Religion, Secularism and Homosexuality

[Anthony '58]

Happy Pride Day, everyone - and DEATH TO RADICAL ISLAM!

[Eric the Green]

Trump is the national conservative and the neo-liberal.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Trump is the national conservative and the neo-liberal.

As usual, to quote Don Newcombe, you are not only wrong, but loud wrong: Donald Trump is a disciple of Samuel Gompers, who, like Trump, supported both cutting off immigration and slapping tariffs on foreign-made goods - and the latter stand also makes Trump an heir to Alexander Hamilton, and Hillary a disciple of John C. Calhoun.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 08:29 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:

Quote:Trump is the national conservative and the neo-liberal.

As usual, to quote Don Newcombe, you are not only wrong, but loud wrong: Donald Trump is a disciple of Samuel Gompers, who, like Trump, supported both cutting off immigration and slapping tariffs on foreign-made goods - and the latter stand also makes Trump an heir to Alexander Hamilton, and Hillary a disciple of John C. Calhoun.

No, because Hillary doesn't and hasn't supported most trade deals. Trump is a "loud" neo-liberal because of his tax and deregulation policies; pure Reaganomics. And he supports a huge national debt, just like Reagan and Dubya Bush, but even more so..

[Anthony '58]

Quote:No, because Hillary doesn't and hasn't supported most trade deals. Trump is a "loud" neo-liberal because of his tax and deregulation policies; pure Reaganomics. And he supports a huge national debt, just like Reagan and Dubya Bush, but even more so..

Only if one uses a now-obsolete template is this true. And in any event, Trump is a strident cultural conservative - since cultural conservatism is now defined by being anti-Mexican; i.e., anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim - not by being anti-abortion and anti-gay.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 10:22 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:

Quote:No, because Hillary doesn't and hasn't supported most trade deals. Trump is a "loud" neo-liberal because of his tax and deregulation policies; pure Reaganomics. And he supports a huge national debt, just like Reagan and Dubya Bush, but even more so..

Only if one uses a now-obsolete template is this true.

Low taxes on the rich and deregulation is still the basis of neo-liberal. Trump fits, even if his trade policies don't.

Quote: And in any event, Trump is a strident cultural conservative - since cultural conservatism is now defined by being anti-Mexican; i.e., anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim - not by being anti-abortion and anti-gay.

By you, or maybe Trump, but for others, cultural conservatism is still ALL those things.

I am dubious that Donald Trump represents the future of the GOP. When he loses, the Republicans might very well go back to what they were under the leadership of Reagan and the Bush. For now, Trump is a charismatic rabble-rouser who won the nomination. He won it, but Republicans in general still don't back him. So, has he really changed the party? You say yes; I say, not so sure bout that.

[Anthony '58]

In politics, there are no such thing as permanent friends or permanent enemies - only permanent interests.

And in American politics, if you don't like who hates who, wait five minutes.

Both applied to the evangelicals vis-à-vis the Jews after 9/11 - and IMO at least, both apply to the evangelicals vis-à-vis the LGBT community after the Orlando shooting. And have you heard even one rant about transgenders in bathrooms since the shooting? I haven't.

[Eric the Green]

George Carlin delivers a classic line:

What do pro-life conservatives want from those saved "babies"???

[Eric the Green]

Sexual topics are still a big deal for many Republican (now called "red") conservatives. Homosexuality is gaining more acceptance, but not among some conservatives, who still hate or just oppose what is unusual in society or conflicts with their religious beliefs. Abortion is still the biggest deal, and younger folks are more apt to be anti-abortion than anti-homo. Personally, although this is one of the most divisive issues in America, I think it can be compromised if people on both sides are willing. Right now, they aren't willing.

I am not a woman, so of course I will never be able to speak for the women's movement. But I think abortion could be more severely restricted even in blue states, and thus "pro-life" for fetuses could be acceptable, if the abortion pill and other contraceptives could be made widely available. This "compromise" would require that a fetus not be seen as an "unborn baby" right from the moment of conception on, so that it could be seen as one early on, as pro-lifers want. It would require tax support for Planned Parenthood, and probably making the abortion pill over the counter, even if abortion treatments by doctors are restricted to saving the mother's life, or only for a fetus a few weeks old or even less. I don't know if it's possible, but this is a tech fix for a polarizing issue.

Another fix might await more acceptance and progress for the New Age Movement and research into life before birth. Is there a soul? When does it enter the fetus? Does this vary? One day we may have clearer answers to these questions, even if not totally sense-based empirical ones, but through hypnosis and mediumship and life after death research. Then we could go by experience and information about the other side and the soul, and not just on beliefs dispensed by the Church, in deciding the abortion question. And such information would not only mean we'd know when we are actually "killing babies," but we might be less concerned if we know that we are souls and not bodies, and if a fetus is taken away from a soul, it can enter again in another one.

I know that today big and irreversible advances are being made in artificial intelligence (AI) and other tech fixes. I hope again that one day, like during the recent 2T Awakening, that progress in human potential (Human Intelligence) and spiritual knowledge might again be pursued as well.

Just food for thought. These changes won't come in time to resolve this Fourth Turning, but if some awareness of these possibilities existed, perhaps the noise volume and the potential violence surrounding this issue might be less.

[Bob Butler 54]

Once upon a time, the European kings needed more babies so they could have bigger armies, kill more folk, and amass more temporal power. At one point, there were two Popes who bid against each other for political recognition of their supposedly religious authority. Among other things, this was the time when abortion was made a big stigma. One of the Popes, in return for recognition, gave the King his bigger army. Unfortunately, this was just before the Protestant Reformation, thus the new churches kept many patterns from the old.

While modern churches aren't as messed up as the old medieval ones, the deeper I look into how decisions were made in the old days, the more dubious I get about the old traditions. If someone once spoke in the name of God, their heirs sorta have to go along with whatever was said way back when. Otherwise you end up diluting your own authority. This makes me skeptical.

Of course, much of my perspective is that Agricultural Age civilization was horribly flawed. We've had a century or to of crises moving to a different pattern of economics, military, political, moral and religious perspective. I'm dubious about returning to Agricultural Age thought.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(07-07-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Sexual topics are still a big deal for many Republican (now called "red") conservatives. Homosexuality is gaining more acceptance, but not among some conservatives, who still hate or just oppose what is unusual in society or conflicts with their religious beliefs. Abortion is still the biggest deal, and younger folks are more apt to be anti-abortion than anti-homo. Personally, although this is one of the most divisive issues in America, I think it can be compromised if people on both sides are willing. Right now, they aren't willing.

I am not a woman, so of course I will never be able to speak for the women's movement. But I think abortion could be more severely restricted even in blue states, and thus "pro-life" for fetuses could be acceptable, if the abortion pill and other contraceptives could be made widely available. This "compromise" would require that a fetus not be seen as an "unborn baby" right from the moment of conception on, so that it could be seen as one early on, as pro-lifers want. It would require tax support for Planned Parenthood, and probably making the abortion pill over the counter, even if abortion treatments by doctors are restricted to saving the mother's life, or only for a fetus a few weeks old or even less. I don't know if it's possible, but this is a tech fix for a polarizing issue.

Another fix might await more acceptance and progress for the New Age Movement and research into life before birth. Is there a soul? When does it enter the fetus? Does this vary? One day we may have clearer answers to these questions, even if not totally sense-based empirical ones, but through hypnosis and mediumship and life after death research. Then we could go by experience and information about the other side and the soul, and not just on beliefs dispensed by the Church, in deciding the abortion question. And such information would not only mean we'd know when we are actually "killing babies," but we might be less concerned if we know that we are souls and not bodies, and if a fetus is taken away from a soul, it can enter again in another one.

I know that today big and irreversible advances are being made in artificial intelligence (AI) and other tech fixes. I hope again that one day, like during the recent 2T Awakening, that progress in human potential (Human Intelligence) and spiritual knowledge might again be pursued as well.

Just food for thought. These changes won't come in time to resolve this Fourth Turning, but if some awareness of these possibilities existed, perhaps the noise volume and the potential violence surrounding this issue might be less.

If you think the 4T would be about culture wars issues and you also think that religion and abortion issues would continue into the next saeculum; what culture wars issue is the current 4T about in your opinion?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-09-2017, 06:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know why people just do not butt out of people's personal decisions. You live by what you think is right and let others decide what is right for them. Also, do those who cry about babies being killed care about those babies once they are out of the womb? Do you care about preservation of that life as much as you care about the child being born? Btw I am not for abortion. I just acknowledge that there are many reasons why someone may actually need it and that it is none of my fkn business to be up in someone else's business.

In the old days of the Agricultural Age, it was thought possible to guess what God is thinking.  Assuming you guessed right, the thing to do is make up and enforce rules which make sure everyone does as God wishes.  Perhaps that was not the only style of thinking on big issues, but in general it was thought the kings, popes and such like could and should dictate what should be.

Come the Enlightenment, some thinkers came up with the idea of Rights, that certain decisions were personal, that you shouldn't go around forcing your opinion on someone else.  Naturally, many held the feeling that God agreed with Rights, that Rights were created by God, that Rights have divine approval.

You might wish that these two basic approaches might have settled out priorities by now, but abortion is one issue among others where many still believe they know God's opinion.  As the world becomes more secular, it is becoming less an issue of what God is thinking, more a question of whether one's own thoughts might perhaps matter.

To some degree, these two ways of thought still echo today.  Conservatives and especially fundamentalists might be somewhat more inclined to read God's mind and enforce proper behavior on all.  Progressives are often more enamored of rights and people making their own decisions.  This dichonomy is by no means a universal these days, only a trend, but it lurks behind a lot.

[pbrower2a]

(07-09-2017, 08:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-09-2017, 06:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do not know why people just do not butt out of people's personal decisions. You live by what you think is right and let others decide what is right for them. Also, do those who cry about babies being killed care about those babies once they are out of the womb? Do you care about preservation of that life as much as you care about the child being born? Btw I am not for abortion. I just acknowledge that there are many reasons why someone may actually need it and that it is none of my fkn business to be up in someone else's business.

In the old days of the Agricultural Age, it was thought possible to guess what God is thinking.  Assuming you guessed right, the thing to do is make up and enforce rules which make sure everyone does as God wishes.  Perhaps that was not the only style of thinking on big issues, but in general it was thought the kings, popes and such like could and should dictate what should be.

In those days the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church reflected the economic hierarchy of the time -- and one brother of the Lord of the Manor was the Bishop and another controlled the judicial process -- and the latter two typically shared  the same class interest. Any serf who got out of line could be boiled alive, broken at the wheel, drawn and quartered, cast to the pigs, impaled, or whatever sadistic means of execution with torture was the fad of the day. The Pope was typically one of the biggest aristocrats who got through the hierarchy and not so much the most devout and humane clergyman. The King, himself the biggest lord, stood behind the fellow lords who supplied troops for war. So what was God thinking? Ask those who had the worldly power!

In the Agricultural Age, as with fascist or Commie regimes, one obeys or dies. In that, Hitler and Mao were much more similar than their ideologies suggested.

Quote:Come the Enlightenment, some thinkers came up with the idea of Rights, that certain decisions were personal, that you shouldn't go around forcing your opinion on someone else.  Naturally, many held the feeling that God agreed with Rights, that Rights were created by God, that Rights have divine approval.

...and that reflects also a change in religious attitudes that piety was more precious than power. To be sure, the American Revolution still happened during the pre-industrial era. Maybe there was already a conflict between merchants, tradesmen, and big landowners -- or perhaps, as in New England and southeastern Pennsylvania, either the ideology or the topography favored small farms. Note well that southeastern Pennsylvania is similar in climate and land-forms to northern Virginia, where giant plantations became the norm.

OK, so the Congregational preacher of New England was not selected for social connections but instead for learning. Quaker-Mennonite Pennsylvania was the wrong place to live if one relished conspicuous consumption possible only if one has slaves or serfs to do the farm labor.

Quote:You might wish that these two basic approaches might have settled out priorities by now, but abortion is one issue among others where many still believe they know God's opinion.  As the world becomes more secular, it is becoming less an issue of what God is thinking, more a question of whether one's own thoughts might perhaps matter.

Opposition to abortion and contraception are now clearly right-wing. I can see the effects on class: overpopulation means more income to landlords who can charge more if they own the apartments necessary for being close to one's work, and for those relying upon labor a copious supply of people who must compete for jobs can drive wages down, which is good for higher profit. I can see where Trump's class interests are on that... and I can also see what the class interests are for an old-school owner of a sweat-shop.

Quote:To some degree, these two ways of thought still echo today.  Conservatives and especially fundamentalists might be somewhat more inclined to read God's mind and enforce proper behavior on all.  Progressives are often more enamored of rights and people making their own decisions.  This dichotomy is by no means a universal these days, only a trend, but it lurks behind a lot.

If one believes in God, then one believes in Him as one wants Him to be  -- almost as a rule.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-10-2017, 01:40 AM)taramarie Wrote: Whatever the reason those people need to back the F off and follow their way of living and let others do the same for what feels right for them on that personal level. No one likes being controlled I imagine.

I sympathize. Unfortunately there are those who like to control.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2017, 11:17 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(07-07-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Sexual topics are still a big deal for many Republican (now called "red") conservatives. Homosexuality is gaining more acceptance, but not among some conservatives, who still hate or just oppose what is unusual in society or conflicts with their religious beliefs. Abortion is still the biggest deal, and younger folks are more apt to be anti-abortion than anti-homo. Personally, although this is one of the most divisive issues in America, I think it can be compromised if people on both sides are willing. Right now, they aren't willing.

I am not a woman, so of course I will never be able to speak for the women's movement. But I think abortion could be more severely restricted even in blue states, and thus "pro-life" for fetuses could be acceptable, if the abortion pill and other contraceptives could be made widely available. This "compromise" would require that a fetus not be seen as an "unborn baby" right from the moment of conception on, so that it could be seen as one early on, as pro-lifers want. It would require tax support for Planned Parenthood, and probably making the abortion pill over the counter, even if abortion treatments by doctors are restricted to saving the mother's life, or only for a fetus a few weeks old or even less. I don't know if it's possible, but this is a tech fix for a polarizing issue.

Another fix might await more acceptance and progress for the New Age Movement and research into life before birth. Is there a soul? When does it enter the fetus? Does this vary? One day we may have clearer answers to these questions, even if not totally sense-based empirical ones, but through hypnosis and mediumship and life after death research. Then we could go by experience and information about the other side and the soul, and not just on beliefs dispensed by the Church, in deciding the abortion question. And such information would not only mean we'd know when we are actually "killing babies," but we might be less concerned if we know that we are souls and not bodies, and if a fetus is taken away from a soul, it can enter again in another one.

I know that today big and irreversible advances are being made in artificial intelligence (AI) and other tech fixes. I hope again that one day, like during the recent 2T Awakening, that progress in human potential (Human Intelligence) and spiritual knowledge might again be pursued as well.

Just food for thought. These changes won't come in time to resolve this Fourth Turning, but if some awareness of these possibilities existed, perhaps the noise volume and the potential violence surrounding this issue might be less.

If you think the 4T would be about culture wars issues and you also think that religion and abortion issues would continue into the next saeculum; what culture wars issue is the current 4T about in your opinion?

Abortion seems the most divisive cultural issue in this time, which is why I was discussing it.