Good news: "Clergy arrested outside McConnells office while protesting healthcare bill"

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

"WASHINGTON (RNS) Eleven interfaith protestors, including the Rev. William Barber II, were arrested outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office while protesting Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s revised healthcare bill.
About 50 protestors gathered Thursday (July 13) for the Capitol Hill rally, before marching to a Senate office building steps from the Capitol."

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/13/clergy-arrested-outside-mcconnells-office-while-protesting-healthcare-bill/

[madamesilverspurs]

1. WWJD?

The next time someone asks WWJD, show them these people.


.

[guillaumeb]

2. Agreed.

They are inspirational to many people.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. McConnell's version: WWJA nt

[trotsky]

4. In your opinion, of course.

Other people have different opinions about "what Jesus would do." But neither can prove they are right, and the others are wrong.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Interesting. I don't remember Jesus visiting any government institutions of his own volition.

Never protested outside a governor's palace or a legion barracks. As far as I can remember, the only thing he ever had to say about the Romans is you should quit whining and pay them their taxes.

[guillaumeb]

6. The Temple i Jerusalem was a defacto government institution.

Given that Jewish life was regulated and controlled by the High Priests.

[trotsky]

7. That's a reach and you know it. n/t

[guillaumeb]

9. Not at all. Simply historical fact.

Most aspects of life for the Jews in Israel was controlled by the High Priests. The Romans rarely interfered in the internal governance of any province as long as order was kept and taxes were remitted to Rome.

[trotsky]

11. Fact, yes.

But the priests were NOT the government. That's your reach, and it's obvious to everyone.

[guillaumeb]

16. Not a reach at all.

Do you ever feel that you are at all obvious to everyone?

[trotsky]

19. I should hope so. I don't mince words.

I call out religious bigots and religious hypocrisy consistently.

[guillaumeb]

20. And do you also call out non-religious bigotry and hypocrisy?

For the sake of intellectual consistency?

[trotsky]

21. Here in the Religion group?

Nope. We've been over this before, remember?

[guillaumeb]

22. There are many groups here in which you could call out this behavior.

Do you choose to do so, have you ever chosen to do so, or is your focus solely on religion?

[trotsky]

23. Here in the Religion group, my focus is on Religion.

Which is the primary focus of this group, oddly enough. As I (and others) have explained to you now at least several dozen times.

And as I have also explained to you the same number of times, I am under no obligation whatsoever to post things that meet your approval. You do not control this forum, or the discussion board. Your continued attempts to deflect in this manner are pathetic and woefully transparent.

[guillaumeb]

24. Evading?

The question was whether or not you ever post about similar topics in any other forum when religion is not a factor?

And given that your overwhelming focus is on religion, one might assume that you are only concerned with such behavior if you can attempt to link it with religious belief.

So when you speak of deflection and transparent motivation, the irony is quite evident.

[trotsky]

25. I'll repeat yet again:

I am under no obligation whatsoever to post things that meet your approval. You do not control this forum, or the discussion board.

BTW, here's a link that explains what you are doing. It's a tactic that has become quite popular among the loyal Trumpers, because of its ties to old Soviet propaganda that Trump's Russia connections have brought. But it's really sickening to see it used here on DU. I post this here for your enlightenment -I am of course in no way accusing you of supporting Trump, but merely noting that you are using the same propaganda techniques.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[guillaumeb]

26. Yes, you are evading.

You are obviously trying to avoid answering a question by bringing up other topics and apparently trying to ascribe motivations and political tactics to me.

You could have answered yes or no to my question, but you refuse and go off on a tangent.

A failed attempt on your part.

[trotsky]

27. And you're engaging in whataboutism.

Because of that, I see absolutely no reason to answer any of your ridiculous demands. I am content to let you continue to humiliate yourself. Please proceed.

[guillaumeb]

28. Okay.

What percent of your posts concern religion?

And a request. Link to one original post of yours concerning bigotry or intolerance or any other negative behavior that does not have a religious theme.

That should be easy.

[trotsky]

29. "What percent of your posts concern religion?"

In the religion group, I'd estimate pretty close to 100%.

Where else and what I post is of absolutely no concern - that's why what you are doing is called whataboutism. I'll repeat yet again that I am under no obligation whatsoever to honor any of your distraction demands.

You're right, it is easy calling out your tactics and letting you humiliate yourself.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. And the High Priests were at least in part installed by the Prefect of Roman Judea.

And yet he had nothing to say about this.

[guillaumeb]

10. See my reply #9. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. So if the United States invaded France and installed a President of their choosing...

...we'd "hardly be interfering" with France's internal politics.





Look, I'm sure the real Jesus managed to piss the Romans off. They wouldn't have crucified him if he hadn't. But whatever it was the Evangelists were determined not to tell us. If Jesus was indeed some anti-imperialist freedom fighter, that Jesus is not the Jesus described in the Gospels.

[trotsky]

13. C'mon, man...

Everyone knows that Jesus likes all the same things I do and would totally approve of all my political opinions and actions.

But not yours.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Never met a believer who disagreed with their God on any issue.

It's almost like their concept of God is merely a projection of their own preexisting ideas. Weird, innit?

[trotsky]

15. No, you see, it's totally just that they personally have figured out what their god wants...

and eveyrone else in the history of humanity has been wrong. Duh!

[guillaumeb]

17. Give up all that you have and follow me.

Jesus was not in revolt against the civil governance of the Romans, He was an enemy of the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people. Not because He was an enemy of theirs, but because His message was seen by them as hostile.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. Notice how I took care to make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus.