Which fact might well have been revealed at Senate confirmation hearings, where even the minority Democrats would be able to ask pointed questions. Which is why the incoming regime is trying to use the recess-appointment process to avoid such hearings.
Its actually because of RINO republicans. They'll try to stop anyone who would be more than controlled opposition to continue the charade. Too many people have woken up to the insane levels of corruption which is why so many former Democrats have joined Trump.
Nah. It's really more about the xenophobia and misogyny with Trumpublicans. Fragile, uneducated, privileged white dudes are fine with corruption as long as they're getting theirs and Women/Browns don't get shit.
I guess the majority of Americans disagree with that narrative. It was designed simply to silence people and make them feel alone. The whole reason is because Trump was speaking against the corruption of the DC establishment. It's called psychological warfare and its obviously very effective.
Christians are always the first people to claim they're being persecuted, such is the depth of their entrenched sense of privilege. History shows time and again that no group is quicker to persecute others than religious leaders with secular power. Hegseth rose to the rank of Major in the National Guard. That is NOT a spell binding military career. He has made it clear he intends to fire four star generals who do not share his Christo-fascist world view. Hegseth is on record as saying the U.S. military needs to be the flaming sword of Christ. I find a statement like that absolutely horrifying. No one should be foolish enough to expect Senate Republicans to honor their Constitutional duties and reject this absurdly unfit man.
The evangelicals see the military as a 'mission field'. Get to young kids away from home for the first time, and vulnerable. In Vietnam, the Army I served in would have dealt with proselytization from the bottom up.
Yeah, my daughter is interested in going there, I’m trying to gently guide her elsewhere without screaming about the corruption. We still have a couple years, and who knows, she may be restricted from attending college at all, the rate we’re going.
I really hope those generals get together and stand up to him and say "no, you're not gonna do that to us." or they can be ready to retire? (Which won't help us).
From Wikipedia: "When Adolf Hitler staged the Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, Houston Stewart Chamberlain wrote an essay for the Völkischer Beobachter entitled "God Wills It!" calling on all Germans who love Germany to join the putsch."
Not 100% evidence that Hegseth is an actual Nazi, but shows he is at least Nazi adjacent. What's next? Gott mit uns patches for uniforms?
It is problematic at best that Hegseth has crusader language tattooed. To place that permanently on his body shows just how committed he is to using state violence to enforce his ideology.
You're right Hegseth is Nazi adjacent. Trump is literally Hitler. Its funny that it was probably the Muslims that helped Trump win Michigan since Muslim leaders were publicly endorsing Trump. Maybe you can clue them in that they'll soon be rounded up along with all the gays, blacks, and Hispanics. And of course all white woman will be made to be Trump aryan baby factories. Why did all of those minorities vote for Trump in such great numbers!?
“Deus Vult” has PRECISELY the same meaning as “Inshallah.” These phrases aren’t just two sides of the same coin - they’re the same side. Just imagine for a moment Rashida Tlaib coming in to Congress with “Inshallah” proudly inked on her arm. Picture the reaction of the reactionaries; the firestorm would be immediate.
Add to the that the fact that the Crusades didn't accomplish anything. When they started, muslims controlled the holy land; when they were over, muslims controlled the holy land. The only thing they accomplished was some temporary land grabs in the Levant, and the consolidation of papal power and the Vatican's financial enrichment.
Not that I expect any of the dolts sporting 'deus vult' tats to know any of that........but it makes me chuckle.
You're right, Christians should take back the Holy Land. God wills it. At least woman wouldn't have to cover themselves head to toe or risk being decapitated for the crime of being raped. Plus the inbreeding is a real problem.
Are they Christians at that point or using the term as a mask to commit atrocities? You can say its a great mask but how many times have these so called Christians committed atrocities in the last 1000 years? I'm truly curious. I can think of Salem witch trials where due process was denied. Due process is really a biblical principle. The story of Jesus actually proves the necessity of breaking down dogmas. He was persecuted by the church.
How much "due process" did that poor schlub who helped right the Arc of the Covenant, only to get zapped by Yahweh get?
And as for Christian atrocities, all you have to do is read this blog over a couple of weeks and you see more atrocities than you'd ever hope to know of in a lifetime. Jehovah's Witnesses, evangelicals and Catholics have committed more crimes against humankind than I could hope to deal with in a blog comment, and that's not to say that it's just Christians, either.
But they ARE the ones who seem poised to take control of this country ... and yeah, I am seriously concerned about that.
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. ."
Take it easy on them this is like 3000 years old.
I'm concerned about atheists controlling the state as they have no fear of God. They by default worship flesh, man, mans institutions, mans authority. Man is corruptible, flesh rots, God is eternal, God is incorruptible. You can even try and think of this in a secular way. However it loses its meaning.
" Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you."
Representative government, there you go.. It's pretty important to realize when reading the Bible that its 2-3 thousand years old. I'm really not sure what the atheist crowd expects. The point is that the concepts of both due process and representative gov are in there. Its not the biggest take away..
"Inshallah" means "God willing," as in, *if* such is God's will. The Muslim speaker is, at least technically, not presuming to know. "Deus vult" is a statement of confidence that the Christian *is* an instrument of God's will.
This is the kind of thing I would expect from someone who considers the United States to be a Christian nation, who thinks that the secular state is a fiction someone thought up, and that their deity has every right to run the place. The primary problem I have with that is pretty obvious: Yahweh NEVER speaks for himself, and when I say never, I mean 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥. His spokespeople, on the other hand, are nowhere near so shy. Indeed, one has a time trying to SHUT THEM UP.
So Pete Hegseth says, DEUS VULT, god wills it, eh? Two words. Well, I got two words for him:
He is a Christian Nationalist of the most extreme sort. He 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 a holy war against Muslims and secularists, who he believes are allied to "conquer" the US and Europe.
Of course, he can't prove Yahweh actually wants what he's pushing. Hegseth is living in a medieval fantasy where he must slay the infidel in order to protect the power of the church.
All of western civilization was founded on the teachings of the Bible. The court system, the moral code, every aspect you probably take for granted. Why do we think that all people are equal in the eyes of the law? Innocent until proven guilty? You can see what happens when these go away ie, "find the man and I'll find the crime". The ideals set aside in the Bible are worth understanding. Of course the Bible was written by men at one level of perception, through the lens of one narrative. But it was written by God through the lens of a different dominant narrative. Just the same as you can look at a chair as a place to sit, or an obstacle as you're walking through a room, or a collection of atoms at another level. They have different practical uses as different levels of observation. The founding fathers used the Bible to build the greatest country on earth. God is actually in the text. This is how the corruptible man who owns a slave is able to write a document that frees him. Do you understand?
Was it really? Is that why Jefferson and Madison and their fellows studied Greek democracy and the writings of Solon in particular? Fact is, the concept of the people ruling themselves, as opposed to some unseen deity, is UNKNOWN in the bible, and if you don't know that, you should.
And if your deity did indeed write the bible, then why doesn't that book evolve as people and the society they live in evolve? The bible is a book, written by men and frozen in time, with NO consideration for human self-rule and considerable verbiage spent outlining the obligations us humans have to a hotshot god who cannot be bothered to show itself, never mind a putative savior whose existence has no contemporaneous documentation, nor any independent confirmation.
Troll all you want, bud (not that you'll last long here). Your BS doesn't sell with us.
I'm not trolling you, that's kind of a silly accusation. Madison and Jefferson were Christians along with all of the "founding fathers". Just because certain biblical principles are articulated elsewhere doesn't mean they're not still biblical principles. The idea that man can rule himself is by extension that he should not be ruled by other men. That does not mean he is not ruled by God as they believed. That is to say when
a man is ruled by God he is ruled by a higher set of principles. This is absolutely necessary to a concept like anarchy to function. If all men are created equal, if all men are equal in the eyes of the creator, they are equal in the eyes of a just law. This is the foundation of the US. Of course as I mentioned many had slaves. The men themselves were corruptible, but God is not, the principles are not, hence abolition.
Wrong again. Jefferson was a DEIST, regardless of what David Barton may have to say. James Madison is a little bit more complex, in that he was baptized in the Anglican church, but modern historians cite his beliefs as being closer to 19th century Unitarianism.
But that isn't the point. The point is that Jefferson, Madison, and their fellows structured a secular document: our constitution. No mention of any god, Jesus, or any other deity, but a well-thought-out system, based in checks and balances, and controlled by human beings. As for the issue of religion, Article VI, paragraph 3 clearly states that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. Further, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment set, as Jefferson told the Danbury Baptist, "a wall of separation between Church and State." The whole point was to make the government independent of religion, so as to treat all religions and all religious practitioners EQUALLY.
Yet you still want to assert that humankind is ruled by some form of deity. I see no evidence of such a deity, no evidence that any of us are under any sort of external control, nor do I think you can provide any such evidence. If you could, this world would change beyond any unchanging.
And yet it hasn't, because there is no god to produce. When you can produce such a being, let me know. Until such time, don't waste mine.
We can agree with most of what you wrote and I strongly agree with the separation of church and state. My point is that the ideas that lead to the creation of that document stem from biblical principles, some I already mentioned. As far as this proof of God, God is everywhere. You remove a dimension of perception and understand by foolishly spitting in the face of your creator. Trust me I used to roll my eyes when someone said "thank God" even. But what I didn't understand is that there are many different narratives that you can use to see the world. Seeing the world as a purely scientifically observable structure is to dilute yourself of a larger picture. I see myself as somewhat of a pragmatist, I see truth as what has a practical use in my reality whatever dominant narrative I happen to see the world through.
I don't just think of myself as a pragmatist, I AM a pragmatist. I'm a retired electrical engineer and while I was on the job, my daily life was dealing with what IS and not wasting my time with what is not. Insofar as any objective parameter is concerned, your god is NOT, and all your hand-waving will not produce it. Kindly do not try any form of emotional appeal, either. I fully acknowledge the importance of emotions, but as it comes to understanding and apprehending the nature of this reality, hard facts, confirmed observations, and testable evidence are my first (and damned near only) choice acceptable.
You state that the Constitution comes out of biblical principles, yet you haven't directly or specifically cited so much as ONE. Further, your god doesn't seem to think much of any system other than deific autocracy, insisting on its way or the highway (to hell, I presume). On top of everything else, yours is the god who HIDES, who cannot or will not show itself. Something that doesn't manifest is pretty darn hard to tell from SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. There are LOTS of things that cannot be seen, but can be detected, so do me the favor of not going there. Saying that god is everywhere is a pure dodge. Existence is everywhere, too, but I don't call it "god."
If there is a distinct entity that you wish to designate as "god," either produce it or admit that you can't.
Ever hear of the Jefferson bible? Look it up. And where is god in the text of the Constitution "Year of our Lord"? Really. You're going to claim the common dating system of the time as proof that the founders used the bible to create this country? When religion is mentioned in the Constitution it's proceeded by the word no.
Please cite chapter and verse where innocent until proven guilty is found in the Bible. As for a moral code? Obedience isn't morality. Punishing children for the sins of their fathers (nobody cared about their mothers) is not moral. Nor is drowning millions of puppies and kittens because you're mad at the humans.
And tell me what experience you have of all the other countries that you can claim this one is THE greatest one on Earth?
The Year of Our Lord was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved of at the Convention and is not part of the contents of the document the members signed. It was added later by a scrivener. Madison surely would not have done it.
In any event, the phrase is an outmoded dating sysyem. A relic.
Yes I've read it, though it was years ago. I never said anything about year of our Lord. I just posted from Deuteronomy on another reply about needing witnesses, up to 3 before a judge in order to find guilt. Bearing false witness was punishable by death. Punishing sins of the father to the 3rd and 4th generation is what happens in the world. We do in fact pay for the sins of our father. Is it moral? I mean that's a silly question. It's what it is. Weak men make hard times. Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times makes weak men. Is it moral? Its observable. You're a man not a God. Read the book of Job. It's the greatest because the whole world wants to come here. Or they did before we abandoned God. Who's movies, music, culture is more widespread than the US. I'm really starting to think you could care less what I have to say... It's an exercise in futility but I can still hope that you find God in your life. Then you can know the meaning of these things. Remember I said I was an agnostic. I ate up every hitchens and Harris lecture and debate on the internet. More than just them for sure but mainly those two. I would argue with "believers" for hours and hours on YouTube. I now realize what I was missing. THANK GOD!!
The book of Job, where an omniscient "god" tortures a man to win a bet, kills his whole family (Is that moral?). Job was a fool. God didn't give a damn about him.
The idea of witnesses and a judge are neither original nor unique to the bible and predate it.
The bible calls for stoning a disobedient child. Luckily society doesn't practice that or the species would be gone in a generation.
I was raised in church. "Saved" at 7. Never read or heard a word Hitchens or Harris lectured or wrote. I miss nothing. If there is a god and the bible describes it accurately, it is a monster, who deserves condemnation, not worship. Any being, deity or mortal that desires, much less demands, worship is not worthy of it.
A god who has watched every child molestation in history and not intervened, but condemns a man to death for sex with a consenting adult man.
This is the God you expect me to somehow find joy or peace in. The monster who could have Thanos'd humanity out of existence and instead decided to drown millions of puppies and kittens.
And actually, the whole world doesn't want to come here. There are plenty of people who wouldn't live here if you paid them. People who have a social safety net so they can leave an abusive employer and not worry about going hungry or getting sick. (weren't you going on upthread about how horrible it is being a wage slave in work or die USA)
You missed the point of Job all together. There's so many lessons I'd hate to try and summarize it either. I really doubt you've read it but maybe I'm wrong. That's up to you. A few big takeaways is that as Job said, " Naked I came into this world and naked I will depart. The lord has gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised."
Even after losing everything he did not curse his God. If you behave this way in your own life instead of shaking your fist at the sky you'll be vastly better off.
*You* missed the point. God killed innocent people, not as part of some grand design for the greater good, but to win a bet. This from a supposedly loving father. More like an abusive one.
I’ve read it, I was raised as a fundamentalist Baptist.
Now your proselytizing is not welcome and a violation of the Terms of Service, so I suggest you begone before someone drops a house on you. You’re not going to convince me to *worship* an abusive god, who allows toddlers to die from cancer.
We can show anti-abortion Christians book, chapter and verse where their god specifically instructs his followers NOT to get tatoos. Let THEM show US where their god forbids abortion. Let them show ANY bit of scripture anywhere in that book that forbids abortion.
Might want to read your bible a bit more. Your god is quite murderous. According to your own 'holy' book, your god killed 2,821,364. And that's just where the bible has actual numbers. There are no numbers for the great flood, Sodom, the plagues of Egypt, etc. This pushes the estimated total number even higher (24,994,828).
On abortion alone, how many pregnant women died in the great flood (along with infants and children)? How many pregnant women/infants/children died at the hands of god's invading army in Samaria? And Troublesh00ter already pointed out the hideous "Test For an Unfaithful Wife" found in Numbers 5:11-31.
BTW, William, if you're wondering where I got those totals both bible-backed and estimated, I got them from someone who sat down with the bible and did the research. Here is that link...
I take those as a warning. There are rules and if those rules are broken you will be destroyed. If you civilization sins by adultery, my murder, by theft, etc. your civilization will certainly collapse. I don't take most of the Bible literally. The Bible is filled with warnings, you can heed the warnings or not. These warnings are for good reason and can looked at logically and scientifically and yield the same results, ultimately FAFO. I don't know why things function like they do, I'm not God, but that is the way they function. Sodom was filled with the most atrocious of behaviors. They found out. This is just the reality of the world. No matter where you look in history the best means of survival is to act in accordance to biblical principles. Yes I'm familiar with everything you wrote there. The Bible was written by men after all, and men from thousands of years ago. It was also in the same breath written by God. You are thinking too simplistic if you cannot allow these two levels of perception to exist simultaneously. Murder is a commandment by God. If you commit murder will you not suffer? If you steal or commit adultery will you not suffer? Maybe even find yourself in a place that resembles hell?
He calls infants, children and pregnant women being killed a "warning?" That's pretty sick. What lesson does a dead person or fetus supposedly learn from that 'warning?'
Samaria was invaded because its inhabitants "rebelled" against the psycho in the sky (it doesn't say how many rebelled and it doesn't distinguish between adults and children). An omnipotent being felt so threatened by mere human that it called for their deaths? Seriously?
I'm so tired of these oatmeal-brained chucklefucks. They fear that the brown people will take over and treat them as shitty as they've treated brown people. They fear women being able to say no because then they won't be able to be virile he-men.
You say you don't take most of the bible literally. Personally, I don't take it at all, except as a literary reference point, but that makes me ask a question. How do you decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively? Frankly, the creation story is described in Genesis is garbage. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other, and badly so, regarding order of events. The story of the Flood is borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and most biblical scholars acknowledge this. What's left of the Old Testament that isn't badly conceived laws is equally bad storytelling, very little if any of which is corroborated by any exterior sources.
The earliest mention of Jesus happens 20 years after his putative death with the Pauline letters. There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus' life whatsoever, and anyone who wants to claim that the gospels are reliable, having been written at minimum 40 years after the events described, has never played a game of "Telephone."
Any serious and dispassionate analysis of the bible shows it to be a mess ... which is why I have exactly ZERO regard for it, EXCEPT as literature.
None of your critiques are even relevant. The Bible is not a textbook. If you derived no meaning from genesis maybe its that YOU failed to derive meaning instead of it being garbage. I think its incredible personally. The book of Job is an incredible poem. No known author and one of the finest literary works arguably. To say that the gospel stories are like telephone.. Ha, that doesn't even matter! The parables are the parables, the lessons are the lessons regardless.
The problem with abortion is that its murdering a baby. When does a baby become a baby exactly? When is a person considered dead? When their heart stops. Why not consider a person alive when their heart starts beating? Is that not a fair question? People say "my body my choice" but is it a new life with its own beating heart not a separate person with the same rights? Isnt it an adult's choice to engage in unprotected sex? Isnt that your body and your choice? I agree its complicated but these arguments are surely valid.
Why should a fetus get special rights? No person has the right to use another person's body without their permission, even to sustain their own life. That's why you can't be forced to donate part of your liver, or even just blood, even though it will allow someone else to live.
And no people aren't considered dead when their heart stops. Mine stopped for several hours when they did a triple-bypass. I was not dead. Death is the death of the brain, not the heart. Not that those few cardiac cells contracting in unison at 6 weeks after conception are actually a heart.
Fetus or human baby? The language is purposely dehumanizing. On the one hand killing a baby is literally the worst possible thing you can do.. But a fetus? Oh that's fine. To describe a baby growing inside of its mothers womb as a parasite is disturbing. Yeah you were having surgery.. It was planned. If you went into cardiac arrest and died they'd call your death at sometime beyond your last heartbeat. Your brain can't work without blood that's why we use heart beat.
Tell that to your god, then. Failure to implant (around 40-50% of all fertilized ova) and miscarriages for various reasons account for lost blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses of a number that would make all the safe, legal abortions in the world look like a drop of water in the Atlantic. That doesn't even mention that the bible actually provides a PROCEDURE for temple- and god-approved abortion. See Numbers 5:11-31.
Hegseth pisses and moans that "patriots and everyday Americans" are targeted/under attack. No, that will happen on Jan. 20th when his boss starts targeting/going after patriots and everyday Americans....including Christians who don't fall in line.
Couchfucker whines about Hegseth getting 'attacked.' This from a guy who attacked "childless cat ladies."
Well, women with kids are already not enfranchised since their only purpose is whatever kids and husbands need. Women without children actually have some power in society, not being chained to the house (even if mothers work, they’re more easily trapped by domestic labor).
Women who create humans in their womb and raise them to be men and women who create more men and women have no power? I don't see a more powerful creature on the planet. A woman that gives her life to a soulless corporation just to pay taxes and interest while sacrificing the one thing that gives her true power is sad. A woman can tame the most powerful man with a gentle smile, a soft touch, or loving words.
We’re not incubators. We’re human beings, with individual interests, drives, and goals.
Working in ways that provide satisfaction to an individual is far better than anything you said here. Denying women the opportunity to find an occupation they derive pleasure and satisfaction is a lack of power. Giving birth is not “true power” it’s just one thing that we can do. The one thing that gives a woman true power, please, it’s the one thing men use constantly to oppress us. They’ve been using it for centuries, millennia, to hold us back while raising their mediocre asses into undeserved positions of power.
And it’s sad you think men are just wild animals that need to be tamed. And of course it’s sex that “tames” them.
Raising a family is oppression? I really don't understand the logic. Instead you are free through an occupation where you trade your hours for dollar bills? An incubator? You obviously don't have children and at the rate you're going you probably won't. You'll never know the pleasure of creating a human being and raising that child from infancy to adulthood. Nothing compares to the love of a child. I hope you change your mind truly. How do you think what you're saying isn't capitalist propaganda? Think about it? Here you think that raising a family with a loving husband is oppression and yet some meaningless corporate position is not oppression? Take a paycheck from YOUR BOSS that would replace you if it meant improve the bottom line, then give 30% to taxes, then take the next 30-40% for housing, most of which is interest, and the rest on whatever, and that's freedom?! Please wake up
No, there is no self awareness in the RWNJ base. It’s limited to whether they like ketchup or mustard on their hot dog.
What will happen when they see that Trump’s horrible policies affect them just as badly as those they despise, their anger will just increase against those same people. Instead of owning “the devil made me do it”, it will be our fault for not explaining what a tariff is. 🙄
MSM really could've helped with that, but they didn't. They let everything he said just go right by them, without correcting it. They should hang their heads in shame and when he cancels their publication or channel, they deserve it. (Altho he can't really do it). Cracks me up how he's suing 60 Minutes!
IF we get public hearings, I want the first Dem question to be: what is the mission statement of your department? Remember when rick Perry didn't know what the department of energy did.
Here's one making international news right now. A Republican county commissioner in Indiana running for reëlection was jailed for raping his daughter, the electorate knew it, and they still reëlected him on November 5.
There is a Google Docs page of Republican officials who are convicted of rapes and sexual assaults, updated every five minutes, including links to reports and court cases.
How about Matt Gaetz? About to become Attorney General so he can throw out the charges against himself.
(Right-wing sexual predators list. It will take some time to go through since there are over 3,600 individual entries. I encourage you to read all the newspaper or television reports until you become sickened of the GOP. The list automatically updates every five minutes; that's how prevalent GOP sex crimes are.)
I just read the article and that's not what it says at all. It says he was guilty of sexual assault of a prostitute apparently. It looks like this was after the election. Just not the same. I'm all for the death penalty to rapists in any case, the political party isn't important to me. Just interesting that the left are the ones trying to normalize pedos with all the MAP stuff. Love is love right? What's the plus by the way in lgbtq+? Trump? He was liable in a civil case for sexual assault after 30 years? By an absolute mental case? Interesting also the story seems to follow the exact plot of a law and order episode.. But she just happened to wait until he was running? He goes 70+ years without an issue with the law and the year he's running for office he has 91+ indictments? Yeah that's not suspect at all.. As for Matt Gaetz, I don't know, wasn't it investigated already and no charges were brought forward? If he's guilty he should face the consequences. But are we not still innocent until proven guilty? The left seems to not care about that, or censorship, or peace anymore. Just racism, racism, racism, orange man bad, and other nonsense. Hence why you've lost the election in a landslide. Apparently Americans by and large don't want to be ruled by insanity.
It is a requirement that the establishment and their media empire discredit anyone in the Trump sphere by any means necessary. But a favorite for them for sure. Projection seems to be their MO. I bet they'll release that Epstein list any day now.
"Whenever someone points out a troubling fact about one of Trump’s allies, they will inevitably call it religious persecution, and their gullible, white evangelical base will eat it up because they believe their side can do no wrong."
It works really well for Jews. Try saying something against Jews even if it has nothing to do with their religion. Only recently has the religious right pointed out that Christ is the only figure that can be openly mocked. Try saying something about Muhammad and see what happens. Am I wrong?
"god will it," is the excuse all religious people use when they commit atrocities. Pete is no different than any other tyrannical hopeful from the human history of religious atrocities in the name of an imaginary being. A non-existent entity does not justify treating other humans like pawns on a chess board. Hegseth is playing with his own existence when he pretends to have divine authority. I for one, will resist that kind of bullshit at maximum volume.
And very much the reason religion should be outlawed. Yes, I know, first amendment rights and all that, but organized religious batschittery has weaponized both religious superstition and the egregious misuse of the first amendment, and is using both as a battering ram to destroy people and things and countries and ideas they don't like/don't agree with. I am done with pussyfooting around and being diplomatic. Outlaw religion before it outlaws us.
As a religious person, I do support getting rid of tax exempt status for religious groups that don't have a primarily charity mission that serves the general public. Anything can be called a religion & they certainly don't follow separation of church & state.
I would say revoke ALL tax exempt privileges period, end of story. Most religious orders are concerned with little more than their own enrichment, and even the ones who do have charitable programs --- well, those are by and large transactional, at least the ones I knew of in my own denomination. Sorting it all out and deciding which church qualifies and which does not would be more trouble than it's worth IMO, and there will always be some chicanery and cooking the books going on somewhere. When people think they have God on their side they can pretty much excuse a lot of questionable stuff.
Then we'd have to get rid of tax-exempt status for secular charities. I just want churches to follow the same rules as other tax-exempt organizations. I'm not sure how much transparency would actually hurt their bottom line, but at least they'd be held to the same standard as everyone else.
Yeah yeah 1st amendment or whatever.. You're right! People should not be able to freely speak unless it conforms to your narrow viewpoint. It's "misuse" will "destroy..ideas they don't like\agree with". Do you not see the hypocrisy there? Or do you not care because you've deemed yourself so morally superior that you're " allowed " because the ends justify the means?
First of all, Christians are the ones claiming "the end justifies the means." Because god.
There is no hypocrisy except on the religious side of things. No one here, certainly not myself, has deemed themselves morally superior to anyone else. What you see here from many of us is frustration, unless you are not a regular reader, and therefore may not have noticed.
The first amendment protects ideas and freedom of speech. It does not protect religious groups who use it as a shield for their dangerous and harmful behavior and a weapon to silence the enemy, that is, anyone Not-Them. They are not hiding behind free speech as they claim, because there is no one here telling them they can't believe whatever they wish. believe whatever they please. No one here would have a problem with them if they would stay in their lane - basically mind their own business - and stop trying to control the private lives, actions and beliefs of others, all the while turning a blind eye to the horrific numbers of assaults on women and children by their own clergy.
They are hiding behind the first amendment because it allows them to get away with flouting the rule of law (something that is entirely different from free speech) and then yell "censorship!" and "persecution!" if anyone dares call them out on it. Even most of the media backs off from asking the hard questions.
And now that Trump is elected, they will soon be trying to literally outlaw many of us here. Hence the frustrating thought that religion is what should be outlawed. Sure, that idea won't go anywhere. It's not supposed to.
These are not first amendment issues. These are existential ones.
A diverse, multi-cultural society is not what they want. But it's where we all live.
I also want to add that the means are the end for Christians. I'm trying to think now of an example of when Christians used unchristian means to achieve an end that was deemed good by the same people. Can you give me an example? I'm not being cute here, I'm curious.
Again you're saying freedom of speech for some but not all language. That defeats the purpose. It's freedom of speech for people you don't agree with. This country used to believe in this, see 1979 ACLU paying legal fees for Nazis. I don't agree with Nazis (as 99.99999% of Americans) but if they can't speak it means I can't either.
Hegseth doesn’t give a damn. That’s exactly the problem. These folks don’t give a thought to others, how they come across, whether they are offending anyone. They care only for themselves and their religious perspective. This attitude is one that constantly tears at the communal fabric of society. It’s not religion per se, but the self indulgent assurance that their religion is right, the only one, and the rest by damned.
That's the way it has been with Republicans since before I can remember. Something PERSONAL has to happen to them before they recognize any issue as being in need of their attention and/or action.
They won't develop self awareness, they'll just blame Democrats. Or childless cat ladies. Or (fill in the blank). But no, it will never be because Dear Leader fucked up.
“they will inevitably call it religious persecution, and their gullible, white evangelical base will eat it up because they believe their side can do no wrong.“
It’s less that their side can do no wrong and more our side can do no right, we can make no criticism. But also their side has decided Christianity is not Jesus love and forgiveness, but intolerance, violence and hatred. You ask them to stop and be kind and they’re all shouting persecution.
Deus Vult means shit off brain and empathy and do as I want because I can justify it with divine providence.
Just another appointment from Trump straight from Project 2025 designed to destroy our system of government from within. Don’t be surprised when them checks and balances are all murdered in their sleep.
That's incredibly racist, "..gullible, white evangelist base.." Is there something wrong with white people as a whole? Why feel the need to bring skin color into your commentary?
You do realize the part you quoted was a quote from the article. I was working off the what the article said.
And yes white evangelicals are racist. Not white people as a whole, white evangelicals, it’s an adjective used here to narrow down to specific people who are causing a problem. As opposed to black evangelicals who aren’t being targeted by the folks in charge.
White Evangelicals are racist. OK thanks for the insight. I'll keep that in mind when I meet a white Evangelical in the future. Any other groups I should have prejudices about?
Hegseth isn't fit to serve. As for his tats, those are a sin. Leviticus 19:28
For so many reasons, he and others that The Orange Menace has chosen, are not fit to serve!
Which fact might well have been revealed at Senate confirmation hearings, where even the minority Democrats would be able to ask pointed questions. Which is why the incoming regime is trying to use the recess-appointment process to avoid such hearings.
So very true!
Its actually because of RINO republicans. They'll try to stop anyone who would be more than controlled opposition to continue the charade. Too many people have woken up to the insane levels of corruption which is why so many former Democrats have joined Trump.
Nah. It's really more about the xenophobia and misogyny with Trumpublicans. Fragile, uneducated, privileged white dudes are fine with corruption as long as they're getting theirs and Women/Browns don't get shit.
I guess the majority of Americans disagree with that narrative. It was designed simply to silence people and make them feel alone. The whole reason is because Trump was speaking against the corruption of the DC establishment. It's called psychological warfare and its obviously very effective.
Wrong, stain. Fuck straight off back to Trumpistan. 🙃
Are you skipping your meds or just taking too high a dose?
Christians are always the first people to claim they're being persecuted, such is the depth of their entrenched sense of privilege. History shows time and again that no group is quicker to persecute others than religious leaders with secular power. Hegseth rose to the rank of Major in the National Guard. That is NOT a spell binding military career. He has made it clear he intends to fire four star generals who do not share his Christo-fascist world view. Hegseth is on record as saying the U.S. military needs to be the flaming sword of Christ. I find a statement like that absolutely horrifying. No one should be foolish enough to expect Senate Republicans to honor their Constitutional duties and reject this absurdly unfit man.
Can you imagine what Mikey Weinstein thinks of all of this? WHEW!
The evangelicals see the military as a 'mission field'. Get to young kids away from home for the first time, and vulnerable. In Vietnam, the Army I served in would have dealt with proselytization from the bottom up.
So, I'm guessing that at that point in history, Hegseth would have been a friendly fire "accident".
Could have been or the victim of a fragging.
"Could have been???" Hell, I'd bet the farm on that one!
Every time this topic comes up, I am reminded of the following video. I think my reasons are self-evident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB1UifGIqaw
The level of evangelical fanaticism in the ranks is disturbing.
It is, and to think that when I was a kid, I thought about applying to the Air Force Academy. They're the worst of the bunch!
Yeah, my daughter is interested in going there, I’m trying to gently guide her elsewhere without screaming about the corruption. We still have a couple years, and who knows, she may be restricted from attending college at all, the rate we’re going.
I think Mikey's cardiologist needs to be on hazard pay.
I really hope those generals get together and stand up to him and say "no, you're not gonna do that to us." or they can be ready to retire? (Which won't help us).
Can you spell "purge"? P-U-R-G-E! There, I knew you could!
From Wikipedia: "When Adolf Hitler staged the Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, Houston Stewart Chamberlain wrote an essay for the Völkischer Beobachter entitled "God Wills It!" calling on all Germans who love Germany to join the putsch."
Not 100% evidence that Hegseth is an actual Nazi, but shows he is at least Nazi adjacent. What's next? Gott mit uns patches for uniforms?
It is problematic at best that Hegseth has crusader language tattooed. To place that permanently on his body shows just how committed he is to using state violence to enforce his ideology.
No no no. Hitler wanted to murder the Jews. Hegseth wants to help Trump murder Muslims. It's totally different, don'cha see.
You're right Hegseth is Nazi adjacent. Trump is literally Hitler. Its funny that it was probably the Muslims that helped Trump win Michigan since Muslim leaders were publicly endorsing Trump. Maybe you can clue them in that they'll soon be rounded up along with all the gays, blacks, and Hispanics. And of course all white woman will be made to be Trump aryan baby factories. Why did all of those minorities vote for Trump in such great numbers!?
Spewing pro-Nazi shit here isn't the flex you believe it to be, Soft Boi.
Fuck straight off back to Trumpistan.
"Stupid is as stupid does." - Mrs. Gump
“Deus Vult” has PRECISELY the same meaning as “Inshallah.” These phrases aren’t just two sides of the same coin - they’re the same side. Just imagine for a moment Rashida Tlaib coming in to Congress with “Inshallah” proudly inked on her arm. Picture the reaction of the reactionaries; the firestorm would be immediate.
Oh, but THIS country is a CHRISTIAN NATION™, so it's okay. [uh-huh, SUUUURE it is ... 😝]
Yep, a completely different God. After all, the Christian God is the God of Abraham. Not the Muslim God: the God of Abraham.
Which reminds me of the following:
𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑊𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑠ℎ𝑚𝑎𝑒𝑙, ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛. 𝑊𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑.
-- Jethro, "The Ten Commandments"
Sad fact is that the only biblical references Pete and his kind care about are those that agree with THEM.
But Ishmael is a bastard. Which shows Sarah's consent meant nothing to God.
Different Abraham(of course)🫤. They’ll lie and justify it.
Add to the that the fact that the Crusades didn't accomplish anything. When they started, muslims controlled the holy land; when they were over, muslims controlled the holy land. The only thing they accomplished was some temporary land grabs in the Levant, and the consolidation of papal power and the Vatican's financial enrichment.
Not that I expect any of the dolts sporting 'deus vult' tats to know any of that........but it makes me chuckle.
The coalition of papal power and the Vatican's enrichment were the motives. "Capturing the Holy Land" was just their shitty excuse. I'd bet on that.
Of course. The church was using the crusades as a cash cow. Retaking the holy land from the muslims would have just been the icing on the cake.
Selling "indulgences" was a big market, too.
Not to mention the trade in relics. There were enough pieces of 'the one true cross' circulating around Europe to build a housing development.
I understand there were enough of Jesus' foreskins to build an entire person.
So, using their god as an excuse to seize power and accumulate wealth - “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”
And killing a lot of people. But that's okay by their "thinking."
Muslims aren't people, silly.
You're right, Christians should take back the Holy Land. God wills it. At least woman wouldn't have to cover themselves head to toe or risk being decapitated for the crime of being raped. Plus the inbreeding is a real problem.
Spewing pro-Nazi shit here isn't the flex you believe it to be, Soft Boi.
Fuck straight off back to Trumpistan.
The decline of intelligence caused by inbreeding really shows with you.
He talks about inbreeding. In the bible, humans populated the world via incest. Twice.
Are they Christians at that point or using the term as a mask to commit atrocities? You can say its a great mask but how many times have these so called Christians committed atrocities in the last 1000 years? I'm truly curious. I can think of Salem witch trials where due process was denied. Due process is really a biblical principle. The story of Jesus actually proves the necessity of breaking down dogmas. He was persecuted by the church.
How much "due process" did that poor schlub who helped right the Arc of the Covenant, only to get zapped by Yahweh get?
And as for Christian atrocities, all you have to do is read this blog over a couple of weeks and you see more atrocities than you'd ever hope to know of in a lifetime. Jehovah's Witnesses, evangelicals and Catholics have committed more crimes against humankind than I could hope to deal with in a blog comment, and that's not to say that it's just Christians, either.
But they ARE the ones who seem poised to take control of this country ... and yeah, I am seriously concerned about that.
Deuteronomy 19:15-20 ESV / 7
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. ."
Take it easy on them this is like 3000 years old.
I'm concerned about atheists controlling the state as they have no fear of God. They by default worship flesh, man, mans institutions, mans authority. Man is corruptible, flesh rots, God is eternal, God is incorruptible. You can even try and think of this in a secular way. However it loses its meaning.
Due process is about as biblical as elections.
Deuteronomy 1:13 NIV
" Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you."
Representative government, there you go.. It's pretty important to realize when reading the Bible that its 2-3 thousand years old. I'm really not sure what the atheist crowd expects. The point is that the concepts of both due process and representative gov are in there. Its not the biggest take away..
Spewing pro-Nazi shit here isn't the flex you believe it to be, Soft Boi.
Fuck straight off back to Trumpistan.
"Inshallah" means "God willing," as in, *if* such is God's will. The Muslim speaker is, at least technically, not presuming to know. "Deus vult" is a statement of confidence that the Christian *is* an instrument of God's will.
A distinction without a difference.
"Inshallah" is a hope. "Deus vult" is a justification.
Not just a justification but an assertion: GOD WILLS IT.
To which I STILL say, "Sure he does." 😝
In theory, not in practice.
This is the kind of thing I would expect from someone who considers the United States to be a Christian nation, who thinks that the secular state is a fiction someone thought up, and that their deity has every right to run the place. The primary problem I have with that is pretty obvious: Yahweh NEVER speaks for himself, and when I say never, I mean 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥. His spokespeople, on the other hand, are nowhere near so shy. Indeed, one has a time trying to SHUT THEM UP.
So Pete Hegseth says, DEUS VULT, god wills it, eh? Two words. Well, I got two words for him:
𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗧.
He is a Christian Nationalist of the most extreme sort. He 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 a holy war against Muslims and secularists, who he believes are allied to "conquer" the US and Europe.
Of course, he can't prove Yahweh actually wants what he's pushing. Hegseth is living in a medieval fantasy where he must slay the infidel in order to protect the power of the church.
Yup. You know it and I know it and he won't admit it ... but there it is.
"I believe that Donald Trump is the King the Lord has picked,
And I believe that Jesus was born on January 6th."
--From the song, Jesus Was Born January 6 (c), in the MAGA Musical for the Masses, Dictator for a Day. An off-Broadway hit!
Coming soon to streaming!
Dictatorforadayshow.com
And coming soon to reality, January 20, 2025.
Thanks, 'murica!
There are some very fine people on both sides...of Pennsyltucky.
"We went through 5 Adams before we figured that out." - Metatron
Speaking of Alan Rickman, it's almost Hans Grueber season.
All of western civilization was founded on the teachings of the Bible. The court system, the moral code, every aspect you probably take for granted. Why do we think that all people are equal in the eyes of the law? Innocent until proven guilty? You can see what happens when these go away ie, "find the man and I'll find the crime". The ideals set aside in the Bible are worth understanding. Of course the Bible was written by men at one level of perception, through the lens of one narrative. But it was written by God through the lens of a different dominant narrative. Just the same as you can look at a chair as a place to sit, or an obstacle as you're walking through a room, or a collection of atoms at another level. They have different practical uses as different levels of observation. The founding fathers used the Bible to build the greatest country on earth. God is actually in the text. This is how the corruptible man who owns a slave is able to write a document that frees him. Do you understand?
Was it really? Is that why Jefferson and Madison and their fellows studied Greek democracy and the writings of Solon in particular? Fact is, the concept of the people ruling themselves, as opposed to some unseen deity, is UNKNOWN in the bible, and if you don't know that, you should.
And if your deity did indeed write the bible, then why doesn't that book evolve as people and the society they live in evolve? The bible is a book, written by men and frozen in time, with NO consideration for human self-rule and considerable verbiage spent outlining the obligations us humans have to a hotshot god who cannot be bothered to show itself, never mind a putative savior whose existence has no contemporaneous documentation, nor any independent confirmation.
Troll all you want, bud (not that you'll last long here). Your BS doesn't sell with us.
I'm not trolling you, that's kind of a silly accusation. Madison and Jefferson were Christians along with all of the "founding fathers". Just because certain biblical principles are articulated elsewhere doesn't mean they're not still biblical principles. The idea that man can rule himself is by extension that he should not be ruled by other men. That does not mean he is not ruled by God as they believed. That is to say when
a man is ruled by God he is ruled by a higher set of principles. This is absolutely necessary to a concept like anarchy to function. If all men are created equal, if all men are equal in the eyes of the creator, they are equal in the eyes of a just law. This is the foundation of the US. Of course as I mentioned many had slaves. The men themselves were corruptible, but God is not, the principles are not, hence abolition.
Wrong again. Jefferson was a DEIST, regardless of what David Barton may have to say. James Madison is a little bit more complex, in that he was baptized in the Anglican church, but modern historians cite his beliefs as being closer to 19th century Unitarianism.
But that isn't the point. The point is that Jefferson, Madison, and their fellows structured a secular document: our constitution. No mention of any god, Jesus, or any other deity, but a well-thought-out system, based in checks and balances, and controlled by human beings. As for the issue of religion, Article VI, paragraph 3 clearly states that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. Further, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment set, as Jefferson told the Danbury Baptist, "a wall of separation between Church and State." The whole point was to make the government independent of religion, so as to treat all religions and all religious practitioners EQUALLY.
Yet you still want to assert that humankind is ruled by some form of deity. I see no evidence of such a deity, no evidence that any of us are under any sort of external control, nor do I think you can provide any such evidence. If you could, this world would change beyond any unchanging.
And yet it hasn't, because there is no god to produce. When you can produce such a being, let me know. Until such time, don't waste mine.
We can agree with most of what you wrote and I strongly agree with the separation of church and state. My point is that the ideas that lead to the creation of that document stem from biblical principles, some I already mentioned. As far as this proof of God, God is everywhere. You remove a dimension of perception and understand by foolishly spitting in the face of your creator. Trust me I used to roll my eyes when someone said "thank God" even. But what I didn't understand is that there are many different narratives that you can use to see the world. Seeing the world as a purely scientifically observable structure is to dilute yourself of a larger picture. I see myself as somewhat of a pragmatist, I see truth as what has a practical use in my reality whatever dominant narrative I happen to see the world through.
I don't just think of myself as a pragmatist, I AM a pragmatist. I'm a retired electrical engineer and while I was on the job, my daily life was dealing with what IS and not wasting my time with what is not. Insofar as any objective parameter is concerned, your god is NOT, and all your hand-waving will not produce it. Kindly do not try any form of emotional appeal, either. I fully acknowledge the importance of emotions, but as it comes to understanding and apprehending the nature of this reality, hard facts, confirmed observations, and testable evidence are my first (and damned near only) choice acceptable.
You state that the Constitution comes out of biblical principles, yet you haven't directly or specifically cited so much as ONE. Further, your god doesn't seem to think much of any system other than deific autocracy, insisting on its way or the highway (to hell, I presume). On top of everything else, yours is the god who HIDES, who cannot or will not show itself. Something that doesn't manifest is pretty darn hard to tell from SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. There are LOTS of things that cannot be seen, but can be detected, so do me the favor of not going there. Saying that god is everywhere is a pure dodge. Existence is everywhere, too, but I don't call it "god."
If there is a distinct entity that you wish to designate as "god," either produce it or admit that you can't.
Ever hear of the Jefferson bible? Look it up. And where is god in the text of the Constitution "Year of our Lord"? Really. You're going to claim the common dating system of the time as proof that the founders used the bible to create this country? When religion is mentioned in the Constitution it's proceeded by the word no.
Please cite chapter and verse where innocent until proven guilty is found in the Bible. As for a moral code? Obedience isn't morality. Punishing children for the sins of their fathers (nobody cared about their mothers) is not moral. Nor is drowning millions of puppies and kittens because you're mad at the humans.
And tell me what experience you have of all the other countries that you can claim this one is THE greatest one on Earth?
The Year of Our Lord was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved of at the Convention and is not part of the contents of the document the members signed. It was added later by a scrivener. Madison surely would not have done it.
In any event, the phrase is an outmoded dating sysyem. A relic.
Yes I've read it, though it was years ago. I never said anything about year of our Lord. I just posted from Deuteronomy on another reply about needing witnesses, up to 3 before a judge in order to find guilt. Bearing false witness was punishable by death. Punishing sins of the father to the 3rd and 4th generation is what happens in the world. We do in fact pay for the sins of our father. Is it moral? I mean that's a silly question. It's what it is. Weak men make hard times. Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times makes weak men. Is it moral? Its observable. You're a man not a God. Read the book of Job. It's the greatest because the whole world wants to come here. Or they did before we abandoned God. Who's movies, music, culture is more widespread than the US. I'm really starting to think you could care less what I have to say... It's an exercise in futility but I can still hope that you find God in your life. Then you can know the meaning of these things. Remember I said I was an agnostic. I ate up every hitchens and Harris lecture and debate on the internet. More than just them for sure but mainly those two. I would argue with "believers" for hours and hours on YouTube. I now realize what I was missing. THANK GOD!!
The book of Job, where an omniscient "god" tortures a man to win a bet, kills his whole family (Is that moral?). Job was a fool. God didn't give a damn about him.
The idea of witnesses and a judge are neither original nor unique to the bible and predate it.
The bible calls for stoning a disobedient child. Luckily society doesn't practice that or the species would be gone in a generation.
I was raised in church. "Saved" at 7. Never read or heard a word Hitchens or Harris lectured or wrote. I miss nothing. If there is a god and the bible describes it accurately, it is a monster, who deserves condemnation, not worship. Any being, deity or mortal that desires, much less demands, worship is not worthy of it.
A god who has watched every child molestation in history and not intervened, but condemns a man to death for sex with a consenting adult man.
This is the God you expect me to somehow find joy or peace in. The monster who could have Thanos'd humanity out of existence and instead decided to drown millions of puppies and kittens.
And actually, the whole world doesn't want to come here. There are plenty of people who wouldn't live here if you paid them. People who have a social safety net so they can leave an abusive employer and not worry about going hungry or getting sick. (weren't you going on upthread about how horrible it is being a wage slave in work or die USA)
Now go troll somewhere else.
You missed the point of Job all together. There's so many lessons I'd hate to try and summarize it either. I really doubt you've read it but maybe I'm wrong. That's up to you. A few big takeaways is that as Job said, " Naked I came into this world and naked I will depart. The lord has gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised."
Even after losing everything he did not curse his God. If you behave this way in your own life instead of shaking your fist at the sky you'll be vastly better off.
*You* missed the point. God killed innocent people, not as part of some grand design for the greater good, but to win a bet. This from a supposedly loving father. More like an abusive one.
I’ve read it, I was raised as a fundamentalist Baptist.
Now your proselytizing is not welcome and a violation of the Terms of Service, so I suggest you begone before someone drops a house on you. You’re not going to convince me to *worship* an abusive god, who allows toddlers to die from cancer.
I understand that you really need to stop smoking that shit.
That's some serious fückwïttëry right there, stain.
Spewing pro-Nazi shit here isn't the flex you believe it to be, Soft Boi.
Fuck straight off back to Trumpistan.
We can show anti-abortion Christians book, chapter and verse where their god specifically instructs his followers NOT to get tatoos. Let THEM show US where their god forbids abortion. Let them show ANY bit of scripture anywhere in that book that forbids abortion.
Thou shalt not murder
Might want to read your bible a bit more. Your god is quite murderous. According to your own 'holy' book, your god killed 2,821,364. And that's just where the bible has actual numbers. There are no numbers for the great flood, Sodom, the plagues of Egypt, etc. This pushes the estimated total number even higher (24,994,828).
On abortion alone, how many pregnant women died in the great flood (along with infants and children)? How many pregnant women/infants/children died at the hands of god's invading army in Samaria? And Troublesh00ter already pointed out the hideous "Test For an Unfaithful Wife" found in Numbers 5:11-31.
To add:
BTW, William, if you're wondering where I got those totals both bible-backed and estimated, I got them from someone who sat down with the bible and did the research. Here is that link...
dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
I take those as a warning. There are rules and if those rules are broken you will be destroyed. If you civilization sins by adultery, my murder, by theft, etc. your civilization will certainly collapse. I don't take most of the Bible literally. The Bible is filled with warnings, you can heed the warnings or not. These warnings are for good reason and can looked at logically and scientifically and yield the same results, ultimately FAFO. I don't know why things function like they do, I'm not God, but that is the way they function. Sodom was filled with the most atrocious of behaviors. They found out. This is just the reality of the world. No matter where you look in history the best means of survival is to act in accordance to biblical principles. Yes I'm familiar with everything you wrote there. The Bible was written by men after all, and men from thousands of years ago. It was also in the same breath written by God. You are thinking too simplistic if you cannot allow these two levels of perception to exist simultaneously. Murder is a commandment by God. If you commit murder will you not suffer? If you steal or commit adultery will you not suffer? Maybe even find yourself in a place that resembles hell?
Your god was created by men. Just like all the thousands of other gods.
He calls infants, children and pregnant women being killed a "warning?" That's pretty sick. What lesson does a dead person or fetus supposedly learn from that 'warning?'
Samaria was invaded because its inhabitants "rebelled" against the psycho in the sky (it doesn't say how many rebelled and it doesn't distinguish between adults and children). An omnipotent being felt so threatened by mere human that it called for their deaths? Seriously?
I'm so tired of these oatmeal-brained chucklefucks. They fear that the brown people will take over and treat them as shitty as they've treated brown people. They fear women being able to say no because then they won't be able to be virile he-men.
Less meth would benefit you.
You say you don't take most of the bible literally. Personally, I don't take it at all, except as a literary reference point, but that makes me ask a question. How do you decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively? Frankly, the creation story is described in Genesis is garbage. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other, and badly so, regarding order of events. The story of the Flood is borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and most biblical scholars acknowledge this. What's left of the Old Testament that isn't badly conceived laws is equally bad storytelling, very little if any of which is corroborated by any exterior sources.
The earliest mention of Jesus happens 20 years after his putative death with the Pauline letters. There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus' life whatsoever, and anyone who wants to claim that the gospels are reliable, having been written at minimum 40 years after the events described, has never played a game of "Telephone."
Any serious and dispassionate analysis of the bible shows it to be a mess ... which is why I have exactly ZERO regard for it, EXCEPT as literature.
None of your critiques are even relevant. The Bible is not a textbook. If you derived no meaning from genesis maybe its that YOU failed to derive meaning instead of it being garbage. I think its incredible personally. The book of Job is an incredible poem. No known author and one of the finest literary works arguably. To say that the gospel stories are like telephone.. Ha, that doesn't even matter! The parables are the parables, the lessons are the lessons regardless.
The problem with abortion is that its murdering a baby. When does a baby become a baby exactly? When is a person considered dead? When their heart stops. Why not consider a person alive when their heart starts beating? Is that not a fair question? People say "my body my choice" but is it a new life with its own beating heart not a separate person with the same rights? Isnt it an adult's choice to engage in unprotected sex? Isnt that your body and your choice? I agree its complicated but these arguments are surely valid.
Tell me something, stud, why does becoming pregnant remove all of a person's rights?
If you see a baby being "murdered", please do call 911. Until then, fuck straight off back to Trumpistan.
Why should a fetus get special rights? No person has the right to use another person's body without their permission, even to sustain their own life. That's why you can't be forced to donate part of your liver, or even just blood, even though it will allow someone else to live.
And no people aren't considered dead when their heart stops. Mine stopped for several hours when they did a triple-bypass. I was not dead. Death is the death of the brain, not the heart. Not that those few cardiac cells contracting in unison at 6 weeks after conception are actually a heart.
Fetus or human baby? The language is purposely dehumanizing. On the one hand killing a baby is literally the worst possible thing you can do.. But a fetus? Oh that's fine. To describe a baby growing inside of its mothers womb as a parasite is disturbing. Yeah you were having surgery.. It was planned. If you went into cardiac arrest and died they'd call your death at sometime beyond your last heartbeat. Your brain can't work without blood that's why we use heart beat.
There is no heart at 6 weeks.
𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiabortion-heartbeat-bills-are-neither-morally-nor-legally-sound/
Ok
Abortion has nothing to do with "murder", fückwït. Try harder, you're embarrassing yourself.
Tell that to your god, then. Failure to implant (around 40-50% of all fertilized ova) and miscarriages for various reasons account for lost blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses of a number that would make all the safe, legal abortions in the world look like a drop of water in the Atlantic. That doesn't even mention that the bible actually provides a PROCEDURE for temple- and god-approved abortion. See Numbers 5:11-31.
And spare us your simplistic BS.
Hegseth pisses and moans that "patriots and everyday Americans" are targeted/under attack. No, that will happen on Jan. 20th when his boss starts targeting/going after patriots and everyday Americans....including Christians who don't fall in line.
Couchfucker whines about Hegseth getting 'attacked.' This from a guy who attacked "childless cat ladies."
First step in disenfranchising women. Disenfranchise women without kids.
Well, women with kids are already not enfranchised since their only purpose is whatever kids and husbands need. Women without children actually have some power in society, not being chained to the house (even if mothers work, they’re more easily trapped by domestic labor).
Women who create humans in their womb and raise them to be men and women who create more men and women have no power? I don't see a more powerful creature on the planet. A woman that gives her life to a soulless corporation just to pay taxes and interest while sacrificing the one thing that gives her true power is sad. A woman can tame the most powerful man with a gentle smile, a soft touch, or loving words.
Gross.
We’re not incubators. We’re human beings, with individual interests, drives, and goals.
Working in ways that provide satisfaction to an individual is far better than anything you said here. Denying women the opportunity to find an occupation they derive pleasure and satisfaction is a lack of power. Giving birth is not “true power” it’s just one thing that we can do. The one thing that gives a woman true power, please, it’s the one thing men use constantly to oppress us. They’ve been using it for centuries, millennia, to hold us back while raising their mediocre asses into undeserved positions of power.
And it’s sad you think men are just wild animals that need to be tamed. And of course it’s sex that “tames” them.
Gross.
Raising a family is oppression? I really don't understand the logic. Instead you are free through an occupation where you trade your hours for dollar bills? An incubator? You obviously don't have children and at the rate you're going you probably won't. You'll never know the pleasure of creating a human being and raising that child from infancy to adulthood. Nothing compares to the love of a child. I hope you change your mind truly. How do you think what you're saying isn't capitalist propaganda? Think about it? Here you think that raising a family with a loving husband is oppression and yet some meaningless corporate position is not oppression? Take a paycheck from YOUR BOSS that would replace you if it meant improve the bottom line, then give 30% to taxes, then take the next 30-40% for housing, most of which is interest, and the rest on whatever, and that's freedom?! Please wake up
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahabahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahabahahahahahahaha!
Fuck off.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Eat shit and die, stain.
Rules for thee, not for me. Rule 1 in the totalitarian playbook.
'The alternative, that Hegseth supports the right-wing extremists, is more far-fetched...'
Do you really think that? I would say it is likely that he supports the right wing extremists.
"DEUS VULT" strikes me as being pretty right-wing extreme, and no, I don't think saying so is all that far-fetched at all.
Well it's not like it's Gott Mit Uns. Though maybe he went for the Latin 'as God wills' because the German 'god is with us' was too obvious?
Hell, the second I saw those two words, I Googled them, purely on GPs! As for Latin, that was the RCC's favorite hidey-hole back when.
These days, with folks like us, it don't work so good.
That's why they want to destroy education and send everyone back to the Middle Ages.
The bronze age.
Yep. Wasn't thinking back far enough...flocks who don't know where the sun goes at night are easier to manipulate.
Has education become better or worse since the inception of the DOE? Giving them more money clearly doesn't make anything better
Depends. When nitwits like you don't pay attention in school you don't learn anything.
The DOE is the Department of Energy. I assume you mean the Department of Education (DE).
Can you describe the purpose and functions of the DE? It doesn't have to be detailed; a simple description will do.
CYA, 'cover your ass' is my guess, maybe why it was phrased that way? It's a wise approach these days.
No, there is no self awareness in the RWNJ base. It’s limited to whether they like ketchup or mustard on their hot dog.
What will happen when they see that Trump’s horrible policies affect them just as badly as those they despise, their anger will just increase against those same people. Instead of owning “the devil made me do it”, it will be our fault for not explaining what a tariff is. 🙄
MSM really could've helped with that, but they didn't. They let everything he said just go right by them, without correcting it. They should hang their heads in shame and when he cancels their publication or channel, they deserve it. (Altho he can't really do it). Cracks me up how he's suing 60 Minutes!
He's suing them because they edited an answer to a question by replacing it with a completely different answer. Is that OK?
Propagating lies seems to be okay for you and the rest of the MAGAts.
They ALREADY KNOW how negatively it affected them during his first reign infesting the White House.
That lesson didn’t stick with them AT ALL.
IF we get public hearings, I want the first Dem question to be: what is the mission statement of your department? Remember when rick Perry didn't know what the department of energy did.
Excellent idea. That should be the first question with EVERY LAST CABINET POST ... PERIOD.
Is "accused of sexual assault" a REQUIREMENT now for Trump appointees?
It's the pedophile party. Lots of them are pedos.
Like who? Name one high profile pedo that isn't related to the Democrat party.
Some asshole in a comment section that goes by the nym of Bill, if I remember right.
Here's one making international news right now. A Republican county commissioner in Indiana running for reëlection was jailed for raping his daughter, the electorate knew it, and they still reëlected him on November 5.
https://www.greenfieldreporter.com/2024/11/14/jessup-takes-plea-deal-in-las-vegas-sexual-assault-case-will-be-sentenced-in-april/
There is a Google Docs page of Republican officials who are convicted of rapes and sexual assaults, updated every five minutes, including links to reports and court cases.
How about Matt Gaetz? About to become Attorney General so he can throw out the charges against himself.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vTFikAP6MXDCJjWzgMIOvpsT1ji-HwO-rLEvNE8e-cfCGh0YHoZluIG5TEsmwFub7MzIDfh0XgvcWL8/pub
(Right-wing sexual predators list. It will take some time to go through since there are over 3,600 individual entries. I encourage you to read all the newspaper or television reports until you become sickened of the GOP. The list automatically updates every five minutes; that's how prevalent GOP sex crimes are.)
I just read the article and that's not what it says at all. It says he was guilty of sexual assault of a prostitute apparently. It looks like this was after the election. Just not the same. I'm all for the death penalty to rapists in any case, the political party isn't important to me. Just interesting that the left are the ones trying to normalize pedos with all the MAP stuff. Love is love right? What's the plus by the way in lgbtq+? Trump? He was liable in a civil case for sexual assault after 30 years? By an absolute mental case? Interesting also the story seems to follow the exact plot of a law and order episode.. But she just happened to wait until he was running? He goes 70+ years without an issue with the law and the year he's running for office he has 91+ indictments? Yeah that's not suspect at all.. As for Matt Gaetz, I don't know, wasn't it investigated already and no charges were brought forward? If he's guilty he should face the consequences. But are we not still innocent until proven guilty? The left seems to not care about that, or censorship, or peace anymore. Just racism, racism, racism, orange man bad, and other nonsense. Hence why you've lost the election in a landslide. Apparently Americans by and large don't want to be ruled by insanity.
You mean like Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz and hundreds more, (check out that list below), if you wanna know the truth. How dare you support that?
Wow, that's quite an accomplishment you have there. Thank you. It's like the whole GOP is a pedo party. 'Protect the children', my ass.
Like calls to like.
It would seem so.
Seems that way. How else would they know who the really "Manly Men" (TM) were? /s
The size of their truck of course. :)
Just because a few pencil-dicked rednecks hang metal testicles off the backs of their trucks doesn't mean they view them as substitutes for their...
Oh. Oh, yeah. I see it now.
“Does the term needle-dick, the bug-fucker mean anything to you?”
YES
It is a requirement that the establishment and their media empire discredit anyone in the Trump sphere by any means necessary. But a favorite for them for sure. Projection seems to be their MO. I bet they'll release that Epstein list any day now.
"Whenever someone points out a troubling fact about one of Trump’s allies, they will inevitably call it religious persecution, and their gullible, white evangelical base will eat it up because they believe their side can do no wrong."
Stupid wins again.
It works really well for Jews. Try saying something against Jews even if it has nothing to do with their religion. Only recently has the religious right pointed out that Christ is the only figure that can be openly mocked. Try saying something about Muhammad and see what happens. Am I wrong?
Wait, let me call you a waaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
"god will it," is the excuse all religious people use when they commit atrocities. Pete is no different than any other tyrannical hopeful from the human history of religious atrocities in the name of an imaginary being. A non-existent entity does not justify treating other humans like pawns on a chess board. Hegseth is playing with his own existence when he pretends to have divine authority. I for one, will resist that kind of bullshit at maximum volume.
As with so many other people like Hegseths, he has created a god that agrees with him, with his bigotry and megalomania.
Very convenient.
And very much the reason religion should be outlawed. Yes, I know, first amendment rights and all that, but organized religious batschittery has weaponized both religious superstition and the egregious misuse of the first amendment, and is using both as a battering ram to destroy people and things and countries and ideas they don't like/don't agree with. I am done with pussyfooting around and being diplomatic. Outlaw religion before it outlaws us.
As a religious person, I do support getting rid of tax exempt status for religious groups that don't have a primarily charity mission that serves the general public. Anything can be called a religion & they certainly don't follow separation of church & state.
I would say revoke ALL tax exempt privileges period, end of story. Most religious orders are concerned with little more than their own enrichment, and even the ones who do have charitable programs --- well, those are by and large transactional, at least the ones I knew of in my own denomination. Sorting it all out and deciding which church qualifies and which does not would be more trouble than it's worth IMO, and there will always be some chicanery and cooking the books going on somewhere. When people think they have God on their side they can pretty much excuse a lot of questionable stuff.
Then we'd have to get rid of tax-exempt status for secular charities. I just want churches to follow the same rules as other tax-exempt organizations. I'm not sure how much transparency would actually hurt their bottom line, but at least they'd be held to the same standard as everyone else.
Yeah yeah 1st amendment or whatever.. You're right! People should not be able to freely speak unless it conforms to your narrow viewpoint. It's "misuse" will "destroy..ideas they don't like\agree with". Do you not see the hypocrisy there? Or do you not care because you've deemed yourself so morally superior that you're " allowed " because the ends justify the means?
First of all, Christians are the ones claiming "the end justifies the means." Because god.
There is no hypocrisy except on the religious side of things. No one here, certainly not myself, has deemed themselves morally superior to anyone else. What you see here from many of us is frustration, unless you are not a regular reader, and therefore may not have noticed.
The first amendment protects ideas and freedom of speech. It does not protect religious groups who use it as a shield for their dangerous and harmful behavior and a weapon to silence the enemy, that is, anyone Not-Them. They are not hiding behind free speech as they claim, because there is no one here telling them they can't believe whatever they wish. believe whatever they please. No one here would have a problem with them if they would stay in their lane - basically mind their own business - and stop trying to control the private lives, actions and beliefs of others, all the while turning a blind eye to the horrific numbers of assaults on women and children by their own clergy.
They are hiding behind the first amendment because it allows them to get away with flouting the rule of law (something that is entirely different from free speech) and then yell "censorship!" and "persecution!" if anyone dares call them out on it. Even most of the media backs off from asking the hard questions.
And now that Trump is elected, they will soon be trying to literally outlaw many of us here. Hence the frustrating thought that religion is what should be outlawed. Sure, that idea won't go anywhere. It's not supposed to.
These are not first amendment issues. These are existential ones.
A diverse, multi-cultural society is not what they want. But it's where we all live.
I also want to add that the means are the end for Christians. I'm trying to think now of an example of when Christians used unchristian means to achieve an end that was deemed good by the same people. Can you give me an example? I'm not being cute here, I'm curious.
No, you're being an asshat. Christians use unChristian means all the time. "Rules for thee, not for me."
Again you're saying freedom of speech for some but not all language. That defeats the purpose. It's freedom of speech for people you don't agree with. This country used to believe in this, see 1979 ACLU paying legal fees for Nazis. I don't agree with Nazis (as 99.99999% of Americans) but if they can't speak it means I can't either.
Yet here you are. And the Nazis are taking power again.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ca119ffc634b8c092e5848874d01cbd9b49ef2b96504f628c020acc93ace7f5.jpg
Hegseth doesn’t give a damn. That’s exactly the problem. These folks don’t give a thought to others, how they come across, whether they are offending anyone. They care only for themselves and their religious perspective. This attitude is one that constantly tears at the communal fabric of society. It’s not religion per se, but the self indulgent assurance that their religion is right, the only one, and the rest by damned.
Even worse: they can be radical and asinine and act out and GET AWAY WITH IT ... because Trump.
Exactly. It's going to be "fall in and shut your yap."
Now do Jews and Muslims.
Until something impacts them, I have little hope the MAGA faithful will have anything like "self-awareness"
That's the way it has been with Republicans since before I can remember. Something PERSONAL has to happen to them before they recognize any issue as being in need of their attention and/or action.
They won't develop self awareness, they'll just blame Democrats. Or childless cat ladies. Or (fill in the blank). But no, it will never be because Dear Leader fucked up.
“they will inevitably call it religious persecution, and their gullible, white evangelical base will eat it up because they believe their side can do no wrong.“
It’s less that their side can do no wrong and more our side can do no right, we can make no criticism. But also their side has decided Christianity is not Jesus love and forgiveness, but intolerance, violence and hatred. You ask them to stop and be kind and they’re all shouting persecution.
Deus Vult means shit off brain and empathy and do as I want because I can justify it with divine providence.
Just another appointment from Trump straight from Project 2025 designed to destroy our system of government from within. Don’t be surprised when them checks and balances are all murdered in their sleep.
That's incredibly racist, "..gullible, white evangelist base.." Is there something wrong with white people as a whole? Why feel the need to bring skin color into your commentary?
You do realize the part you quoted was a quote from the article. I was working off the what the article said.
And yes white evangelicals are racist. Not white people as a whole, white evangelicals, it’s an adjective used here to narrow down to specific people who are causing a problem. As opposed to black evangelicals who aren’t being targeted by the folks in charge.
Don’t be so obtuse.
He's not obtuse. He's an acute asshole.
White Evangelicals are racist. OK thanks for the insight. I'll keep that in mind when I meet a white Evangelical in the future. Any other groups I should have prejudices about?