Eventually solidarity with the group and revenge dominate the ideals that motivated political action. The ideals recede into the background. Evangelicalism is a product of the south. It's notions of justice were forged in light of the slave trade and it's notions of love were rationaliztions for its raw poloticcal instincts. Let us note the way Christ's commands to love, especially love of enemies, have become distorted.
The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.[1]He points to militarism, draconian criminal justice, hatrod of the poor and lionizing the rich.
Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do.[2]Examples of co opted values, according to Sean Mcelwee, include:
(1)Immigration
The verse: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:33-34.[3]Yet, as he points out the evangelicals oppose the imigration bill, rampage against the poor who desperately leave their homes to seek life sustaining employment, and they rationalize keeping kids in cages.[4]
2.Poverty
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24.
Mcelwee points out:
Because the only thing fundamentalists dislike more than immigrants is poor people. Seriously. Just this year, Tea Party congressman Stephen Fincher explained why he thought the government should cut food stamps entirely, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.” Michelle Bachmann has also made a similar statement. The entire Tea Party movement is based on the idea that a huge portion of Americans are “takers” who suck the lifeblood out of the economy.[5]as John Gehring points out:
Too many white Christians sacrifice the gospel’s radical solidarity with the poor and oppressed with comfortable, self-serving ideologies. Prosperity gospel preachers affirm the cult of consumerism and individualism. Evangelicals rally behind political leaders who make a holy trinity out of tax cuts for the wealthy, attacks on social safety nets and anti-government propaganda.[6]We can see the upshot in the way conservatuvee Christians blame the poor themselves for their poverty rather than the system or their circumstances. In a 2016 study by the Public Religion Research Institute we find:
Christians, the study found, are more than twice as likely to blame a person’s poverty on individual failings than Americans who are atheist or have no specific religious affiliation. White evangelical Christians, who voted overwhelmingly for President Trump and continue to be some of his most steadfast supporters, are especially wedded to this worldview. Half of white Catholics also cited lack of effort — read: laziness — rather than difficult circumstances as the primary reason why people are poor. Less than a third of African-American Christians agree.[7]What is the solution? It seems that politics dreches one in muck and distorts our view of the world, obscuring Christ's clear teachings. Shall we declare politics too worldly for Christians? That would also be to ignore human suffering. Ignoring people's pain is to ignore Jesus' teaching. I think the only remedy is the litmus test "is your political stand based upon your own wordly comfort?" Only if we are willing to give and to get out of the comfort zone can we obey the gospel.
So how do Trump-supporting evangelicals square their supposed belief in the literal truth of every word of the Bible with Trump’s monstrous behavior and policies? This is a guy found liable in civil court for sexual assault, and credibly accused of similar behavior by 15 other women. A guy who has been married three times. A guy who has been charged with 91 felonies. A guy who is about to go on trial for allegedly illegally covering up a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star he committed adultery with four months after his current wife gave birth to their son. A guy who rather than displaying Christian humility and charity, compulsively boasts about himself with every other word out of his mouth, and positively wallows in the personal excesses of wealth. A guy whose policy agenda would snatch health insurance from tens of millions, viciously punish unauthorized immigrants, cut taxes on the rich, and on and on.[8]
Cooper is an atheist, let's hear from a Christian leader. Russell Moore who was editer amd chief of Christianity today:
“If you can defend this, you can defend anything,” wrote Russell Moore, a theologian who is also the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), in an excoriating editorial to his fellow evangelicals about the breach of the Capitol. The intruders displayed Jesus Saves signs next to those calling for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence and, once in the building, thanked God for the opportunity “to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors” within the U.S. government. “If you can wave this away with ‘Well, what about …'” added Moore, “then where, at long last, is your limitp[9]
Notes:
[1] Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady, "Why Evangelcals Hate Jesus,"Huffpost, (03/03/2011 10:11 am ET Updated May 25, 2011) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237
[2] Ibid.
[3]Sean Mcelwee, "5 ways Fundamentalsts Mistreat the Bile ," Salon, (AUGUST 6, 2013) https://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/when_fundamentalists_get_liberal_about_the_bible_partner/
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6]John Gehring, "What is Wrpg woth White Chrstians?" Religion News Service, (August 10, 2017). https://religionnews.com/2017/08/10/what-is-wrong-with-white-christians/
[7] Ibid
[8]Ryan Cooper,"The Pious One, Donald Trump."Tne American Prospect (April 4, 2024) https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-04-pious-one-donald-trump/
[9] Russell Moore,in Belinda Luscombe"Theologian Russell Moore Has a Message for Christians Who Still Worship Donald Trump," Time *(January 21, 2021) https://time.com/5932014/donald-trump-christian-supporters/
72 comments:
Politicians are causing people's pain:
Larken Rose: Why Government Can NEVER be Fixed
how much sense dose it make to elect a Hitlerian megalomaniac because governm can't be fiixed?. Doesn;;t it make more sense tp elect a compassionate optimist e en thogh she might fail?
I don't believe in either.
It's perfectly obvious that Trump nuts are under the spell of a cult leader. Not only have they ceded their moral compass to him, they have effectively shut down their brains.
Skep this is one thig upon which we are totally in agreement. Well said.
Here is an example of a lady who compares Trump to Hitler:
Short Takes: What Do Donald Trump & Adolf Hitler Have In Common
She says that he wants to only allow people to say nice things about him on social media (similar to Hitler who gave people a radio that just spit out his propaganda).
Also, this lady has been speaking out against the Christian Right for years, noticing the threat that it is. That's a very good point.
However, I don't trust the collective left, either, especially during this COVID thing, when they wanted to force untested vaccines down people's throats.
And, the division that politics cause (and the love of individual rights and freedom) is a big reason why I am an Egalitarian and a Voluntaryist (another word for Anarchist).
"they wanted to force untested vaccines down people's throats"
Right wing propaganda spread by Trump and his minions. It was thoroughly tested, and proven to be both safe and effective. (I challenge you to show any data that would refute that.) The idiots who refuse the vaccine are guilty of spreading the disease, causing many deaths among the more vulnerable.
that must be from the anti vaxer move,emt which is real right wing
There were a lot of vaccinated people that had issues:
Rumble: Enormous List of Post-Vaccine Suicides: Extremely Terrifying Trend Emerges
Also, Larken Rose had this to say in 2020:
Larken Rose-Shutdowns: Stupid, Pointless, and Evil</a
"There were a lot of vaccinated people that had issues"
Right wing propaganda. Show some actual data.
Anyone who believes all the right-wing propaganda and Q-anon conspiracy fantasies is a perfect example of the Trump cultists who have shut down their brains. Sad.
Larken and Tim Truth aren't Right-Wing. Larken doesn't like either Kamala or Trump:
Larken Rose: Trumpites=Livestock
Larken Rose: Joyful Bullcrap
The question would you ever consider making a response to Bart ehrman
You must be joking. The guy is extremely right-wing, and totally anti-government. He spouts all the same propaganda we've been hearing from Trump cultists for years. He is generally aligned with Trump's stated political views, and definitely the opposite of Harris. But his complaint with Trump is that he is just another politician who won't follow through with the most extreme right-wing aspects of the anti-government political movement.
I relly don't see how any thinking person sould be pro Trump knowing what we now know
Larken is totally anti-government. That's the whole point (him and me are voluntaryists, another word for anarchists). Also, he used to be right-wing 30 years ago, when you had the 1994 Republican Revolution. However, when those politicians got in, and didn't live up to the promises they made (and couldn't), he realized like me that government wasn't right, and couldn't be moral. He has been a voluntaryist since 1996.
He's still right wing. It's just that the right-wing Republican party isn't extreme enough for him. Trump's political position is called de-constructionism. It aims to dismantle the pillars of our government - especially any part of it that doesn't favor him personally - and replace it with a plutocracy in the style of Russia. So no taxes or laws for Trump and his rich friends. Laws are to be applied as weapons against anyone who stands in his way. Corporations make all the rules and do whatever they please. This Larken guy lives in a fantasy world that takes Trump's position to further extremes. The trouble is that he has no idea how things would actually function in his extremist utopia where no rules exist to serve as guides for commerce and the interaction of people and groups in society. It would lead inevitably to a strong-man leader who makes his own rules. Someone rather like Trump.
Larken is what they call an AnCap, or Anarcho-Capitalist. He actually doesn't believe in corporations, either, because he said something about how they only exist because of the government. Also, anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It just means no rulers like we have now. Government is force, no matter how you want to idealize it.
As for his An-Cap beliefs, I don't understand it, because I consider capitalism to be the big problem in society. Here is someone who agrees, and did a critique of Larken's beliefs:
Ithadtobesaid: Capitalism or corporatism? (Or both or neither?)
JAB, you are naive. Do you really think there could be a society without either a government or an autocratic ruler? That has never existed in the history of humanity. The real question is - what kind of rule doe we want to have? Galt's Gulch is a fantasy. If we don't a government built upon democratic principles, there will always be someone who takes control and makes the rules for himself. In that case, you can forget about freedom, equality, and fair play. All that anti-government ranting ignores the realities of human society. It is childish to say "we don't need no stinkin' gubmint!" What we need is good government.
Yes, it has. Ever heard of the book Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell? It was about the revolution in Spain around 1936:
PDR Boston: Egalitarianism Worked in Spain 1936-39
Also, I have some questions for you, Skep:
1. You talked about the pillars of our government before. What are the pillars of good, moral government?
2. If you can identify them, I have another question to ask you: Are the lawmakers more incentivized to uphold those pillars, or by the money they get from corporations and banksters (for example, the Congress could vote to end the Fed, but they don't)?
In my opinion, the first pillar of good government is democracy, and the idea that all people should have an equal voice.
The second pillar is having a constitution that sets out how the government should function, and is inviolable by any office or person in the government, no matter what position they hold.
The third pillar is a system of checks and balances - the separate and co-equal branches of government that keep the others from going out of control.
Fourth is the idea that nobody should be able to benefit personally from their position in government.
Fifth is the idea that nobody is above the law.
Now, I don't claim that we meet those ideals. But some come far closer than others. Some want to strengthen and uphold them, and strive for better government. Trump doesn't abide by any of those things, and he has openly declared his contempt for democracy (he wants to be a dictator) and the constitution (which he says he wants to abolish).
As for egalitarianism in Spain, I assume you are aware that Franco became dictator in 1936, and he maintained peace in the country by aligning himself with fascist Germany and Italy. There may have been some groups in Spain trying to evade Franco's rule, but they didn't win.
Yes, I am aware that he did. Also, are you happy that those egalitarian groups didn't win?
Also, do you see us ever being able to meet those pillars? And if so, how (because I don't think we ever have for a long time, and America probably never will).
I guess hell froze over. I find myself in strong if not total agreement with Skepie.
I am asking Canadia friends if they will rent a spare room just i case trump wins.
I showed the five pillars to someone on our Larken Rose anarchical Discord page, and he has a real good point about pillar #2 (having a constitution that sets how the government should function, etc...). This is what they said:
Quote Derpy"That second pillar is a good one to discuss with them.
So, that second pillar would argue that the constitution of a good government is actually a direct contract between the people and that specific organization created by the contract, which is called government.
If the government servants swear an oath to follow and uphold the terms of that contract with the people and the people also consent and agree with the contract, but then the government workers break that inviolable contract in numerous ways, and the contract and its authors precisely identify such violations specifically as treason in no uncertain terms... And the government essentially fails to police itself... What should the people do?
If the people don't do what the contract says they should do when treason happens, then there's no accountability, and no consent, right? In that situation, the contract is being used by the government rulers who claim it still somehow obligates the people to comply, all while the government rulers don't hold up their end of the agreement.
Are you, specifically YOU willing to do what the contract says to do, or not? If not, then these ideas are just ideas written on paper.
Understanding the true reasons why people don't hold the government servants to account to the contract they "agreed to" or even basic philosophical ethics that the average person expects even children to follow explains exactly why government as a concept is so dangerous. It is distinctly why there are so many voluntarists who believe in uncoerced, unmanipulated, informed consent above all, and why millions and millions of the people who don't vote choose not to, as no one running is actually ethical or represents them even slightly, as well as many many other problems."Quote.
Also, I know a guy named Dale Eastman who has a site called Synaptic Sparks (and he will debate with anyone, just to let you know). He is also anti-government, and makes a lot of good points:
Synaptic Sparks: Examining Government
Nature abhors a vacuum. All vacuums get filled, even power vacuums. Anyone claiming to be "anti-government" is really just anti- anyone not myself in power. We have to have democratic strictures to Governet and teach values of democracy. We need a rue of law and a bunch of teeth that can enforce it. Without this a strongman bully boy will emerge. there will be chaos and the strong men will take charge. Anarchy leads to chaos the strong nab emerges in anser to the need for order. To avoid that we need government, and it must be strong but it must be democratic as well.
"do you see us ever being able to meet those pillars? And if so, how"
I don't know if we can ever achieve it, but at least we can work toward improvement of our government. The key is those final two pillars that I mentioned. This is where we fall short, and it is the reason we have people like you who are against government. We have congressmen passing legislation that favors certain factions, and profiting from it. We have judges taking bribes to make rulings that serve their benefactors. We have presidents using force to coerce the course of events. Isn't this precisely why you hate government? But government itself isn't the problem. We need to have strict rules on what people in government can do, and enforce them. Then our government will work for the benefit of the people, as it should.
OK. That's a common answer. However, we already have chaos under government. You have constant war, more and more government, and less and less rights. There is a guy named Legalman who has a podcast called The Quash who believes that the government needs to be massively decentralized at best. He makes a solid point, although I don't believe that nobody has the right to rule others. And, without government, the difference is that people won't believe that some bully boy would have the right to rule, and they would fight back.
Now, I don't believe in government. However, what you would need, at best, is massive decentralization. Washington D.C. can't control everything. And, the reason you have bribes and all of this is that the people who take those jobs are parasitical fascists that have a lust for power, and they only look out for #1. That's probably all you will ever get.
JAB128 said...
OK. That's a common answer. However, we already have chaos under government. You have constant war, more and more government, and less and less rights.
Government becomes a problem for human rights when there is no accountability; the answer more accountability not less governmant..
There is a guy named Legalman who has a podcast called The Quash who believes that the government needs to be massively decentralized at best. He makes a solid point, although I don't believe that nobody has the right to rule others.
Decentralizig means less accountability. It means government can't check itself. Romantic notions of revolution are best left for comic books.
And, without government, the difference is that people won't believe that some bully boy would have the right to rule, and they would fight back.
Worthless idealism. What would happen is lack of police power would lead to chaos and crime people would want a strong man to rules because they want to feel safe.. That is what is happening now. That is why Trumpies don't care if he's a Nazi because they see that as strength and he will have the guts to protect us.
10:11 AM
JAB128 said...
Now, I don't believe in government. However, what you would need, at best, is massive decentralization. Washington D.C. can't control everything. And, the reason you have bribes and all of this is that the people who take those jobs are parasitical fascists that have a lust for power, and they only look out for #1. That's probably all you will ever get.
10:14 AM
You think less government means more freedom. It des not, it means more governmet with fewer rights down the road.
Why can't people protect themselves, though? Why is revolution only a romantic notion? Why are we better off with government when the evidence clearly shows that we aren't?
I think the problem is this: People are afraid of change. Government is all they know, so they stick to it thinking that is the best we can do. I told some friends about what I think (about government) one time. One person said that they would love to have that (Anarchy), but we don't, so we have to put up with government. That's insane. That's like a battered wife saying that they would love a loving husband, but they don't have that, so I have to tolerate what I have. Americans are weak.
I will leave you with a brilliant speech by anarchist Larken Rose:
Larken Rose YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME
You have a jaded view of humanity. You can't believe that government can be beneficial. You believe the people in government are always out for themselves. But it all depends on who we put in charge. Some governments are better than others. In general, the modern European governments are better than ours in America. Why? Because they are more oriented toward the needs of the people. They believe that people can work together for the common benefit. In America, we revere individualism and strength. 'Social' is a dirty word. We tend to elect people who project personal strength and work for the benefit themselves and their friends, at the cost of compassion and concern for the well-being of those who are most in need of support. The American psychology produces the government we have.
I don't have a jaded view of humanity, Skep. I have a realistic view of government. This is what government is all about:
Innocents Betrayed - The History of Gun Control
Greetings all. I was apprised of comments by a hard-core Statist in this thread.
I will read the thread and cogitate the words therein before commenting further.
"a guy named Dale Eastman who has a site called Synaptic Sparks"
That is me. I'm here now.
You are extremely jaded. You advocate Ayn Rand's all-for-myself society, where everyone is left to their own devices, and nobody tells you what to do. But that is a recipe for conflict, hardship and chaos. Galt's Gulch is a fantasy.
So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"? Entrenched in a compound with your guns, ready to kill anyone who crosses your path? With no regard for civil society or its laws?
Joe and Skep, here's my advice: Larken Rose has a course called Candles In The Dark. I think it costs around 60 dollars or something. I would look into taking it if I were you.
im-skeptical wrote: "So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"? Entrenched in a compound with your guns, ready to kill anyone who crosses your path? With no regard for civil society or its laws?"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
Have you stopped fucking your mother?
I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have.
im-skeptical wrote: "I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have."
Okay... I apologize for misreading your intent.
Taking your question at face value...
You asked: "So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"?"
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
Supreme Court - Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
SCOTUS says you and I both are sovereigns.
As such, are you and I equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other
That doesn't really answer the question. I assume you know what I mean by the term sovereign citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
Is that what you are?
I don't claim any right to rule you. I do claim, as Thomas Jefferson did, that the rights and freedoms we have don't extend to trampling on the rights of others. And that the duly elected government has the authority to pass legislation, to provide for the general welfare, to protect our rights, and to enforce the law.
JAB128 said...
Joe and Skep, here's my advice: Larken Rose has a course called Candles In The Dark. I think it costs around 60 dollars or something. I would look into taking it if I were you.
8:56 AM Sounds like a cult leader. I am a traied hstorican I know morethyan he does..
Why can't people protect themselves, though? Why is revolution only a romantic notion?
Before we have a revolution you must have an intolerable situation that the people raise up against., Not your little marginal 2% but major body of people. Marxism never had a chance in America because their line evolved into "you don't know how miserable you are."
Why are we better off with government when the evidence clearly shows that we aren't?
The evidence does mot say that/ That how it reads when you read it through the lends of ideological brain washing/ I demonstrated above why we need government go read it.
I think the problem is this: People are afraid of change. Government is all they know, so they stick to it thinking that is the best we can do. I told some friends about what I think (about government) one time. One person said that they would love to have that (Anarchy), but we don't, so we have to put up with government. That's insane. That's like a battered wife saying that they would love a loving husband, but they don't have that, so I have to tolerate what I have. Americans are weak.
I will leave you with a brilliant speech by anarchist Larken Rose:
Ayn Rand was a moron this Rjse guy doesn't even come up t her level. I think you feel like a loser and an outcast so you rebell agaismtthesocieity that makes you feel that way, cult lead loke Rose find people like that,
No, I am not a loser and an outcast. I have just realized that government can't be moral and necessary under any circumstances. It doesn't protect the people in society. It steals from it. George Washington even said that government is force.
im-skeptical wrote: "That doesn't really answer the question."
Repeating what I already posted: SCOTUS says you and I both are Sovereigns.
𝟙 The kings of France and England were both the highest ranking humans of their own nations.
𝟚 The King of France was its Sovereign.
𝟛 The King of England was its Sovereign.
𝟜 Neither king had a Right-to-Rule the other.
𝟝 The kings were of equal rank.
𝟞 You and I both are sovereigns.
𝟟 You and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Please admit or deny the truth of claims #𝟞 & #𝟟.
So you are being deliberately obtuse, or you didn't bother to look at the description of the modern sovereign citizen movement.
Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote "deliberately obtuse"?
I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Once that point and its concept are agreed to, then I can present the next point of that concept.
I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist.
"I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other."
- You don't listen very well. I already talked about that. I agreed.
"I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist."
- So that's the answer to my question. I would suggest that you go back to your anpropaganda site and commiserate with your fellow sov-cits.
Yes. You did agree. I apologize for my Boomeritis causing me to overlook the fact that you did agree. I allowed myself to get distracted by the distraction you provided that followed your agreement.
I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist. This shows me that you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign".
Now that I have no doubt that you agree that you and I are equals and neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other, I can now move on and present the next point of the concept of equal lack of a Right-to-Rule any other human.
Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
Please admit or deny this claim.
"I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist."
- You said that article was calling you a terrorist. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you think it refers to you. Otherwise, you would have no reason to think that you were being called a terrorist. Anyone with half a brain would draw the same conclusion. By the way, it says that only some of them are. That's true.
"you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign"."
- I know how to use a dictionary.
"Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human."
- What is this? Your manifesto? In a democracy, governmental authorities exist by the consent of the people, regardless of how you want to spin it.
"Please admit or deny this claim."
- I'm not here to help you give voice to your twisted anti-government propaganda.
You are not the first keyboard warrior coward I have ever interacted with. So I am very specific in my choice of my words, "Admit or Deny."
I will now explain the very specific intent of those three words.
If I made the claim:2 plus 5 equals 7.
Then asked you to Please admit or deny this claim.
If you deny the claim you show yourself to be... Something.
If you refuse to admit the claim, you show your bias and your propaganda that you are trying to establish as your claim. You don't want to admit that 2 plus 5 equals 7.
To admit would be to agree that the claim is valid. You did not agree that the claim is valid. If the claim is not valid, then you would be expected to deny the validity of the claim with evidence and proof. You did not deny the validity of the claim.
The same logic applies to my claim #𝟠.
I asked you to admit or deny my claim #𝟠
No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You did not deny this claim.
If you did I would ask you to prove that any human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You don't want to admit that No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You don't want to admit that what applies to you and I applies to any other humans.
You refuse to admit the claim, you show your government loving bias and your propaganda that you are trying to establish as proof of government's alleged (and disprovable) Right-to-Rule.
You admitted claim #𝟟: You and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Claim #𝟡: If you don't have a Right-to-Rule me, then you can not delegate a Right-to-Rule me to anybody else.
Please admit or deny my claim #𝟡.
You're not the first right-wing extremist who thinks he's smarter than the rest of the world that I've dealt with. In a democracy, we grant governmental authority by the consent of the people. Your convoluted logic doesn't change the reality. It's a selfish, juvenile, and anti-social attitude that says "You're not the boss of me, and I refuse to live by any rules imposed by your gubmint." If you don't want to live in a democracy, then get out.
I decline to chase your red herring off the question I asked you.
Was your reply an admission or a denial of the point: Claim #𝟡: If you don't have a Right-to-Rule me, then you can not delegate a Right-to-Rule me to anybody else.
Skep, the authority that the people grant to the government is an ignorant, ill-informed authority. They do it because they are brainwashed to do it by this Prussian indoctrination system called the public school system.
How childish can you be? I live in a country that has a constitution, and I respect it because that's what allows people to live and cooperate together in a functional society. I understand that without it, there would be either a despot calling the shots for everyone, or utter chaos. It's not perfect. I recognize the shortcomings we have, but I'd rather work within our constitutional framework to try to make it better, than to just allow a bunch of selfish anti-social nuts to have their way. I don't want any part of your fantasy society because I know enough about human behavior and history to realize that it wouldn't work the way you think, and it wouldn't make life pleasant for most of us.
Skep, if by human behavior you mean human nature, there is no such thing. People are programmed (like you) to believe in government (you are a textbook example of brainwashing with the response you just put out there. It makes me want to throw up).
You think you haven't been brainwashed by all that anti-gov propaganda? It has never worked. It isn't going to work just because you swallow it.
I haven't been brainwashed. You aren't brainwashed by the truth. You are brainwashed by lies. That's usually how it works.
It is a lie that government must be bad.
History shows otherwise.
History shows that there has always been either a government or an autocratic ruler. Take your choice.
Because people ignorantly tolerate it. There is an example in Samuel, where someone warned the people about human government, and they still foolishly wanted it like they do today.
There are plenty of ignorant people who believe all kinds of things. Like all this anti-government propaganda. It appears that you have been suckered in. I don't buy it. I know people who would be dead if that didn't have support from our government. There are millions of Americans who rely on the government for various things. We have police protection. We have public education. We have national defense. We have social security, transportation systems, healthcare, food and drug safety, consumer protections, and plenty of other things that are provided either wholly or partially by our government. I really don't care if a band of ignorant jack-asses don't like it. They are welcome to find another place where they can live without all those things. But don't try to take it away from me.
hey Skep email me will you Metacrock@gmai.com
I'm stopping with this now.
Post a Comment