Tom Delay says "God wrote the Constitution."

[Carrikature]

That sounds like a pretty narrow brush to me.

Right. Claiming that "large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists" is a narrow brush...

[Darth Executor]

DE specifically said, "It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists." To which, you agreed. Tell me what I'm misunderstanding.




Do you mind explaining how I sound bitter? I'm not being facetious. If I'm coming across as bitter, it's unintentional, and it's definitely not how I feel.


In an effort to clarifty: I think people, by and large, expect those who share some major classification to be in general agreement in nearly every matter. That seems to ignore everything else that goes into worldviews, though I expect it's ignorance or lack of imagination (or simply not having thought about it) rather than something more malicious. This expectation manifests itself a lot in politics as evidenced by the liberal/conservative and democrat/republican labels (which are largely meaningless).

How do you swing from "functionally indistinguishable from atheists" to "must agree with me on everything"? You're right, I do expect Christians to share quite a few traits. I further expect other Christian subgroups to share even more. Otherwise there's no point in bringing up the label if it has no relevance. That's not the same as expecting Christians to all vote the exact same way.

[Cow Poke]

DE specifically said, "It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists." To which, you agreed. Tell me what I'm misunderstanding.

You INFER from that that I believe Christians need to "act" of "vote" a particular way. That's a huge leap. My "ouch" was in reference to the fact that I admit that a lot of people (even in my own congregation) are "functionally indistinguishable from atheists" -- their vote is none of my business, but the Bible has many things to say about how they should act.

Do you mind explaining how I sound bitter? I'm not being facetious. If I'm coming across as bitter, it's unintentional, and it's definitely not how I feel.

I should have kept that comment to myself. I apologize.

In an effort to clarifty: I think people, by and large, expect those who share some major classification to be in general agreement in nearly every matter. That seems to ignore everything else that goes into worldviews, though I expect it's ignorance or lack of imagination (or simply not having thought about it) rather than something more malicious. This expectation manifests itself a lot in politics as evidenced by the liberal/conservative and democrat/republican labels (which are largely meaningless).

Can it be ignored that, generally speaking, liberals tend to be for things Christians oppose? And it's complicated by the fact that Democrats didn't used to be the "liberals" that seem to dominate their party today. I know quite a few Democrats (mostly older ones) who are quite "God and country", and oppose abortion and homosexuality, but they've "always voted Democrat". So, yeah, the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" are, to me, pretty useless, and "liberal and conservative" depend on the realm being discussed -- social, fiscal, military, etc.

[Cow Poke]

How do you swing from "functionally indistinguishable from atheists" to "must agree with me on everything"? You're right, I do expect Christians to share quite a few traits. I further expect other Christian subgroups to share even more. Otherwise there's no point in bringing up the label if it has no relevance. That's not the same as expecting Christians to all vote the exact same way.

I really do hate it that I'm agreeing with you.

[Outis]

Can it be ignored that, generally speaking, liberals tend to be for things Christians oppose?

Is it that, or is it that you concentrate on a few hot-button issues and ignore the rest of the platform?

[Cow Poke]

Is it that, or is it that you concentrate on a few hot-button issues and ignore the rest of the platform?

What makes them "hot button issues"? And how do you know how many of these I "concentrate" on? There are a BROAD range of issues I personally disagree with from labor unions, education -- the hypocrisy of claiming to be the "party of choice" but refusing to allow school vouchers....

[rogue06]

And for the right, the answer is always the same: shrink the state until it is small enough, and powerless enough, to drown in a bathtub. I'd say our recent examples of the fruits of deregulation (from the pollution of waterways in West Virginia and North Carolina

It seems that some of the worst examples of pollution can be found in areas where communism (where the government/state planned and ran the economies) held sway. For instance when East and West Germany were reunified we discovered that in the east over 40% of the rivers and canals were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water and nearly half of their lakes were so polluted as to be unable to sustain fish or other forms of life.

In Hungary, the Danube (which Strauss accurately called the "Blue Danube" in his waltz) becomes black with petroleum and other waste.

So government control is definitely not the answer for pollution. As CNN reported in 1992 about conditions in the former Soviet Union:

Under the socialist system, Soviet industry was built with little or no regard for the environment. Cars still use leaded gasoline. Manufacturing consumes more than four times as much energy per unit of GNP as in the U.S., reports the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The sad irony is that this enormous waste has contributed significantly to global warming and other environmental problems without making life easier for the country's citizens. Russian households consume 90% less energy than their Western counterparts (they have smaller homes and fewer appliances), but this savings is rendered meaningless by the colossal wastefulness built into the inefficient military industrial complex.

The People’s Republic China is no better. It has been reported that over 70% of China's rivers and lakes are polluted while underground water in 90% of Chinese cities is also affected. Further, more than 300 million people nationwide have no access to clean water. A full third of the Yellow River is deemed unfit for drinking or agriculture.

Likewise, among Third World countries with state controlled and planned economies, the air and water in many of them is so filthy that they aren't just capable of causing cancer or other diseases down the road but are actually considered to be immediately life-threatening.

At least in the west the free market itself is a major force behind cleaner environmental conditions.

First companies have to respond to a public that won't buy their products if they are seen as destroying the environment forcing them to clean up.

Second, it encourages businesses to reduce costly waste which reduces their expenses and makes them more competitive.

Third, allowing people to own property gives them an incentive to maintain it (they have a vested interest) rather than making it common property with the government as caretaker which produces as attitude of let someone else take care of it.

Mini tirade over.

[Cow Poke]

It seems that some of the worst examples of pollution can be found in areas where communism (where the government/state planned and ran the economies) held sway. For instance when East and West Germany were reunified we discovered that in the east over 40% of the rivers and canals were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water and nearly half of their lakes were so polluted as to be unable to sustain fish or other forms of life.

In Hungary, the Danube (which Strauss accurately called the "Blue Danube" in his waltz) becomes black with petroleum and other waste.

So government control is definitely not the answer for pollution. As CNN reported in 1992 about conditions in the former Soviet Union:

The People’s Republic China is no better. It has been reported that over 70% of China's rivers and lakes are polluted while underground water in 90% of Chinese cities is also affected. Further, more than 300 million people nationwide have no access to clean water. A full third of the Yellow River is deemed unfit for drinking or agriculture.

Likewise, among Third World countries with state controlled and planned economies, the air and water in many of them is so filthy that they aren't just capable of causing cancer or other diseases down the road but are actually considered to be immediately life-threatening.

At least in the west the free market itself is a major force behind cleaner environmental conditions.

First companies have to respond to a public that won't buy their products if they are seen as destroying the environment forcing them to clean up.

Second, it encourages businesses to reduce costly waste which reduces their expenses and makes them more competitive.

Third, allowing people to own property gives them an incentive to maintain it (they have a vested interest) rather than making it common property with the government as caretaker which produces as attitude of let someone else take care of it.

Mini tirade over.

yeah

[Carrikature]

How do you swing from "functionally indistinguishable from atheists" to "must agree with me on everything"? You're right, I do expect Christians to share quite a few traits. I further expect other Christian subgroups to share even more. Otherwise there's no point in bringing up the label if it has no relevance. That's not the same as expecting Christians to all vote the exact same way.

The bolded is your addition, not mine. The swing is your own creation. Your claim has effectively been that they are functionally indistinguishable from atheists because of how they vote (lest we forget the context). It's not me who is expecting Christians to vote the same way (even on major issues) but those who expect "Christian influence" to mean "abortion would be illegal, prayer and bibles would be allowed in public schools, and we'd most likely see less raunch in the media."

[Outis]

What makes them "hot button issues"? And how do you know how many of these I "concentrate" on?

Because you spend a great deal of time complaining about them.

the hypocrisy of claiming to be the "party of choice" but refusing to allow school vouchers....

That's not hypocrisy, CP. That's refusing to pull even more funding from the schools.

[Cow Poke]

It's pointless to claim that Christians have a lot of influence when large groups of Christians are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

C - THIS is the part of DE's statement that I actually QUOTED, and responded to. It says NOTHING about voting. From that, however, you assume....

What's actually happening is that you, seanD, and now CP clearly espouse the idea that True Christians(TM) only act (or vote) a certain way. The broad brush is all yours.

YOU said vote, and included me in something you had no right to assume. The "clearly espouse" is only in your mind, and quite an overreach.

[Outis]

It seems that some of the worst examples of pollution can be found in areas where communism (where the government/state planned and ran the economies) held sway.

Apples to oranges, Rogue. You cannot compare a direct state-run economy (especially one renown for the level of corruption, inefficiency, and sheer stupid of the former Soviet Union) with the mostly laisses faire with some mixed elements of the US. The cultures are too different to make a comparison meaningful.

Instead, compare within the US. See what party argues for deregulation, then look at the specific results of those deregulatory policies. It's the only way to make an accurate analysis.

[Cow Poke]

Because you spend a great deal of time complaining about them.

Yeah, like you know the TOTALITY of my thoughts and beliefs based on some posts on a Christian website.

That's not hypocrisy, CP. That's refusing to pull even more funding from the schools.

Ah, so the hypocrisy is based on the excuse "we'd pull more funding from the schools"... so.... let's keep funding schools that perform miserably, and refuse the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to take their kids to schools that generally operate more efficiently financially, and perform better academically, because we have a loyalty to the UNIONS who run those government schools.

[Carrikature]

You INFER from that that I believe Christians need to "act" of "vote" a particular way. That's a huge leap. My "ouch" was in reference to the fact that I admit that a lot of people (even in my own congregation) are "functionally indistinguishable from atheists" -- their vote is none of my business, but the Bible has many things to say about how they should act.

I did infer as much, yes. I'm not sure how it's that big of a leap. I don't understand how you can say that you don't believe they need act or vote a certain way while simultaneously saying their actions are functionally indistinguishable from atheists. Help me understand.

I should have kept that comment to myself. I apologize.

You've done nothing wrong. It's good that it was said if for no other reason than that I could try to clarify. There are things I'm bitter about, but I don't think this is one of them. I could be wrong, though. For all I know, you've picked up on something I couldn't see myself.

Can it be ignored that, generally speaking, liberals tend to be for things Christians oppose? And it's complicated by the fact that Democrats didn't used to be the "liberals" that seem to dominate their party today. I know quite a few Democrats (mostly older ones) who are quite "God and country", and oppose abortion and homosexuality, but they've "always voted Democrat". So, yeah, the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" are, to me, pretty useless, and "liberal and conservative" depend on the realm being discussed -- social, fiscal, military, etc.

I think the part I've bolded is the root of the problem. Christians don't divide cleanly. There are Christian liberals just as there are Christian conservatives. In the case of abortion, Christians still largely oppose it. The difference is that they don't all agree it should be illegal in every circumstance. That's a pretty big nuance with very different outcomes for a basically similar belief. Even those ardently in favor of abortion generally don't approve of it after a certain stage. My own leanings are anti-abortion for reasons that don't quite justify outlawing it.

[Carrikature]

That's not hypocrisy, CP. That's refusing to pull even more funding from the schools.

More like reallocating the funding to people who will actually use it wisely.