Holy Roman empire was a mess, and communist (ergo Atheist) nations have been a disaster. It would be nice if we all just made the best effort to get along.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                Atheist means a-theist -- not believing in the supernatural. Not believing something does not say what you do believe. Atheism does not mean trying to tell others how to live their lives. Whether anyone wants to do that depends on what he does believe.

                Communism is not based on atheism. One cannot base a social system on not believing in the supernatural. The communists have their own mysticism and appeals to altruism. The Soviet Union was ripe for that because it remained heavily religious.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks ago
                It's not about being an atheist or not.
                It's about being rational or not.
                And rational people are atheists. As a starting point. Everything else follows from that.
                But there are plenty of atheists who then get everything else wrong and are as completely irrational or more so, than religious people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            Not believing in the supernatural does not imply that one ought to be indifferent to others' beliefs. Ideas matter and rational people do concern themselves with what others believe, such as in how they vote.

            Leaving people alone to live their own personal lives does not mean that it doesn't matter what others believe at all. Fundamental premises that cause the nature of a society had better be of concern, especially when irrational ideas are being proselytized. It matters that the militantly religious are trying to ban abortion, for example.

            People who don't know what to believe don't tend to be passionate about anything. That is not an argument for agnostics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        Atheism is not "irrational". It is rational to reject the arbitrary, refusing to believe in it, and it is rational to reject contradictions inherent in most religious claims for a god. Rejecting the irrational does not require a further proof of a negative.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks ago
        Agnostics are worse than religious people.
        At least religious people are trying to have certainty about something, wrong though it may be. Agnostics are rejecting even having in wrong knowledge.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo