Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dirty Hipsters]

One can do all the same things, but you cannot follow the moral obligations of the Catholic Church without being a member of the Catholic Church, since you wouldn't be obligated. It's not following an obligation if you aren't obligated. I by no means suggested that religion has a monopoly on morality.

Can you specify the obligations you're talking about?

What if the obligations of the Catholic church are the same as the obligations of any normal society? How does one make the distinction between a lapsed Catholic who continues to fulfill these obligations due to their Catholic upbringing, versus a lapsed Catholic who fulfills these same obligations due to societal obligation, versus someone who fulfills these moral obligations due to their own sense of morality and guilt (an obligation to oneself)?

 

[tstorm823]

How does one make the distinction between a lapsed Catholic who continues to fulfill these obligations due to their Catholic upbringing, versus a lapsed Catholic who fulfills these same obligations due to societal obligation, versus someone who fulfills these moral obligations due to their own sense of morality and guilt (an obligation to oneself)?

You just did. Motive.

If you feed the poor because your belief in God drives you to, that is religious. If you feed the poor because it was something to do on a Wednesday, that's not religious. There's certainly gray areas in the middle, but that's generally a point in my favor, as this whole argument has been people trying to delete any nuance from the middle. Not everyone who believes in God is religious, and not everyone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist, and Agema definitely can't just claim anyone who is not deeply and actively religious for team atheist.

 

[Trunkage]

Probably a better analogy, but the general point still stands. The comments are not "this is how we use race to win elections", but rather "this is how they used race to win elections, we don't do any of that", where the "they" was before his time of relevance, and he was saying nothing he couldn't have read 10 years prior in the New York Times.

Lee Atwater lied all the time, including faking journalist just so he could roll out the FAKE NEWS banner. He lied about Bush Snr just so he could get Reagan the nomination. That's WHY he was hired

What Lee was doing in the interview, he was pretending that Reagan wasn't racist when he definitely was. You could say that Reagan might have unintentionally (like unaware) been a racist, but people were calling out his nonsense from the start. So even by 81, Reagan should have been conscious. That's why Lee did this. To pretend his boss wasn't a racist by pretending others were (Even in his rhetoric or when the cameras were turned off, as say Nixon or LBJ). Just because Reagan wasn't AS racist that doesn't make you non-racist. It just makes you less racist

You don't need Lee to think about the Southern Strategy. The GOP picked Goldwater who was emblematic of that Strategy. The GOP has been trying to course correct ever since. And if you look at the failure of the Dems to remove racism (even from their own African American president who went on scolding 'his fellow people' to be more white and stop being so bad) both parties have a long road ahead

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You just did. Motive.

If you feed the poor because your belief in God drives you to, that is religious. If you feed the poor because it was something to do on a Wednesday, that's not religious. There's certainly gray areas in the middle, but that's generally a point in my favor, as this whole argument has been people trying to delete any nuance from the middle. Not everyone who believes in God is religious, and not everyone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist, and Agema definitely can't just claim anyone who is not deeply and actively religious for team atheist.

So I say that religion is belief, and you say religion is action, but when I point that your actions and my actions are the same your response is that your actions are religious because of belief.

So...religion is belief rather than action because the belief is what makes the action religious.

 

[tstorm823]

The GOP picked Goldwater who was emblematic of that Strategy.

Goldwater campaigned in the south, yes. Goldwater did not campaign on segregation. He co-founded his state's NAACP chapter. If you think he was picked to cynically court racists, you're out of your mind.

So I say that religion is belief, and you say religion is action, but when I point that your actions and my actions are the same your response is that your actions are religious because of belief.

So...religion is belief rather than action because the belief is what makes the action religious.

Religion is practicing your faith, it's both things, this isn't that complicated.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Religion is practicing your faith, it's both things, this isn't that complicated.

You don't know if someone is participating in an action out of religious devotion if the same action exists both within and outside of that religion. In that case the only way to tell if someone is religious is if they believe (or claim to believe) in that specific religion. In that way belief in the religion is really the thing that matters.

Are there specific moral obligations that you think only exist within Catholicism which are also 100% necessary to be considered a Christian and without which one could not be considered a Christian despite a personal belief otherwise?

 

[tstorm823]

In that way belief in the religion is really the thing that matters.

If someone tells you that they believe in the God of a religion but that they don't follow the religion, would you call them religious?

 

[Silvanus]

What is neither belief nor action?

A feeling of reverence or respect is an example. If someone believes an entity fitting the description of a 'deity' or 'spirit' or 'loa' or what-have-you exists, but is malicious/unworthy/absent/dead (or is utterly ambivalent towards it) I'd hesitate to call them religious.

A huge number of people in Britain respond to censuses and polls that they're Christian, and I have no doubt they believe in the Christian god. But only a small fraction of them go to church, or actually pray. I'd struggle to identify any actions they take that express a devotion or obligation. Nor do they feel they've "failed" in any sense if they do not do so; its simply not considered important. Yet I'd never be so arrogant as to declare they don't count as Christians.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

More secret recordings of hollow ghouls!


Project 2025 is being more understood and exposed at least

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4730560-senate-democrats-require-women-draft/

There's a huge Republican hullabaloo coming up from a push by Democrats in the Senate to require women to enroll in Selective Service (i.e. the draft). Sam Brown, a Republican who suffered burn injuries to his face and body from an IED during a tour in Afghanistan, uses his wounds as an argument: " Look at my face. This is the high cost of war. ...forcing America’s daughters to register for the draft is UNACCEPTABLE."

To which I have to ask: Why is it acceptable to force America's sons to do so?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If someone tells you that they believe in the God of a religion but that they don't follow the religion, would you call them religious?

I already have in this thread.

There are plenty of Christians who believe in the Christian god and claim to be highly religious, yet have never read the bible cover to cover and barely follow any of Jesus's teachings. I would still consider them to be extremely religious because they use their religion as a basis for their personality and decision making even though their understanding of the religion is flawed and incomplete.

 

[Thaluikhain]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4730560-senate-democrats-require-women-draft/

There's a huge Republican hullabaloo coming up from a push by Democrats in the Senate to require women to enroll in Selective Service (i.e. the draft). Sam Brown, a Republican who suffered burn injuries to his face and body from an IED during a tour in Afghanistan, uses his wounds as an argument: " Look at my face. This is the high cost of war. ...forcing America’s daughters to register for the draft is UNACCEPTABLE."

To which I have to ask: Why is it acceptable to force America's sons to do so?

As well as the federal draft, individual US states have provisions for state drafts, with differences on who can be made to serve. Some can draft women.

Now, it's true that states haven't drafted anyone in a while, but the same is true of the federal government, though of course it was doing so more recently.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Indeed, because if one uses a metric that automatically excludes anyone who doesn't get school lunches already, then it's impossible to do so.

That's based on a metric to determine who needs those lunches...

If someone tells you that they believe in the God of a religion but that they don't follow the religion, would you call them religious?

They can follow their own religion. They can believe in God and not care about being Christian or Catholic or whatever. That doesn't mean they ain't religious. One thing I never got about religions is that how any 2 people could have the same religious beliefs let alone millions or billions believing the same thing.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's based on a metric to determine who needs those lunches...

acute process liberal brain

 

[Seanchaidh]

Columbia Task Force for Dealing With Campus Protests Declares That Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism

Columbia University’s task force on antisemitism revealed its plans not in a communiqué to faculty and students, but in a planted Israeli newspaper article.

theintercept.com

 

[Avnger]

Columbia Task Force for Dealing With Campus Protests Declares That Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism

Columbia University’s task force on antisemitism revealed its plans not in a communiqué to faculty and students, but in a planted Israeli newspaper article.

theintercept.com

And by "planted Israeli newspaper article", they mean an oped in the university's student-run newspaper https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/05/16/we-hear-you/

The case against Israel and its actions is bad enough to not engage in hyperbolic fear mongering...

Here's an actual takedown of the oped, if anyone is interested, found in the same student newspaper: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/06/11/task-force-on-antisemitism-can-you-hear-us-now/

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And by "planted Israeli newspaper article", they mean an oped in the university's student-run newspaper https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/05/16/we-hear-you/

The case against Israel and its actions is bad enough to not engage in hyperbolic fear mongering...

Here's an actual takedown of the oped, if anyone is interested, found in the same student newspaper: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/06/11/task-force-on-antisemitism-can-you-hear-us-now/

Well no, they published a very vague "we're almost there" in the Spectator, but no serious details about the report were revealed... until it was published in Haaretz.

Columbia task force reveals full extent of antisemitism on campus since Oct. 7

***

www.haaretz.com

It was likely published in response to the students pointing out their first accusation was all fluff and meaningless, but it also means the article is absolutely correct and this isn't at all hyperbolic fear mongering.

 

[Silvanus]

That's based on a metric to determine who needs those lunches...

Not exactly: it'll be a metric calculated to balance between the need, the expenditure, and the political vs financial benefits of both. Policies are not simply implemented on the basis of what everyone needs, using reliable metrics for that alone, with no other consideration.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Not exactly: it'll be a metric calculated to balance between the need, the expenditure, and the political vs financial benefits of both. Policies are not simply implemented on the basis of what everyone needs, using reliable metrics for that alone.

What everyone needs isn't some objective number either. You keep using the 130% of the poverty level when the 180% is also basically free lunches (it's like 50 cents a lunch), if you can't afford $~10 a month for your kid to eat lunch at that income level, you're not good at budgeting money.

 

[Silvanus]

What everyone needs isn't some objective number either.

Obviously. Yet some approaches are more reasonable than others.

if you can't afford $~10 a month for your kid to eat lunch at that income level, you're not good at budgeting money.

And you're fine with the kids going without because their parents are poorly budgeting?