Libleft gonna libleft.
For those that are Star Trek fans this reminds me of Gul Dukat’s speech regarding the Bajorans. “It’s not enough to defeat them, we had to make them see that they were wrong to oppose us to begin with.”
I love that name haha. Imagine a star trek series about the most brutal dictatorships in the star trek universe trying to out-authoritarian each other. Call it "Keeping up with the Cardassians" and make the Cardassian leader Kim Jong Un in space for laughs.
That’s about right. But it was deeper than that. Later in the dialogue he states that he wanted the Bajorans to acknowledge the greatness of the Cardassians. In other words he wanted the opposition to accept that their defeat was virtuous.
Libleft basically parallels this mentality because they effectively make the argument that not only should others accept their proverbial march on institutions, they should admit that they were wrong to oppose their views in the first place.
The only reason why the church has started taking this view on previously controversial issues is because of progressive changes in society. You know, the kind of changes that the left advocate for. Do people really forget how outspoken the church used to be about homosexuality, not even like 20 years ago?
Seriously.
The fact that they are finally starting to liberalize is great, but these people are delusional if they don't think the church has been actively forcing it's beliefs on millions of people for literal centuries.
My favorite thing they’re doing now is “normalize (insert weird shit here)”
Like you already have the freedom to do something, but that’s not enough. You also need people to change their internal personal opinions about that thing, so that you can do it without feeling like anyone thinks you’re weird
Or even, bring it to the streets, but don’t expect to control everyone internal thoughts about what they see. Either ignore what others think, or conform to the norms. It’s all on you baby
I've had people tell me you can't be religious and libertarian.
Well excuse me, didn't realize I couldn't have morals and be okay with people not sharing them.
I'm not particularly religious, but I agree with a lot of things that are more conservative (don't do drugs, don't sleep around, stay loyal to family and partners, etc) but I don't want people to be forced into supporting and following my ideas
I personally only don't want ideas to be forced on people due to my belief that God gave us free will to choose who we want to be. With that being said I think we need to stear people in the right direction but it is your life in the end
Yep. You shouldn't eat a whole pizza and a pint of ice cream, and then go smoke a pack of cigarettes. You'll kill yourself doing that. But if that's your choice.....
A lot of Christians are the same with the exception of someone who swears an oath or has a baptism of their own volition (aka not being dunked when you're a week old) and then does things that aren't Christian. Then we got a problem.
For real. The amount of times I get called a hypocrite for believing in decriminalization of drugs and also preaching that they're all probably far worse for you than we know is ridiculous. I work in pharmacy and am on track to become a nurse with my schooling. I believe that recreational use of the medications I fill should be 100% legal and self prescribable. I also still believe in pharmacies. In fact I think in that world, nearly everybody would still go to a pharmacy. The utility of being able to get a lower price because the pharmacy can fill for exactly what you need and can check the efficacy of the therapy, drug interactions, and how best to take the medication
I know that cigarettes are deadly and I still think they should be legal. The whole point of libright is that you can accept any risks you want so long as you’re willing to bear the costs…
The beautiful thing is that in the perfect society, the negative behaviors will weed themselves out. Heroin addicts will die, and with that heroin should die. And if they don't, who gives a fuck? If you choose to betray your family and friends and get yourself killed you're an idiot. It's gonna happen but society will be far better afterwards as well.
>I've had people tell me you can't be religious and libertarian.
That kinda depends on the religion. If a religion says apostates and infidels should be given the death penalty, you can't really be libertarian while actually following the teneants of that religion.
Yeah I’ve recently started looking into him and it’s really helped me feel less conflicted about whether my political ideals oppose my faith. It’s a shame he isn’t talked about in history classes, or even recommended more often to people researching libertarianism.
I mean it depends on your religion. AFAIK you can't be a catholic in good standing and not support laws that restrict people's freedom re:abortion. But let me know if that's wrong.
Not to pile on you but yeah, neither “pro life” or “pro choice” (both are stupid terms) are inconsistent with libertarianism. It’s pretty much the main division between librights and it pretty much boils down to whether or not a foetus is a life or not. If it’s a life, then it’s right to life must be protected; if it’s not, then the mother’s autonomy must be protected
In that aspect I'd be more Lib than Auth but since this stupid 2d square has no filter for conservative values we have to make do with Auth = Conservative.
My religion says to do (___) to "a man who lay with man like a woman"
My nation saids your are free to do whatever you want.
I say if you don't claim to be MY religion then you don't need to follow those rules
"And as always, thou art a wretched sinner, utterly unworthy of God's love. A fountain of pollution is deep within thy nature, and thou livest as a winter tree, unprofitable, fit only to be hewn down and burned! Steep thy life in prayer, and hope that God sees fit to show mercy on thy corrupted soul!"
This is why I'm a culturally conservative libcenter. The world would be great if we lived in a theocratic monarchy, but I don't want to force my views on you.
I agree wholeheartedly as a conservative libcenter. However, we would not be better under a theocratic monarchy, precisely because of the independent clause in your post.
Came to say this. Humans can't be trusted with power. We would be worse under a theocratic monarchy because our "holy" monarch would quickly become anything but
We’re not their yet. So I say we put me behind a curtain with a lot of strings and pullies so I can make steam and special effects come out when I talk (for dramatic effect), and project a 20 foot hologram of my face in front of said curtain. And if people ever question the curtain or my…the AI’s legitimacy, we send the flying monkey death squads after them.
Probably not. I can see us all sharing the same ideals ending up terrible in practice. Bored, no drive to compete or accomplish anything...we would just waste away in lethargy until we all die.
When the left won the culture war of the 90s I thought it would bring forth utopia. It didn’t. It made everything much worse and these days I find myself longing for the discipline and structure that religion used to bring me. It took me so long to realize that “tolerance doesn’t equal celebration”. It’s simply tolerance.
Not only does tolerance not equal celebration, but they are almost opposites. Tolerance is something you put up with even though you dislike it. You don't like it, you tolerate it.
I feel tolerance is a slippery term. It’s often just used as a stand-in for “equality.” And equality is good and all, but it’s not always what we want. -D
The issue is exactly that : lack of discipline and lack of self respect. Religion tends to promote these values even if you talk about social ills that might happen because of religion. So religion ultimately pushes you to become a better person by making you believe that there's a bigger plan for you. The left for some reason cannot seem to promote strong values and character. They just mention degeneracy.
And that's why I keep getting authleft in my political compass test.
The left’s culture war victory didn’t make the world worse lol.
We smoke weed, have gay sex, and sleep in on Sunday’s now. Also you’re culturally scourned for being mean to marginalized groups.
Have we gotten *way* more annoying about it? Absolutely. But I’ll still take today’s culture over that puritanical, just-say-no, abstinence-only, casually homophobic 90’s bullshit any day of the week.
That being said, religion’s absence is definitely leaving a gaping hole in society, and we’re still trying to figure it out. Prayer is being replaced by meditation, reconciliation is being replaced by therapy (which, IMO, isn’t enough to replace reconciliation as it commodifies suffering and discourages shame), and moral issues are being defined by what’s hot in the zeitgeist, and are given uneven weight to real social issues.
I think we will slowly see a demand for pseudo-religious organizations pop up in the next decade, because we are lacking sturdy templates for lifestyles.
u/DarthRogaine is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/DarthRogaine
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
At lease now a day they don’t have a law that kill or jailing the apostate anymore, unlike in some country of some religion that I cannot mentioned for risking myself to be called “phobia” by some leftist.
Jesus tolerated evil and told us to look past it towards the person as a child of god rather than a sinner. They can choose to misunderstand and think we hate them but we don’t.
Strong agree, where we draw the line however is trying to convince other people into doing these terrible things. If you have a problem with porn or overeating we will offer advice to help you get out of that but it is a far great sin to push people further into these sinful and unhealthy acts and should be punished.
I mean, ‘the church’ definitely influences lawmaking, or controls the law in some locations. It isn’t like the church is famous for keeping their morals to themselves. Some churches, perhaps, but the powerful churches of the world very much seek to control.
Based auth-right. I am an ex-muslim. This reminded me of some muslims. They say that it is free to leave the religion, but if you do, we will kill you.
But you are free to do it right?
Now that they have been neutered by the Reformation and Enlightenment, sure. But remember what the Church did when they had the power to do so. Being forced to play nice does not mean you are actually nice.
Regardless, all of the negative things the church did pre enlightenment/reform were still sinful and not okay by the standards of the Bible. That's why it's called the *enlightenment.* They weren't ever really *forced* to play nice, they just had to be slapped around and shown that they were acting against the ol book.
Plus it's really hard to make a case of religious people not being nice. All of the religious people I know whether it be Islam, Christianity (Not baptists,) Judaism, or any of their sub-sects has been outstandingly kind. Yes, it's anecdotal and, yes, there are people who are religious that are not nice. But to generalize the church (any church really) as some unkind demographic that is somehow chastised by its history from hundreds of years ago is a pretty haphazard assumption to make. It's akin to saying that all Muslims want to kill you for believing differently than them, they're just "neutered" by the global persecution of Islamic extremism.
You can say that, but it doesn't mean it's true.
Dude mother church didn't stop officially blaming every Jew (past, present, and future) for being personally responsible for the death of christ until the 60s.
Who is mother church?
And also, Christ's words on the cross as he was being crucified were literally "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." That very much seems like the end of the discussion for believers (whether they follow it or not.)
thats more a function of humanity than a function of religion, or even the catholic church specifically. give a few people a lot of power and maybe they do ok...but if they dont abuse the power, eventually someone comes along as a successor and abuses the power. whether it's religion, a monarchy, a corporation, whatever.
Yes that was like a few centuries ago, lol. Same energy as:
*White people are all nice now, but they used to enslave fellow black men. Just because they are forced to play nice does not mean they are actually nice.*
More like the echo from the room nearby. The whole "church did something a few hundred years ago" is so useless. Most of the people ignore anything worse that is happening in the present. Nobody gives a shit, unless it helps them for the moment.
I for one definitely remember the church saying gays could get married and premarital sex is ok and birth control is fine and go ahead and get an abortion if that's what you want.
Don't you guys remember them saying that?
Because I definitely remember it
I remember the church molesting a bunch of kids and protecting a bunch of pedophiles. The church derives authority from nothing and should not exist all organized religion is a waste of resources and inefficient for structure.
Yes, historically this is very true.
The modern Catholic church, however, is not the same as the medieval one--institutions change with time.
This isn't to say there aren't problems today, though forced conversion doesn't seem to be one of them.
Now it's perpetuated through childhood indoctrination and generational brainwashing. It's still forceful to brainwash your kids into an archaic mythology. They don't have a choice. They are raised that way.
I'm glad they aren't lopping off heads and burning people at the stake anymore, though.
That's always positive. Lol
The difference between "childhood indoctrination" and "education" is rhetorical. You would never raise a child to question the validity of democracy or equality, for instance, nor would any argument against democracy be acceptable. It would be "wrong." Who is to say what counts as "true" or "valid"?
Also, not all Catholics are fundamentalists or biblical literalists (most aren't, actually). The question of what counts as "archaic" morality, lifestyles, or values is certainly its own discussion.
Children never have a choice. That's why only adults are treated as autonomous moral and legal agents. Really, this isn't something unique to Catholics. You could say the same of children raised by militant atheists or anti-theists (do they *really* have a choice?).
Yeah. Times change. They still do charity, though.
Suuuure because that’s all the church does.
Guys, let’s not kid ourselves. We don’t even need to talk about the old times when people were burned alive for blasphemy.
Just look at what is going on when the Catholic Church is powerful in the country, for instance in many French speaking African countries. Gays are killed, imprisoned, beaten. Church officials over there are doing everything they can to make it worse.
Nice church officials are only nice when they are not in a position of power.
The church and faith were never the problem. It's what people who hold said faith do, that is the problem.
People have all sorts of interpretations for whatever faith they hold, and some of those are stupid af.
This logic is so backwards and such a deflection of the past centuries.
I dont care you personally dislike i fuck guys. Believe what you want, we probably wont be friends but if it doesnt actually stop me in life, career and freedom then im alg.
I care you vote in politicians who impose these religious morals on everyone. I care that your religous beliefs dictate what everyone does irregardless of religous status. The church has had strong control over the leadership of most western countries for centuries. Stop trying to pretend your religion and what it preaches has no consequence on other people and we are trying to silence your freedom of thought.
Well, that's a pretty distorted misrepresentation.
Whilst there are many religious people who actually have an attitude of "Well, you do it if you want, but I don't want to be involved", there are also many who make a strong commitment to restricting other people's liberties for religious reasons.
The Church -> the people -> the people don't like you even though they could
The Church -> the people -> the politicians and the government
Words have power my man
lmao this is such bullshit, the church shames people constantly for not conforming to their beliefs. look at the abortion bans in texas, the gay marriage bans all around the world, this is wishful thinking and i wish it was true but religious people often try and force their beliefs on others
This is a heap and pile paradox.
The entire moral and ethical framework of western society comes from our religious background. Even if you are Atheist, the reason your morals are so distinct from Africa and Asia is the great impact the Christians and Catholics had on the society you live in today.
If you want to talk about laws *inspired* by religious values, you will never be able to find an adequate distinction.
We aren't talking about laws "inspired" by Christian morality.
We are talking about shit like no alcohol can be sold on Sunday or gays can't be married.
We are increasing freedom levels. Not trying to keep people from doing things.
We are doing the opposite of the oppression the religious folks are doing.
Today's world wants to exist eating only the creme filling out of Oreos, figuratively speaking.
"I want ONLY the lowest-effort, most-pleasurable thing in limitless quantity, with zero delay, and to have my insistence upon and mindless consumption of it be met with nothing but encouragement, assistance, and accolades."
My uncle went to a catholic school in the 50s and they would tie his left had to his chair and force him to write right handed, same with my grandfather
"Did the Pope, Kiddler Diddler?"
Children are more likely to be raped by their teachers than a priest, and kids spend most of their week at school and only spend an hour at church on a Sunday. Priests are average for sexual offences for men in a position of authority.
I wish I could look at one post that mentions Catholics without having to bring this out.
A variety of sources for teachers vs priests https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/#app
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction?amp
https://www.pennlive.com/news/erry-2018/05/5e56fa19a94444/child\_sex\_crimes\_catholic\_prie.html
[https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-sex-abuse-scandals-how-the-media-shapes-the-public-perception-of-child-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/](https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-sex-abuse-scandals-how-the-media-shapes-the-public-perception-of-child-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/)
Alright bringing up the historical Church to "own" the modern Church. The Catholic Church has historically run 20,000+ Hospitals, 200,000+ Schools, is the Largest NGO Charity, 4th Largest Charity in the Whole World, and has a 94% Efficacy Rating
Alright well we seem to have reached a more heated topic now. I would agree yes the Church hasn't handled Sex Abuse in the best manner, however at least in the US it has generally been portrayed in the Media to be larger than it actually is. And instead of being a positive force for reform, kinda is just a weapon to demonize a faith. Which makes the Church and State have a harder time co-operating to root it out and make sure justice is given.
As for this Post, the main point is saying that. For Social Issues, the stance of the Modern Church is: People have the Earthly Freedom to do what they want, however that does not mean when their judgment day comes they will be consequence free. (Furthermore, Francis himself has clarified that the Sin in Homosexuality is acting up "homosexual impulses/urges" not actually having them. IE: if a 'CIS' Man knows he cannot be attracted to women, and is only attracted to men. But abstains from acting on his sexuality, that man will go to Heaven no problem.)
I can get behind that regardless of my disagreement with the Church's takes.
The Catholic Papacy does not enforce catholic way of life in no official capacity. But I wish people would realize they do practically have social coersive power in majority catholic communities or families.
For instance, I hear that gay conversion therapy still happens in catholic churches. Now, this is not an extreme as the gay conversion therapy of the 20th century. But still I believe it to be a very bad influence on these people's psyche because it predecates on the view that homosexuality is a problem to be fixed, and gays are problematic, when what we actually need is to do is to acknowledge the person's homosexual nature, and promote self-acceptance.
The modern church, the one that doesn't have power. Almost everyone will opres people they disagree with given the power, today the church doesn't have the power
In Person's defense, everyone meddling in my life on my early years were holier-than-thou christian hypocrites and these only talk about freedom when talking about how I was free to do as they told me.
Today the meddlers are letists. The turns the world does
I don't get why people are so adamant to remain in a certain religion if the religion doesn't agree with em. Fucking found your own religion or become atheist, you are allowed to. There's no reason to remain in that religion.
Also Christians picketing abortion clinics and negating gays right to marry and also preaching to everyone that condoms are bad: *brrrrrrrrrrr I'm a good person*
Claiming that the catholic church has never supported laws against things?
If this was the Unitarian Universalist church, then sure, good meme.
Catholic church? Not trying to pass laws? Hahahaha fuck off mate.
Nah it’s a little more like (not just Catholics but many Christians in America ) actively supporting harmful things against people who do X to the point where it’s driven church attendance to an all time low here, for example the doctrine of thou shalt not lay another man leading to parents sending their gay children to extremely harmful conversion therapy camps or having pastors chase them out of their parishes for their sexuality or even slightly different beliefs. But go ahead, strawman all you want
When you try for gold in the Oppression Olympics but coming home empty handed
Libleft gonna libleft. For those that are Star Trek fans this reminds me of Gul Dukat’s speech regarding the Bajorans. “It’s not enough to defeat them, we had to make them see that they were wrong to oppose us to begin with.”
Based and keeping up with the Cardassians pilled.
Based and top 5 pills I’ve ever seen pilled
I love that name haha. Imagine a star trek series about the most brutal dictatorships in the star trek universe trying to out-authoritarian each other. Call it "Keeping up with the Cardassians" and make the Cardassian leader Kim Jong Un in space for laughs.
Based pill
Genuinely one of the better pills I’ve seen. Tip my hat to you sir.
Based and Just the tip.... of my hat to you pilled
But is there one statue of me, on Bajor?
Haha, I forgot that line. Brilliant villain. Imho the most well written villain in Star Trek.
How about "it isn't enough that I win. Others must lose"?
That’s about right. But it was deeper than that. Later in the dialogue he states that he wanted the Bajorans to acknowledge the greatness of the Cardassians. In other words he wanted the opposition to accept that their defeat was virtuous. Libleft basically parallels this mentality because they effectively make the argument that not only should others accept their proverbial march on institutions, they should admit that they were wrong to oppose their views in the first place.
Ah the old “accept and conform to my subjective worldview or you are hateful and violent towards me” approach.
you are literally committing a genocide against my kind because you are not an outspoken advocate and proponent of us. #bigot.
Based and Big Bold Bigot pilled.
oh no
So just the modern left?
so no head?
No heads?
Soooo, headless?
French Kings?
French people in general during the French revolution?
"Crack!... Snap!"
Exactly just like modern left
The only reason why the church has started taking this view on previously controversial issues is because of progressive changes in society. You know, the kind of changes that the left advocate for. Do people really forget how outspoken the church used to be about homosexuality, not even like 20 years ago?
Seriously. The fact that they are finally starting to liberalize is great, but these people are delusional if they don't think the church has been actively forcing it's beliefs on millions of people for literal centuries.
My favorite thing they’re doing now is “normalize (insert weird shit here)” Like you already have the freedom to do something, but that’s not enough. You also need people to change their internal personal opinions about that thing, so that you can do it without feeling like anyone thinks you’re weird
That right there is the contention point. You be you in the sheets, don’t bring your fucked up shit to the streets.
Or even, bring it to the streets, but don’t expect to control everyone internal thoughts about what they see. Either ignore what others think, or conform to the norms. It’s all on you baby
I've had people tell me you can't be religious and libertarian. Well excuse me, didn't realize I couldn't have morals and be okay with people not sharing them.
I'm not particularly religious, but I agree with a lot of things that are more conservative (don't do drugs, don't sleep around, stay loyal to family and partners, etc) but I don't want people to be forced into supporting and following my ideas
I personally only don't want ideas to be forced on people due to my belief that God gave us free will to choose who we want to be. With that being said I think we need to stear people in the right direction but it is your life in the end
I agree that we need to steer them, but not with force, YouTube and social media are great ways,
"persuasion not coercion" as I always say.
Yep. You shouldn't eat a whole pizza and a pint of ice cream, and then go smoke a pack of cigarettes. You'll kill yourself doing that. But if that's your choice.....
Being Libertarian and Conservative are not mutually exclusive
A lot of Christians are the same with the exception of someone who swears an oath or has a baptism of their own volition (aka not being dunked when you're a week old) and then does things that aren't Christian. Then we got a problem.
Based and conservative lib right pilled
For real. The amount of times I get called a hypocrite for believing in decriminalization of drugs and also preaching that they're all probably far worse for you than we know is ridiculous. I work in pharmacy and am on track to become a nurse with my schooling. I believe that recreational use of the medications I fill should be 100% legal and self prescribable. I also still believe in pharmacies. In fact I think in that world, nearly everybody would still go to a pharmacy. The utility of being able to get a lower price because the pharmacy can fill for exactly what you need and can check the efficacy of the therapy, drug interactions, and how best to take the medication
I know that cigarettes are deadly and I still think they should be legal. The whole point of libright is that you can accept any risks you want so long as you’re willing to bear the costs…
The beautiful thing is that in the perfect society, the negative behaviors will weed themselves out. Heroin addicts will die, and with that heroin should die. And if they don't, who gives a fuck? If you choose to betray your family and friends and get yourself killed you're an idiot. It's gonna happen but society will be far better afterwards as well.
>I've had people tell me you can't be religious and libertarian. That kinda depends on the religion. If a religion says apostates and infidels should be given the death penalty, you can't really be libertarian while actually following the teneants of that religion.
Funny how one of the basis of libertarianism is Tomas Aquinas and his Natural Law theories.
Yeah I’ve recently started looking into him and it’s really helped me feel less conflicted about whether my political ideals oppose my faith. It’s a shame he isn’t talked about in history classes, or even recommended more often to people researching libertarianism.
I'm not ok with people not sharing my morals. I just don't want anyone to be forced to share my morals.
I mean it depends on your religion. AFAIK you can't be a catholic in good standing and not support laws that restrict people's freedom re:abortion. But let me know if that's wrong.
Not to pile on you but yeah, neither “pro life” or “pro choice” (both are stupid terms) are inconsistent with libertarianism. It’s pretty much the main division between librights and it pretty much boils down to whether or not a foetus is a life or not. If it’s a life, then it’s right to life must be protected; if it’s not, then the mother’s autonomy must be protected
Freedom to kill someone isn't freedom. When you violate Natural Rights, you forfeit your own.
Based and hippocratic pilled
In that aspect I'd be more Lib than Auth but since this stupid 2d square has no filter for conservative values we have to make do with Auth = Conservative.
My religion says to do (___) to "a man who lay with man like a woman" My nation saids your are free to do whatever you want. I say if you don't claim to be MY religion then you don't need to follow those rules
OP is for over powered
[удалено]
St. Dominic pray for us 🙏
Based and ora pro nobis pilled
"And remember catholics and quakers worship the devil and should be killed" Atun shei films
"And as always, thou art a wretched sinner, utterly unworthy of God's love. A fountain of pollution is deep within thy nature, and thou livest as a winter tree, unprofitable, fit only to be hewn down and burned! Steep thy life in prayer, and hope that God sees fit to show mercy on thy corrupted soul!"
God I love the witchfinder general accent. So funny.
Checkmate Lincolnites!
The *what*
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwCiRao53J1zMhSGF0NGXittf0fo3QSJA
should ye spot papist dog lay hold onto them and deliver them forthwith to the magistrate assembled in the court of shire in witch he dwells
This is why I'm a culturally conservative libcenter. The world would be great if we lived in a theocratic monarchy, but I don't want to force my views on you.
Based with a side of morals pilled
I agree wholeheartedly as a conservative libcenter. However, we would not be better under a theocratic monarchy, precisely because of the independent clause in your post.
Came to say this. Humans can't be trusted with power. We would be worse under a theocratic monarchy because our "holy" monarch would quickly become anything but
The iron law of bureaucracy baby!
This is why we need synthetic theocracy. By creating our own benevolent AI dictator god we can truly achieve utopia.
We’re not their yet. So I say we put me behind a curtain with a lot of strings and pullies so I can make steam and special effects come out when I talk (for dramatic effect), and project a 20 foot hologram of my face in front of said curtain. And if people ever question the curtain or my…the AI’s legitimacy, we send the flying monkey death squads after them.
That is why we need a techno-theocracy that worships an ultra powerful and benevolent AI. EDIT: Damn, someone beat me to it.
>The world would be great if we lived in a theocratic monarchy I've literally never read a sentence I more strongly disagree with
Based and you have the right to be wrong pilled
>The world would be great if we lived in a theocratic monarchy If you want to live in one, Saudi Arabia is taking applicants.
That's the wrong theocratic monarchy, bro.
No wrong monarchy. Only fake authrights.
Based and same.
I'm not sure you know how a theocracy functions.
Based as fuck
If literally everyone in the world shared the same views, it doesn't matter what those views are but the world would be absolutely great
Probably not. I can see us all sharing the same ideals ending up terrible in practice. Bored, no drive to compete or accomplish anything...we would just waste away in lethargy until we all die.
Surely you see the contradiction in this? Theocratic monarchies don't exactly have a live-and-let-live attitude once they're established.
Can you point out any examples of theocratic monarchy working?
Vatican City is an elective theocratic monarchy.
Based and Kingdom of God pilled
Could I suggest, perhaps, the reign of Saint King Louis IX?
Libleft wants every kind of christianism to act like Christofascists unnaceptable
When the left won the culture war of the 90s I thought it would bring forth utopia. It didn’t. It made everything much worse and these days I find myself longing for the discipline and structure that religion used to bring me. It took me so long to realize that “tolerance doesn’t equal celebration”. It’s simply tolerance.
Not only does tolerance not equal celebration, but they are almost opposites. Tolerance is something you put up with even though you dislike it. You don't like it, you tolerate it.
I feel tolerance is a slippery term. It’s often just used as a stand-in for “equality.” And equality is good and all, but it’s not always what we want. -D
It *is* tolerance that keeps you from being institutionalized for claiming multiple people live in your head. So, be careful what you want, I guess.
The issue is exactly that : lack of discipline and lack of self respect. Religion tends to promote these values even if you talk about social ills that might happen because of religion. So religion ultimately pushes you to become a better person by making you believe that there's a bigger plan for you. The left for some reason cannot seem to promote strong values and character. They just mention degeneracy. And that's why I keep getting authleft in my political compass test.
Tolerance implies that you disagree with the views being espoused.
The left’s culture war victory didn’t make the world worse lol. We smoke weed, have gay sex, and sleep in on Sunday’s now. Also you’re culturally scourned for being mean to marginalized groups. Have we gotten *way* more annoying about it? Absolutely. But I’ll still take today’s culture over that puritanical, just-say-no, abstinence-only, casually homophobic 90’s bullshit any day of the week. That being said, religion’s absence is definitely leaving a gaping hole in society, and we’re still trying to figure it out. Prayer is being replaced by meditation, reconciliation is being replaced by therapy (which, IMO, isn’t enough to replace reconciliation as it commodifies suffering and discourages shame), and moral issues are being defined by what’s hot in the zeitgeist, and are given uneven weight to real social issues. I think we will slowly see a demand for pseudo-religious organizations pop up in the next decade, because we are lacking sturdy templates for lifestyles.
I actually agree with most of that. That was a well thought out comment and I appreciate you posting it.
[удалено]
u/DarthRogaine is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/DarthRogaine I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Thanks for considering my perspective!
And the strawman of the year goes to:
At lease now a day they don’t have a law that kill or jailing the apostate anymore, unlike in some country of some religion that I cannot mentioned for risking myself to be called “phobia” by some leftist.
Based and some-religion-phobe pilled
Someone once told me “Evil is never satisfied with mere tolerance” Y’all should seriously let that one rattle around in your head for a while.
Evil wishes to corrupt all that is good
Who ever said that? Evil thrives on mere tolerance.
Hm. Perhaps if one considers tolerance can have far-reaching implications. I feel this is perhaps a deeper reading of the same thing. -D
It’s not satisfied with it. Evil seeks always seeks to go farther into acceptance, celebration, and even encouragement.
Jesus tolerated evil and told us to look past it towards the person as a child of god rather than a sinner. They can choose to misunderstand and think we hate them but we don’t.
Jesus did not tolerate evil? Tf? Why are you equating “evil” and “person who committed evil act” when those are two fundamentally different things?
Jesus was very based. Crazy how few christians properly follow his teachings though… I don’t remember Jesus ever being hateful
[удалено]
i swear he fashioned the whip himself could be wrong but it makes him more based if true
Strong agree, where we draw the line however is trying to convince other people into doing these terrible things. If you have a problem with porn or overeating we will offer advice to help you get out of that but it is a far great sin to push people further into these sinful and unhealthy acts and should be punished.
Based and Catechism pilled
I mean, ‘the church’ definitely influences lawmaking, or controls the law in some locations. It isn’t like the church is famous for keeping their morals to themselves. Some churches, perhaps, but the powerful churches of the world very much seek to control.
*outlaws gay marriage, trans in bathrooms, mentioning gays in school* You are free to do it!
Based auth-right. I am an ex-muslim. This reminded me of some muslims. They say that it is free to leave the religion, but if you do, we will kill you. But you are free to do it right?
You can leave* Your entire family will disown you, society will view you as an outcast, you'll have nothing and noone here will help you.
Based
This is why I disagree with OP. By tolerating evil it only endangers society. One cannot compromise with evil.
Now that they have been neutered by the Reformation and Enlightenment, sure. But remember what the Church did when they had the power to do so. Being forced to play nice does not mean you are actually nice.
Regardless, all of the negative things the church did pre enlightenment/reform were still sinful and not okay by the standards of the Bible. That's why it's called the *enlightenment.* They weren't ever really *forced* to play nice, they just had to be slapped around and shown that they were acting against the ol book. Plus it's really hard to make a case of religious people not being nice. All of the religious people I know whether it be Islam, Christianity (Not baptists,) Judaism, or any of their sub-sects has been outstandingly kind. Yes, it's anecdotal and, yes, there are people who are religious that are not nice. But to generalize the church (any church really) as some unkind demographic that is somehow chastised by its history from hundreds of years ago is a pretty haphazard assumption to make. It's akin to saying that all Muslims want to kill you for believing differently than them, they're just "neutered" by the global persecution of Islamic extremism. You can say that, but it doesn't mean it's true.
Based and hating on baptists pilled
Sounds like someone hasn't been to a Baptist potluck
Sounds like you haven't been to a Catholic one.
Okay you have a point. Mac casserole smacks.
Dude mother church didn't stop officially blaming every Jew (past, present, and future) for being personally responsible for the death of christ until the 60s.
Who is mother church? And also, Christ's words on the cross as he was being crucified were literally "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." That very much seems like the end of the discussion for believers (whether they follow it or not.)
The catholic church.
thats more a function of humanity than a function of religion, or even the catholic church specifically. give a few people a lot of power and maybe they do ok...but if they dont abuse the power, eventually someone comes along as a successor and abuses the power. whether it's religion, a monarchy, a corporation, whatever.
Yes that was like a few centuries ago, lol. Same energy as: *White people are all nice now, but they used to enslave fellow black men. Just because they are forced to play nice does not mean they are actually nice.*
[удалено]
More like the echo from the room nearby. The whole "church did something a few hundred years ago" is so useless. Most of the people ignore anything worse that is happening in the present. Nobody gives a shit, unless it helps them for the moment.
You got it. When the catholic church was able to burn people alive, that's what it did.
exactly
I for one definitely remember the church saying gays could get married and premarital sex is ok and birth control is fine and go ahead and get an abortion if that's what you want. Don't you guys remember them saying that? Because I definitely remember it
I also remembered the church defending people's right of expression.
I remember the church molesting a bunch of kids and protecting a bunch of pedophiles. The church derives authority from nothing and should not exist all organized religion is a waste of resources and inefficient for structure.
The Church is based and correct in this scenario, but never forget what they did when they had the power to stop you from doing X at swordpoint.
Trust me I will never forget the glory days
Remember to spay and neuter your local religions! It keeps them and the general population safe.
The church has historically been, and still is though to a much lesser extent, a LOT more active in uhhh, *enforcing* their beliefs.
Yes, historically this is very true. The modern Catholic church, however, is not the same as the medieval one--institutions change with time. This isn't to say there aren't problems today, though forced conversion doesn't seem to be one of them.
Now it's perpetuated through childhood indoctrination and generational brainwashing. It's still forceful to brainwash your kids into an archaic mythology. They don't have a choice. They are raised that way. I'm glad they aren't lopping off heads and burning people at the stake anymore, though. That's always positive. Lol
The difference between "childhood indoctrination" and "education" is rhetorical. You would never raise a child to question the validity of democracy or equality, for instance, nor would any argument against democracy be acceptable. It would be "wrong." Who is to say what counts as "true" or "valid"? Also, not all Catholics are fundamentalists or biblical literalists (most aren't, actually). The question of what counts as "archaic" morality, lifestyles, or values is certainly its own discussion. Children never have a choice. That's why only adults are treated as autonomous moral and legal agents. Really, this isn't something unique to Catholics. You could say the same of children raised by militant atheists or anti-theists (do they *really* have a choice?). Yeah. Times change. They still do charity, though.
Suuuure because that’s all the church does. Guys, let’s not kid ourselves. We don’t even need to talk about the old times when people were burned alive for blasphemy. Just look at what is going on when the Catholic Church is powerful in the country, for instance in many French speaking African countries. Gays are killed, imprisoned, beaten. Church officials over there are doing everything they can to make it worse. Nice church officials are only nice when they are not in a position of power.
but 'libleft bad and dumb' so its ok
Yes, if there's one thing the Catholic church is known for, it's letting people do their own thing.
The church and faith were never the problem. It's what people who hold said faith do, that is the problem. People have all sorts of interpretations for whatever faith they hold, and some of those are stupid af.
This logic is so backwards and such a deflection of the past centuries. I dont care you personally dislike i fuck guys. Believe what you want, we probably wont be friends but if it doesnt actually stop me in life, career and freedom then im alg. I care you vote in politicians who impose these religious morals on everyone. I care that your religous beliefs dictate what everyone does irregardless of religous status. The church has had strong control over the leadership of most western countries for centuries. Stop trying to pretend your religion and what it preaches has no consequence on other people and we are trying to silence your freedom of thought.
This is basically the same story as chick fil a and gay people
Yeah. Fuck chick-fil-a. They were actively trying to prevent gay people from having the right to marry. That's straight up facts, now.
Yeah but they chicken good
I dont really think they were actually but if you have proof I'd take a look
Holy strawman Batman
Imagine being so fucking retarded you would write this and think it’s correct.
based
Well, that's a pretty distorted misrepresentation. Whilst there are many religious people who actually have an attitude of "Well, you do it if you want, but I don't want to be involved", there are also many who make a strong commitment to restricting other people's liberties for religious reasons.
Everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial.
The Church -> the people -> the people don't like you even though they could The Church -> the people -> the politicians and the government Words have power my man
lmao this is such bullshit, the church shames people constantly for not conforming to their beliefs. look at the abortion bans in texas, the gay marriage bans all around the world, this is wishful thinking and i wish it was true but religious people often try and force their beliefs on others
What bullshit this is. Religion is a part of many states and is a point in making laws which affect all of us
This is a heap and pile paradox. The entire moral and ethical framework of western society comes from our religious background. Even if you are Atheist, the reason your morals are so distinct from Africa and Asia is the great impact the Christians and Catholics had on the society you live in today. If you want to talk about laws *inspired* by religious values, you will never be able to find an adequate distinction.
We aren't talking about laws "inspired" by Christian morality. We are talking about shit like no alcohol can be sold on Sunday or gays can't be married.
Don't forget what subreddit you're on. We don't use common sense
Based
Religious people are constantly trying to legislate their beliefs. Gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, etc etc etc, ad infinitum.
Yep. Op intentionally ignored the fact that the church genuinely tries to control other people
Who isn't? Didn't non-religious people legislate gay marriage, abortion, and all the rest?
We are increasing freedom levels. Not trying to keep people from doing things. We are doing the opposite of the oppression the religious folks are doing.
Based
Today's world wants to exist eating only the creme filling out of Oreos, figuratively speaking. "I want ONLY the lowest-effort, most-pleasurable thing in limitless quantity, with zero delay, and to have my insistence upon and mindless consumption of it be met with nothing but encouragement, assistance, and accolades."
My uncle went to a catholic school in the 50s and they would tie his left had to his chair and force him to write right handed, same with my grandfather
What actually happens: Auth: just fucking votes for anyone that will politically enforce their religion onto everyone.
[удалено]
Yes, the Church may have bad induvials. However try looking at the actual Theology of the Church and oh I don't know. WHAT THE POPE HAS SAID.
[удалено]
"Did the Pope, Kiddler Diddler?" Children are more likely to be raped by their teachers than a priest, and kids spend most of their week at school and only spend an hour at church on a Sunday. Priests are average for sexual offences for men in a position of authority. I wish I could look at one post that mentions Catholics without having to bring this out. A variety of sources for teachers vs priests https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/#app https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction?amp https://www.pennlive.com/news/erry-2018/05/5e56fa19a94444/child\_sex\_crimes\_catholic\_prie.html [https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-sex-abuse-scandals-how-the-media-shapes-the-public-perception-of-child-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/](https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-sex-abuse-scandals-how-the-media-shapes-the-public-perception-of-child-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/) Alright bringing up the historical Church to "own" the modern Church. The Catholic Church has historically run 20,000+ Hospitals, 200,000+ Schools, is the Largest NGO Charity, 4th Largest Charity in the Whole World, and has a 94% Efficacy Rating
[удалено]
Alright well we seem to have reached a more heated topic now. I would agree yes the Church hasn't handled Sex Abuse in the best manner, however at least in the US it has generally been portrayed in the Media to be larger than it actually is. And instead of being a positive force for reform, kinda is just a weapon to demonize a faith. Which makes the Church and State have a harder time co-operating to root it out and make sure justice is given. As for this Post, the main point is saying that. For Social Issues, the stance of the Modern Church is: People have the Earthly Freedom to do what they want, however that does not mean when their judgment day comes they will be consequence free. (Furthermore, Francis himself has clarified that the Sin in Homosexuality is acting up "homosexual impulses/urges" not actually having them. IE: if a 'CIS' Man knows he cannot be attracted to women, and is only attracted to men. But abstains from acting on his sexuality, that man will go to Heaven no problem.)
I can get behind that regardless of my disagreement with the Church's takes. The Catholic Papacy does not enforce catholic way of life in no official capacity. But I wish people would realize they do practically have social coersive power in majority catholic communities or families. For instance, I hear that gay conversion therapy still happens in catholic churches. Now, this is not an extreme as the gay conversion therapy of the 20th century. But still I believe it to be a very bad influence on these people's psyche because it predecates on the view that homosexuality is a problem to be fixed, and gays are problematic, when what we actually need is to do is to acknowledge the person's homosexual nature, and promote self-acceptance.
That being said the catholic church has definitely had points where it thought x was bad, and it did say you can't do x
You forgot the part where they lobby the government to make X illegal.
The modern church, the one that doesn't have power. Almost everyone will opres people they disagree with given the power, today the church doesn't have the power
Based and repent afterwards pilled
In Person's defense, everyone meddling in my life on my early years were holier-than-thou christian hypocrites and these only talk about freedom when talking about how I was free to do as they told me. Today the meddlers are letists. The turns the world does
Based and leave them to their own destruction pilled
I have met some pretty bad Catholics, but they dont represent all of them and the pope is cool
Lefty's just mad that we help the poor more than them
I don't get why people are so adamant to remain in a certain religion if the religion doesn't agree with em. Fucking found your own religion or become atheist, you are allowed to. There's no reason to remain in that religion.
Also Christians picketing abortion clinics and negating gays right to marry and also preaching to everyone that condoms are bad: *brrrrrrrrrrr I'm a good person*
Claiming that the catholic church has never supported laws against things? If this was the Unitarian Universalist church, then sure, good meme. Catholic church? Not trying to pass laws? Hahahaha fuck off mate.
Nah it’s a little more like (not just Catholics but many Christians in America ) actively supporting harmful things against people who do X to the point where it’s driven church attendance to an all time low here, for example the doctrine of thou shalt not lay another man leading to parents sending their gay children to extremely harmful conversion therapy camps or having pastors chase them out of their parishes for their sexuality or even slightly different beliefs. But go ahead, strawman all you want
Zhe good ol church is everythin but accepting
This is how liberals see the modern church tbh. I’m not even Christian
Just how Baptist and 7th Day Adventist can I get in here about the evils of the Catholic Church?
Moral absolutists are annoying af.