America's 2 main religions

It is pretty obvious that Christianity is intertwined with right-wing politics

 then conservatives would be pro open borders(Exodus 12:49, Exodus 22:21) 

and socialism(Luke 18:22).

If there are any bible verses contradicting this, then the bible contains contradictions and can't be trusted.

If there are no bible verses contradicting this, then this is the word of God that a consistent and pricnipled theocrat ought to agree with.

My assessment is that the two sides think completely differently, left wingers being more practical and logical, right wingers being more emotionally driven.

Respecting the struggle that many people spend their entire lives dealing with and showing that respect by allowing them to identify based on how they see themselves and live is not what any reasonable person would categorize as an emotionally driven position. It’s logic 101; respect your fellow citizen and we will all be better off. An emotionally driven response would be to harbor such animosity towards this group that this becomes an animating factor for an entire political party, driving its voters to the polls.

Do you seriously want to debate which side is more emotionally driven? What is the Republican Party platform again?

Let’s see. Border security. Gun rights. Lower taxes. All of which are based on facts. Not emotion.

None of which are based on facts. 

Border security is a catch all for “keep the scary dirty brown people out”. 

Gun rights is all about fighting back against government tyranny, which is what you get after a combination of conspiracy theories and Bruce Willis movies. It’s not a logically driven position.

And lower taxes is all about “I don’t want to pay taxes”. It has nothing to do with logic, otherwise we would be having a conversation about where the money should actually be going. The right never wants to talk about that part. And besides, look around. No one cares about tax policy.

Border security is a catch all for “keep the scary dirty brown people out”.

I love how Whoopi is upset she got canceled for saying Jews are not a race because they don't have brown skin. To some people, it's the only race.

So what does this mean and how do we evaluate it? Well we can start be recognizing that logic is a process. It’s based on validity, not desires. So a logically driven person is one with a greater capacity to accept truths that are inconvenient and adjust to them.

Like, say, climate change, or the question of who won the last election. It’s not a coincidence that the left overwhelmingly embraces the findings of science no matter how glim, while the right seems to always be on the opposite side of every major issue science has already settled on.

Religion is another indicator since even most religious people will credit “faith” as their reason for believing (the opposite of logic). So which side do we tend to find the evangelicals? Of course, the right.

And a quality I’ve observed which I believe follows from this is the need for a deity like figure to appeal to; a person whom the party faithful can pledge their unwavering support. We see this on the right (it’s Trump right now, it was Reagan before). We don’t see this on the left. Obama is the closest thing you could point to, but no serious contingent on the left is pledging to support “the principals of Barack Obama”. The left does not need a figurehead, only the right does this.

And then there’s policy. Whatever you think of the left’s ideas, if you’re competing on the left you have to spell them out and explain them in detail in order to be taken seriously. What happened when Elizabeth Warren was found to not have a plan on a major legislative issue? Her poll numbers sank overnight.

On the right, all you need is slogans, and they don’t have to be factual or make sense.

“Ban the teaching of CRT!”.

Ok, but what is CRT? No one knows. It’s just a vague notion of race that makes them uncomfortable. Just like gender pronouns, which helps drive many right wing voters to the polls despite there being no plausible legislative resolution. It’s purely a cultural issue, just like cancel culture and “free speech”. The issues of the day on the political right.

 

Even advertising companies are well aware of this. The ads run on Fox News are literally catered to people who are more easily manipulable, that’s why you see all the 1-800-CALL-NOW commercials there. 

This isn’t close.

I could just as easily say that abortion, gender theory, and more are invalidated by science and I would be just as correct.

As for election fraud-you think that votes were added in at 4 AM after a pipe burst in Atlanta and counters prevented commissioners from coming are legitimate? Is this was logic is?

Again, you are defining logic as in leftism/atheism is right and right-wingers and dumb and stupid.

Um are you serious? Do you see the left and their relationship with MLK? That is probably their biggest figurehead in USA at the moment and they direct schools to teach in a matter that worships this guy. How about George Floyd?

No you don't have to spell out your ideas. Elizabeth Warren got exposed for not having a plan but it happens on the right as well.

CRT is unknown because the left can't define it properly. What the fuck does "critical race theory" even mean in the first place? That's on the left for choosing such a weird policy name and masking it up as racial justice when in reality it's just anti-white propaganda.

Cultural issues>policy issues BTW

No it’s protect our sovereignty just like we’re protecting Ukraine’s. The left wants everyone to come cause poor people. They deserve a better life.

Gun rights is after seeing history show the first step to tyranny is taking guns away. We just saw it in Afghanistan too. Taking guns is ground in virtue signaling with “weapon of war and assault rifle”

Wait, you wanna cut spending? Let’s get at it then. Also I’d argue everyone cares about taxes lol. A wise man once said there are only two things certain in this world. Death and taxes.

The southern border is a crisis of people trying to escape the hell hole they live in, it’s a humanitarian issue. 

No, it would just show that you don’t know what any of these terms mean and especially that none of them have anything to do with science.

No, I’m defining logic as a process where a conclusion is drawn from a given set of premises. The fact that most religious people do not believe based on this process, and the fact that the political right is overwhelmingly tied in their politics to their religion is one of many indicators I listed that logic is not prioritized with regards to right wing politics.

George Floyd of a symbol of police abuse in America. Painting him as a figurehead is just plain stupid. No one even knows what his politics were or if he had any particular political opinions. You can’t be serious.

MLK seems to be just as much of a figurehead on the right as he is on the left, every year republicans politicians pay homage to legacy and quote him on Twitter as much as democrats do.

The fact is that he is revered nationwide for the change he lead in American life and the fact that he sacrificed his life for it. He’s not the leader of the left. The only issues his words are used as ammunition in are issues that used to be settled which right wing politicians have suddenly changed their stance on. The voting rights act for example which passed the senate unanimously in 06 which not one single republican will vote for today. So no, this is not the left’s figurehead as much as it is a reminder of the rights extremism and hypocrisy.

And no, a figurehead in and of itself is not a “breach of logic”. The point is that people who care about logic focus on arguments, not deity like figures. If we believe in an idea we believe it’s right because it’s right, not because someone said it. MLK is a terrible comparison because all of society used to accept the core message he was known for advancing. Reagan was always a right wing figure. And Trump as a figurehead? That’s a whole different level of absurdity.

Name one right wing politician who would pay a political price for not having a specific plan to resolve an issue.

My god dude.

CRT is an actual course taught in actual schools. Schools as in college. It has a real actual definition, you would know that if you ever googled it.

So no, it’s not a policy name, was not “chosen by the left” and being anti-CRT has nothing to do with actual policy.

If there’s one thing you’ve said that has proven my point this is definitely it.

We elect government officials to pass policy, not to argue on Twitter about wokeness or cancel culture. This is the opposite of a logical position.

Yes abortion and gender theory are in line with Science, both disprove leftism.

AGAIN, if you consider logos to be truth, then these Right-wing Christian positions would be logical,

Yes I am serious because he is basically a Marty for the left now. You don't have to be overtly political to be a figurehead for a political movement. He is treated like a idol now

HE IS LITERALLY A DEITY IN AMERICA TODAY. YOU CAN NOT CRITICIZE HIM.

I will admit that the right is more fond of having a leader(not figure-head as you put it)because they accept hierarchy, in which there are leaders and there are followers.

There's plenty of examples out there like how Trump flamed his opponents for not having a plan for immigration.

What does Critical Race Theory mean? It is obviously left vague to mask it's anti-white identity. And I am aware it is taught in schools and has a real definition, BUT THE NAME is kept vague.

We elect government officials to pass policy regarding social issues. Which are more important to the average voter on both sides than economic positions. Logic is intertwined with social policy as well and to claim otherwise is absurd.

Israel makes war with many groups and keeps a homogenous community.

It's ridiculous (and lazy) to reduce the general problem of resource shortages to "humanitarian issues." If that were the case, Ukraine could be judged to be oppressing Russia by not sharing it's bounty with Russia;

The bible doesn't support this.  The bible doesn't care if your homogeneous or not, as long as you don't treat someone different for being a foreigner.  This is akin to open borders.  One of the areas where I give the bible credit.

  America isn't homogeneous and since we are assimilated, we thrive.  People assimilate with time to America and if they don't, there are translator devices for that.

This is also why I support the EU becoming one country.  They can use translator devices to communicate (or they can use English).

The abortion debate is entirely about whether a woman’s right to her own body outweighs the rights of a fetus to life. There is nothing about this which science can possibly answer.

Gender theory is defined as: “an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to analysing gender identity and gendered representation”. Again, has nothing to do with science.

You could at least Google the terms before making such claims.

Logos: “the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity”

So in other words, if you believe in god then your belief in god is logical. Not a great argument.

When I talk about a figurehead I’m talking about someone the political movement appeals to, follows, and uses as a metric for whether one is right on a given issue. It’s a person you are not allowed to break with or you will be deemed an “other” by your own side. To put George Floyd in that category is absurd. You really need to drop this argument.

A deity and a martyr are two completely different things.

Then why are we still talking about this?

I asked you for an example of a right wing politician paying a political price for not having an actual plan and your response is to talk about Trump going after his opponents.

Not only does this fail to address my question, but further emphasizes everything I’m talking about with regards to the need for a figurehead or leader if you prefer that term.

It’s a college course. It has no obligation to change its name as a response to bad faith political activists trying to turn it into the next right wing bogeyman.

I suppose you’re right about that. You can for example legislate bigotry against transsexuals by passing bathroom bills to protect girls in bathrooms despite no actual problem being solved. And you can pass laws saying you’re not allowed to teach CRT in grade school classrooms despite no grade schools schools actually teaching it. And you can legislate white fragility into law by passing bills saying you’re not allowed to make anyone feel uncomfortable by talking about race.

The point wasn’t about what can or can’t be legislated, but about what the issues are. The idea of government is to protect the well being of its citizens. The question is, what does that mean and what does it look like?

For one side it means things like healthcare, infrastructure, minimum wage, etc. For the other side it means combating things like gender pronouns, cancel culture, and wokeness, which is especially ironic since this is the same side that says government should stay out of our business. If there’s one theme that seems to be coming from the right, it’s to own the libs.

You talk about the right not following Trump but rather Trump reflecting what the right is about. That only proves my point further. We have never had a more emotional less logically driven president in our history. The guy literally threatened nuclear war over Twitter, and no serious constitutional scholar would ever claim they believe he’s ever read the constitution. The guy was the most buffoonish clown we’ve ever seen when it came to talking about policy, but this is the guy the right fell in love with. You cannot tell me that showes anything other than the very thing I have been saying here.

Samson is punished for marrying outside Israeli stock. 

Are we thriving? Has multiculturalism been an upside?

How about no, how about each country defines it's borders and people and keeps their culture. That doesn't mean Europeans have to hate each other. No, they can just all have self-determination

Exodus 12:49, "The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.” 

Exodus 22:21, "21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."

Those simply mean humane and just treatment, doesn't make foreigners citizens.

(Luke 18:22), "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Jesus was speaking to an individual rich man, not saying he ought take other's stuff and redistribute it.

Point I'm trying to make it the Bible can be referenced by many different ideals, even in opposite sides at times,

I am in favor of an one-party state. It has proven to be much more effective

Can you ask this in different words, explain what you mean by follow, what/why these contradictions would matter?

What if it was a one-party state that disagreed with you about things?