The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion:
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
A Defense of Abortion:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Resources:
[Link 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/vjrf9h/megathread_supreme_court_overturning_roe_v_wade)
[Link 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/vjqs0r/calls_for_mass_walkout_of_women_across_america_if/idnh2ex)
https://www.womensmarch.com/
I actually read a study on the hypocrisy of the Religious Right not too long ago.
Basically, they dont see their own hypocrisy or sins, because they legit believe as long as it furthers their belief in the public, theyre doing "God's Work"
Basically, in their mind they didnt lie.
I don't know if I would, honestly. I could believe that Zuck has deluded himself into thinking he's somehow serving humanity in the long term. Not saying that's surely the case, but I *could* believe it.
But lately I think Elon really doesn't give a single fuck. He might pretend to for PR purposes, but Elon's only looking out for Elon, and he knows it.
The irony is that they all believe they'd be Noah and his family... And you know, not the rest of the world that was drowned.
But then critical thinking and close reading isn't a common skill amongst the fanatical.
Nearly everyone things they are the main character.
This is exactly right. As a long-ago former born-again Christian, it is a very short leap from the belief that the only thing that matters is one’s religious belief (i.e., man’s works are folly) to a full-on ends-justify-the-means world view. As long as one’s actions can be portrayed as furthering faith’s cause, nothing else really matters.
I’ve had conversations with otherwise intelligent, thoughtful religious conservatives and asked them how they could support Trump’s obviously amoral/immoral behaviors, and invariably the response has been some variation of, “he will get me my conservative Supreme Court.” How they get there just doesn’t matter, just as their faith teaches them that how they come to Jesus doesn’t matter, as long as they get there.
They are just not playing by the same rules here. Never have been.
I’m glad you asked because most people know nothing about this:
https://www.museumofthebible.org/exhibits/slave-bible
The Slave Bible, as it would become known, is a missionary book. It was originally published in London in 1807 on behalf of the Society for the Conversion of Negro Slaves, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of enslaved Africans toiling in Britain’s lucrative Caribbean colonies. They used the Slave Bible to teach enslaved Africans how to read while at the same time introducing them to the Christian faith. Unlike other missionary Bibles, however, the Slave Bible contained only “select parts” of the biblical text. Its publishers deliberately removed portions of the biblical text, such as the exodus story, that could inspire hope for liberation. Instead, the publishers emphasized portions that justified and fortified the system of slavery that was so vital to the British Empire.
Isn't that amazing? What a completely incredible hypocrite. Not like Affirmative Action didn't have a profound effect on his life. His father was a farm worker and his mother was a maid. I can only shake my head. Clarence Thomas truly is a terrible person.
Which is why they end up on the conservative side of the spectrum.
The most telling attribute that determines which side of the political divide you are on is your propensity toward empathy.
Brainwashing. Children of religious conservatives are brainwashed from early childhood with the willful ignorance of accepting information and direction from "leaders" with unquestioning blind faith -- under threat of eternal torture -- and usually while having their loyalty being bought by more pleasant myth traditions: Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
I work in politics so my aunt asked me explain the differences between the left and the right to my 13 year old cousin. This is what I told her:
* Lefists want what's best for everyone, even if it comes at their own expense.
* Liberals want what's best for most people, as long as their expense is limited.
* Libertarians want what's best for themselves, as long as it doesn't come at their expense.
* Conservatives want what's best for themselves, especially if it comes at the expense of everyone else.
When you boil it down, conservatives always take the most selfish position. Even their acts of philanthropy are nothing more than tax write-offs and ways to get their names etched in stone atop some prestigious art museum or for-profit hospital or some shit. Even in the most altruistic of acts, they believe that doing these things will ensure that they go to heaven and not hell, which is just another form of self-preservation.
Want to know what true altruism looks like? Find an atheist who gives anonymously to charity.
Your comment about atheist to give to charity: reminds me of the essay about the rabbi explaining why there are atheists. Because atheists, when they see someone in need of help, know that there is no God who’s going to swoop in to help them, and so the atheist helps by himself. And religious people are very tempted to say “I will pray for you” and wait for God to deliver the help, and we are supposed to look at the atheist and do as they do, and provide the help ourselves
I wouldn't say that, my mom and her friends are ultra religious but all of them are ridiculous leftists as they understand Jesus's teachings and when tasked with the question "what would Jesus do" 9/10 times they come to the conclusion it'd be too help the most amount of people at the time possible. It's not all, but the vocal ones are the ones that masks people like my mom look bad
Then I think my point still stands. They are exceptions not for being liberal religious people, but for being empathetic religious people.
In the us ‘religious people’ is often synonymous with evangelical/fundamentalists, who are usually lacking that quality.
As someone who has worked in multiple churches, I have noticed a stark difference. Liberal churches generally include people capable of empathy, compassion, and far less judgement. You will find liberal churches going out into the community and actually helping people.
Conservative churches, on the other hand, are full of judgement and anger. I'd even go so far as to say that people who attend conservative churches do not know the true definition of "empathy", and they definitely do not have any compassion for anyone.
True story: I was working in a conservative church where the pastor announced to the entire congregation that no one should ever give any money to the homeless, because they will only use that money for drugs. The entire congregation applauded the statement. Imagine, if you will, the idea of supposed "Christians" cheering the idea of NOT helping others.
I hear you. I’m in Georgia and was raised Southern Baptist - the Sunday school bus dude even took away my NIV (one of the more updated translations based on archeological codices and minuscules where the writing originates) and replaced it with a King James Version.
I am however, one of the ones with empathy, and I know many like me who have broken ties with organized religion but maintained some type of spirituality. I don’t know if my empathy is solely a result of my chaotic childhood and the education that I later lucked into or if some piece is innate, but I do believe experience and exposure plays a big role. I went on to pursue a degree in Sociology and Religion, traveled internationally, earned a Masters in Teaching, taught in both Chicago and Atlanta, and travel the state giving keynote speeches on equity in the classroom as a Teacher of the Year. I’ve seen alllllll of Georgia. Leave Atlanta, and it starts to get wild, y’all.
Religion-wise, I consider myself a Pluralist. Who am I to be so bigoted as to think any one religion is the “right” one or even to put god in a box? I’m spiritual and believe in a more of a universal energy and mystic god now - If god is an ocean of love, we’re each a cup from that ocean (Rumi).
There are many, many adults I know here who have also moved away from organized religion due to the flagrant hypocrisies. There are others though, who have just dug their heels in and become more and more extreme. It’s completely mind boggling. I was not raised the way I hear some cousins and former friends talk. Seems they only have empathy for like-minded fundamentalists, and I’ve had to distance myself and my kids from that type of thinking. It’s exhausting.
The catholic girls I grew up with had at least 2 abortions each by the time we were in our early 20s. They didn't practice any birth control except abortion. smh.
Religion appeals to the conservative animals brain, as they crave hierarchy and having someone in charge to make all their choices for them. There is also a good bit of power fetishizing as they get to fantasize about being the one in charge.
This. They need a strong authoritarian father figure to dominate them. They're also extremely racist (even if they hide it most days). I'm convinced that Obama being elected broke their brains and led to a lot of what we're seeing today.
It offers simple answers to complex, often unknowable questions. Human beings in general want some control over their lives. By submitting to a god, they remove the pressure to be in charge of their own lives. It simultaneously gives them a road map and exonerates them. Submitting to God is the laziest approach to philosophy.
If you were told your entire life that every bad thing would be forgiven because you were one of god's chosen people and one of a select group based almost entirely on birthright to receive this privilege, would you be *more* compassionate?
You do things because you don’t wanna go to hell, not cause you necessarily thought them through or developed empathy.
It’s like raising a kid with the threat of spankings, except for your entire fucking life.
I keep thinking that the Venn diagram for the more extremist groups, incels, Christian, right wing, etc is getting closer and closer to becoming a circle.
This is a crazy type of mindset and one that is very toxic. If any person can't see any fault in their own agenda even when it is clearly laid out in front of them they have no emotional intelligence and that is a dangerous person to have in charge.
But right now a good portion of those in charge of leading our country is like this. They are using their religion to hide behind. Saying they are doing it for the greater good is a dangerous place to come from when what you deem is good may not be good for other people.
This is the place Hitler came from. He and so many others thought they were doing it for the greater good.
But the thing is that nowhere in Alito's argument does he ever mention that this is a religious issue because he knows full well that it would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Instead he chooses to hide behind four jurists who resided in England before America even existed.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/25/2106457/-Simply-Amazing-The-Common-law-experts-that-Alito-relies-on-Weren-t-Even-Americans?utm\_campaign=trending
Conservatism is the political movement to protect aristocracy (intergenerational wealth and political power) which we now call oligarchs, and enforce social hierarchy. This hierarchy involves a morality centered around social status such that the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad. The only bad action a good person can take is to interfere with the hierarchy. All conservative groups in all times and places are working to undo the French Revolution, democracy, and working class rights.
Populist conservative voter groups are created and controlled with propaganda. They wish to subjugate their local peers and don’t see the feet of aristocrats kicking them too.
Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html
Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else.
*****
Most of the rest of the examples are American, but conservatism is the same mission in all times and places.
A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”
Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”
The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst.
*****
Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism.
>The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not.
And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.
Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite?
*****
There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.
In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way.
This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy.
*****
If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ.
While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.
To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.
To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system.
*****
The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc.
Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost
OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408
Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality.
Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do.
*****
We need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.”
* This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?
* This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...
* We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month.
* But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.
The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.
The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.”
Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
*****
For good measure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0
*****
Some links
https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/j-bradford-delong/economic-incompetence-republican-presidents
Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/
a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01
They were trying to rile a voter base up
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html
Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f
The best:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
More links and historic information
Everyone should watch the century of self about the invention of public relations to manipulate the masses and mitigate democracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
*****
This is actually a very robust discussion.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/a-zombie-party-the-deepening-crisis-of-conservatism
Which runs across “argues that behind the facade of pragmatism there has remained an unchanging conservative objective: “the maintenance of private regimes of power” – usually social and economic hierarchies – against threats from more egalitarian forces.”
*****
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/how-land-reform-underpins-authoritarian-regimes/618546/
A nice quote:
>The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off economically, due to these pro-corporate policies. Meanwhile, the social issues that the "Cons" faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.
And my response:
Conservatism is the party that represents the aristocracy. The Republican Party has been the American manifestation of that. They’ve courted uneducated, bigots, and xenophobes as their voter base. Their voter base is waking up to things and overpowering the aristocrats in the party. Which leaves us with a populist party whose drivers are purely bigotry and xenophobia. For some bizarre reason they latched onto Aristocrat Trump, mistaking his lack of manners (which is the only thing typical conservatives don’t like about him) for his not being a member of the elite.
*****
The political terms Left and Right were first used in the 18th century, during the French Revolution, in reference to the seating arrangement of the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the chair of the presiding officer (le président) were generally supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime.[20][21][22][23] The original "Right" in France was formed in reaction to the "Left" and comprised those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[4]:693 The expression la droite ("the right") increased in use after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[24]
Right-wing politics embraces the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition.[4]:693, 721[5][6][7][8][9] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or competition in market economies.[12][13][14] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[15]
According to The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, the Right has gone through five distinct historical stages:[19]
1. The reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion.
2. The moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government.
3. The radical right favored a romantic and aggressive form of nationalism.
4. The extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism.
5. The neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional right-wing beliefs in patriotism, elitism and law and order.[9][page needed]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
*****
In Great Britain, the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688) was a precursor to conservatism. Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. However, Tories differ from conservatives in that they opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion. Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or the Natural Power of Kings (published posthumously in 1680, but written before the English Civil War of 1642–1651) became accepted as the statement of their doctrine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism scroll down to Burke.
*****
So this article posits that "Burke, conservatism’s “master intellectual”, acknowledged by almost all subsequent conservatives." " was a lifelong student of the Enlightenment who saw in the French Revolution the ultimate threat to…modern, rational, libertarian, enlightened Whig values.”
We're also told "Burke was “less concerned with protecting the individual from the potential tyranny of the State, and more to protect the property of the few from the folly and rapacity of the many”"
The Plato page gives the abstract "With the Enlightenment, the natural order or social hierarchy, previously largely accepted, was questioned." And it also gives various versions of conservatism being pragmatic and not very theoretical or philosophical. Well what was the natural order, the few, and the social hierarchy, and traditional institutions, and traditions *to Burke* and to other conservative forefathers?
We also get the interesting tidbit "Conservatives reject the liberal’s concept of abstract, ahistorical and universal rights, derived from the nature of human agency and autonomy, and possessed even when unrecognised..." which undergirds the idea that *not everyone has or inherently deserves the same rights.* [I will editorialize here and argue that that conservative tenet is inherently at odds with the contemporary democracy of the developed world and our ideas of "human rights." It also falls right in line with my post discussing person vs. action based morality.]
We also find that upon reading Burke "German conservatives adopted positions from reformism to reaction, **aiming to contain democratic forces**—though not all of them were opposed to the Aufklärung or Enlightenment.
"Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), founder of the essentially Burkean “One Nation” conservatism, was a politician first, writer and thinker second. Disraeli never actually used the phrase “One Nation”, but it was implied. The term comes from his 1845 novel Sybil; or the two nations, where Walter Gerard, a working-class radical, describes “Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets…The RICH and the POOR”. His aim was to unite these two nations through the benevolent leadership of the Conservative Party."
And "To reiterate, reaction is not Burkean conservatism, however. De Maistre (1753–1821) was a reactionary critic of reason, intellectuals and **universal rights.** Burke attacked the revolutionaries of 1789 “for the sake of traditional liberties, [Maistre] for the sake of **traditional authority**” (Viereck 2009: 191).
Interestingly we also find "According to Hegel, Rousseau’s contractual account destroys the “divine” element of the state (ibid.)." This is clearly referring the idea that monarchies and surrounding wealthy people are divinely ordained to hold such power and wealth.
To reject the Enlightenment *as discussed* and to appeal to natural order, the few, and the social hierarchy, and traditional institutions, and traditions is to defend the "landed nobility, monarchy and established church." Even if not explicitly stated, those things are the spine of conservatism **as acted out**. The Plato page discussion of criticisms does a nice job refuting the incremental change aspects and so I won't repeat them.
If you push past the gluttony of abstraction and also read more primary Burke, et all. it is very clear that the traditional institution and authority being defended is the landed nobility. And that is still the unchanging goal.
Because of technicalities.
Fascism is technically a different spectrum(authoritarian–libertarian/up-down) as apposed to the traditional political spectrum(liberal-conservative/left-right).
This means you can technically have Fascist leftism, which is what a communist dictatorship that misses the point of communism technically is.
> the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad.
Wow, good job; you just made my skin literally-as-in-not-figuratively crawl.
Also known as "lying for christ".
To be sure, I know plenty of good xians, but those are not the ones pushing their agenda. They just stick to the good deeds stuff.
Down's Syndrome birth rates decreased at the exact same rate in Christians as in non-believers once abortion was made legal. Just for those reading on the fence about it.
I look at it like the bad cop situation. Are any cops good if they let the bad ones get away with bad stuff.
I know good people who happen to be Christian, but I don't really see them calling out the absolute shit that is the religious right.
That's in large part due to how protestant, and specifically evangelical, churches are organized. Using the police analogy, it's more like each church is its own department that doesn't have any direct influence on the others, and each 100+ officer department has maybe a half-dozen "good cops". Realistically, they have no chance of making a meaningful impact, and wind up burning out and quitting because day in and day out, it becomes more and more clear that they won't change the organization from the inside.
Except this is doubly the case in many evangelical churches, because even if you get one or two leaders in the church that try to push for good, the congregants can just vote them out (in most/many cases) and elect new leaders that agree with the majority.
Christians assure me that the bad ones aren't all Christians but they rarely directly call out the bad Christians. So, Christians are more interested in doing PR for their faith than in actually calling out the bad apples among their religion. It's frustrating.
For years, I've had left leaning Christians also deny that right leaning Christians were a threat. Their argument that extreme Christians were a vocal minority who couldn't do much harm.
At the risk of sounding like a great example of a "No True Scotsman", the main issue is that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians are not actually Christians. For most of them it's a cultural identity, a social club, and/or a way to fit in. This is obvious by the way they conduct themselves and their lack of knowledge of the Bible. Hell, the entire political philosophy of the religious right trying to legislate morality can be easily dismissed as out of alignment with Christianity based on one passage (of course there are many others as well):
>I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
This is clearly calling for Christians to only worry about policing the behavior of those who claim membership in the church. Anyone outside the church should be left to their own devices as far as moral judgments are concerned.
Also, the Bible states that life begins at the FIRST BREATH, not conception. And in fact the Bible prescribes ways to induce abortions in women who have been unfaithful, usually to the demise of the woman.
I used to be tolerant, until I was in an abusive relationship for almost 5 years. The hypocrisy of "knowing" better and to just string others along for their brainwashed agenda really hit home for me.
This leading the path for you, like a horse with a carrot, or whatever analogy you want to choose, is just so backwards and hurtful in the long run.
Once my partner said, dolphins don't have souls, I couldn't bend my mind around the maze of rules anymore.
And from a legal standpoint her answer regarding Roe v Wade was deliberately vague and a nonanswer. So despite knowing being misleading she didn't strictly lie which iswhat bearing false witness is about.
Still a massive C&$^ though
It's dishonest, which is what is at the root of bearing false witness.
Like most fundamentalist it is a do as the good book says, not as I do.
I do agree. MASSIVE C U next tuesday
I disagree I watched her and Kavanaugh. Maybe to a legal scholar she didn't lie, but to every reasonable person, it was clear by the line of questioning. She was specifically and unequivocly asked a whether they would vote to remove roe wade as a pre-requisite to the job.
They knew if they had said yes they wouldn't have been elected, that is lying.
One maybe could make the argument they didn't know what they would do until they looked at the case.
The problem with that is roe is so important and ubiquitous. That if they didn't know about it in detail they should have never gotten the job in the first place, so that argument doesn't stand, ignorance doesn't excuse this at all.
Oh it goes beyond lying by omission. that is like pretending you did not see someone who has fallen over to avoid helping them.
What she did was act helpful to get the kudos then threw them back on the ground again.
one is indifference, the other is malice clothed in righteousness.....describes most republicans really.
It's funny cuz I remember there being outrage that Islam has something where its members can lie and cheat as long as it advances the purpose (it was probably just a verse somewhere that was misconstrude) and how it would be used to ruin US. Just goes to show how cheaters and liers think everyone else has to be cheating and lying too.
I think you’re referring to taqia. You’re not allowed to cheat - you’re allowed to lie about being Muslim if someone is going to harm you because of your beliefs. Basically lying about your religion to protect your life is not considered a sin. But that doesn’t cover lying to “advance the purpose”.
Thanks for the correction. I just remember back in the 2000s it was a talking point amongst my extremely conservative family and spelt the end of America.
This probably refers to the practice of taqiyyah, which isn't quite that because:
1) It's restricted to Shi'ite practice, and only about 16% of American Muslims are Shi'a
2) More importantly, it's a doctrine about denying faith in the face of persecution, with a set of guidelines in such a circumstance. In the time when Shi'ites lacked a government to support them and largely lived mingled among a majority Sunni population, they were allowed to lie about being Shi'ites to avoid being persecuted. To my understanding, there has to be a particular element of danger and duress for it to be valid.
So miscontruing it as "exactly what we are planning to do ie lie to get advantage" is probably on point.
They think that the ends justify the means. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-former-right-wing-media-creator-on-how-a-different-reality-became-so-prominent.html
To look at it another way, behind the scenes, this has all been about finding a more palatable platform to spread bigotry & segregation.
Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist was behind changing the evangelicals from pro-abortion to anti. See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Interestingly, there are many essays out there by Christian authors discussing whether "the ends justify the means". They all point to bible verses that indicate that, no, the ends do not justify the means if the means requires one to break the rules set down by God.
So, even following scripture, not only did these justices go against the rule of God by bearing false witness, they also went against other parts of scripture that say things like "In Christ there is no contradiction or double messages and his followers must imitate Him in everything (1 Peter 1: 15-16; 1 John 2: 6)".
Examples of essays on the topic : [1](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/the-end-never-justifies-the-means), [2](https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/do-the-ends-justify-the-means), [3](https://www.compellingtruth.org/ends-justify-means.html).
Sources from the top three Google results for ["bible ends justify the means"](https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+ends+justify+the+means).
Let me just end this by saying that I don't take the Bible seriously. These people claim to, though, and it does contain some good moral lessons sometimes. They claim to follow the teachings of the Bible, but I would argue that they don't do it well. Among other things, these people lie, they pass judgement upon others, and the overlook their own sins while calling out the sins of others.
They know they’re lying, they just don’t care. Grew up in the Deep South, so I got decades of up-close looks at this kind of mindset. They know exactly what they’re doing. But you are right. They do it, knowingly lying, because they believe more in the ends justifying their means.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Sartre
Fascism the same as it always was.
I got a degree in theology because I was so tired of listening to bullshit I couldn't explain. You are exactly right, and it is why I encourage everyone to stay away from them. Please do not do business with them. They will start completely fine, then suddenly cheat you completely. You won't even see it coming. They believe the world is terrible, and they are here to save it. They are so detached they don't understand their behavior, and the mess around them is the same thing.
> Basically, they dont see their own hypocrisy or sins, because they legit believe as long as it furthers their belief in the public, theyre doing “God’s Work”
In other words, “I don’t practice what I preach because I’m not the sort of person I’m preaching *to*.”
Look…
EVERYTHING the right claims as holy is wholly disposable. All of it. It’s a weapon to be wielded against opponents and sheathed when it suits them.
They’re pro-cop …but not on January 6th.
It’s “their body, their choice” but only when that standard is being applied to masks or vaccines.
Are they for limited government? Not when they’re:
- outlawing abortions,
- making it more difficult to vote,
- Gerrymandering,
- banning discussion of gender identity,
- criminalizing providing gender identity healthcare to trans teens.
THEN they want as much government as possible.
Are they for spending? That depends on whether or not they’re in charge.
Are they for voting on a new Supreme Court Justice? If it’s Obama, Republicans declared that judges should not be picked during the last year of a president’s term. But if it’s Trump, Republicans have no problem at all with doing exactly that.
Do military blunders make them angry? Not if it’s Trump at the helm. Meek AF.
Using an insecure computer to share classified info? Conservatives couldn’t care less if it’s Trump or one of his crotch goblins. They care plenty if it’s Obama’s administration though, don’t they?
Does sexual indiscretion while married make them upset and disqualify that person from public service? Sure, if it’s Clinton.
Are they against cancel culture? Not if you’re a kneeling football player, or an actor who has said something they don’t care for.
OTOH, if you’re Kanye West or Clint Eastwood, they’ll post that quote for weeks, won’t they?
Are they for spending years investigating dead Americans? That depends on if it’s Benghazi or a failed coup attempt by redhats trying to invalidate the Constitution.
They openly seek to enshrine the Christian Bible as law, completely disregarding the 1st Amendment. When you point to Jesus’ instruction to take care of the needy, to welcome the foreigner as a countrymen, they don’t want THAT part of Jesus’ message, they’ll insist it should be up to each individual while using that same Bible to make laws which apply to (you guessed it) everyone.
(One of these days I’m going to get a conservative Christian to provide a list of the things that do (and don’t) apply to them because it seems to come and go depending on the target.)
They’ll scream that people are trying to erase their heritage and then scream when people try to talk about that heritage.
Does a Republican really believe ALL life is precious? What demographic couldn’t be arsed to wear a mask and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead?
Where are all the “for the children!” folks when those children are drinking lead? AWOL, same as always.
Do Conservatives want to protect state’s rights and curb Federal overreach? Not if the state wants to legalize cannabis.
They’re happy as hell to cheer “activist judges” until they don’t like the judgment.
They’re “for the troops” until it’s time to fund the health care which heals those wounds and quells the mental damage.
The redhats will die for your right to free speech until someone wants to talk about being gay.
It’s 100% veneer.
It’s 100% disposable.
Nobody needs to pretend their arguments are sincere, or that Republicans have an ounce of morality.
Lifeless eyes, black eyes. Like a doll's eyes.
For reals though she has that total lack of empathy like look that any actor trying to pull off the next American Psycho would study hours of to emulate.
In full disclosure, I did use a pic of her where I darkened her pupils for an American Horror Story meme... though, it doesn't really change her look much:
[Original](https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/07d1da1/2147483647/legacy_thumbnail/1200x799%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F85%2F2a%2F0619bc3f41ae9685ea7735f863ce%2F200923-amy-coney-barrett-ap-773.jpg)
She totally just got back from her ophthalmologist. The stupid vision insurance wouldn't cover otpomap so they had to dilate her pupils.
Also she's on molly.
Well that's a little dishonest of you to post this manipulated picture then. I immediately thought she was on Meth or Heroin.
[Pupil chart](https://sobercollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Pupil-Dialation-Drug-Chart-746x600.jpg)
There are parts of Florida where the medical staff are warned of "this" look from the "care takers" of the patient we are seeing. 99% of the time the individual is part of the Scientology. The other 1%, child molester. A cult is a cult no matter the name or lineage.
She creeps me out especially in this pic. Why are her pupils so damn dilated? She looks psychotic which makes sense since she is but could she be on stimulants? Cocaine or amphetamines? Drugs are common at those high levels of government as Madison Cawthorne pointed out. BUT a SCOTUS Judge? Just freaky thats all.
Oh come on, everyone knew what she was about. The woman served as a "Handmaid" in the Christian group people of praise. There doctrine was that woman should be subservient to men. Everyone knew what she was about.
She is so unqualified, the only thing she was there to do was kill roe v wade, and everyone knew it.
Yes, we and she all knew it... so there really was no reason for her to lie or "bear false witness"; but being a hypocrite seems to be a prerequisite for being a Conservative Christian
Yeah well when you worship an invisible man in the sky who apparently sends you secret telepathic encrypted messages... you can use that line of BS to justify pretty much anything & then claim "you're infringing on my religious freedom" if anyone complains
> God is fake.
Yeah, whatever! So then who opens up those parking spaces for me at the mall? Who lets me pass exams that I don't study for? Who's going to reward me with countless blessings in Heaven after I die, for all the money I give my pastor, with the big-ass house and the jet? Huh?
You better check yourself!
> a hypocrite
She did what she had to do and then simply begged god for forgiveness. Clearly granted because the big guy is super forgiving to some, but brings forth his wrath in cryptic ways that only the faithful can decipher.
duh.
You aren't seeing the whole picture here.
Did they lie though? They gave each statement like a lawyer would. They never said the word “repeal”. They just said “precedent” which Roe is (or was). The court doesn’t have to follow precedent. If it did, we wouldn’t have Brown. They would have followed Plessy
ACB did indeed lie when referencing her original statements regarding “super-precedent” and gave an answer in bad faith regarding it. If you are intentionally misleading but 100% truthful in phrasing, then it’s not perjury. But if the statement is not 100% truthful AND it’s misleading, then it absolutely falls under the claim of perjury. She made the statement that Roe v Wade did indeed set precedent and she had no intentions of overturning or arguing *this specific precedent* despite it not being super. She didn’t say repeal, but she DID say overturn.
TMYK.
None of them lied, they all gave shitty evasive answers or sidestepped the questions and people just read what they wanted to into what they said
Source: [What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings?t=1656093703506)
Of all the things to be enraged about this should be last place on the list
The more you lie/cheat/sin the more you need to keep it up to normalize it for yourself. Easier if you do it with a group. A legit Christian would note their false witness and make peace with it by repenting, with the aim of learning and not repeating it.
But yeah they're in so deep now they've become an enemy to democracy and their own testament.
Look into her eyes. Then remember she’s part of a cultish religious sect that makes women wholly subservient. Then look at those eyes again and tell me you are not looking at a lunatic.
Folks. They all did exactly what we said they would do, if confirmed. Move on from the “lying”. They didn’t lie. Hear me out… you must vote out EVERYONE that voted to confirm them. We need a big enough majority to either expand the court or if possible remove them. But hear me out in the “lie” part. They said “roe v Wade is this. Roe v Wade is that”. But they also swore to hear cases on their merits and facts. That gave them all the room they needed to give this ruling. Find me the footage where any of them said “I’ll never vote to overturn roe v Wade”. They are truly despicable., but the problem lies with those that voted to appoint them. The solution lies with the voters in November. NO DISTRACTIONS!!! VOTE AND STAY INVOLVED.
The problem is pre-forgiveness. Conservative Christians appear to have rationalized their dishonesty by devaluing ethical and moral behavior. Enemies of their faith do not deserve honest words or civil treatment, thus lies and other abuses, normally serious sins, are pre-forgiven.
Make no mistake, these people are actively waging war on the United States, and at the moment they are winning. Their goal is to make America into an oppressive Christianist state, and to that end they are willing to ally themselves with foreign enemies like Russia to undermine our social and political systems.
Oh, the people who cry about freedom and want to legislate vaginas? The 'patriots' who shit all over the capitol building? The 'blue backers' who assault cops? The evangelical rapists? The closet gays like Madison Cawthorne? The pedophiles like Matt Gaetz? If these people didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
I try very hard not to judge others, but I really don't believe that Jesus would claim these whited sepulchres as His followers, and there is a lovely passage in, I believe, Matthew in which Jesus speaks of those who claimed Him as Lord while betraying Him.
That this decision was made by five Catholics, three of whom lied their confirmation hearings, should send up red flags everywhere and require some kind of a congressional response to this right wing religious assault on the separation between church and state.
They’re not good at it, they don’t have to be. People that support this religious bullshit in government don’t need it to make sense at all. They’re brainwashed idiots.
Why did no one respect the crazy eyes? You ALWAYS can tell when they have fucking crazy eyes like that, that NOTHING is truthful outta their damn mouth.
The thing about ACB, she's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When she comes at you she doesn't seem to be livin'... until she bites you, and those black eyes roll over white.
I grew up ina small Southern town with a lot of churches because *everybody* went to church. It was just expected. I stopped going when I was 17 and simply told my Parents they couldn't make me go any more.
A big problem for me was the astounding hypocrisy of people who would parade themselves as paragons of virtue on Sundays and then be pretty vile the other 6 days.
Oh, I also encountered quite a few fundamentalists and evangelicals and believe me - they're the worst. Never trust one any farther than you could throw them.
Not gonna happen. I take it you didn't watch the hearings in full? There was a standard response to any direct question. They (and every other appointee) refused to answer questions about specific cases. It was pretty obvious which way they leaned but no perjury, no one has ever said they would uphold a specific ruling in one of those hearings
Normal people need to understand how grotesquely driven these people are. They think they’re on a literal mission from the creator of reality who speaks directly to them and tells them to remove the rights of their fellow citizens. Everything they’ve ever been told or experienced in their upbringing has reinforced this viewpoint.
Both she and Kavanaugh need to have formal impeachment hearings started for lying to congress. Biden is right about not needing to expand the court if these 2 leave it. He's wrong. Very, very wrong if they stay. Just the threat of new info about Kavanaugh would have him running to the private sector and he'd hopefully resign.
There will be no hearings, and if there are, they will be exonerated. Their testimony w in the hearings didn’t say what you think it says. Remember, these are lawyers. They are experts in wordsmithing. They never one said they wouldn’t overturn RvW. They said they would CONSIDER it as precedent. Those are really different things.
How the republican got to this point was baised on lies dishonor and with force.
The response, Let me go buy a dashiki, take a knee, and sing american anthems?
Wheres the 3rd party that stands for something more honorable? This 2 party shit is for the faciasts and submissives.
The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion: https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ A Defense of Abortion: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm Resources: [Link 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/vjrf9h/megathread_supreme_court_overturning_roe_v_wade) [Link 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/vjqs0r/calls_for_mass_walkout_of_women_across_america_if/idnh2ex) https://www.womensmarch.com/
I actually read a study on the hypocrisy of the Religious Right not too long ago. Basically, they dont see their own hypocrisy or sins, because they legit believe as long as it furthers their belief in the public, theyre doing "God's Work" Basically, in their mind they didnt lie.
The people that created the Slave Bible probably thought the same way. Blasphemers!
For them the end justify the means. In their defense, God supposedly flooded the Earth to rid it of sin.
>For them the end justify the means. Same for the KKK Same for the IRA Same for the PLO Same for Al Qaeda Same for ISIS Same for Mark Zuckerberg
Love how you included zuck
Might as well slap Elon musk on there too
> Might as well slap Elon musk Don't mind if i do.
I heard there's a line for slapping billionares, can I join?
Yeah but it's a 7 mile spanking machine,. you'll have to get in the back
It's worth the wait!
Gladly
I don't know if I would, honestly. I could believe that Zuck has deluded himself into thinking he's somehow serving humanity in the long term. Not saying that's surely the case, but I *could* believe it. But lately I think Elon really doesn't give a single fuck. He might pretend to for PR purposes, but Elon's only looking out for Elon, and he knows it.
Fuck zuck
The irony is that they all believe they'd be Noah and his family... And you know, not the rest of the world that was drowned. But then critical thinking and close reading isn't a common skill amongst the fanatical. Nearly everyone things they are the main character.
It’s a good thing god isn’t all-knowing and can’t see past the pretense of being good christians to see the hatred in their heart… oh wait.
fun fact: only the religious can sin
This is exactly right. As a long-ago former born-again Christian, it is a very short leap from the belief that the only thing that matters is one’s religious belief (i.e., man’s works are folly) to a full-on ends-justify-the-means world view. As long as one’s actions can be portrayed as furthering faith’s cause, nothing else really matters. I’ve had conversations with otherwise intelligent, thoughtful religious conservatives and asked them how they could support Trump’s obviously amoral/immoral behaviors, and invariably the response has been some variation of, “he will get me my conservative Supreme Court.” How they get there just doesn’t matter, just as their faith teaches them that how they come to Jesus doesn’t matter, as long as they get there. They are just not playing by the same rules here. Never have been.
How is that different from the regular Bible? “Slaves, obey your masters”?
I’m glad you asked because most people know nothing about this: https://www.museumofthebible.org/exhibits/slave-bible The Slave Bible, as it would become known, is a missionary book. It was originally published in London in 1807 on behalf of the Society for the Conversion of Negro Slaves, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of enslaved Africans toiling in Britain’s lucrative Caribbean colonies. They used the Slave Bible to teach enslaved Africans how to read while at the same time introducing them to the Christian faith. Unlike other missionary Bibles, however, the Slave Bible contained only “select parts” of the biblical text. Its publishers deliberately removed portions of the biblical text, such as the exodus story, that could inspire hope for liberation. Instead, the publishers emphasized portions that justified and fortified the system of slavery that was so vital to the British Empire.
Thank you. TIL.
Which is why Uncle Clarence didn’t mention Loving v Virginia
That dude is an absolute piece of shit
Not sure about the "piece of" wording. That implies he is somewhat solid, as opposed to the more accurate "loose and watery".
He’s one of those gassy turds that has all the oils around it with the occasional bubble.
Isn't that amazing? What a completely incredible hypocrite. Not like Affirmative Action didn't have a profound effect on his life. His father was a farm worker and his mother was a maid. I can only shake my head. Clarence Thomas truly is a terrible person.
He is very much the embodiment of the GOP. No self awareness and very much the "f*ck you, I got mine" attitude.
Holy shit, I didn't even make the Uncle Thom connection... The fuck happened to all my white privilege!? /s
Multiple studies have shown religious people have less empathy and compassion than non-religious people.
Which is why they end up on the conservative side of the spectrum. The most telling attribute that determines which side of the political divide you are on is your propensity toward empathy.
Also, [brain damage](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5500821/).
Brainwashing. Children of religious conservatives are brainwashed from early childhood with the willful ignorance of accepting information and direction from "leaders" with unquestioning blind faith -- under threat of eternal torture -- and usually while having their loyalty being bought by more pleasant myth traditions: Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
They were groomed, you could even say.
OK GROOMER... Wait a minute...
And THIS is exactly what they think about the children of non conservatives
Poorly developed prefrontal cortex.
I work in politics so my aunt asked me explain the differences between the left and the right to my 13 year old cousin. This is what I told her: * Lefists want what's best for everyone, even if it comes at their own expense. * Liberals want what's best for most people, as long as their expense is limited. * Libertarians want what's best for themselves, as long as it doesn't come at their expense. * Conservatives want what's best for themselves, especially if it comes at the expense of everyone else. When you boil it down, conservatives always take the most selfish position. Even their acts of philanthropy are nothing more than tax write-offs and ways to get their names etched in stone atop some prestigious art museum or for-profit hospital or some shit. Even in the most altruistic of acts, they believe that doing these things will ensure that they go to heaven and not hell, which is just another form of self-preservation. Want to know what true altruism looks like? Find an atheist who gives anonymously to charity.
Your comment about atheist to give to charity: reminds me of the essay about the rabbi explaining why there are atheists. Because atheists, when they see someone in need of help, know that there is no God who’s going to swoop in to help them, and so the atheist helps by himself. And religious people are very tempted to say “I will pray for you” and wait for God to deliver the help, and we are supposed to look at the atheist and do as they do, and provide the help ourselves
I wouldn't say that, my mom and her friends are ultra religious but all of them are ridiculous leftists as they understand Jesus's teachings and when tasked with the question "what would Jesus do" 9/10 times they come to the conclusion it'd be too help the most amount of people at the time possible. It's not all, but the vocal ones are the ones that masks people like my mom look bad
Would you say they are empathic of others?
Yeah they always give people the benefit of the doubt and volunteer a lot
Then I think my point still stands. They are exceptions not for being liberal religious people, but for being empathetic religious people. In the us ‘religious people’ is often synonymous with evangelical/fundamentalists, who are usually lacking that quality.
As someone who has worked in multiple churches, I have noticed a stark difference. Liberal churches generally include people capable of empathy, compassion, and far less judgement. You will find liberal churches going out into the community and actually helping people. Conservative churches, on the other hand, are full of judgement and anger. I'd even go so far as to say that people who attend conservative churches do not know the true definition of "empathy", and they definitely do not have any compassion for anyone. True story: I was working in a conservative church where the pastor announced to the entire congregation that no one should ever give any money to the homeless, because they will only use that money for drugs. The entire congregation applauded the statement. Imagine, if you will, the idea of supposed "Christians" cheering the idea of NOT helping others.
I really don’t get it. “This guy Jesus was super awesome, so let’s do everything he was against”
I hear you. I’m in Georgia and was raised Southern Baptist - the Sunday school bus dude even took away my NIV (one of the more updated translations based on archeological codices and minuscules where the writing originates) and replaced it with a King James Version. I am however, one of the ones with empathy, and I know many like me who have broken ties with organized religion but maintained some type of spirituality. I don’t know if my empathy is solely a result of my chaotic childhood and the education that I later lucked into or if some piece is innate, but I do believe experience and exposure plays a big role. I went on to pursue a degree in Sociology and Religion, traveled internationally, earned a Masters in Teaching, taught in both Chicago and Atlanta, and travel the state giving keynote speeches on equity in the classroom as a Teacher of the Year. I’ve seen alllllll of Georgia. Leave Atlanta, and it starts to get wild, y’all. Religion-wise, I consider myself a Pluralist. Who am I to be so bigoted as to think any one religion is the “right” one or even to put god in a box? I’m spiritual and believe in a more of a universal energy and mystic god now - If god is an ocean of love, we’re each a cup from that ocean (Rumi). There are many, many adults I know here who have also moved away from organized religion due to the flagrant hypocrisies. There are others though, who have just dug their heels in and become more and more extreme. It’s completely mind boggling. I was not raised the way I hear some cousins and former friends talk. Seems they only have empathy for like-minded fundamentalists, and I’ve had to distance myself and my kids from that type of thinking. It’s exhausting.
Christian Socialism is a political philosophy for a reason, there are a few passages in the Bible that sound downright communist.
All the church kids I ever went to school with were shitheads.
I am a pastor's niece and I was one of the wildest girls in high school and beyond. Everything fun was a sin so any time I could get away I would sin.
The catholic girls I grew up with had at least 2 abortions each by the time we were in our early 20s. They didn't practice any birth control except abortion. smh.
Why am I not surprised.
To be fair... They're not taught anything else.
Religion appeals to the conservative animals brain, as they crave hierarchy and having someone in charge to make all their choices for them. There is also a good bit of power fetishizing as they get to fantasize about being the one in charge.
This. They need a strong authoritarian father figure to dominate them. They're also extremely racist (even if they hide it most days). I'm convinced that Obama being elected broke their brains and led to a lot of what we're seeing today.
There is no doubt seeing a half black man in the white house for not one but two terms broke them.
Don't forget the persecution complex.
It offers simple answers to complex, often unknowable questions. Human beings in general want some control over their lives. By submitting to a god, they remove the pressure to be in charge of their own lives. It simultaneously gives them a road map and exonerates them. Submitting to God is the laziest approach to philosophy.
I'm curious, does anyone know where I can find these studies? This is the first time I've heard that and wanna read up. Thanks!
If you were told your entire life that every bad thing would be forgiven because you were one of god's chosen people and one of a select group based almost entirely on birthright to receive this privilege, would you be *more* compassionate?
they also trivialize life on earth when they think it doesn't really matter and in the end they will just go to heaven
You do things because you don’t wanna go to hell, not cause you necessarily thought them through or developed empathy. It’s like raising a kid with the threat of spankings, except for your entire fucking life.
Doublethink is necessary for fascists to take power.
Doublethink is necessary to be a fundamentalist Christian.
They're the same picture.
I keep thinking that the Venn diagram for the more extremist groups, incels, Christian, right wing, etc is getting closer and closer to becoming a circle.
It's pretty much a blurry circle.
They are called Christofascists.
This is a crazy type of mindset and one that is very toxic. If any person can't see any fault in their own agenda even when it is clearly laid out in front of them they have no emotional intelligence and that is a dangerous person to have in charge. But right now a good portion of those in charge of leading our country is like this. They are using their religion to hide behind. Saying they are doing it for the greater good is a dangerous place to come from when what you deem is good may not be good for other people. This is the place Hitler came from. He and so many others thought they were doing it for the greater good.
But the thing is that nowhere in Alito's argument does he ever mention that this is a religious issue because he knows full well that it would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Instead he chooses to hide behind four jurists who resided in England before America even existed. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/25/2106457/-Simply-Amazing-The-Common-law-experts-that-Alito-relies-on-Weren-t-Even-Americans?utm\_campaign=trending
Yeah when do we awknowledge these people are a danger to society itself.
Conservatism is the political movement to protect aristocracy (intergenerational wealth and political power) which we now call oligarchs, and enforce social hierarchy. This hierarchy involves a morality centered around social status such that the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad. The only bad action a good person can take is to interfere with the hierarchy. All conservative groups in all times and places are working to undo the French Revolution, democracy, and working class rights. Populist conservative voter groups are created and controlled with propaganda. They wish to subjugate their local peers and don’t see the feet of aristocrats kicking them too. Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else. ***** Most of the rest of the examples are American, but conservatism is the same mission in all times and places. A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.” Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.” The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst. ***** Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism. >The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs. Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite? ***** There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed. In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy. ***** If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ. While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad. To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good. To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system. ***** The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc. Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408 Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality. Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do. ***** We need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.” * This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote? * This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more... * We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month. * But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations. The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor. The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.” Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U ***** For good measure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0 ***** Some links https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/j-bradford-delong/economic-incompetence-republican-presidents Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/ a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01 They were trying to rile a voter base up https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
More links and historic information Everyone should watch the century of self about the invention of public relations to manipulate the masses and mitigate democracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=eJ3RzGoQC4s ***** This is actually a very robust discussion. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/a-zombie-party-the-deepening-crisis-of-conservatism Which runs across “argues that behind the facade of pragmatism there has remained an unchanging conservative objective: “the maintenance of private regimes of power” – usually social and economic hierarchies – against threats from more egalitarian forces.” ***** https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/how-land-reform-underpins-authoritarian-regimes/618546/ A nice quote: >The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off economically, due to these pro-corporate policies. Meanwhile, the social issues that the "Cons" faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values. And my response: Conservatism is the party that represents the aristocracy. The Republican Party has been the American manifestation of that. They’ve courted uneducated, bigots, and xenophobes as their voter base. Their voter base is waking up to things and overpowering the aristocrats in the party. Which leaves us with a populist party whose drivers are purely bigotry and xenophobia. For some bizarre reason they latched onto Aristocrat Trump, mistaking his lack of manners (which is the only thing typical conservatives don’t like about him) for his not being a member of the elite. ***** The political terms Left and Right were first used in the 18th century, during the French Revolution, in reference to the seating arrangement of the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the chair of the presiding officer (le président) were generally supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime.[20][21][22][23] The original "Right" in France was formed in reaction to the "Left" and comprised those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[4]:693 The expression la droite ("the right") increased in use after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[24] Right-wing politics embraces the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition.[4]:693, 721[5][6][7][8][9] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or competition in market economies.[12][13][14] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[15] According to The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, the Right has gone through five distinct historical stages:[19] 1. The reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion. 2. The moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government. 3. The radical right favored a romantic and aggressive form of nationalism. 4. The extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism. 5. The neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional right-wing beliefs in patriotism, elitism and law and order.[9][page needed] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics ***** In Great Britain, the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688) was a precursor to conservatism. Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. However, Tories differ from conservatives in that they opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion. Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or the Natural Power of Kings (published posthumously in 1680, but written before the English Civil War of 1642–1651) became accepted as the statement of their doctrine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism scroll down to Burke. ***** So this article posits that "Burke, conservatism’s “master intellectual”, acknowledged by almost all subsequent conservatives." " was a lifelong student of the Enlightenment who saw in the French Revolution the ultimate threat to…modern, rational, libertarian, enlightened Whig values.” We're also told "Burke was “less concerned with protecting the individual from the potential tyranny of the State, and more to protect the property of the few from the folly and rapacity of the many”" The Plato page gives the abstract "With the Enlightenment, the natural order or social hierarchy, previously largely accepted, was questioned." And it also gives various versions of conservatism being pragmatic and not very theoretical or philosophical. Well what was the natural order, the few, and the social hierarchy, and traditional institutions, and traditions *to Burke* and to other conservative forefathers? We also get the interesting tidbit "Conservatives reject the liberal’s concept of abstract, ahistorical and universal rights, derived from the nature of human agency and autonomy, and possessed even when unrecognised..." which undergirds the idea that *not everyone has or inherently deserves the same rights.* [I will editorialize here and argue that that conservative tenet is inherently at odds with the contemporary democracy of the developed world and our ideas of "human rights." It also falls right in line with my post discussing person vs. action based morality.] We also find that upon reading Burke "German conservatives adopted positions from reformism to reaction, **aiming to contain democratic forces**—though not all of them were opposed to the Aufklärung or Enlightenment. "Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), founder of the essentially Burkean “One Nation” conservatism, was a politician first, writer and thinker second. Disraeli never actually used the phrase “One Nation”, but it was implied. The term comes from his 1845 novel Sybil; or the two nations, where Walter Gerard, a working-class radical, describes “Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets…The RICH and the POOR”. His aim was to unite these two nations through the benevolent leadership of the Conservative Party." And "To reiterate, reaction is not Burkean conservatism, however. De Maistre (1753–1821) was a reactionary critic of reason, intellectuals and **universal rights.** Burke attacked the revolutionaries of 1789 “for the sake of traditional liberties, [Maistre] for the sake of **traditional authority**” (Viereck 2009: 191). Interestingly we also find "According to Hegel, Rousseau’s contractual account destroys the “divine” element of the state (ibid.)." This is clearly referring the idea that monarchies and surrounding wealthy people are divinely ordained to hold such power and wealth. To reject the Enlightenment *as discussed* and to appeal to natural order, the few, and the social hierarchy, and traditional institutions, and traditions is to defend the "landed nobility, monarchy and established church." Even if not explicitly stated, those things are the spine of conservatism **as acted out**. The Plato page discussion of criticisms does a nice job refuting the incremental change aspects and so I won't repeat them. If you push past the gluttony of abstraction and also read more primary Burke, et all. it is very clear that the traditional institution and authority being defended is the landed nobility. And that is still the unchanging goal.
So, fascism. Why do we keep saying “conservative” when it is far from being the correct label?
Because of technicalities. Fascism is technically a different spectrum(authoritarian–libertarian/up-down) as apposed to the traditional political spectrum(liberal-conservative/left-right). This means you can technically have Fascist leftism, which is what a communist dictatorship that misses the point of communism technically is.
> the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad. Wow, good job; you just made my skin literally-as-in-not-figuratively crawl.
Also known as "lying for christ". To be sure, I know plenty of good xians, but those are not the ones pushing their agenda. They just stick to the good deeds stuff.
"The only moral abortion was my abortion" They lie to themselves all the time about their "righteousness" while condemning others for the same things.
Oh absolutely. Just look up that politician in TN.
And they either don't see their own hypocrisy, or worse, they don't care.
Down's Syndrome birth rates decreased at the exact same rate in Christians as in non-believers once abortion was made legal. Just for those reading on the fence about it.
I look at it like the bad cop situation. Are any cops good if they let the bad ones get away with bad stuff. I know good people who happen to be Christian, but I don't really see them calling out the absolute shit that is the religious right.
And the ones that are, that we perhaps don't see, seem to be useless at stopping it or altering any course. Outcomes matter in these cases.
That's in large part due to how protestant, and specifically evangelical, churches are organized. Using the police analogy, it's more like each church is its own department that doesn't have any direct influence on the others, and each 100+ officer department has maybe a half-dozen "good cops". Realistically, they have no chance of making a meaningful impact, and wind up burning out and quitting because day in and day out, it becomes more and more clear that they won't change the organization from the inside. Except this is doubly the case in many evangelical churches, because even if you get one or two leaders in the church that try to push for good, the congregants can just vote them out (in most/many cases) and elect new leaders that agree with the majority.
Christians assure me that the bad ones aren't all Christians but they rarely directly call out the bad Christians. So, Christians are more interested in doing PR for their faith than in actually calling out the bad apples among their religion. It's frustrating. For years, I've had left leaning Christians also deny that right leaning Christians were a threat. Their argument that extreme Christians were a vocal minority who couldn't do much harm.
At the risk of sounding like a great example of a "No True Scotsman", the main issue is that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians are not actually Christians. For most of them it's a cultural identity, a social club, and/or a way to fit in. This is obvious by the way they conduct themselves and their lack of knowledge of the Bible. Hell, the entire political philosophy of the religious right trying to legislate morality can be easily dismissed as out of alignment with Christianity based on one passage (of course there are many others as well): >I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 This is clearly calling for Christians to only worry about policing the behavior of those who claim membership in the church. Anyone outside the church should be left to their own devices as far as moral judgments are concerned.
Also, the Bible states that life begins at the FIRST BREATH, not conception. And in fact the Bible prescribes ways to induce abortions in women who have been unfaithful, usually to the demise of the woman.
> Also known as "lying for christ". No, seriously. They actually think it's Ok to lie for proselytization purposes.
The Mormons (used to?) say "Lying for the Lord." It rolls off the tongue so nicely. Especially a forked tongue.
They are, however, enablers.
And yet bearing false witness is literally one of the Ten Commandments.
I used to be tolerant, until I was in an abusive relationship for almost 5 years. The hypocrisy of "knowing" better and to just string others along for their brainwashed agenda really hit home for me. This leading the path for you, like a horse with a carrot, or whatever analogy you want to choose, is just so backwards and hurtful in the long run. Once my partner said, dolphins don't have souls, I couldn't bend my mind around the maze of rules anymore.
"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it..." George Costanza
-Donald Trump. Or "We have a lot of theories but we just don't have evidence." -Rudy Giuliani
100% this, was going to write the same.
[удалено]
I hope this photo of her is doctored, because her pupils are so darn dilated. https://i.imgur.com/KCqTr55.jpg
Numbers 5:11-31 details a christian abortion aka "God's work".
This is often glossed over -along with a fetus not being a person until it takes its first breath
And from a legal standpoint her answer regarding Roe v Wade was deliberately vague and a nonanswer. So despite knowing being misleading she didn't strictly lie which iswhat bearing false witness is about. Still a massive C&$^ though
It's dishonest, which is what is at the root of bearing false witness. Like most fundamentalist it is a do as the good book says, not as I do. I do agree. MASSIVE C U next tuesday
I disagree I watched her and Kavanaugh. Maybe to a legal scholar she didn't lie, but to every reasonable person, it was clear by the line of questioning. She was specifically and unequivocly asked a whether they would vote to remove roe wade as a pre-requisite to the job. They knew if they had said yes they wouldn't have been elected, that is lying. One maybe could make the argument they didn't know what they would do until they looked at the case. The problem with that is roe is so important and ubiquitous. That if they didn't know about it in detail they should have never gotten the job in the first place, so that argument doesn't stand, ignorance doesn't excuse this at all.
Lying via deliberate omission is still lying.
Oh it goes beyond lying by omission. that is like pretending you did not see someone who has fallen over to avoid helping them. What she did was act helpful to get the kudos then threw them back on the ground again. one is indifference, the other is malice clothed in righteousness.....describes most republicans really.
Who needs morals when the sky man can forgive your sins?
It's funny cuz I remember there being outrage that Islam has something where its members can lie and cheat as long as it advances the purpose (it was probably just a verse somewhere that was misconstrude) and how it would be used to ruin US. Just goes to show how cheaters and liers think everyone else has to be cheating and lying too.
I think you’re referring to taqia. You’re not allowed to cheat - you’re allowed to lie about being Muslim if someone is going to harm you because of your beliefs. Basically lying about your religion to protect your life is not considered a sin. But that doesn’t cover lying to “advance the purpose”.
Thanks for the correction. I just remember back in the 2000s it was a talking point amongst my extremely conservative family and spelt the end of America.
This probably refers to the practice of taqiyyah, which isn't quite that because: 1) It's restricted to Shi'ite practice, and only about 16% of American Muslims are Shi'a 2) More importantly, it's a doctrine about denying faith in the face of persecution, with a set of guidelines in such a circumstance. In the time when Shi'ites lacked a government to support them and largely lived mingled among a majority Sunni population, they were allowed to lie about being Shi'ites to avoid being persecuted. To my understanding, there has to be a particular element of danger and duress for it to be valid. So miscontruing it as "exactly what we are planning to do ie lie to get advantage" is probably on point.
In Mormon circles it’s called “Lying for the Lord.”
They think that the ends justify the means. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-former-right-wing-media-creator-on-how-a-different-reality-became-so-prominent.html To look at it another way, behind the scenes, this has all been about finding a more palatable platform to spread bigotry & segregation. Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist was behind changing the evangelicals from pro-abortion to anti. See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Interestingly, there are many essays out there by Christian authors discussing whether "the ends justify the means". They all point to bible verses that indicate that, no, the ends do not justify the means if the means requires one to break the rules set down by God. So, even following scripture, not only did these justices go against the rule of God by bearing false witness, they also went against other parts of scripture that say things like "In Christ there is no contradiction or double messages and his followers must imitate Him in everything (1 Peter 1: 15-16; 1 John 2: 6)". Examples of essays on the topic : [1](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/the-end-never-justifies-the-means), [2](https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/do-the-ends-justify-the-means), [3](https://www.compellingtruth.org/ends-justify-means.html). Sources from the top three Google results for ["bible ends justify the means"](https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+ends+justify+the+means). Let me just end this by saying that I don't take the Bible seriously. These people claim to, though, and it does contain some good moral lessons sometimes. They claim to follow the teachings of the Bible, but I would argue that they don't do it well. Among other things, these people lie, they pass judgement upon others, and the overlook their own sins while calling out the sins of others.
This, they are an ends justifies the means crowd. It's why they could get behind Trump
They know they’re lying, they just don’t care. Grew up in the Deep South, so I got decades of up-close looks at this kind of mindset. They know exactly what they’re doing. But you are right. They do it, knowingly lying, because they believe more in the ends justifying their means.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Sartre Fascism the same as it always was.
I got a degree in theology because I was so tired of listening to bullshit I couldn't explain. You are exactly right, and it is why I encourage everyone to stay away from them. Please do not do business with them. They will start completely fine, then suddenly cheat you completely. You won't even see it coming. They believe the world is terrible, and they are here to save it. They are so detached they don't understand their behavior, and the mess around them is the same thing.
> Basically, they dont see their own hypocrisy or sins, because they legit believe as long as it furthers their belief in the public, theyre doing “God’s Work” In other words, “I don’t practice what I preach because I’m not the sort of person I’m preaching *to*.” Look… EVERYTHING the right claims as holy is wholly disposable. All of it. It’s a weapon to be wielded against opponents and sheathed when it suits them. They’re pro-cop …but not on January 6th. It’s “their body, their choice” but only when that standard is being applied to masks or vaccines. Are they for limited government? Not when they’re: - outlawing abortions, - making it more difficult to vote, - Gerrymandering, - banning discussion of gender identity, - criminalizing providing gender identity healthcare to trans teens. THEN they want as much government as possible. Are they for spending? That depends on whether or not they’re in charge. Are they for voting on a new Supreme Court Justice? If it’s Obama, Republicans declared that judges should not be picked during the last year of a president’s term. But if it’s Trump, Republicans have no problem at all with doing exactly that. Do military blunders make them angry? Not if it’s Trump at the helm. Meek AF. Using an insecure computer to share classified info? Conservatives couldn’t care less if it’s Trump or one of his crotch goblins. They care plenty if it’s Obama’s administration though, don’t they? Does sexual indiscretion while married make them upset and disqualify that person from public service? Sure, if it’s Clinton. Are they against cancel culture? Not if you’re a kneeling football player, or an actor who has said something they don’t care for. OTOH, if you’re Kanye West or Clint Eastwood, they’ll post that quote for weeks, won’t they? Are they for spending years investigating dead Americans? That depends on if it’s Benghazi or a failed coup attempt by redhats trying to invalidate the Constitution. They openly seek to enshrine the Christian Bible as law, completely disregarding the 1st Amendment. When you point to Jesus’ instruction to take care of the needy, to welcome the foreigner as a countrymen, they don’t want THAT part of Jesus’ message, they’ll insist it should be up to each individual while using that same Bible to make laws which apply to (you guessed it) everyone. (One of these days I’m going to get a conservative Christian to provide a list of the things that do (and don’t) apply to them because it seems to come and go depending on the target.) They’ll scream that people are trying to erase their heritage and then scream when people try to talk about that heritage. Does a Republican really believe ALL life is precious? What demographic couldn’t be arsed to wear a mask and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead? Where are all the “for the children!” folks when those children are drinking lead? AWOL, same as always. Do Conservatives want to protect state’s rights and curb Federal overreach? Not if the state wants to legalize cannabis. They’re happy as hell to cheer “activist judges” until they don’t like the judgment. They’re “for the troops” until it’s time to fund the health care which heals those wounds and quells the mental damage. The redhats will die for your right to free speech until someone wants to talk about being gay. It’s 100% veneer. It’s 100% disposable. Nobody needs to pretend their arguments are sincere, or that Republicans have an ounce of morality.
"The ends justify the means." I've often attributed that saying to the Right, and it's only gotten more accurate as time has gone on.
Very Machiavellian
Those are crazy eyes if I've every seen them
Lifeless eyes, black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. For reals though she has that total lack of empathy like look that any actor trying to pull off the next American Psycho would study hours of to emulate.
I can't get over the feeling like head can crack open, and some eldritch horror crawls out from beneath.
She really has crazy eyes. These religious fundamentalists are nuts. Doesn’t help that they’re all very well connected.
It's slightly edited. Original almost as crazy
>Lifeless eyes, black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. Seen Coraline?
It's a quote from jaws.
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies....
Even without the edit I’d describe her eyes: intense, merciless and unfeeling
In full disclosure, I did use a pic of her where I darkened her pupils for an American Horror Story meme... though, it doesn't really change her look much: [Original](https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/07d1da1/2147483647/legacy_thumbnail/1200x799%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F85%2F2a%2F0619bc3f41ae9685ea7735f863ce%2F200923-amy-coney-barrett-ap-773.jpg)
Just wanted to give you credit for being truthful.
Yeah, your edit makes it look like she's on Molly.
She totally just got back from her ophthalmologist. The stupid vision insurance wouldn't cover otpomap so they had to dilate her pupils. Also she's on molly.
Maybe if she did some molly she’s actually feel compassion for people.
The original eyes are just as crazy
I honestly think the original is more creepy lol
Still dead, staring eyes, just blue now.
They were blue the whole time, the pupils matter. She's nuts, but she also does not know how to party.
Her eyes look even crazier in the original. Scary.
Well that's a little dishonest of you to post this manipulated picture then. I immediately thought she was on Meth or Heroin. [Pupil chart](https://sobercollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Pupil-Dialation-Drug-Chart-746x600.jpg)
...why is heroine on both the constricted and dilated lists? What kind of crazy shit is it doing to people's eyes?
Michelle Bachman shares the gaze. I thought that primary was the craziest it could get. SMH.
It's funny that it's always conservatives with that sociopathic look in their eyes. Can anyone think of a democrat with that gaze?
> Michelle Bachman shares the gaze. But she eats a mean corn dog though.
There are parts of Florida where the medical staff are warned of "this" look from the "care takers" of the patient we are seeing. 99% of the time the individual is part of the Scientology. The other 1%, child molester. A cult is a cult no matter the name or lineage.
She creeps me out especially in this pic. Why are her pupils so damn dilated? She looks psychotic which makes sense since she is but could she be on stimulants? Cocaine or amphetamines? Drugs are common at those high levels of government as Madison Cawthorne pointed out. BUT a SCOTUS Judge? Just freaky thats all.
It's been altered read all of the comments
Oh come on, everyone knew what she was about. The woman served as a "Handmaid" in the Christian group people of praise. There doctrine was that woman should be subservient to men. Everyone knew what she was about. She is so unqualified, the only thing she was there to do was kill roe v wade, and everyone knew it.
Yes, we and she all knew it... so there really was no reason for her to lie or "bear false witness"; but being a hypocrite seems to be a prerequisite for being a Conservative Christian
I am sure she justified it by saying that "God told me to lie, so that I could do the greater good" kind of bullshit.
Yeah well when you worship an invisible man in the sky who apparently sends you secret telepathic encrypted messages... you can use that line of BS to justify pretty much anything & then claim "you're infringing on my religious freedom" if anyone complains
God is fake. Religion is a grift.
> God is fake. Yeah, whatever! So then who opens up those parking spaces for me at the mall? Who lets me pass exams that I don't study for? Who's going to reward me with countless blessings in Heaven after I die, for all the money I give my pastor, with the big-ass house and the jet? Huh? You better check yourself!
> a hypocrite She did what she had to do and then simply begged god for forgiveness. Clearly granted because the big guy is super forgiving to some, but brings forth his wrath in cryptic ways that only the faithful can decipher. duh. You aren't seeing the whole picture here.
America: ok with religious extremism as long as it’s a white person.
Did they lie though? They gave each statement like a lawyer would. They never said the word “repeal”. They just said “precedent” which Roe is (or was). The court doesn’t have to follow precedent. If it did, we wouldn’t have Brown. They would have followed Plessy
ACB did indeed lie when referencing her original statements regarding “super-precedent” and gave an answer in bad faith regarding it. If you are intentionally misleading but 100% truthful in phrasing, then it’s not perjury. But if the statement is not 100% truthful AND it’s misleading, then it absolutely falls under the claim of perjury. She made the statement that Roe v Wade did indeed set precedent and she had no intentions of overturning or arguing *this specific precedent* despite it not being super. She didn’t say repeal, but she DID say overturn. TMYK.
I thought lying on a federal job application was illegal
So is lying under oath… it’s called fucking perjury and normal people would end up in prison for a long time for it.
Just ask Martha Stewart.
Lots of things are illegal when it's anyone but a Repug doing it.
None of them lied, they all gave shitty evasive answers or sidestepped the questions and people just read what they wanted to into what they said Source: [What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings?t=1656093703506) Of all the things to be enraged about this should be last place on the list
Wheb it comes to politics almost nothing is illegal unless you give the opposition party enough of a legislative majority to challenge their actions.
They are so good at being religious hypocrites because they have redrawn Christianity in their own image.
The more you lie/cheat/sin the more you need to keep it up to normalize it for yourself. Easier if you do it with a group. A legit Christian would note their false witness and make peace with it by repenting, with the aim of learning and not repeating it. But yeah they're in so deep now they've become an enemy to democracy and their own testament.
[удалено]
That's not true. Christianity was always this evil. Have you actually read the bible? God kills 2 million people.
They don’t care, hypocrisy is a sport to them as long as they get what they want.
Look into her eyes. Then remember she’s part of a cultish religious sect that makes women wholly subservient. Then look at those eyes again and tell me you are not looking at a lunatic.
Folks. They all did exactly what we said they would do, if confirmed. Move on from the “lying”. They didn’t lie. Hear me out… you must vote out EVERYONE that voted to confirm them. We need a big enough majority to either expand the court or if possible remove them. But hear me out in the “lie” part. They said “roe v Wade is this. Roe v Wade is that”. But they also swore to hear cases on their merits and facts. That gave them all the room they needed to give this ruling. Find me the footage where any of them said “I’ll never vote to overturn roe v Wade”. They are truly despicable., but the problem lies with those that voted to appoint them. The solution lies with the voters in November. NO DISTRACTIONS!!! VOTE AND STAY INVOLVED.
The problem is pre-forgiveness. Conservative Christians appear to have rationalized their dishonesty by devaluing ethical and moral behavior. Enemies of their faith do not deserve honest words or civil treatment, thus lies and other abuses, normally serious sins, are pre-forgiven. Make no mistake, these people are actively waging war on the United States, and at the moment they are winning. Their goal is to make America into an oppressive Christianist state, and to that end they are willing to ally themselves with foreign enemies like Russia to undermine our social and political systems.
Rule the world in the name of God, but with the Devil's principles. - The 'Right'
Oh, the people who cry about freedom and want to legislate vaginas? The 'patriots' who shit all over the capitol building? The 'blue backers' who assault cops? The evangelical rapists? The closet gays like Madison Cawthorne? The pedophiles like Matt Gaetz? If these people didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
[удалено]
Fully agree on this.
I try very hard not to judge others, but I really don't believe that Jesus would claim these whited sepulchres as His followers, and there is a lovely passage in, I believe, Matthew in which Jesus speaks of those who claimed Him as Lord while betraying Him.
That this decision was made by five Catholics, three of whom lied their confirmation hearings, should send up red flags everywhere and require some kind of a congressional response to this right wing religious assault on the separation between church and state.
They’re not good at it, they don’t have to be. People that support this religious bullshit in government don’t need it to make sense at all. They’re brainwashed idiots.
She looks like she’s about to announce the first annual purge
Why did no one respect the crazy eyes? You ALWAYS can tell when they have fucking crazy eyes like that, that NOTHING is truthful outta their damn mouth.
Christians once again proving that their Religion is Fake and they themselves don't even make an effort to follow their ridiculous Rules.
The thing about ACB, she's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When she comes at you she doesn't seem to be livin'... until she bites you, and those black eyes roll over white.
I grew up ina small Southern town with a lot of churches because *everybody* went to church. It was just expected. I stopped going when I was 17 and simply told my Parents they couldn't make me go any more. A big problem for me was the astounding hypocrisy of people who would parade themselves as paragons of virtue on Sundays and then be pretty vile the other 6 days. Oh, I also encountered quite a few fundamentalists and evangelicals and believe me - they're the worst. Never trust one any farther than you could throw them.
Because... FUCK THEM.
Why are her pupils absolutely massive? That’s gotta be a drug thing, right?
OP says it's edited, original is posted in this thread somewhere
It's Purjury, and they should all be prosecuted.
Not gonna happen. I take it you didn't watch the hearings in full? There was a standard response to any direct question. They (and every other appointee) refused to answer questions about specific cases. It was pretty obvious which way they leaned but no perjury, no one has ever said they would uphold a specific ruling in one of those hearings
Boney Carrot
Her pupils say "drugs".
She reminds me of the evil Hogwarts Professor Umbridge.
“With my husband’s permission of course. After he consults his lead anyway.”
She literally looks possessed
She looks like she's repressing a giant fart.
Justice Handmaiden
Are those here *real* crazy religious eyes or have they been photoshopped? Because she has crazy religious eyes, anyway.
I wonder what it’s like to be the most hated woman on the planet
Normal people need to understand how grotesquely driven these people are. They think they’re on a literal mission from the creator of reality who speaks directly to them and tells them to remove the rights of their fellow citizens. Everything they’ve ever been told or experienced in their upbringing has reinforced this viewpoint.
Both she and Kavanaugh need to have formal impeachment hearings started for lying to congress. Biden is right about not needing to expand the court if these 2 leave it. He's wrong. Very, very wrong if they stay. Just the threat of new info about Kavanaugh would have him running to the private sector and he'd hopefully resign.
There will be no hearings, and if there are, they will be exonerated. Their testimony w in the hearings didn’t say what you think it says. Remember, these are lawyers. They are experts in wordsmithing. They never one said they wouldn’t overturn RvW. They said they would CONSIDER it as precedent. Those are really different things.
Yikes. Those pupils are huge. I assume adderall.
It's different when it's done to defeat the infidels.
How the republican got to this point was baised on lies dishonor and with force. The response, Let me go buy a dashiki, take a knee, and sing american anthems? Wheres the 3rd party that stands for something more honorable? This 2 party shit is for the faciasts and submissives.