Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 443842 times)

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5850 on: November 30, 2020, 07:37:06 AM »
Good article in the Post this morning about a Social Studies teacher in Ruby-Red West Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teaching-election-west-virginia/2020/11/29/b8e40a38-2b3a-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17161
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5851 on: November 30, 2020, 09:22:39 AM »
The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5852 on: November 30, 2020, 09:28:37 AM »
I found this to be an interesting read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/opinion/trump-conspiracy-germany-1918.html

I've been trying to get my head around how the polarization works at the individual and societal level. Thus far, I think Ezra Klein's book Why We Are Polarized and some of his podcast guests have been the most instructive at getting at how it works instead of just analyzing the after effects. I am honestly having a hard time putting my finger on how much of the "Stop the Steal" pushed by Trump and all of the various iterations are just Trump being petulant (and much of the GOP just keeping its head down because there is no short term strategic gain for individuals to speak up at this point), or if the push to divide is strategic in a broader sense. Demographics are certainly against the GOP now and they have been very systematic in their attempts to disenfranchise voters through districting, voter roll purges, pushing against mail in voting, making access to voter registration more difficult, and allocation of voting resources, not to mention just actually going to court to try and get minority-dominated districts (hellooo Wayne County!) thrown out. There is a clear bias towards staying in power over staying in a democracy. That staying in power takes the justification of attempting to preserve a way of life vis a vie: discussions above of perceived persecution of the religious majority, demographic shifts making whites into a minority, loss of conservatism for more open values (see all of the culture wars over LGBT, etc). I don't know if the overall story arc of 1920s to 1940s Germany is apt, but the push for identity politics over democracy is certainly apparent. Thoughts?

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5853 on: November 30, 2020, 09:47:49 AM »
imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Quote
It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13937
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5854 on: November 30, 2020, 10:07:38 AM »
imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Quote
It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which donít seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason weíve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1568
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5855 on: November 30, 2020, 10:22:19 AM »
imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Quote
It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which donít seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason weíve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

I heard J.D.Vance once say in one of his youtube interviews that the primary reason is geographical polarization.

I live in a liberal bubble, well separated geographically from the areas described in the WashPost article. To me, the reality these guys face is unfathomable. To them, my reality, I bet, is unfathomable as well! That creates the perfect environment for the "othering" -> polarization.

Perhaps, someday, we could build a civilized broadband all over the US - including rural areas - then some of us snooty liberals could move out of our bubbles in to the real world and avoid being lynched long enough to have an impact on the red bubbles.

Are there some rural areas already with good broadband? I know that Google Fiber has pockets in AL/GA/KS/MO. I don't see my family moving anytime soon (sorry), but I can at least pass along that info to people I know considering such moves in the wake of remote work.


ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5856 on: November 30, 2020, 10:23:46 AM »
imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Quote
It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which donít seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason weíve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

Personally I see it as a combination of two factors.

First, social media. As an example, I have extended family entirely bought into the "election fraud" bandwagon and who post on Facebook continuously about this. Pre-facebook (or twitter, whatever social media is in vogue) his beliefs on this would never have generated friction because I wouldn't have known about them. Social media enables people to project their political beliefs trivially, which also crafts an identify of sorts.

Second, changes in news media. Two main things here - ease of publishing content has reduced any barriers to entry for "news" sources. This has created immense quantities of subpar at best news and it is easier than ever to access news that perfectly fits your narrative. Prior to the internet this was much more challenging other than with radio. Print media wasn't something anyone with a website could "create" the way it is now. Most media was much more heavily gated for entry than now. And there are also challenges now related to speed of publishing, too.

Add in geographical polarization?

I'm not an expert on this but I think those factors combined have simultaneously lowered any barrier to entry in news content quality, enabled people to consume news they exclusively agree with, and created a platform for people to have their politics on clear display.



Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5857 on: November 30, 2020, 10:42:22 AM »
In the early days of the internet, there was a euphoria over the concept of easy access to information for the broader populace and how that would improve democracy through a more informed electorate. The last 20-30 years (depending on when you want to mark widespread internet) have shown almost the opposite. Sources of information on the internet are, other than major reputable news organizations, unvetted and unconstrained. People can increasingly silo their information sources and weird conspiracy shit like Qanon has much more fertile avenues to spread. Expansion of broadband has a lot of benefits, but the evidence does not support the expectation of a more informed electorate as a result.

Ezra Klein puts forward a hypothesis that the polarization is a confluence of many factors: the migration of southern conservatives out of the Democrats into the GOP following the Civil Rights Act which aligned party affiliation more closely with other identity politics; growth of conservative media outlets and internet influence; basic psychological patterns of humans and how we process information through a tribal us-vs-them lens and will hurt ourselves to hurt the "other" even more even if the basis for the difference is meaningless (see sports team affiliations). Many of these shifts concurrent with urban-rural and ethnicity demographic shifts have fed back on each other over time to increase polarization. Party affiliation is a much larger part of people's identity than it was 50 years ago (recognizing regional variations in that). Similarly, the geographic loyalty has faded relative to national level political identity (this had some weird quirks with national vs down ballot results this year). Once political identity and personal identity become more strongly intertwined, there is a bigger hurdle to voting for a different party even if the alternate candidate better aligns with your values, what you want as qualifications for the position, and expected outcomes.

Which leads us back to the GOP having little upside to advancing pure democracy (which we never had in the US, but is a direction the needle can go), but plenty of benefit to having a system that favors their (rural, conservative) base and having them increasingly value that identity over other issues. This is the concern with the "Stop the Steal". What if a significant portion of the population no longer values actual elections as the best way to form our government because those elections do not give them the power seat at the table and they have been given the window dressing of the other side "rigging" and "stealing" the election. Nothing like feeling like you have been wronged to get get people on board to do nasty shit. Are we there now? Not quite. This is why I am curious if this is just Trump being petulant or if (as Scott Adams suggests) this is chess that plays our baser instincts as pawns.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4188
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5858 on: November 30, 2020, 10:47:14 AM »
What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which donít seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason weíve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

I don't have an explanation for the hyper tribalism outside of the echo chamber of social media and a culture that worships outward appearances as a substitute for values and a personality, but you're bang on about the differences between the two major parties. To hear people yell, scream, and argue the past 25 years and especially during Obama's and doubly-so during Trump's administrations, you'd think the gulf between these two were a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon with life-and-death hanging in the balance. Meanwhile, you actually look at the monolithic policies and what's actually supported and done by both as a whole in practice, and you see them for what they are, two flavors of the same creeping right-wing authoritarianism. I've been saying for years that if Obama were 30 years older and could pass, he'd have fit in perfectly as a moderate with Reagan's GOP of the 80's.

It's kind of mind-boggling to think that the overall politically centrist modern Green and Democratic Socialist Parties, and people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are what's considered radical left now. It's the Overton Window at work.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5859 on: November 30, 2020, 10:48:43 AM »
The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they donít seem to care about the protection of others.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5860 on: November 30, 2020, 10:52:02 AM »
Anyone who is interested in the geographical aspect of polarization needs to read this, which is fascinating.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-American-ebook/dp/B0077FAYES

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13937
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5861 on: November 30, 2020, 11:03:23 AM »
The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they donít seem to care about the protection of others.

I understand and agree with much of what's being said regarding the preferential treatment of church-goers during a pandemic.  However, what's being left out is that religion and its daily practice are deeply embedded in the US constitution and legal precident in ways that hobbies and secular businesses are not. That - from a strictly legal standpoint - ensures that religion will be affording a different level of scrutiny.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5862 on: November 30, 2020, 11:04:22 AM »
Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5863 on: November 30, 2020, 11:25:26 AM »
Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

Would you say that the division in red and blue churches is also happening in the countryside and smaller towns or is it something you only see in larger cities? I am curious, how do you know if it is a blue or red church if you are new to the area? I tried to Google and imagine my surprised when I found yelp reviews for churches. It is actually even more businesslike then I imagined.

Personally, I donít like the time investment that I would need to do if I joined local non religious organisations. I donít mind pitching in now and then if it something I would like to support but to sign up for something every week is not appealing.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17161
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5864 on: November 30, 2020, 11:36:58 AM »
The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they donít seem to care about the protection of others.

I understand and agree with much of what's being said regarding the preferential treatment of church-goers during a pandemic.  However, what's being left out is that religion and its daily practice are deeply embedded in the US constitution and legal precident in ways that hobbies and secular businesses are not. That - from a strictly legal standpoint - ensures that religion will be affording a different level of scrutiny.

From a strictly legal standpoint, there's no hard definition of what a religion is . . . so that argument is utterly meaningless.

If I want to go to my BJJ gym I should declare myself a follower of the religion of jiu-jitsu who follows the prophet Mitsuyo Maeda (peace be upon him) and accepts physical sacrament twice during the week, once on Saturday, and every other Sunday.  Not a real religion?  Ha!  Since they're all made up, you can't actually prove that any religion is a real religion.  The supreme court has ruled that the only criteria for acceptance is that you believe sincerely in whatever made up thing you've selected.

Religious practice is in no way different from a hobby.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4104
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5865 on: November 30, 2020, 11:55:33 AM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5866 on: November 30, 2020, 12:20:19 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2798
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5867 on: November 30, 2020, 12:22:47 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5868 on: November 30, 2020, 12:26:38 PM »
Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

Would you say that the division in red and blue churches is also happening in the countryside and smaller towns or is it something you only see in larger cities? I am curious, how do you know if it is a blue or red church if you are new to the area? I tried to Google and imagine my surprised when I found yelp reviews for churches. It is actually even more businesslike then I imagined.

Personally, I donít like the time investment that I would need to do if I joined local non religious organisations. I donít mind pitching in now and then if it something I would like to support but to sign up for something every week is not appealing.

Well, having lots of time to waste just hanging out in small local organizations is mostly an old man's game yeah? But usually it's not too difficult to know how a church leans if you're familiar with the church vocabulary. Most denominations lean one way or another, but there are some denominations that also have conservative and liberal branches now. Think about the United Methodist church that officially split this year down LGBTQ lines. The conservatives tend to dig down and defend the line no matter what. Progressives can only sit around for half their life before they realize that the conservatives have no intention of ever moving or changing their opinions.

You can have a split church, but it can't be split forever. Usually this is because Conservatives in churches will demand that things stay the same, but liberals can share their opinions about things. So Liberals stick around thinking that there may be some hope of turning a church around. However, even if Liberals end up convincing 60-70% of a congregation after 15-30 years, they've enabled conservative leadership for those decades who now have enough legacy there to not be overturned, and not enough people care enough to throw a fit. This is the typical old guy who gets to say how everything goes even though most of the group disagrees.

I've seen this many, many times in churches I grew up in (very conservative Churches of Christ). Usually a preacher or elder of the church has an extremely strong opinion that is also mostly unpopular. They strong-arm the decision, 30-40% of the church leaves, the church can then no longer afford the preacher and lay him off, church hires new preacher who is more in line with church. The preacher is better than the last, and the church may recover some of the lost membership, but the most liberal members have likely moved on to somewhere else.

You'd think a church would be able to avoid this, but the combination between most people just aren't willing to stick up for themselves and strong-willed old people causes churches to slowly weed out their most liberal members and also amplifies the echo-chamber effect in churches themselves. 30-40% of the kids I grew up with in church have left it now either to atheism or more liberal churches and that means that there's no one to challenge the most toxic beliefs or even just simply share a different opinion. Churches are becoming big echo chambers, and just like on Facebook, the echo chamber is much, much stronger on the conservative side than the liberal side.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1240
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5869 on: November 30, 2020, 12:36:21 PM »
A very easy way to identify a liberal church is to look for one with a rainbow flag out front.  If you go inside and crack open a hymnal, you'll probably also see Micah 6:8 quoted somewhere prominently.  You can also look for one with a female pastor.  Then there are certain denominations that tend to be more liberal...definitely the unitarians and a good chunk of the episcopalians as well.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 12:45:04 PM by jrhampt »

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4204
  • Age: 38
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5870 on: November 30, 2020, 12:43:23 PM »
This dynamic that church leadership skews older and more set in their ways is not unique to conservative churches, if my experience as a 38 year old board member of a UU congregation is any indication. Effecting any kind of organizational change, even among a bunch of (mostly) progressives is incredibly difficult.

"We should amend the bylaws so we don't require a congregational vote for every last expenditure from the endowment" is apparently a controversial issue. I'm going to have to run workshops and probably work on this for multiple years to convince people that maybe we should actually be using some of that money every year and not just when we need to do significant work on the building. And I'm just the lowly VP for Finance - the folks pushing for real change face even more resistance.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5871 on: November 30, 2020, 02:44:39 PM »
Thanks @FIPurpose, @jrhampt and @dandarc for your answers. I find it fascinating that there are a church vocabulary to distinguish between different churches and that you choose churches based on political beliefs. I also find it interesting that politics is so mixed in to everything.

We donít even discuss political parties and what we vote among the family even if I could probably guess. At work even less (excluding last place were one of my colleagues was politician and another former one). It is not something that is considered polite to ask even though politician bashing is ok.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4377
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5872 on: November 30, 2020, 03:05:38 PM »
Are there some rural areas already with good broadband? I know that Google Fiber has pockets in AL/GA/KS/MO. I don't see my family moving anytime soon (sorry), but I can at least pass along that info to people I know considering such moves in the wake of remote work.

Chattanooga has some fo the best broadband in the country according to some of the tech websites. I suspect you could find places all over the country near universities where you'd have good internet and plenty of conservatives to make friends with.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4204
  • Age: 38
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5873 on: November 30, 2020, 03:39:56 PM »
@Plina - you say you live in a secular country, but you fund your churches through taxes - am I reading right?

Apologize for dropping an unexplained abbreviation - UU = "Unitarian Universalism". That's the denomination I was referring to - the Unitarians the jrhampt refers to. Tiny, but among the most liberal Christian denominations, at least by party registration of members in the United States anyway.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 03:42:04 PM by dandarc »

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5874 on: November 30, 2020, 05:07:47 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

He complained to his FoxNews mouthpiece Maria Bartiromo that the FBI and Justice Department weren't doing his dirty work for him. Recall that just prior to the election he was pissed at Barr for not finding a reason to arrest Biden. On 60 minutes his fired election watchdog threw him a curveball, saying that he should be proud and take credit for building that office and having the most secure election ever. Of course to take that credit he'd have to admit this fraud thing is all bullshit (and an attempt at a coup).

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4104
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5875 on: November 30, 2020, 05:11:12 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

He complained to his FoxNews mouthpiece Maria Bartiromo that the FBI and Justice Department weren't doing his dirty work for him. Recall that just prior to the election he was pissed at Barr for not finding a reason to arrest Biden. On 60 minutes his fired election watchdog threw him a curveball, saying that he should be proud and take credit for building that office and having the most secure election ever. Of course to take that credit he'd have to admit this fraud thing is all bullshit (and an attempt at a coup).

He really has painted himself into a corner, hasn't he?

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5876 on: November 30, 2020, 05:39:29 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

He complained to his FoxNews mouthpiece Maria Bartiromo that the FBI and Justice Department weren't doing his dirty work for him. Recall that just prior to the election he was pissed at Barr for not finding a reason to arrest Biden. On 60 minutes his fired election watchdog threw him a curveball, saying that he should be proud and take credit for building that office and having the most secure election ever. Of course to take that credit he'd have to admit this fraud thing is all bullshit (and an attempt at a coup).

He really has painted himself into a corner, hasn't he?

His rantings have become noise to me, especially with how farcical they've become. Proving fraud in court has gone nowhere, so now Biden must have the burden of proof that he won. Never mind silly things like election law. Several stories ran today describing Trump acting like Mad King George ranting about how he won and the only people left in the White House are the sycophant true-believers. 

The problem I'm having is the Republican factions in a couple state legislatures now suing to simply void the election and have them choose with no other justification than the hope that they can get away with it. One of them, maybe Pennsylvania, trying to argue that mail-in voting is unconstitutional after holding the election.  Despite our election being "the most secure ever," we have some serious vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. So far the courts have stuck with the law, but a few of these election certifications have hinged on just a couple personalities continuing to do the right thing when they have it in their power to do otherwise.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5840
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5877 on: November 30, 2020, 05:53:15 PM »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4467
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5878 on: November 30, 2020, 06:28:13 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

He complained to his FoxNews mouthpiece Maria Bartiromo that the FBI and Justice Department weren't doing his dirty work for him. Recall that just prior to the election he was pissed at Barr for not finding a reason to arrest Biden. On 60 minutes his fired election watchdog threw him a curveball, saying that he should be proud and take credit for building that office and having the most secure election ever. Of course to take that credit he'd have to admit this fraud thing is all bullshit (and an attempt at a coup).

He really has painted himself into a corner, hasn't he?

He makes contradictory claims all the time even if they don't make sense. This is literally pulled directly from his twitter. He has no problem taking credit for the most secure election in history while simultaneously claiming it was rigged and fraudulent.  Those claims are within the same sentence even.

Quote from: Trump on twitter
For years the Dems have been preaching how unsafe and rigged our elections have been. Now they are saying what a wonderful job the Trump Administration did in making 2020 the most secure election ever. Actually this is true, except for what the Democrats did. Rigged Election!

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5879 on: November 30, 2020, 06:28:53 PM »
Rats abandoning a sinking ship. Scott Atlas resigns.

http://hill.cm/7gAccQi?fbclid=IwAR1KdvXcpC6U2lhaIntyC2YK5l3keaSr7l6Ou3OOefKqJYr5foN1skvolhk

His appointment was due to expire this week, so was his resignation a statutory requirement?

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5880 on: November 30, 2020, 06:29:36 PM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

He complained to his FoxNews mouthpiece Maria Bartiromo that the FBI and Justice Department weren't doing his dirty work for him. Recall that just prior to the election he was pissed at Barr for not finding a reason to arrest Biden. On 60 minutes his fired election watchdog threw him a curveball, saying that he should be proud and take credit for building that office and having the most secure election ever. Of course to take that credit he'd have to admit this fraud thing is all bullshit (and an attempt at a coup).

He really has painted himself into a corner, hasn't he?

He makes contradictory claims all the time even if they don't make sense. This is literally pulled directly from his twitter. He has no problem taking credit for the most secure election in history while simultaneously claiming it was rigged and fraudulent.  Those claims are within the same sentence even.

Quote from: Trump on twitter
For years the Dems have been preaching how unsafe and rigged our elections have been. Now they are saying what a wonderful job the Trump Administration did in making 2020 the most secure election ever. Actually this is true, except for what the Democrats did. Rigged Election!

Okay, stupid me for not just assuming he'd take a third option and claim both at the same time.

Moonwaves

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • Location: Germany
    • My blog
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5881 on: December 01, 2020, 01:50:13 AM »
@Plina - you say you live in a secular country, but you fund your churches through taxes - am I reading right?
This happens in Germany as well. But only those who have declared themselves to be a member of whichever church pay that tax - so if you put down Roman Catholic when you register at the town hall, or tick that box on the form when you start a job, for example, then you pay church tax which goes to the Catholic church. If you're a non-believer you don't have to pay it.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3398
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5882 on: December 01, 2020, 04:14:31 AM »
Trump tried to call Arizona Governor Ducey's cell phone at the same time he's signing Arizona's election certification on live TV. Trump loses his shit on Twitter. The local newspaper throws a few zingers Ducey's way for kissing Trump's ass for the last couple years and the relationship ending with Ducey thrown under the bus.  A more pro-Ducey site soaks in the humor of him ignoring the call, but makes an interesting point. What if he took the call? Put it on speaker, and the whole world would get to hear Trump commit a felony by trying to get him to change the election.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2020/11/30/trump-turns-arizona-gov-doug-ducey-who-didnt-see-coming/6472969002/

https://www.politicalflare.com/2020/11/watch-arizona-gov-ducey-silences-call-from-trump-just-as-he-is-certifying-election-results/

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5883 on: December 01, 2020, 04:16:22 AM »
Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.
I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.
Someone mentioned Germany 1920-40 earlier. Here is that part:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth


Quote
Progressives can only sit around for half their life before they realize that the conservatives have no intention of ever moving or changing their opinions.
Well, that's the meaning of the word "conservative". If it takes you half a lifetime to find that out, you are not as smart as you think you are.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1240
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5884 on: December 01, 2020, 07:36:25 AM »
It's not that we choose churches based on politics (churches are SUPPOSED to be apolitical), but if you're a woman or a gay person, you may not want to be part of a church where you're not allowed into the church hierarchy.  Churches that allow female or gay clergy tend to be socially liberal and thus you're probably going to be attending church with a bunch of Democrats, even though politics aren't necessarily explicitly talked about.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5885 on: December 01, 2020, 08:03:26 AM »
Churches that allow female or gay clergy tend to be socially liberal and thus you're probably going to be attending church with a bunch of Democrats, even though politics aren't necessarily explicitly talked about.

Politics are explicitly talked about in conservative churches. I've been to several churches where people will preach about how all good Christians are required to go out and vote against abortion, or praise Trump from the pulpit, or go on and on about how Defending Israel Is Good, or whinge about how Gay Marriage Is Destroying The Country when that happens to be the political topic if the day, etc.

It's one of the most stark differences I've ever seen. Conservative churches do absolutely tell their members that they're required to vote Republican, liberal churches just focus on helping the poor and sick and needy and put-upon and the people who happen to flock to those churches tend to be Democrats.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1240
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5886 on: December 01, 2020, 08:10:07 AM »
Churches that allow female or gay clergy tend to be socially liberal and thus you're probably going to be attending church with a bunch of Democrats, even though politics aren't necessarily explicitly talked about.

Politics are explicitly talked about in conservative churches. I've been to several churches where people will preach about how all good Christians are required to go out and vote against abortion, or praise Trump from the pulpit, or go on and on about how Defending Israel Is Good, or whinge about how Gay Marriage Is Destroying The Country when that happens to be the political topic if the day, etc.

It's one of the most stark differences I've ever seen. Conservative churches do absolutely tell their members that they're required to vote Republican, liberal churches just focus on helping the poor and sick and needy and put-upon and the people who happen to flock to those churches tend to be Democrats.

Oh, absolutely.  Yes, I was making the point that this isn't what is *supposed* to happen though.  I went to a Baptist school affiliated with a church led by a very outspoken Trump supporter that has had both Hannity and Pence speak there in the past couple of years.  Presumably about politics, because why else would you invite a couple of Catholics to speak at a Southern Baptist church?  I have definitely heard politics preached from the pulpit in conservative churches. 

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Location: oh
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5887 on: December 01, 2020, 08:32:08 AM »
Churches that allow female or gay clergy tend to be socially liberal and thus you're probably going to be attending church with a bunch of Democrats, even though politics aren't necessarily explicitly talked about.

Politics are explicitly talked about in conservative churches. I've been to several churches where people will preach about how all good Christians are required to go out and vote against abortion, or praise Trump from the pulpit, or go on and on about how Defending Israel Is Good, or whinge about how Gay Marriage Is Destroying The Country when that happens to be the political topic if the day, etc.

It's one of the most stark differences I've ever seen. Conservative churches do absolutely tell their members that they're required to vote Republican, liberal churches just focus on helping the poor and sick and needy and put-upon and the people who happen to flock to those churches tend to be Democrats.
Disagree.  I belonged to a United Church of Christ church in a conservative community.  While no one explicity tells you who to vote for I remember a sermon (probably when Clinton was in office) on Welfare reform and how we would be punishing the children if it was enacted.  I also remember a responsive reading praying for those people who have hard hearts and don't want to enact minimum wage laws.

geekette

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5888 on: December 01, 2020, 11:05:04 AM »
From todayís spam. Ha ha ha!  Ha ha!  Who, on newsmax, dared to say no?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5312
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5889 on: December 01, 2020, 12:52:18 PM »
From todayís spam. Ha ha ha!  Ha ha!  Who, on newsmax, dared to say no?

It reminds me of some of the "Stop the Steal" rallies where people bring up the fact that there's NO way that Biden got more votes because, ya know, just look at how many people are here compared to a Biden rally.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5890 on: December 01, 2020, 01:42:38 PM »
@Plina - you say you live in a secular country, but you fund your churches through taxes - am I reading right?

Apologize for dropping an unexplained abbreviation - UU = "Unitarian Universalism". That's the denomination I was referring to - the Unitarians the jrhampt refers to. Tiny, but among the most liberal Christian denominations, at least by party registration of members in the United States anyway.

Actually, I learned it is not a tax but a churchfee, like a membership fee. It is apparently legislated through a law from 2000 when the church was separated from the state. If you fill the requirement for a denomination?/church organisation the tax authorities can help the organisation to collect the fee. There are apparently 17 of those that have asked for help. As a member I pay 1 % of my taxable income as a church fee to the Swedish church, but you seem to have catholic, methodist, muslim organisations among others. You become a member of the Swedish church by baptism as a kid or later in life. Previously, you became a member by birth but that is no longer the case. It is not a requirement to be a member of any of the organisations, with one exception. The head of the state, the king or the queen, has to be a member of the Swedish church.

You actually also pay a burial fee through the tax authorities to the Swedish church that is responsible for the upkeep of the cementaries. That is mandatory for everyone.

So why do I still say that Sweden is seen as a pretty secular country? Because, most of the people are members by habit or because they have to take action to quit their membership that my generation got automatically. Personally, I am still a member because I like to contribute to preservation of all the old buildings. Religion is also seen as something personal. I frankly only know one person that have ever mentioned visiting a church for sermons and she belonged to a nonconformist church. I can't remember a politician from the bigger parties talking about their faith. We have a Christian Democratic Party but they got about 6 % of the votes. So even if many are members, they are not active members.

The visits to services at the Swedish church are declining, In 1990, there were about. 24 million visits and 2019 about 13 million visits. About 3,4 million of those in 2019 were for Sunday service and 4,9 million for baptism, weddings, funerals (you don't need to be a member to be counted into this number). That is with 5,8 million members, which is more than half of the population. Most of the people I know visit the church for funerals, baptism and weddings, while Sunday services are for old people, at least in the Swedish churcht. I have been twice in a church this year, once for a funeral and once for a baptism.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 02:48:58 PM by Plina »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5891 on: December 01, 2020, 01:46:47 PM »
Quote
Progressives can only sit around for half their life before they realize that the conservatives have no intention of ever moving or changing their opinions.
Well, that's the meaning of the word "conservative". If it takes you half a lifetime to find that out, you are not as smart as you think you are.

Well, I've known many church members who hang around in a church they don't agree with because they either think that they will "slowly move the needle" or they tell other members to just "stick it out. Things will change!" You don't want to be labelled the reason why the group fell apart.

As a short example, I remember approaching the eldership at one church about including women in the service. Not even becoming clergy, just to start including them in the service such as allowing them to pray during a service, or other smaller duties. One elder was trying to get me to give up on the idea of it happening, and to just be happy with the things have changed for the better over the past year (basically super small crumbs of changes). The other elder basically started yelling and throwing a hissy fit about how I was ruining the church and that I should basically shut up and stop complaining. I left that day, and never went back.

To bring this back to the thread's topic, we have the same thing in the current Dem party. Biden is really eager to forgive and forget with the GOP. He continues to claim that they will come to the negotiating table in good faith. Now Biden has been around for the past 30 years, so he should know better. But this is all a very roundabout way of saying that yes I agree with you, the Dem. party and especially the current leadership is stupidly naive.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5892 on: December 01, 2020, 02:15:12 PM »
Quote
Progressives can only sit around for half their life before they realize that the conservatives have no intention of ever moving or changing their opinions.
Well, that's the meaning of the word "conservative". If it takes you half a lifetime to find that out, you are not as smart as you think you are.

Well, I've known many church members who hang around in a church they don't agree with because they either think that they will "slowly move the needle" or they tell other members to just "stick it out. Things will change!" You don't want to be labelled the reason why the group fell apart.

As a short example, I remember approaching the eldership at one church about including women in the service. Not even becoming clergy, just to start including them in the service such as allowing them to pray during a service, or other smaller duties. One elder was trying to get me to give up on the idea of it happening, and to just be happy with the things have changed for the better over the past year (basically super small crumbs of changes). The other elder basically started yelling and throwing a hissy fit about how I was ruining the church and that I should basically shut up and stop complaining. I left that day, and never went back.

To bring this back to the thread's topic, we have the same thing in the current Dem party. Biden is really eager to forgive and forget with the GOP. He continues to claim that they will come to the negotiating table in good faith. Now Biden has been around for the past 30 years, so he should know better. But this is all a very roundabout way of saying that yes I agree with you, the Dem. party and especially the current leadership is stupidly naive.
Biden has very little to lose but much to gain by providing an opening to work with the GOP at this point. The real litmus test will be if he plays hardball once McConnell starts obstruction on the first meaningful legislation up for vote (or committee for that matter). Mitch will definitely push at Biden hard to see how much ground will be given up.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5312
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5893 on: December 01, 2020, 05:09:36 PM »
There's a pardon-bribery investigation going on in the DC District. Some attorney-client privileges have been breached, which indicates how serious it is.

That'll be a constitutional case. Can a President pardon someone for a direct donation/bribe?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5894 on: December 01, 2020, 05:40:39 PM »
There's a pardon-bribery investigation going on in the DC District. Some attorney-client privileges have been breached, which indicates how serious it is.

That'll be a constitutional case. Can a President pardon someone for a direct donation/bribe?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html
... and can/will Trump just issue a pardon for the pardon/bribery case?

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5895 on: December 01, 2020, 09:04:52 PM »
One downside to pardons are the people you pardon lose 5th amendment immunity, so compelling them to testify means can't refuse questions.  Presidential pardons will be challenged, time to set some new court adjudicated limits for the first time.

Taran Wanderer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5896 on: December 02, 2020, 12:30:32 AM »
That should make for some interesting congressional hearings.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5897 on: December 02, 2020, 04:00:55 AM »
From todayís spam. Ha ha ha!  Ha ha!  Who, on newsmax, dared to say no?

It reminds me of some of the "Stop the Steal" rallies where people bring up the fact that there's NO way that Biden got more votes because, ya know, just look at how many people are here compared to a Biden rally.
Strangely that those people never looked at how many people showed up in other countries at Trump rallies O.o
Okay, joke aside, the 98% would easily be for "give up you clown" if you asked the world population.


John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5898 on: December 02, 2020, 08:49:36 AM »
There's a pardon-bribery investigation going on in the DC District. Some attorney-client privileges have been breached, which indicates how serious it is.

That'll be a constitutional case. Can a President pardon someone for a direct donation/bribe?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html
... and can/will Trump just issue a pardon for the pardon/bribery case?


Strict constructionism results in   the cut-and-dried  answer that he can for the reason that a president's Pardon Power is plenary "except in Cases of Impeachment."



ARTICLE II.

SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

The President shall...have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2020, 08:57:17 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5899 on: December 02, 2020, 09:02:17 AM »
There's a pardon-bribery investigation going on in the DC District. Some attorney-client privileges have been breached, which indicates how serious it is.

That'll be a constitutional case. Can a President pardon someone for a direct donation/bribe?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html
... and can/will Trump just issue a pardon for the pardon/bribery case?


Strict constructionism results in   the cut-and-dried  answer that he can for the reason that a president's Pardon Power is plenary "except in Cases of Impeachment."

However bribery is also illegal under State laws in every State in the US, and Trump can't protect against State charges.