The Sickness of Christian Politics & Christian Nationalism

[LFC]

Governor of South Dakota and COVID Death Queen Kristi Noem is sending National Guard troops to the southern border because who the f*** knows other than yet another stupid Republican political ploy. They really are collectively a joke ... one big, fat, lying, corrupt, dangerous, fascist joke.

Here’s a new story that manages to be both absurd and silly and also pretty outrageous. As part of her 2024 presidential ambitions South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is deploying elements of the state national guard to the Texas boarder to combat the “border crisis” which is mainly an element of the Republican campaign agenda for 2022. And the money to do it is coming from a private donor.

Govs. Abbott (Texas) and Doucey (Arizona) have requested that other Republican governors send law enforcement personnel to deal with the purported border crisis. (To the extent there’s a border issue it seems to have subsided since the Spring. It tends to be seasonal.) Other Republican governors have sent law enforcement personnel. Noem appears to be the only one sending elements of the state national guard.

So why am I posting this here? Weeeellll...

The auto scrap billionaire who is funding South Dakota’s deployment of national guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border told TPM in an interview that he was making the contribution because “this President would rather help other countries than help America.”

“I fought in Vietnam and a lot of my buddies died over there,” Willis Johnson told TPM in a Tuesday phone conversation. “And now we’ve got people saying we can’t even protect our own borders.”

“This President would rather help other countries than help America,” he added.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) announced on Tuesday that a private donor was financing the deployment of 50 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas as part of an effort to “secure our border.”

Noem spokesman Ian Fury told TPM that the donor was Willis and Reba Johnson’s Foundation, as first reported by Business Insider and Axios. When TPM called a number listed for the Foundation for comment, Johnson picked up.

“God gave America to us and God can take it away,” Johnson added. “If our people don’t protect it, then I don’t know what’s gonna happen.”

[goldenvalley]

So a private company is funding the deployment of National Guard troops? How can that be legal?

[LFC]

Jun 30, 2021 15:28:17 GMT goldenvalley said:

So a private company is funding the deployment of National Guard troops? How can that be legal?

Maybe because money is fungible so he's not really funding them? Clearly, though, sending 50 troops to the border for a couple months is nothing more than another piece of political theater.

[LFC]

South Dakota isn't the only one sending what amounts to militia. Florida has to get in on the act as well.

The state of Florida is set to come to the aid of Texas as the Lone Star state battens down the hatches in what it describes as a bid to secure its border in the face of an absent federal government.

Florida officials tell TPM that the state is committing upwards of 50 officers from its Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Highway Patrol, and Department of Law Enforcement to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.

The state is refusing to release details of precisely where the officers will be deployed, citing “operational security” and the need to keep potential wrongdoers on their toes.

“Some of those participating in illegal actions — if they know how many are there and where — they might change their strategy,” Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesperson Gretl Plessinger told TPM.

Republican governors began to preen over a supposed crisis at the border on a national scale after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) sent a letter on June 10 pleading for help to secure the border in the face of an absent Biden administration.

[indy]

Jun 30, 2021 15:28:17 GMT goldenvalley said:

So a private company is funding the deployment of National Guard troops? How can that be legal?

My question was how do these people have any authority well outside their home courts? Last I heard, a fish and game officer from Florida didn't have lawful authority in Texas. (And yes, FL is actually sending Fish and Game officers.)

So, I went and looked it up. Apparently there is some sort of multi-state compact that allows one state to seek assistance in emergencies from other states and lawful authority is automatically bestowed on those that are sent. Now, that compact contemplates things like invasions but the only actual requirement is a declaration of emergency from the requesting governor. And, as we all know, currently emergencies are declared at the drop of a hat for any politically motivated PR campaign.

[Bact PhD]

Jun 30, 2021 16:19:03 GMT LFC said:

South Dakota isn't the only one sending what amounts to militia. Florida has to get in on the act as well.

The state of Florida is set to come to the aid of Texas as the Lone Star state battens down the hatches in what it describes as a bid to secure its border in the face of an absent federal government.

Florida officials tell TPM that the state is committing upwards of 50 officers from its Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Highway Patrol, and Department of Law Enforcement to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.

The state is refusing to release details of precisely where the officers will be deployed, citing “operational security” and the need to keep potential wrongdoers on their toes.

“Some of those participating in illegal actions — if they know how many are there and where — they might change their strategy,” Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesperson Gretl Plessinger told TPM.

Republican governors began to preen over a supposed crisis at the border on a national scale after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) sent a letter on June 10 pleading for help to secure the border in the face of an absent Biden administration.

You beat me to posting this info. DeMinimis puts down yet another stake in the 2024 race. As if we don't have enough crime to deal with in this state, plus an ongoing search-and-rescue (more like -recovery) mission in Dade County...

FTR, yes, Fish and Game officers are classified as sworn LEOs in FL (the husband of a secretary I worked with eons ago was one and clarified that point). Granted, what exactly they are supposed to do in the specific situation is beyond me.

[Deleted]

The point is not for the officers from various states to have to do anything. It's for the governors of those states to look and feel good. A case of FOMO among Republican presidential hopefuls. As to the LEOs, they get a nice paid vacation with possibly some extra pay. Added bonus if occasionally the can harass a few. Huge boost for their ego and team morale.

[LFC]

From the NY Times:

Noem’s Use of Private Money to Deploy Guard Troops Raises Questions

South Dakota officials from both parties, as well as military historians, cited legal and ethical worries about the governor’s use of a donation from a Tennessee billionaire to send troops to the border.

Gee, ya' think? Here are the views of people with actual military legal experience.

Governors have wide authority to deploy National Guard units as they choose, and existing interstate compacts allow them to be sent to aid in recovery from natural disasters or events like the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by supporters of Donald J. Trump.

But Ms. Noem’s decision to accept private funding for the South Dakota National Guard’s deployment raised a number of ethical questions about the transparency of the state’s government and its use of the military.

“It’s basically money laundering, and it’s turning the state National Guard into a mercenary force,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer who is a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. “She’s using troops there that are a resource and have been paid for by taxpayers that are being used for a political show by a high-powered donor because the governor thought it was a good idea.”

Private funding of state National Guard troops was common in the 19th century, when mining companies subsidized military deployments to crush labor uprisings during the Industrial Revolution. A dedicated federal funding stream for the National Guard was created with what is often known as the Dick Act of 1903, named for the Ohio congressman who was chairman of the House Militia Affairs Committee.

“In terms of a governor accepting private money, there’s no historic precedent because the Guard is funded by U.S. and state tax dollars,” said Joshua Kastenberg, a military historian who served as an Air Force judge and is now a law professor at the University of New Mexico.

Legality aside, Ms. Noem’s decision to accept private funding for military operations worried both South Dakota Democrats and military ethicists. State Senator Reynold Nesiba, one of three Democrats in the 35-member chamber, said Wednesday that deploying troops at a donor’s whim “sets a dangerous precedent.”

“We cannot be setting up our Guardsmen to be mercenaries,” Mr. Nesiba said. “These are not troops for hire by anyone who calls the governor. They are not hers to dispatch for partisan political purposes.”

Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, said he had never heard of private funding for American military activity. Federal law, he said, would prohibit donors from directly subsidizing federal military activities, but it does not govern the funding of state National Guard units.

Like the National Guard troops deployed to the Texas border by Republican governors of other states, South Dakota’s troops, Professor Corn said, will largely serve ceremonial duties, though they will have the authority to make citizens’ arrests.

[pnwguy]

Silly rabbit, laws are for Democrats. Republicans just do whatever is necessary to grab and hold power.

[LFC]

This author makes a case that religion teaches us from a very early age to accept big lies and that's why it's so easy to get some people to accept The Big Lie. They've literally been trained to be unquestioning saps all of their lives. It really does help explain the support of Evangelicals for lies and cruelty.

That’s the problem. We are as a society—and by “we” I mean virtually all of us on the planet —brought up to believe howling absurdities, ridiculous impossibilities, and insupportable malarkey from our very first moments on Earth. We have massive lie-delivery systems that are the core institutions of our society. And we have created cultural barriers to even questioning those fabrications which are most deserving of skeptical scrutiny. For example, we regularly label as sacred those ideas that are least able to stand up to scrutiny. (Heck, we have folks in our society who can’t even handle the idea that the history we teach our kids might actually be based on what happened, you know, back in the past.)

[snip]

The original big lies are so big that if you are like most people some of them are ingrained in your identity, they are who you are. They come from religions and heritage. They are cooked into the primal soup of our minds. Many of them have been around for longer than many of the “facts” we have and as such are so covered in the dust of history and tradition that they appear to be as substantial as what is true. Indeed, some have a timeworn patina that makes them seem almost more important than that which is verifiable or even knowable.

Social science research gives a variety of reasons for why we are inclined to believe “alternative facts.” (Studies show a person is “quick to share a political article on social media if it supports their beliefs, but is more likely to fact check a story if it doesn’t.” We tend to vote for what we want to be true or what our friends believe. According to Peter Ditto, a social psychologist at the University of California, “our wishes, hopes, fears and motivations often tip the scales to make us more likely to accept something as true if it supports what we want to believe.” That said, another reason is often cited for our willingness to buy into the bullshit we are being fed. According to a 2019 University of Regina study, “People who believe false headlines tended to be the people (who) didn’t think carefully, regardless of whether those headlines aligned with their ideology.” So, one way or another, we fall for fake news because it’s easier for us, socially or intellectually.

Many of these lies were created out of necessity. Life is finite. (OK, I’m sorry. It is. Take a deep breath if you need to and then continue reading.) If we don’t come up with a good story about what happens after it ends or why we are here we will all go mad. So we make up preposterous stories about magic people in the sky and then immediately say that we cannot question those stories, that “faith” in them is more important than knowledge of what is real. Why? Because they will not stand up to scrutiny.

When challenged, the defenders of these original big lies say the truth is unknowable. Good try. Hard to argue with that. We don’t know there is not an omniscient rule-maker beyond the clouds or a heaven filled with virgins to give pleasure to the faithful so how can you question it? But of course, selling what is unknowable as a truth is one of the most important categories of lies we encounter in life. Indeed, it is the foundation of much of (speculation-based and often hooey-ridden) human philosophy. And it works.

According to a 2011 poll from the Associated Press, nearly eight out of 10 Americans believe in the existence of angels and a 2015 poll showed 72 percent of Americans believe in Heaven and 58 percent believe in the existence of Hell. A 2019 YouGov poll showed that almost half of all Americans believe in demons and ghosts… and 13 percent believe in vampires. (Note: Over half of Republicans believe in demons, whereas only 37 percent of Democrats do. How far is it from there to a similar percentage of Trump voters, according to an Economist/YouGov poll, believing that the Hillary Clinton campaign was a hotbed of “pedophilia, human trafficking and satanic ritual abuse?”)

This follows along the lines of a number of things presented by a current groups of atheists, especially the sentence "We don’t know there is not an omniscient rule-maker beyond the clouds or a heaven filled with virgins to give pleasure to the faithful so how can you question it?" The atheists I've watched and read simply advocate for an equal playing field, but of course religion can't bear that kind of scrutiny. It falls apart very quickly. Religion demands that it be accepted on a vastly lower evidentiary standard than other things and then calls that a virtue known as "faith." That's fine when it's not a destructive force but then this thread is all about when it is.

I've seen the religious right use two particular techniques to attack secular logic, values, and science. The first is the "special child" exemption that Dreher uses all the time. His beliefs, because they come from an old book (filled with flaws, contradictions, man-negotiated inclusions and exclusions, meanings that changed during translations, and some outright horrible things), are automatically superior and deserve extra respect. The "woke?" They can be mocked and spit upon. His religion? "AAAAHHHHH!!! Stop persecuting me!!!" The second is to desperately try to shove all things secular they don't like into a box and label it just another religion. Instant level playing field! Evidence doesn't matter. Observations don't matters. Experiments don't matter. It's all just part of a belief system that's "just like" a religion. With self-defense mechanisms this strong is it any wonder they can choke critical thinking out of people?

[jackd]

True of non evangelical Christians, Jews, and non literal followers of other religions as well?

[LFC]

Jul 6, 2021 20:30:15 GMT jackd said:

True of non evangelical Christians, Jews, and non literal followers of other religions as well?

I've met people of faith who retained their abilities to think critically and even question facets of their own religion. There are many that don't fit that mold. I think the more fundamental / literal somebody is the harder it is for them to separate the "known" from the known.

[LFC]

A 5-yr old boy drowned at a campground so the owner took the opportunity to blend politics and religion while plugging to fill vacancies at the campground.

"Know that Little Man is in a much better place filled with the Loving Arms of our Lord, Jesus the Christ," she wrote. "May God's White Light Shine upon the Campground and the many loving families here to appreciate our Freedom that we must still fight to keep. BE the voice and Protector of those innocent ones who can not Protect and Defend themselves."

Then, Retzlaff gave a plug for her business.

"We do have some availability: please stop in the office or call or book online."

The plug sparked a wave of backlash in the comments, with many people accusing Retzlaff of using the death of a child to promote her business.

When shown comments coming back to her post she played the victim. What a d-bag.

"From the hurtful hateful comments that continue to come my way after everything I post," Retzlaff said, "I could post that it's blue skies and sunshine today and the haters would jump on my page and hate me and say hurtful things."

[goldenvalley]

Jul 6, 2021 21:23:57 GMT LFC said:

A 5-yr old boy drowned at a campground so the owner took the opportunity to blend politics and religion while plugging to fill vacancies at the campground.

"Know that Little Man is in a much better place filled with the Loving Arms of our Lord, Jesus the Christ," she wrote. "May God's White Light Shine upon the Campground and the many loving families here to appreciate our Freedom that we must still fight to keep. BE the voice and Protector of those innocent ones who can not Protect and Defend themselves."

Then, Retzlaff gave a plug for her business.

"We do have some availability: please stop in the office or call or book online."

The plug sparked a wave of backlash in the comments, with many people accusing Retzlaff of using the death of a child to promote her business.

When shown comments coming back to her post she played the victim. What a d-bag.

"From the hurtful hateful comments that continue to come my way after everything I post," Retzlaff said, "I could post that it's blue skies and sunshine today and the haters would jump on my page and hate me and say hurtful things."

Sometimes I hear people saying that Christianity is just a death cult.  He's dead, but no sweat because now he's in heaven?  Maybe people are correct?  Just askin'

[jackd]

Fortunately, that's only some people.

[Bact PhD]

(paywalled) Hey, WaPo, this stuff if far, far from new, as you point out well into the piece. This is merely the latest outbreak of warmed-over Dominionism. They’ve never really gone away…

www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/11/mercy-culture-church/

The church is called Mercy Culture, and it is part of a growing Christian movement that is nondenominational, openly political and has become an engine of former president Donald Trump’s Republican Party. It includes some of the largest congregations in the nation, housed in the husks of old Baptist churches, former big-box stores and sprawling multimillion-dollar buildings with private security to direct traffic on Sundays. Its most successful leaders are considered apostles and prophets, including some with followings in the hundreds of thousands, publishing empires, TV shows, vast prayer networks, podcasts, spiritual academies, and branding in the form of T-shirts, bumper stickers and even flags. It is a world in which demons are real, miracles are real, and the ultimate mission is not just transforming individual lives but also turning civilization itself into their version of God’s Kingdom: one with two genders, no abortion, a free-market economy, Bible-based education, church-based social programs and laws such as the ones curtailing LGBTQ rights now moving through statehouses around the country.


This is the world of Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White and many more lesser-known but influential religious leaders who prophesied that Trump would win the election and helped organize nationwide prayer rallies in the days before the Jan. 6 insurrection, speaking of an imminent “heavenly strike” and “a Christian populist uprising,” leading many who stormed the Capitol to believe they were taking back the country for God.




Even as mainline Protestant and evangelical denominations continue an overall decline in numbers in a changing America, nondenominational congregations have surged from being virtually nonexistent in the 1980s to accounting for roughly 1 in 10 Americans in 2020, according to long-term academic surveys of religious affiliation. Church leaders tend to attribute the growth to the power of an uncompromised Christianity. Experts seeking a more historical understanding point to a relatively recent development called the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.


A California-based theologian coined the phrase in the 1990s to describe what he said he had seen as a missionary in Latin America — vast church growth, miracles, and modern-day prophets and apostles endowed with special powers to fight demonic forces. He and others promoted new church models using sociological principles to attract members. They also began advancing a set of beliefs called dominionism, which holds that God commands Christians to assert authority over the “seven mountains” of life — family, religion, education, economy, arts, media and government — after which time Jesus Christ will return and God will reign for eternity.


None of which is new, exactly. Strains of this thinking formed the basis of the Christian right in the 1970s and have fueled the GOP for decades.
What is new is the degree to which Trump elevated a fresh network of NAR-style leaders who in turn elevated him as God’s chosen president, a fusion that has secured the movement as a grass-roots force within the GOP just as the old Christian right is waning. Increasingly, this is the world that the term “evangelical voter” refers to — not white-haired Southern Baptists in wooden pews but the comparatively younger, more diverse, more extreme world of millions drawn to leaders who believe they are igniting a new Great Awakening in America, one whose epicenter is Texas.

[snip]

Now everyone sat down and watched the glowing screen. Another video began playing — this one futuristic, techno music over flash-cut images of a nuclear blast, a spinning planet, advancing soldiers, and when it was over, the pastor was standing on the stage to deliver his sermon, the essence of which was repeated in these kinds of churches all over the nation:




America is in the midst of a great battle between the forces of God and Satan, and the forces of Satan roughly resemble the liberal, progressive agenda. Beware of the “seductive, political, demonic, power-hungry spirit that uses witchcraft to control God’s people.” Beware of “freedom that is actually just rebellion against God.” Beware of confusion. Beware of “rogue leaders.” Beware of a world that “preaches toleration of things God does not tolerate,” and on it went for a full hour, a man with a microphone in a spotlight, pacing, sweating, whispering about evil forces until he cued the band and gave instructions for eternal salvation.
“Just say, ‘Holy Spirit, would you teach me how to choose to obey you,’ ” he said, asking people to close their eyes, or kneel, or bow, and as the drums began pounding again, the reaction was the same as it was every Sunday.

Again, this could have been from the mid-1980s. Similar stuff has been repeated ad nauseum in pulpits and on Christian radio (the stuff I have taken to referring to as “Jesus propaganda”) for decades. But wait, there’s more:

They joined the crowd heading inside for another thunderous concert followed by a sermon by the pastor’s wife, during which she referred to the women as “vessels” and described “the Kingdom of Heaven growing and taking authority over our nation.”


Another day — Election Day in Fort Worth — hundreds of church members gathered at a downtown event space to find out whether their very own church elder, Steve Penate, would become the next mayor, and the sense in the room was that of a miracle unfolding.


“Supernatural,” said Penate, a first-time candidate, looking at the crowd of volunteers who’d knocked on thousands of doors around the city.


A candidate for the 2022 governor’s race stopped by. A wealthy businessman who helped lead the Republican National Hispanic Assembly drove over from Dallas. The pastor came by to declare that “this is the beginning of a righteous movement.”


“We are not just going after the mayorship — we’re going after every seat,” he said as the first batch of votes came in showing Penate in sixth place out of 10 candidates, and then fifth place, and then fourth, which was where he stayed as the last votes came in and he huddled with his campaign team to pray.
“Jesus, you just put a dent in the kingdom of darkness,” his campaign adviser said. “We stand up to the darkness. We stand up to the establishment. God, this is only the beginning.”




Another day, 100 or so young people crowded into a church conference room singing, “God, I’ll go anywhere; God, I’ll do anything,” hands raised, eyes closed, kneeling, bowing, crying, hugging. At the front of the room, a man with blond hair and a beard was talking about love.


“Everyone says they have the definition for what love is, but the Bible says, ‘By this we know love,’ ” he said. “Jesus laid down his life for us, and we are to lay down our lives for others.”

“Vessels”— Blergh.
“Lay down our lives”…but any political activity/decision that doesn’t go their way is “persecution.” Spare me.(eyeroll)

[LFC]

Jul 12, 2021 18:51:48 GMT Bact PhD said:

(paywalled) Hey, WaPo, this stuff if far, far from new, as you point out well into the piece. This is merely the latest outbreak of warmed-over Dominionism. They’ve never really gone away…

Freaks.

[jackd]

But, unfortunately, freaks that can and do vote.

[goldenvalley]

Dominionism...that one doesn't go away. I feel sorry for people that are so lacking in self confidence that they grasp so onto a philosophy, ideology, concept that tells them exactly what to do and why to do it.

[RichTBikkies]

Jul 12, 2021 23:43:03 GMT goldenvalley said:

Dominionism...that one doesn't go away. I feel sorry for people that are so lacking in self confidence that they grasp so onto a philosophy, ideology, concept that tells them exactly what to do and why to do it.    

Since you raise the issue in this form, how do you decide what to do and why to do it? And what percentage of your decisions utilise your chosen expedient? (This is a question for all of us, not just GV).

Me, I certainly do need a philosophy, ideology or concept to decide this, at least some of the time. The question I should answer is for what, and how much, do I need it, rather than whether or not I need it at all.

I submit that nobody can totally do without it.

[LFC]

Jul 13, 2021 22:07:05 GMT RichTBikkies said:

Jul 12, 2021 23:43:03 GMT goldenvalley said:

Dominionism...that one doesn't go away. I feel sorry for people that are so lacking in self confidence that they grasp so onto a philosophy, ideology, concept that tells them exactly what to do and why to do it.    

Since you raise the issue in this form, how do you decide what to do and why to do it? And what percentage of your decisions utilise your chosen expedient? (This is a question for all of us, not just GV).

Me, I certainly do need a philosophy, ideology or concept to decide this, at least some of the time. The question I should answer is for what, and how much, do I need it, rather than whether or not I need it at all.

I submit that nobody can totally do without it.

I think GV's use of the singular is the important part here. "Here is the all encompassing set of rules. It is The Big Truth. Do not question. Anything to the contrary is blasphemy." Normal people use sources of guidance that have worked well for them in the past, determine if they are appropriate, and move forward. Sycophants grasp one and never, ever, EVER analyze if it's working or if it's even reasonable. As the saying goes:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

It's even worse when some charismatic grifter is the keeper of the rules.

[RichTBikkies]

Jul 13, 2021 22:23:41 GMT LFC said:

I think GV's use of the singular is the important part here. "Here is the all encompassing set of rules. It is The Big Truth. Do not question. Anything to the contrary is blasphemy." Normal people use sources of guidance that have worked well for them in the past, determine if they are appropriate, and move forward. Sycophants grasp one and never, ever, EVER analyze if it's working or if it's even reasonable. As the saying goes:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

It's even worse when some charismatic grifter is the keeper of the rules.

That's a good answer.

But what are these "sources of guidance"? How does one determine if they "worked well in the past"? The latter phrase suggests "criteria" to me. Can one have criteria that do not amount to, or at least do not derive from, "philosophy, ideology or concept"? Perhaps you, LFC, could mention some sources of guidance that you use fairly regularly, and explain how you decided that they worked well for you in the past? (If possible, without using the word "obvious" because I feel it would beg too many questions at this juncture).

My point is that I believe that you, LFC, do have a "philosophy, ideology or concept", but it is not formulated. "Unformulated" is not the same as "nonexistent".

[LFC]

Jul 13, 2021 22:47:42 GMT RichTBikkies said:

But what are these "sources of guidance"? How does one determine if they "worked well in the past"? The latter phrase suggests "criteria" to me. Can one have criteria that do not amount to, or at least derive from, "philosophy, ideology or concept"? Perhaps you, LFC, could mention some sources of guidance that you use fairly regularly, and explain how you decided that they worked well for in the past? (If possible, without using the word "obvious" because I feel it would beg too many questions at this juncture).

Me? I'm more a scientific experiment kind of guy. Try something, see if it works, and if so continue with it. I don't have a particular written philosophy et al that I read for guidance. My parents raised me with a set of rules, some that came with their Catholic religion and others which did not. Some I accepted and others I didn't. I'm an amalgam of things I've picked up without actually knowing most of the sources. I think that may be why the belief that "THIS is THE source" bothers me so much. I don't believe a flawless guide to life exists and I believe that some of the biggest ones cited are brimming with flaws.

Hitchens had a good take that the use of multiple secular philosophies and logic created many of the greatest advances away from brutality. The current liberal position on things like slavery, women's rights, child labor, and divorce weren't addressed by any of the great religious books (or they took the more brutal position). The arguments against these were often secular though there were some religious "interpretations" for some of them. I think he's right. "Do unto others" is something that hardly requires a religious text.

When I say "worked well" I mean in my own life. The way I approach my marriage is a good example. I generally view it as working well when it makes her happy but does not make me unhappy. There's a reward, a big one, to seeing her happy. It helps that she feels the same way. The result is a marriage the likes of which I've only seen in my own parents. I saw what they had, knew that's what I wanted, and did what it took to get there. Maybe that's why it took me until age 26 to finally find the right woman. Heck, I hadn't even been head over heels before that and now 34 years later I can honestly say that even with some of the hardships we've faced I've never had even a remote second guess on my choice.

That looks like a lot of babbling. I hope it makes sense. I never really put much thought into whether or not specific sources of "morality" guided me. I have seen horrible outcomes when people have clung to a single source and interpreter though.

[goldenvalley]

Jul 13, 2021 22:23:41 GMT LFC said:

Jul 13, 2021 22:07:05 GMT RichTBikkies said:

Since you raise the issue in this form, how do you decide what to do and why to do it? And what percentage of your decisions utilise your chosen expedient? (This is a question for all of us, not just GV).

Me, I certainly do need a philosophy, ideology or concept to decide this, at least some of the time. The question I should answer is for what, and how much, do I need it, rather than whether or not I need it at all.

I submit that nobody can totally do without it.

I think GV's use of the singular is the important part here. "Here is the all encompassing set of rules. It is The Big Truth. Do not question. Anything to the contrary is blasphemy." Normal people use sources of guidance that have worked well for them in the past, determine if they are appropriate, and move forward. Sycophants grasp one and never, ever, EVER analyze if it's working or if it's even reasonable. As the saying goes:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

It's even worse when some charismatic grifter is the keeper of the rules.

LFC expressed what I meant very well.  I refer to people who seek a voice (named God or maybe Q!) that tells them specifically everything they need to know and what they are to do.  God speaks to me! personally.  If God doesn't do that then he speaks through some "charismatic grifter" of a pastor/cult leader.  

What guides me...the Golden Rule to the most degree...a humbleness and recognition that we are not always masters of our own fate and so I must be compassionate towards those that are not as secure and comfortable in their lives as I am in mine...a confidence that I have the brains and the heart to make the right decisions.  

[RichTBikkies]

Jul 13, 2021 23:18:23 GMT LFC said:

When I say "worked well" I mean in my own life. The way I approach my marriage is a good example. I generally view it as working well when it makes her happy but does not make me unhappy. There's a reward, a big one, to seeing her happy. It helps that she feels the same way. The result is a marriage the likes of which I've only seen in my own parents. I saw what they had, knew that's what I wanted, and did what it took to get there. Maybe that's why it took me until age 26 to finally find the right woman. Heck, I hadn't even been head over heels before that and now 34 years later I can honestly say that even with some of the hardships we've faced I've never had even a remote second guess on my choice.

That looks like a lot of babbling. I hope it makes sense. I never really put much thought into whether or not specific sources of "morality" guided me. I have seen horrible outcomes when people have clung to a single source and interpreter though.

Not babbling at all. Very moving and to the point. Thank you.