The End of the Christian Right

[Katzndogz]

It is in dispute which is where the divisions in this country come from. Surely you can't be saying that we are a strong and united nation! That's more than delusional.

Our divisions aren't about morality anymore. In that sense, we are a strong and united nation. We still have very strong divisions, but they are political and economic, not moral or spiritual.

Yeah, you keep thinking that.

Meanwhile every time liberal amorality comes up for a vote, it loses. If libs didn't have rigged polls to justify themselves and had to rely on a vote, perhaps they'd be more realistic.

The nation is so divided that it is beyond hope of saving. There might be short delays, but this nation is going to fall.

 

[Dragon]

Meanwhile every time liberal amorality comes up for a vote, it loses.

The only time that liberal MORALITY (not "amorality") has lost an election in recent years is in regard to gay marriage, and each loss is by a smaller margin. If such measures continue to come before the voters rather than being set by the courts, they should pass in more progressive states the next time the issue comes up. Nationwide, gay marriage commands a small minority of support; however the issue can't be settled nationwide but only on a state basis. That means it would win in California long before it would win in Utah. It will eventually win in both those states, though.

Meanwhile, on all other issues that have been put to a vote, liberal MORALITY (not "amorality") consistently wins. That's true of no-fault divorce, legal birth control, gay rights w/r/t housing and employment, etc.

The nation is so divided that it is beyond hope of saving. There might be short delays, but this nation is going to fall.

I don't think you actually believe that. I think you have retreated from a belief that a "moral majority" exists, to instead believing that, your side having lost, the nation is doomed, and you will win after the dust settles on the collapse. This is something you believe, because the only logical alternative -- that the Christian right has simply and irrevocably lost, and the new morality has won -- is unthinkable.

While the nation is divided on political and economic issues, I would argue that it is considerably less so now than it was in 1861. It did not fall then. It will not fall now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grandma, you are unhappy, for sure. Somewhere you got judged harshly, I suppose (like JoeB did with the LDS), and now you are acting out.

Give us some solid sources, huh?

Actually America is not overwhelmingly christian.

There is a large number of christians, yes, but not overwhelming.

You see, many Americans are christian in name only, by such I mean that their parents claimed to be christian, but other than for weddings never set foot in a church, and while there may have been a Bible in the home, no one ever bothered reading it. There are in fact generations of so-called christians that are no more christian than they are communist Chinese.

A christian is defined by more than a belief in a single deity, one that is male. Several religions follow that belief, so simply declaring a belief in God is not enough. A christian is expected to attend services, at the very least on high holy days, such as Easter and Christmas, but many that claim to be christians do not go to church at all. A christian is expected to live in a prescribed manner, outlined by the Ten Commandments, the Book of Proverbs, and the teachings of Jesus, but they do not, in fact they have little knowledge of those guidelines.

Very few "christians" have any knowledge of any religion. Often their ideas of spiritual discipline are more closely related to other religions.

The claim to christianity by far too many is no more than superstition-based.

Religion, incidentally is defined as "spiritual discipline." Perhaps the path you follow is not the best path to train your individual soul.

Wow, a lot of bigotry, no information or supporting evidence.

Bigotry? I'm pointing out that many people are making false claims about their choice of spiritual discipline. If I said they were somehow "less than" as human beings that would validate your statement.

You want supporting evidence? Look up your own city's demographics. Note the number of people claiming to be christian. Subtract the number living in nursing homes. Go to every christian church and ask how many attended Christmas service. Add the numbers up. Subtract the total from the modified demographic total. Do it again right after Easter just to be sure.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no new morality. There is an absence of morality. You might say that there is no longer a difference between good and bad, but there still is.

If you look at it realistically instead of your personal need, it becomes obvious. The Christian right will not support this nation as it becomes less and less a good nation. Christians won't join the military, refuse to give of time, funds or goods and vote against liberal causes every time they can. When an alternative comes along they will take it.

What you are correct about, is that the country has already become so degenerate that the liberals will no longer support Christians. The goal is to marginalize and trivialize the Christian (so far) majority. This doesn't mean that the nation is becoming less Christian. It means that the division is getting bigger. Not only bigger, but more acrimonious too.

Although, from the look of the right to life march today I'm not sure that liberalism has that much of a stranglehold now. Most of the marchers were quite young. No matter, libs will never give up until the final crack up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is in dispute which is where the divisions in this country come from. Surely you can't be saying that we are a strong and united nation! That's more than delusional.

Our divisions aren't about morality anymore. In that sense, we are a strong and united nation. We still have very strong divisions, but they are political and economic, not moral or spiritual.

Yeah, you keep thinking that.

Meanwhile every time liberal amorality comes up for a vote, it loses. If libs didn't have rigged polls to justify themselves and had to rely on a vote, perhaps they'd be more realistic.

The nation is so divided that it is beyond hope of saving. There might be short delays, but this nation is going to fall.

All nations fall, history teaches us that.

katz, we are NOT modern Israel in the U.S., I know some of you love playing Jeremiah and Ezekial of America, but the great majority of American Christians do not agree with this nonsense.

 

[Dragon]

There is no new morality.

False. According to the new morality:

A man does not have the right to rape his wife.

When a man is charged with rape, it is not a defense that the victim is sexually active.

A woman is entitled to equal treatment with men under the law, in employment, in housing, in contract law, and in most other matters. To violate this is morally wrong.

There is no such thing as "consensual" sex between one person and another who is underage, or in a position of dependence.

All of these are changes in which the new morality is MORE STRICT than the old one. That's just in sexual morality; there are also other areas such as environmentalism where the old morality pretty much didn't exist.

You could not be more wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

Logical fallacy...it was never considered "moral" to rape your wife, or have sex with a child. At least not in our society.
It was considered "moral" to support your wife and children.

Katz is right. Absence of morality is what we are experiencing.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no new morality.

False. According to the new morality:

A man does not have the right to rape his wife.

When a man is charged with rape, it is not a defense that the victim is sexually active.

A woman is entitled to equal treatment with men under the law, in employment, in housing, in contract law, and in most other matters. To violate this is morally wrong.

There is no such thing as "consensual" sex between one person and another who is underage, or in a position of dependence.

All of these are changes in which the new morality is MORE STRICT than the old one. That's just in sexual morality; there are also other areas such as environmentalism where the old morality pretty much didn't exist.

You could not be more wrong.

MORALLY Wrong. Of course not. What you describe are legal wrongs, not moral wrongs. This is part of a descent into amorality. Laws replace societal norms.

If it is MORALLY wrong for a man to rape his wife and he is a MORAL person, he won't rape his wife, When the law replaces morality a man would not rape his wife even if he wants to, because if he did, he would go to prison. There need be no morals, no internal controls in a fully amoral society that's why the more amoral a culture is, if order is to be maintained, there has to be more and more laws. The law needs to cover everything, every tiny aspect, it replaces morality. To you, it has become more strict. Of course it has, there needs to be more laws. As there are more laws, there has to be less freedom to act in accordance in accordance with a morals based value system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When man is an immoral individual, as each and every man and woman is by nature, then to suggest the law does not have a role in society is the revelation of a mind that is ignorant and immoral.

 

[Dragon]

MORALLY Wrong. Of course not. What you describe are legal wrongs, not moral wrongs.

No, they are moral wrongs reflected in law, just as the old morality used to be. The legality of them does not stand in a vacuum, but emerges from moral convictions, without which there would have been no perceived need for the legal changes.

If it is MORALLY wrong for a man to rape his wife and he is a MORAL person, he won't rape his wife, When the law replaces morality a man would not rape his wife even if he wants to, because if he did, he would go to prison. There need be no morals, no internal controls in a fully amoral society

If it is MORALLY wrong for a woman to abort a fetus and she is a MORAL person, she will not have an abortion. When the law replaces morality a woman would not abort a fetus even if she wants to, because if she did, she would go to prison. There need be no morals, no internal controls in a fully amoral society.

Obviously, then, the entire pro-life movement is founded on amorality. It follow with inevitable logic from your argument.

 

[koshergrl]

What complete garbage you spout.

 

[Newby]

Actually America is not overwhelmingly christian.

There is a large number of christians, yes, but not overwhelming.

You see, many Americans are christian in name only, by such I mean that their parents claimed to be christian, but other than for weddings never set foot in a church, and while there may have been a Bible in the home, no one ever bothered reading it. There are in fact generations of so-called christians that are no more christian than they are communist Chinese.

A christian is defined by more than a belief in a single deity, one that is male. Several religions follow that belief, so simply declaring a belief in God is not enough. A christian is expected to attend services, at the very least on high holy days, such as Easter and Christmas, but many that claim to be christians do not go to church at all. A christian is expected to live in a prescribed manner, outlined by the Ten Commandments, the Book of Proverbs, and the teachings of Jesus, but they do not, in fact they have little knowledge of those guidelines.

Very few "christians" have any knowledge of any religion. Often their ideas of spiritual discipline are more closely related to other religions.

The claim to christianity by far too many is no more than superstition-based.

Religion, incidentally is defined as "spiritual discipline." Perhaps the path you follow is not the best path to train your individual soul.

Wow, a lot of bigotry, no information or supporting evidence.

Bigotry? I'm pointing out that many people are making false claims about their choice of spiritual discipline. If I said they were somehow "less than" as human beings that would validate your statement.

You want supporting evidence? Look up your own city's demographics. Note the number of people claiming to be christian. Subtract the number living in nursing homes. Go to every christian church and ask how many attended Christmas service. Add the numbers up. Subtract the total from the modified demographic total. Do it again right after Easter just to be sure.

So you think attending church indicates one is a 'christian'? My grandma, being one of the strongest and loving women I've ever known, was very much a christian, and she never went to church. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Newby]

Meanwhile every time liberal amorality comes up for a vote, it loses.

The only time that liberal MORALITY (not "amorality") has lost an election in recent years is in regard to gay marriage, and each loss is by a smaller margin. If such measures continue to come before the voters rather than being set by the courts, they should pass in more progressive states the next time the issue comes up. Nationwide, gay marriage commands a small minority of support; however the issue can't be settled nationwide but only on a state basis. That means it would win in California long before it would win in Utah. It will eventually win in both those states, though.

Meanwhile, on all other issues that have been put to a vote, liberal MORALITY (not "amorality") consistently wins. That's true of no-fault divorce, legal birth control, gay rights w/r/t housing and employment, etc.

The nation is so divided that it is beyond hope of saving. There might be short delays, but this nation is going to fall.

I don't think you actually believe that. I think you have retreated from a belief that a "moral majority" exists, to instead believing that, your side having lost, the nation is doomed, and you will win after the dust settles on the collapse. This is something you believe, because the only logical alternative -- that the Christian right has simply and irrevocably lost, and the new morality has won -- is unthinkable.

While the nation is divided on political and economic issues, I would argue that it is considerably less so now than it was in 1861. It did not fall then. It will not fall now.

Does that mean that we now get to ***** and moan and march when you try to legistate your morality on us and 'force it down our throats'? Or does that only apply to certain groups morals and yours are free from criticism?

 

[Dragon]

Does that mean that we now get to ***** and moan and march when you try to legistate your morality on us and 'force it down our throats'?

If you can find enough people to march, sure. Last I checked, the First Amendment had not been repealed. It's even possible (however unlikely) that, now and again, you might be right; if we start demanding that churches perform same-sex weddings for example. Protest exists to keep the government honest and within bounds.

 

[Newby]

Does that mean that we now get to ***** and moan and march when you try to legistate your morality on us and 'force it down our throats'?

If you can find enough people to march, sure. Last I checked, the First Amendment had not been repealed. It's even possible (however unlikely) that, now and again, you might be right; if we start demanding that churches perform same-sex weddings for example. Protest exists to keep the government honest and within bounds.

Oh, so it IS okay for you to legistlate your morality, but others are not allowed?

 

[Dragon]

Oh, so it IS okay for you to legistlate your morality, but others are not allowed?

All legislation is legislation of morality. Or nearly so. We have laws against murder because there is a consensus that murder is wrong. Same with theft, rape, fraud, etc. There are some types of behavior that we might judge to be morally wrong where making them illegal is ineffective or at least not cost-effective, but when we do make something illegal it is always in response to a moral conviction that the behavior is wrong.

What we have had since the 1960s is a debate between two systems of morality. Neither one is a system of "amorality" as has been asserted here. We now have laws against discrimination against women and by sexual orientation because it has become the new consensus that such behavior -- oppression of women and of gay people -- is morally wrong. This goes hand in hand, naturally, with a belief that gay sex itself is not morally wrong, but that isn't all that's involved here.

I also believe that it is morally wrong to hold bigoted opinions towards homosexuals. I regard the belief that homosexuality is a sin as morally wrong. However, that's an example of a moral judgment that should not be codified in law; that would not work well and the costs would outweigh the benefits.

The point being that this is, and has been from the beginning, a moral struggle, not just a legal one.

 

[koshergrl]

How flipping idiotic can you get.

 

[Newby]

Oh, so it IS okay for you to legistlate your morality, but others are not allowed?

All legislation is legislation of morality. Or nearly so. We have laws against murder because there is a consensus that murder is wrong. Same with theft, rape, fraud, etc. There are some types of behavior that we might judge to be morally wrong where making them illegal is ineffective or at least not cost-effective, but when we do make something illegal it is always in response to a moral conviction that the behavior is wrong.

What we have had since the 1960s is a debate between two systems of morality. Neither one is a system of "amorality" as has been asserted here. We now have laws against discrimination against women and by sexual orientation because it has become the new consensus that such behavior -- oppression of women and of gay people -- is morally wrong. This goes hand in hand, naturally, with a belief that gay sex itself is not morally wrong, but that isn't all that's involved here.

I also believe that it is morally wrong to hold bigoted opinions towards homosexuals. I regard the belief that homosexuality is a sin as morally wrong. However, that's an example of a moral judgment that should not be codified in law; that would not work well and the costs would outweigh the benefits.

The point being that this is, and has been from the beginning, a moral struggle, not just a legal one.

Right, your implication is that morals are subjective, that there is no true set of right or wrong things, just whether or not you think something is right or wrong. That does not translate into 'two systems of morals' in any way.

 

[Dragon]

Right, your implication is that morals are subjective, that there is no true set of right or wrong things, just whether or not you think something is right or wrong. That does not translate into 'two systems of morals' in any way.

Of course it does. It is an observable fact that morality IS subjective; it's a matter of value judgments, and in fact there IS no objectively true set of right and wrong things. Those that believe there is, are observable, demonstrably, and provably wrong.

It is also an observable fact that consensus morality changes over time. For example, it was once a general consensus in this country that slavery was not morally wrong. Over time, that consensus changed, and today we all agree that slavery IS morally wrong. Now, you can try to say that slavery was always wrong and that the consensus in this country that it wasn't was incorrect. But that's a meaningless assertion, because if something is objectively true or false, then it should be possible to PROVE that it is true or false, and there is no moral assertion about which that is correct.

Nonetheless, we must make moral judgments. It's part of the process of living to decide what should and should not be done. Just as our consensus on slavery changed in the 19th century, so in the 20th our consensus on sexual identity, gender relations, and a number of other things also changed. That's really what we're discussing here. The Christian right was at root a backlash against those changes to consensus morality, an attempt to deny them and return to the old ways. It failed. And now it's disappearing.

 

[Katzndogz]

A moral people will not support an amoral government. You can parse the terms of morality any way you want. That's nothing but a faint, very faint, hope that there is some degree on which two opposing sides can find common ground. There is no "new consensus". There is some government totalitarianism on the way they think it ought to be. That oppression has not changed many minds.

There is no common ground. The nation is irrevocably divided. It will crack and crumble. I can understand the need to deny this is happening and hang onto a myth that one's own ideaology is ascendant. Even when its not really happening.