Political Humor ?

[Fred in Skirts]

First I am not a Moderator on this forum but I enjoy it very much. So far I have pretty much stayed out of the political rants going on at SC. But it has become more of a political war between the left and right. There are two things I do not like to argue about religion and politics. The reason is nobody wins and everybody ends up mad at everybody else. As a plain old everyday skirt wearer I wish that the political discussions were shut down or taken to PM's. I know I don't have to read the political arguments but I try to read everything that is posted since I joined. I do this on another forum that I am a moderator on, part of being a moderator is reading all of the posts to make sure the rules are being followed. Flaming others because they don't believe the same as you or are not as fervent as you is not in keeping with the rules. Please TRY to keep the posts as civil as Possible. My blood pressure thanks you!!

Fred

[Judah14]

Now, to put the topic back on track, here is a picture which clearly describes the outgoing President, who loves to scapegoat others on problems that are actually his fault:

[dillon]

I'm sorry for your loss, Al. But as for the post, first, you labeled if Political Humor? - question mark implying you were asking an opinion about it - and then you concluded it with an editorial mini-sermon. I'll restrain any further debate until you're in a friendlier state of mind, but don't expect me to pull my punches on subjects that matter. You know I am as angered and disgusted by Radical Islamic Terrorism as anyone contributing here, but it simply isn't the sort of existential threat to the US that hidden-agenda alarmists would like to make it seem. Personally, I'm more concerned with the creeping intrusion of Radical Christian Theocracy into government and law. Radicalized Muslims are few and far between, but Conservative Christians come thicker than fire ants on a dropped Cheeto. And I don't see a big difference in restraint or intellect between either element. It strikes me that there is no such thing as "good" religious rule; not Muslim, Christian or Jewish; logically, any form of it must be, by necessity, absolute, oppressive, and brutal.

Also, just my humble opinion, but the Bernopoly just wasn't very clever or amusing. Better luck next try.

[Caultron]

I'm not against religion, and I believe it can have great benefits. I'm a believer myself.

However...

The world is full of militants, terrorists, and other evil-doers who justify themselves by claiming that some version of God is on their side. In general I blame the militants, terrorists, or other evil-doers themselves for their actions, and not the religions, but not everyone sees things that way.

And religion is a great way to do things for no earthly reason, or at least for no reason a given person cares to admit. All kinds of people use it that way.

Religions are human organizations, subject to human flaws. They usually believe that God exists and is perfect, but that doesn't mean the religions themselves are perfect.

And then there's the problem of which religion to believe. They all claim to be the one, the holy, and the true. So it has to be a personal choice, and nobody gets to control anyone else because of religion.

[crfriend]

And then there's the problem of which religion to believe. They all claim to be the one, the holy, and the true.

This was the conundrum which first sparked my interest in logic when I was a child. I took a critical look at a couple of organised religions and regarded the point that each held that they were the "One True Path" and that "All others were false". Having one entity claim that can be supported by logic, but when two claim it the only possible answer is that both are false. I rather lost interest in organised religion at that point, torquing off my grandparents in the process, but didn't cede any ground on the matter. I've looked at many over the years, mainly to contrast dogma and theology, but cannot adopt one because of the inherent logical inconsistency.

I do not begrudge believers of any theology, but I do reject having theology imposed upon me by the might of State power.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Well put Caultron.

Carl, as a practitioner of a mainstream, organized religion I have a slightly different takeaway from the logical conundrum you recognized as a kid (bravo for you that you got it so early-on). Namely that each religion, excepting the pathological cults, is the right religion for SOMEONE, but clearly with so many right answers to choose from there can't be one right answer for everyone. Hence, when it comes to state-imposed religious law I'm as fervent a supporter of your feelings about that as you are.

[Orange Apple]

I do not begrudge believers of any theology, but I do reject having theology imposed upon me by the might of State power.

I have one of those little pins that says, "It's not God I dislike, it's His fan club."

Peer pressure can be almost the same as a State-imposed religion. When I was a kid growing up in the Bible Belt, it was just a given that you belonged to some religion. I remember a few debates with my peers on which one, but as long as you could point to being a member of some sect, things were "normal". Not go to church? Unheard of. In much of rural MN it is the same even today. One of my cousins who grew up here commented that she was in high school before she realized that not everyone was white and Lutheran.

[bobmoore]

I took a critical look at a couple of organised religions and regarded the point that each held that they were the "One True Path" and that "All others were false". Having one entity claim that can be supported by logic, but when two claim it the only possible answer is that both are false.

Sorry. The correct conclusion is that both may be, but only one must be wrong.

Absent an authority outside of ourselves there can be no moral absolutes. Every man then is a law unto himself because who is to say that this is "right" and that is "wrong"?

Our society has fallen headlong into that trap to the point that anyone who says "wait a minute, that's wrong" is labled a religious fanatic.

Law not based on absolutes is nothing but the tyranny of opinion. There are, and of necessity must be, absolutes in order for any society to function. That being so, where do absolutes come from, or who has authority to establish them? Certainly not men, since all men are inclined to promote their own preferences. No. In order for absolutes to be established they must come from outside of ourselves.

Like it or not, there is a God to whom we all must answer.

[dillon]

I am a believer, but also reject the way that Christian theology is politically employed. So I am, like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and most of our other Founders, a cosmic deist roaming beneath the very grey sky of "Christian". My greatest fear is the adamant way that Christian Conservatives seem so insistent that all law must stem from Scriptural eisegesis, with oblivious neglect to the larger picture of God's love and Christ's model for living. This is a true danger to society and to the Constitution. An objective observer could hardly differentiate the ultimate consequences of theocracy regardless of which extreme religion is enforcing its ever-narrowing interpretations of God's will.

It is true that the simplest tenets of criminal laws now in force are mostly in keeping with the Ten Commandments, but also true that the same basic strictures evolved as well in extinct and ancient religions not influenced by Judaic Law. It is also true that many things which we would as a society regard as evil, including slavery, honor killing, etc., can easily be justified by eisegsis from Leviticus and other Old Testament books. By and large, despite the denials of Conservatives, Christianity has evolved dramatically over time, and no church or strain of theology is absolute in its correctness. Yet the Conservatives would impose their own viewpoint by force of law upon everyone. Sound familiar? Look at Iran, Saudia Arabia, and ISIS. Just because Fundamentalist Christians are not yet beheading men and stoning women (YET being the operative word), would we not be fools to trust that they never would?

Theocracy not only justifies the religious elite, via their political minions and lackeys, in exercising absolute tyranny in its most extreme forms, it makes absolute tyranny ESSENTIAL. After all, when one proclaims the service of Almighty God in his actions, how can restraint or moderation in that sacred mission ever be acceptable? If a Christian Conservative does not exercise that extremism, he risks his own displacement, in that someone even more piously extreme will undoubtedly question his faith. That sort of competition is already evident in the recent evolution of American Conservatism, from its perch 35 years ago as a bulwark of economic liberty and limited governmental dominion, to what we have now - hysterical ravings of inexplicable, irrational anger, with conservatives challenging each others credentials, racing each other to the most extreme sanctimonious positions. Hence the winner and runner-up of the GOP presidential primaries.

I often hear otherwise reasonable people of Christian faith contend that nothing like ISIS can happen in America because "They are Muslim and we are Christian." That sad rationalization suggests an ignorance of history that imperils not only the contenders' own religious liberty, but, more importantly, the exercise of many personal liberties to which the average citizen has long been accustomed.

This is one reason the Founders did not trust the intelligence of the common man, hence organizing government in a way to limit the change that can be instantly imposed by an electorate that is predictably reactionary and easily influenced; more basically, an electorate unskilled in critical thinking. Unfortunately, the Founders could not foresee an electronic media and the evolution of an intrusive Conservative Religion. So we now have that institution which exploits media for its self-proliferation, to indoctrinate the populace with the notion that one cannot be Christian if he dares question the moral authority of the theological media-elite. Through media, they drum an incessant mantra that the place of the true Christian is to follow and never question. From an electronic teat, they feed political interpretations of God's will to a media-addicted audience. Logic and reason are diametric enemies of conservative theology; those who employ either in defining the American touchstones "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may ultimately find themselves hunted fugitives of theocracy.

So, I will remain faithful to a God who DOES NOT empower men to speak His will, regardless of anyone's deep-seated theology. Men are flawed, and where their power is unchecked, evil flourishes.

[Fred in Skirts]

Logic and reason are diametric enemies of conservative theology; those who employ either in defining the American touchstones "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may ultimately find themselves hunted fugitives of theocracy.
So, I will remain faithful to a God who DOES NOT empower men to speak His will, regardless of anyone's deep-seated theology. Men are flawed, and where their power is unchecked, evil flourishes.

I have to totally agree with these statements. I am a believer as well, but I left the organized churches a long time a go as I was smarter than they give man credit for. I questioned their rules and beliefs on many things. I was always the one who asked why are you the only voice of God? And after being ridiculed I decided that I did not need them to tell me what Gods plan was. I could read and understand the bible as well and or better than they did.

Fred

[Judah14]

Just because Fundamentalist Christians are not yet beheading men and stoning women (YET being the operative word), we would not be fools to trust that they never would?

It has already happened before in the Spanish Inquisition.

[bobmoore]

Christianity has not changed in the least. Neither has man's spiritual blindness. Christians, the real ones, know that their kingdom is not on this earth. They also know who it is who rules--for now--on earth. Christ did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, though there are a lot of misguided people who seem to think that is what Christianity wants.

Dillon, you used the word "eisegesis", and I'm glad you did. The word means "to read into (scripture) ones own presuppositions to support a personal agenda". That is exactly what the secular church does, and it is what many natural men do as well. Legitimate interpretation requires exegesis, which draws out what is actually there without regard for anything else. The scripture has things to say about those who make assertions about things of which they are ignorant. No one arrives at a knowledge of the truth by human means, hence spiritual ignorance is rampant, and secular churches create whatever doctrines suit their desires.

[crfriend]

Like it or not, there is a God to whom we all must answer.

Every time I hear that crack I am compelled to ask the question, "Whose god?"

Contemplate that for a moment. Perhaps your god is not the One True God. This is not a "shot"; this is a question designed to make folks think -- and, hopefully, think beyond the constraints of "belief".

And, no, from a purely logical perspective, if one is faced with two absolutes which conflict the only answer is that both are false because that's the only way to satisfy the equation. The key here is absolutes which most organised religions adhere to as a matter of dogma. Pure logic does not deal with greys.

[dillon]

Christianity has not changed in the least. Neither has man's spiritual blindness. Christians, the real ones, know that their kingdom is not on this earth. They also know who it is who rules--for now--on earth. Christ did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, though there are a lot of misguided people who seem to think that is what Christianity wants.

Dillon, you used the word "eisegesis", and I'm glad you did. The word means "to read into (scripture) ones own presuppositions to support a personal agenda". That is exactly what the secular church does, and it is what many natural men do as well. Legitimate interpretation requires exegesis, which draws out what is actually there without regard for anything else. The scripture has things to say about those who make assertions about things of which they are ignorant. No one arrives at a knowledge of the truth by human means, hence spiritual ignorance is rampant, and secular churches create whatever doctrines suit their desires.

Too, Bob, the term implies to extract, from a single passage, a meaning which is not consistent with the entirety of the work. Consider that the next time one of your colleagues tosses out a verse, or when you may feel inclined to do so. Then consider the bigger picture, please. Only when you and others are bold enough to do that will humanity shed the shackles of the harm that misdirected faith does.

[skirtedMarine]

Caultron, do you mean the Laughable Curve? that has never had a real world example to demonstrate.

In my opinion, Uncle Al, Ronald Reagan was the worst thing that ever happened to our economy because he tore the foundation out from under the middle class and out from under the ability of the working class to earn middle class incomes. Just for good measure Reagan over-invested in the military creating the insane national debt that Republicans now complain about as crippling the economy. Worse yet, military spending has a negative multiplier effect.

As far as the Berlin Wall coming down goes the credit shouldn't go to Reagan because it belongs to the nerds of Silicon Valley. According to syndicated columnist Bernard Gelb the Russian General who was Gorbechov's equivalent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did some deep thinking at one point and realized the next world war would be fought on an electronic battlefield so he looked at the comparative advantages of the 2 superpowers. The Soviet Army didn't have enough computer power to run its payroll. In the US computers were the playthings of our children. In short, that war was lost before the first keystroke.

He took that insight to his boss and suggested he cut the best deal he could manage before us dull-witted capitalists got wise (The CIA characteristically overestimated the capabilities, economic and otherwise, of the Soviet Union.). In gratitude Gorby sacked the General. 2 years later he told the East Germans to tear down the wall.

I hope someday the country gets wise and restores National Airport to its original name.

you've got to be kidding me! let me pull out my BS stick! Its hard for me not to be insulting but you do have a right to your ... opinion... have a nice day ...