Can independents refresh our debates over faith and politics?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The fundamental question is one of causality. For decades, scholars and practitioners agreed that religion was the causal factor that, like sex, race or income, shaped political attitudes and behaviors. New research upends that assumption. Based on a wave of new studies, University of Pennsylvania professor Michele M. Margolis has convincingly shown that partisanship affects religiosity. This aligns with research suggesting that partisanship is a foundational social identity, driving rather than flowing from values and attitudes.

What does all this mean for religion? For one thing, we should look at how people bring their social and religious beliefs in line with their party instead of assuming their faith shapes their politics. This goes a long way toward explaining, for example, white evangelicals’ overwhelming support for President Trump despite his obvious deficiencies.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/23/can-independents-refresh-our-debates-over-faith-and-politics/

[Voltaire2]

1. Religion should shrivel up and disappear.

Whatever role it might have played in social evolution- it no longer serves any useful purpose and instead is yet another banner for resurgent 21st century fascism to rally idiots around.

[guillaumeb]

2. Substitute the word "patriotism"

for "religion" and the same argument can be made.

[trotsky]

3. Bullshit.

You keep making this false equivalency, you're desperate to make it stick, but you've never supported it.

Give it up - no one is buying it.

[guillaumeb]

7. I have supported it numerous times.

But because it does not support the preferred narrative of some few here, it must be ignored or rejected.

Feel free to do some research.

[trotsky]

12. Declaring something doesn't make it true.

Doesn't work for Trump, doesn't work for you.

It is not my responsibility to do research to support YOUR narrative. I've explained this to you countless times.

You have proven you are not sincere in calling for dialog. You only wish to dictate to others, and have them accept what you say uncritically.

I shall continue to respond appropriately to call out your unsupported statements.

[guillaumeb]

13. You making a claim means nothing.

But I understand your opposition to any posts that are positive about theism and theists.

[trotsky]

14. And I understand your total inability to defend your own points...

causes you to lash out and question people's motives for DARING to question you and your pronouncements.

[guillaumeb]

19. Now you are confusing my replies with your own.

And we both know that the DU record is filled with you attacking anyone who posts positively about religion.

[trotsky]

21. No, "we" don't know that. That is a nasty personal attack that you've invented...

and continue to try and smear me with.

I post my opinion on DU, just like anyone else. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I am attacking you, no matter how much you hate it when people disagree with you.

[guillaumeb]

22. I backed up my assertion in a previous exchange.

And when I posted replies by you going back to 2012, replies that supported my claim, you accused me of personally attacking you.

[trotsky]

23. You have done nothing of the sort.

Why are you making up nonsense, gil?

[guillaumeb]

24. Have you convinced yourself?

Fine. When I have time, I will link to my previous proofs.

[trotsky]

25. "When I have time"

Uh huh.

[guillaumeb]

26. #21 and #28

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218133641

2 among many similar posts.

[trotsky]

27. A DUer accused other DUers of advocating genocide.

And *I'm* the one attacking when I object to that?

Wow gil, now that I see what you consider "evidence" I know exactly the bullshit you're pushing.

On edit: hey, thanks for linking to that thread. My post #33 is quite apropos:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=133704

I'm proud to be on YOUR shit list, gil.

[guillaumeb]

28. You responded to #19.

And there is no mention of genocide.

Nice try. cbayer had an interesting comment on your behavior.

[trotsky]

30. What cbayer said in post #19 was:

You are not winning anything when you talk about going for the jugular with your teeth, bringing the sharpest sword and the strongest shield. Nothing.

Your use of violent imagery and language is making me increasingly uncomfortable.

She was directly criticizing a DUer for using "violent" hyperbole.

I pointed out that she herself had used violent hyperbole when it suited her.

That's what you consider an "attack." Thank you for posting it for all to come to their own conclusions about you, gil. I am content to let my words stand in context.

[guillaumeb]

32. You made a claim of genocide.

Your words, and the original thread, do not support you now.

[trotsky]

34. Here you go:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=101947

That's where cbayer accused a DUer of advocating genocide.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose your deceit yet again.

[guillaumeb]

44. So you are referring to a completely different post,

to defend an attack you made in the post I cited?

Thank you for demonstrating your agenda.

[trotsky]

55. Yes, the post where cbayer accused another DUer of promoting genocide.

That's the entire point, gil.

Do try and keep up.

[guillaumeb]

29. #21

Attacking another poster, again cbayer, for something that she did not actually say. But she did commit the sin of defending theists.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121834880

[trotsky]

31. Please identify the personal attack in that post, gil.

There is none. You are making things up again in order to smear me. Is that a Christian thing to do?

[guillaumeb]

33. It is not fair because there are so many similar posts t.

So I will stop now because it is too easy to find them. My point is made, and made again.

[trotsky]

35. It's not fair? To back up your vicious accusation against me?

My, what lovely "Christian" behavior.

You have failed, and failed again. I'm happy to expose you every time you try this nonsense.

[MineralMan]

36. As evidence, you link to a post that is four years old,

and is populated, in significant part, by argumentative people who have been removed from DU. That is your example? It does not convince. Not at all. I recognize some of the names there as people who once drove me away from this group. Is that the example you're using to illustrate your point? How strange. Is that what you want the Religion Group to look like? No thanks. Ugh!

[trotsky]

37. It's obvious the trick he tried to get away with.

He apparently thinks he'll fool people into thinking that because cbayer didn't make her genocide statement IN THAT THREAD, that by referring to it, I'm making it up, and thus it's a personal attack against something she didn't say.

Thankfully I keep links to provide the whole story, since he's tried this before.

[MineralMan]

38. That, for me, was a very, very toxic period in this group.

I went through the thread that guillaumeb linked to and clicked on the profiles of a number of people who were prominent posters in that thread. I was actually surprised to see just how many of them are no longer able to post here. I remembered some of the names, but not all of them.

Apparently that is a nostalgic period for some. Not for me, though. I can't imagine how such a thread is relevant to any discussion that is taking place at this time.

It's evidence of something, to be sure, but not of what guillaumeb claims it to be.

[trotsky]

39. It was a mess, for sure.

Gil cannot address my arguments, so he is attacking me, trying to discredit me, and having to fabricate and/or deceive to do so.

I'm happy to oblige him and expose his dishonesty for all to see.

[MineralMan]

40. Well, your job is not a difficult one, and you do it well within

the boundaries. I wonder of some of those old names are still hanging about and reading threads in this Group. I can't imagine doing that, but it's not hard to imagine others doing so.

[MineralMan]

42. Well it appears that this thread has been abandoned by its OP.

That strategy is also a common one. I await the next.

[guillaumeb]

46. The trick of quoting from your own older posts?

You are amazing.

[trotsky]

56. Without context, yes, that's a problem.

You keep trying, and I keep exposing your deceitful tactics.

Can't wait for you to fail again. It's quite entertaining.

[guillaumeb]

45. Many of the people there were open to discussion.

But the toxic responses of some few, almost in harmony, drove many out.

And if one makes a comment regarding a long standing practice, a reference to older posts is acceptable to prove the point.

Strange is how you ignored the toxicity of one poster to only see the others.

[MineralMan]

49. No. All failed to adhere to the simple rules

of behavior here, and were shown the door. On the other hand, I chose to leave this group on my own accord to avoid toxic conflict. They are gone, but I remain.

Since you were not here at the time of that thread, perhaps, you may not have a clear vision on it. Or, perhaps you were here. I do not know.

[Lordquinton]

50. And yet you accuse others of posting without irony

You literally condemned Trotsky for referring to something from a different thread, then yourself defend using material from another thread.

You're right though, the toxic responses from a few, almost in harmony did drive a lot of people away at the time. Fortunately most of those voices were kicked out for their toxic behavior.

[trotsky]

57. That's been a consistent thread during gil's tenure on DU.

"OK for me, not for thee."

[Lordquinton]

61. That the 13th commandment?

[Major Nikon]

16. What you don't understand is that works both ways

Which was kind of the whole point which sailed off into the sunset over your head.

[Major Nikon]

15. Almost no one

His imaginary fan club is still sending thank you cards.

[MineralMan]

43. I saw some names who are likely members of that fan club in

a link upthread. Now, I can't say with any certainty that he was giving a nod to them, but one wonders about linking to a 4-year-old thread. I remember so many of the screen names from it. I confess, though, that I miss none of them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Substite "so fucking what"

for that argument and your ability to demonstrate why it matters mysteriously falters.

[Mariana]

5. This is the religion group.

We discuss religion and religious issues here.

[guillaumeb]

8. And some of us recognize that human behavior

transcends all divisions. So we do not make statements saying that religion is uniquely evil, or other such unprovable assertions.

[Major Nikon]

17. And some of us recognize that human behavior

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

[MineralMan]

41. Ah, but you see, doing evil while preaching against evil is sort of unique

to religious groups. That is the difference, really. That essential hypocrisy is why the topic keeps coming up again and again with regard to religion. Not all religions, of course, but enough of them, or divisions of them act in that way. Seen from outside, that offers many opportunities to point out the hypocrisy.

Justifying evildoing based on faith in an invisible entity is very weak sauce indeed. So, we point it out. Others, inexplicably, attempt to defend it. That keeps some of us busy. If nobody defended such hypocrisy, we'd have nothing much to do, really, and might find other outlets for our disappointment and criticism.

Perhaps that's worth considering, guillaumeb. Perhaps.

[guillaumeb]

47. Hypocrisy is a human trait.

That is worth considering, especially by those who try to promote an agenda.

[MineralMan]

48. No, it's a human failing that

can be avoided. One must at least try to do so, however.

[Lordquinton]

51. And in this group we discuss it in relation to religion

Bringing up a litany of the entirety of human behavior is nothing but a distraction. Why do you do it? What is your agenda when you refuse to stick to the group topic and constantly derail discussions?

[guillaumeb]

59. Showing that a particular behavior is a part of human nature

is my way of dismissing the many replies that attempt to single out religion as being uniquely responsible for such behavior.

Does that bother you?

[Lordquinton]

62. Why do you refuse to engage in discussion?

"pointing out it's human nature" is a deflection, and an attempt to shut down the discussion in relation to how it affects religion. If you turned that in as an assignment you'd fail the class.

I had more to say, but you always ignore any post with content in it, so I'm not going to spend the energy.

[guillaumeb]

63. I have recently posted articles discussing this very issue.

Which refutes your only contention.

As to discussion, it is my opinion that for a few here, discussion really means to join in a group denunciation of theism and theists. That is not really a discussion.

[Lordquinton]

64. Posting articles isn't participating in discussion

so my contention remains unrefuted.

You don't participate in any discussion. You flat out refuse to at times (like right here).

Several times, recently even, I have posted long, responses to your questions and you ignore them, why is that? Trotsky has a question he's been asking you for a few days now and you've been deflecting away from it, and now just ignoring it, I hope he asks it every day until you answer it.

It's not worth posting more because you will, as per usual, ignore it and go on with your own agenda.

[guillaumeb]

65. Posting articles can be initiating a discussion.

But if a few posters, almost simultaneously at times, decide to trash a thread, it is obvious that discussion is not the intent.


And if, coincidentally, the same few posters attack any positive posts about religion, again, it is obvious that promotion of an agenda is the real object.

[MineralMan]

66. Who is trashing your threads?

How would you know? I'll wait here for you answer.

[guillaumeb]

67. By trashing I meant flooding a thread with negativity.

And ignoring the actual post so they can promote their own agenda.

[MineralMan]

68. No, see, that's called discussion.

DU has a "trash thread" feature. I never use it, since I prefer discussions. When people disagree with you, they say so. They discuss your post. Sometimes many people disagree with you. That can be an indication of something, if you think about it.

[guillaumeb]

69. No, discussion involves respect for another's position,

and a certain amount of politeness.

If what I described is what you see as discussion, that can be an indication of something, if you think about it.

[MineralMan]

73. I see. So, accusing a new user here of wanting to join the "choir"

is showing respect and politeness? I don't know, guillaumeb, but I think not.

[Lordquinton]

74. Oh he accused you of not being polite too!

I guess that's the newest line.

[MineralMan]

75. Well, I try very hard to be polite,

even when it hurts to do so. Of course, what is polite is often in the eye of the recipient of that politeness.

Some people, too, think they are being polite when they're really being snarky and accusatory. As always, irony is funny.

[Lordquinton]

76. Polite is a vague term

Does it mean saying please and thank you? Does it mean peppering flowery language, does it mean not disagreeing with someone? Can a post be neither polite or rude? It's setting a positive standard that is undefined.

I try to match the level of the person I'm trying to have a discussion with, and in his case I constantly go above and beyond.

[MineralMan]

77. It is vague.

Disagreement is not impolite in itself, certainly. Saying someone is an "idiot," isn't polite. Discussion doesn't exist if everyone always agrees with everyone else. It also doesn't exist if responses are just random snark. Discussion will involved disagreement, but needn't devolve into exchanges of insults, i think.

I try, as I said. I fail sometimes, though, in maintaining a polite level of disagreement.

[Lordquinton]

78. A polite level of discourse

Also requires discourse, something sorely lacking around here. The level of ambient hostility has been raised by people in the past, as we were recently reminded of, who are no longer here, but the damage has been done.

[MineralMan]

79. Exactly. Tossing out a stock reply that says nothing, really,

is not discussion. There's no point in stating disagreement without explaining why you disagree. Saying just, "Well, that's just your opinion," or "You appear to have convinced yourself," is not discourse in any way. It's just a placeholder that says more about the poster than about the subject.

Religion, like politics, generates emotional responses. Nothing wrong with that, but it's possible to discuss opinions without using insults. The worst part is one insult begets another. Some of the endless subthreads in this group are little more than trading of insults.

I sometimes fall into those subthreads, but I try not to get involved in them most of the time.

It's the nature of the internet and semi-anonymous screen names, I guess. It gets very ugly at times.

[guillaumeb]

81. The new poster stsarted by attacking me,

calling the attack a response to my attack on the poster.

I pointed out that I have not actually attacked the poster, and the poster went off in another direction.

So yes, my question was quite appropriate.

[MineralMan]

84. You asked it twice in the same day, guillaumeb.

Of two different low-post-count DUers. How are you not ashamed of yourself?

[guillaumeb]

86. Remove the beam.

[MineralMan]

87. Is that a religious saying, guillaumeb?

I'm not religious. I am not in any way bound by the words supposedly spoken by Jesus. Besides, you've left off the rest of that quotation.

[guillaumeb]

89. If you are familiar with the quote,

and your reply indicates that you are, why ask the initial question?

Or was it a rhetorical device?

Being a mere theist, my intellect is far too small to follow all of these fancy literary techniques.

[Mariana]

94. You're making up your own definitions for words again, I see. nt.

[Lordquinton]

70. You know what, we both know you're not interested in a discussion

And now we're just arguing over the ways you derail or refuse to. There's really no need to continue.

[guillaumeb]

71. Ironic, coming from you.

I do not recall ever seeing a response of yours to a theist that was in any way polite. But I recognize that I have not seen all of your responses and am willing to be proven incorrect.

[Lordquinton]

72. Ironic...

[guillaumeb]

80. One of us does not.

But you have time to learn.

[Lordquinton]

82. K

[guillaumeb]

83. To help:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

So, as an example, if a poster uses words that actually describe himself/herself during an attack on another, that is unintentional irony.

[MineralMan]

85. That is "dramatic irony." It is only one of the meanings

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2018, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

of "irony," and requires the adjective "dramatic." It is the third definition of the word, and the least used.

i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē/Submit
noun

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, causticity, cynicism, mockery, satire, sardonicism
"that note of irony in her voice"

a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms: paradox, incongruity, incongruousness
"the irony of the situation"

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony

Many words have multiple definitions. Sometimes they are related, but not identical. If dramatic irony is meant, the word dramatic is used to clarify the meaning.

[guillaumeb]

88. There is also unintentional irony,

where a person who is attacking another is actually the one guilty of the offense.

[MineralMan]

90. Nope. Goodbye.

Irony is funny.

[Lordquinton]

91. Words have many definitions

And which one someone chooses to use says a lot about them as well.

[MineralMan]

92. It's always interesting when someone posts the least used

definition to support an argument, too.

[Lordquinton]

93. K

[Permanut]

52. I understand your need to conflate religion and patriotism..

makes them seem to be equivalent. Which they are not.

[guillaumeb]

60. No, your response indicates otherwise.

I equate religion and other forms of group identity.

[MineralMan]

6. The intersection of religion and politics

Is far more complex than that. So, what's your opinion of that article? Can you detail your reaction to it for us?

[guillaumeb]

9. I found the article to be interesting.

As to which factor is the causal factor, I am open to discussion.

[MineralMan]

10. I'm glad you were interested.

I'm not quite interested enough to go to the link. Why should I take the time? Tell me.

[guillaumeb]

11. The short excerpt that I posted was, for me, an adequate summary. eom

[Major Nikon]

18. I have no doubt you convinced yourself

[guillaumeb]

20. The obvious question:

Did you read the article, or did you respond based on the title?

[marylandblue]

54. I am just guessing here, but I think he used one of your canned responses

If you find this type of response in any way deficient, unclear, or potentially suggestive of the poster's failure to read something, I suggest you stop using it yourself.

[Docreed2003]

53. I would suggest this scholar didn't grown up in an evangelical church and wasn't inundated with it

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in the late 70's/early 80's thanks to one parent who was a Southern Baptist. I can assure you that faith shaped the politics of everyone in that congregation and, in my experience hundreds of similar congregations, and every single thing they were fighting for then has come to fruition today in the current GOP. They are fighting for a theocracy. Mike Pence and Mike Huckabee are the poster children for this group.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. No.

Too little. Too late.