Kevin Scheunemann on June 20, 2018 at 12:23 am You can see all the uncomfortable godless in audience.
You can see all the uncomfortable godless in audience.
Kevin, do you feel uncomfortable when someone proclaims their non-belief?
Of course! They are on the road to hell and seen anxious to jump into the pit.
I want to grab them by the ankles and implore them not to go.
Maybe the non-believers in the crowd have the same thoughts that you do – except about religious tub-thumpers.
God helped them win an Oscar or win the football game, huh? He didn’t want the others to win?
Non-believers think we all end in same place, so it should not bother them.
They should celebrate “diversity”.
Except they don’t…
Looks like some of the biblical scholars feel we all end up in the same place as well. What a tortured existence it must be to try and rationalize contrary to your teachings.
“ Genesis 3:19 (King James Version): In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
The sociopathic left not only abhors the morality component of any and all established religions in favor of proclamations from the state, but they object to state proclamations that may have had their genesis in religious morality. We’ve even witnessed over the last decade or so their propensity to ignore the state’s rule of law when those laws are perceived to infringe upon their practice of free-ranging narcissism. The thin veil masking their hatred of authority of any kind is evaporating before our eyes.
The Democrats at the national level have realized that inviting society’s lunatic fringe to the table of governance in exchange for votes and cash was a mistake not easily rectified. Narcissists are impossible to satisfy and having been given a taste of power their malevolence will not be easily controlled. This type of organized evil transcends party politics and will violently resist being marginalized. Can’t stuff this genie back in the bottle.
You evidently have Kevin Scheunemann‘s posts about morality. According to Kevin morality no longer plays a part in politics.
Merlin, do you think the GOP in general has promoted the idea that they don’t care about anyone’s religious beliefs, and whether you believe or not?
I was discussing souls, not physical bodies.
I apologize if I was talking above your level.
Take my advice, you havea long way to go as a Theologian.
Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves for tossing morality out of politics. A person can still be moral in a sphere of immorality, but needs to play within the rules of the sphere to forward morality sometimes.
Democrats may blame themselves, but it doesn’t explain your rationalization of accepting the lack of morality of the Trumplican party.
Great quote. It certainly applies to the current administration.
“The conservatives both at the state and national level have realized that inviting society’s lunatic fringe to the table of governance in exchange for votes and cash was a mistake not easily rectified. Narcissists are impossible to satisfy and having been given a taste of power their malevolence will not be easily controlled. This type of organized evil transcends party politics and will violently resist being marginalized. Can’t stuff this genie back in the bottle.”
I have not intent nor desire to be a theologian. But it sure is fun to, as my great uncle would say, “catch you in a cross haul”. Your selective use of scriptures to prove your point is often in opposition to one of your earlier comments. No one should be surprised.
As I have explained before, we have excused morality from the office of President in the name of Tribalism. I want Trump to be a moral example and will call him out on it, but we are long past the point of officially sacrificing anyone in that office on the alter of morality. So get over that part.
I’ll bite. Selective use of scripture? Is this yet another time will you will be unable to come up with even one quote to affirm your wild allegation? Don’t you consider it immoral to accuse me of so many things and have the inability to even come up with one example?
“we have excused morality from the office of President in the name of Tribalism.”
No, “WE” haven’t. You and other members of the Trumplican Party have though.
Rationalization is the second strongest Hyman drive.
Da Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
Just because you cannot admit the truth, doe not mean it does not exist.
Rationalization is the second strongest human drive.
Denial of the truth is the first.
No, I believe the first is to live.
There’s a stark difference between promoting a government’s tolerance of all religions and their inherent teachings of morality that have historically been the glue of governance, and the total exclusion of all religious influence from government. The first is possible to achieve, the second is not.
Morality dictates conscience and is the basis for how a government for and by the people should operate. Maintaining morality in politics should result in citizen legislators who agonize over whether their actions on behalf of their fellow citizens are moral. It should never be an easy job.
Most mainstream religions share the same basic tenets. Common themes of morality among the various religions should be enough to promote good governance. The electorate should demand more morality (religious or otherwise) of government rather than allow the exclusion of the religious morality element from our governmental conscience.
The GOP at the national level has, in general, been slower to embrace the decline of morality in government than the Democrats, but fewer of them seem to want to be held accountable for anything anymore. If voters aren’t willing to hold them to exacting moral standards, what are you willing to hold them to? Campaign promises?
“Morality dictates conscience and is the basis for how a government for and by the people should operate. Maintaining morality in politics should result in citizen legislators who agonize over whether their actions on behalf of their fellow citizens are moral. It should never be an easy job.“
Very well said. Bravo!!!!
I agree with that, but when you have liberals running around acting out of constant IMMORALITY, a moral being has to deal with and act inside the sphere of immorality the immoral create.
We can’t act like our institutions are all moral these days because the cesspool liberal lexicon has corrupted many of those intitutions.
It’s not just liberals, it’s also conservatives. Both are just as bad as the other and for Republicans to accept and take the low road is against everything they’ve railed against for ever. And at this time in history, there are only a handful of moral Republicans left. They’ve all turned their backs on being the party of and have become Trumpanzees.
It’s not just liberals, it’s also conservatives. Both are just as bad as the other and for Republicans to accept and take the low road is against everything they’ve railed against for ever. And at this time in history, there are only a handful of moral Republicans left. They’ve all turned their backs on being the party of principle and have become Trumpanzees.
I would posit that many of the institutions run by the current administration in DC are also immoral. To wit; EPA, DHS, DOI, FEMA, etc.
Getting beyond marital infidelity…which since Kennedy has been not a reason to get rid of a President….
What other issue are conservatives acting immoral on?
I’ll probably agree.
“I’ll probably agree.“
No you wouldn’t. You rationalize.
Back to the speech . Mr Pratt tells the youth they have a soul and a God who lives them.
What evidence does he have to make those statements ?
Religious writings were man’s first attempt at explaining what was unexplainable up to 4,000 years ago . As with most first endeavors , it was not our best effort .
Religious beleifs of any kind are based on an absence of evidence that believers call “Faith “ .
Religion can make the believer feel good and even righteous but it also accompanies with it an arrogance that “I found the one god out of the 10,000+ man has invented that is the real one “.
The God who watches with folded arms as 9 million die each year under the age of 5 die is either impotent or evil and it does matter which one it is ?
When my dead beat brother in law gets a mortgage finds a banker to give him a loan it’s a miracle . When Children die by the millions , He’s mysterious . How convenient .
It’s a waste of time to debate Bronze Aged writings which become “Faith “ to some as if they were fact based .
Just a word to the wise when you are quoted
Myth as if it had a shred of evidence behind it .
Ignore it .
I agree, I rationalize, certainly better than incoherency and irrational thought.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Merlin.
I think the First Amendment was placed there to allow free speech and free thought, and to prevent government from picking one religion over another. The Founders decided to not choose a state religion. Some of the colonies had that before.
Religion doesn’t have a corner on morality. The fact that otherwise wildly different religions have similar moral precepts tells me it’s a function of man, not an imagined God who is simultaneously impossibly ecumenical overall and rather specific sect-by-sect.
But you avoided my question… do you think the GOP doesn’t take a side when it comes to the religious beliefs?
“I agree, I rationalize, certainly better than incoherency and irrational thought.“
So what are you saying, Kevin.
He’s saying that he’ll continue to willfully misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘rationalize’ until someone on his team pulls him aside and explains it to him, at which point he’ll pretend he always knew what it meant, he was just trying to get a rise out of leftists, and you can’t prove he was misusing it anyway because comments self-delete in 30 days.
The GOP at the national level as currently constituted is schizophrenic when it comes to the value of religion. They have a love/hate relationship with the fundamentalist Christian lobby; they love the money and need the votes all while they resent the quid pro quo inherent in the relationship. They’re eager to marginalize their religious problem as successfully as their political opponents have done. Too many of them find morality, responsibility, and accountability exceptionally bothersome concepts. Some of them have even taken their ball and gone home.
Merlin, I do see what you’re saying. But in your first comment in this thread, you said:
It seems a bit over the top and oblique to me to suggest that the left ignores a moral component when it comes to laws. Do you think the recent opposition to separating children from their families wasn’t based on morality?
As I said above, and perhaps as you said above, there’s plenty of morality in common between religions, and I add between religions and non-believers.
As Penn Jillette put it:
Show me a GOP politician at any level who doesn’t say they’re a Christian, and then let’s calculate exactly how many zeroes are at the start of the percentage that represents that faction of the GOP.
Yup, the Democrats are much more wishy-washy touchy-feely about their religion. They don’t want to criticize anyone else’s religion almost as much as the GOP refrains from ever criticizing Christianity. Yet most (but not all) Dem politicians often (but not always) brush a few anecdotes about their faith into the stump speech, when they have to.
jff sez: Do you think the recent opposition to separating children from their families wasn’t based on morality?
Of course not. Proven by the fact that said recent “moral” opposition was initiated by re-dissemination of photographs first published in 2014. It’s called “selective outrage”. Nancy “Spark of Divinity” Pelosi, et. al., are masters of it.
jff continues: As Penn Jillette put it: Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.
Fascinating. Morality philosophy from one one who spent his life fooling. (I get it; it’s entertainment).
Unless Jillette is a perfect human – has never uttered the tiniest lie, has never broken the tiniest law, never experienced the tiniest lust or spewed the tiniest invective – he’d be wrong, at least, on the first point: humans are innately immoral. We prove it every day.
(btw, given Jillette’s hate-filled spews at Trump he himself has proven his own immorality.)
Is it immoral to confront hate with hate in a society that meets force with force?
ff sez: Do you think the recent opposition to separating children from their families wasn’t based on morality?
C’mon, man! You can build a better straw man than that. This game has been afoot for a very long time… 60+ years that I’ve been paying attention to, anyway.
The recent opposition has been based upon nothing more than maximizing myopic hype and hysteria. Take the time to think the detention dilemma through to a logical conclusion. Even the last couple of administrations realized that for nothing more than safety’s sake the illegal minors cannot be initially detained in the same space as adult illegals of unknown character.
If policy is to allow them across the border to be detained pending legal disposition, then it is certainly morally incumbent upon the government to determine with a high degree of confidence that the undocumented mommies and daddies are in fact mommies and daddies rather than coyotes delivering their cargo. Seems to me that the last three occupants of the WH have made the safety of the illegal minors the first priority to be addressed. Safety, not necessarily comfort.
The reality of illegal immigration is ugly. Globally. The reality for open border proponents is that they will find detention of any kind unacceptable regardless of whether “families” are kept together or not and regardless of the living conditions within the detention facilities. The next big bitch will be that the illegal families are being held in internment camps, intentionally conjuring up imagery of the WW2 Japanese internment camps. They may even so bold as to liken them to the Nazi concentration camps. Find a way to wager on that and you’ll put a little jingle in your pocket.
Find a way to wager on that and you’ll put a little jingle in your pocket.
That bet has already concluded. See: Kamala Harris
Apparently the straw man was trotted out by the current First Lady and several past First Ladies, and somehow the President decided to change his mind. All “hysteria”?
Governments and businesses and citizens alike have been enjoying the benefits of Mexican immigration for decades, yes.
Internment camps? I was waiting for Stephen Miller to offer the option of simply shooting anyone crossing the border from south to north.
Why, I can remember the GOP and Fox ‘n Friends getting all worked up about FEMA camps… now they’re a great idea, right?
Ah, we finally got around to the left’s stereotypical dishonesty of conflating legal immigration and illegal immigration. Now you’re just being silly. Try again.
You don’t think those who benefit are opposed to changing the situation?
You think that by applying deterrents, you can stop the flow? If America is truly washed in the blood and the soil made great again, won’t others be even more attracted to living here?
Do you think Mexico will pay for the wall?
If the constant deflection-by-misdirection inquiries is all you’ve got left the discussion is pretty much done, although it was fun while it lasted. Maybe another subject on another day?
I guess we’ll just summarize all the opposition to snatching children as “nothing more than maximizing myopic hype and hysteria” and be on our way then!