soviettatersNew York City Using Brooklyn Parks as Migrant Housing
New Yorkers who are relatively apolitical tend to vote Democrat just because that's the culturally normal thing to do there. As more and more of them witness the disaster of illegal immigration, I see two possible outcomes: either 1. they start to vote for conservatives, or 2. they pressure Democrat leadership to abandon their pro-illegal policy, and start deporting all of these criminals.
tend to vote Democrat just because that’s the culturally normal thing to do there
Do you have evidence to support this? Because that is an incredibly simple explanation for something very complicated.
Democrats just don’t do that. The GOP is way to extreme for that to happen.
Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.
Do you have evidence to support this?
Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I'm not including anyone who's keyed into politics, just the other 80%.
Democrats just don’t do that.
The Democrat Party is a coalition. Democrats who believe strongly in political ideals, and who believe Republicans are evil (or close to it) would never vote Republican, sure. But I'm not talking about them. Many Democrats vote as they do just because that's what their friends and families do, and they've never been given a reason to question it. Those are the folks I spoke of, and there's a ton of them.
Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.
We're talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants. The distinction is crucial.
When somebody's very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility. Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors. Compassion is inappropriate for criminals who invade our country with the express purpose of breaking our laws.
Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.
Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I’m not including anyone who’s keyed into politics, just the other 80%.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
We’re talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
When somebody’s very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility.
It’s a misdemeanor, and most often they do so because America has destroyed their country and are seeking refuge. If civility was important, perhaps the U.S. should have thought twice about destabilizing Latin American countries and destabilizing entire ecosystems.
Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation for a family who has nothing but the clothes on their backs, and are actively being hunted by cartels, loan sharks, etc?
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences. It's important to be transparent that an anecdote is just an anecdote, but there's nothing unwise about basing an argument off one, provided the anecdotal source is transparent.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
There's a world of difference.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they're a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe "liberty or death" — American values. They are the kind of people who are law-abiding, and patriotic.
Illegals are a different type altogether. They're willing to break the law either because they're hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don't own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that's actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that's your perspective, you don't see a difference because you're not an American at heart.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel. I don't care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you're absolutely wrong.
[…] because America has destroyed their country […]
Cry me a river. I don't support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
I have some Jewish ancestors who died in the holocaust. If they'd been armed, and fought back, they'd have died respectable deaths, and there'd have been no concentration camps. I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn't fight like a man.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation […]
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
I offer you Romans 13:1-2:
Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Now to be fair, there's also Acts 5:29, which says:
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I'd advocate for asylum. I've never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there's a non-zero chance it could happen.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 13:1-2 - New American Standard Bible
Be Subject to Government - Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
thepixelfoxFirst of all, the thing that fried my brain. What on earth does owning flags have to do with who commits crimes?
Second of all, this is one of the most hateful, vile things I have ever read. Very unchristian of you. I thought you said Christians were inclusive and accepting, clearly you aren't. Repent you heathen Satan worshiper. Literally condemning people to death and feeling proud of yourself for being a 'high and mighty Christian.' Isn't pride a sin, cause ego goes along with pride, and you sir. Are full of it.
I'm sorry, what's hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
Sorry for "frying your brain". Patriotic Americans own flags, hoist them, and fly them, showing respect for our neighbors and law and order. It may seem unrelated to being a law-abiding citizen if you're not part of the culture.
I’m sorry, what’s hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
You would rather people (and children) die than receive any kind of help through immigration. You are calling people bottom of the barrel for trying to escape from danger. You are dehumanizing people on the basis of a single crime. You are judging your political opponents as criminals for failing to hold a false idol to the same standard you do.
Upvoted for a pretty good explanation, though I do disagree that any of that is hateful, and I don't know what "false idol" you referred to.
I'll tell you this: I don't feel any hatred in my heart towards illegal immigrants, nor towards my political opponents. I mean that honestly.
So I take issue with your claim of hatred, as it's factually incorrect.
I don’t know what “false idol” you referred to.
The flag
I’ll tell you this: I don’t feel any hatred in my heart towards illegal immigrants, nor towards my political opponents. I mean that honestly.
So I take issue with your claim of hatred, as it’s factually incorrect.
You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.
The flag
Gotcha. The flag's not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I'm in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it's commonplace to see "kneel for the cross, stand for the flag" signs. Nobody worships the flag. It's just a uniting symbol of our neighbors across the nation. When we say "love your neighbor", the flag is the imagery that comes to mind for me. It's not an idol at all, just a symbol of our fellow Americans, who we strive to love.
You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what's in my heart. You don't. You can misinterpret my words, but you can't rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don't feel.
Nobody worships the flag.
They absolutely do, and you’ve done quite a bit of it yourself from what I have read from you. You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what’s in my heart. You don’t. You can misinterpret my words, but you can’t rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don’t feel.
Hate can be a feeling, but it isn’t always a feeling. Hatred can be a cold unfeeling action, or speech. Granted, I think if this part of the conversation continues any further then it will devolve into semantics.
Semantics matter! So many of our disagreements are rooted in our using different definitions, and talking past each other, thinking the other side is crazy because we're misinterpreting each other's words.
You don't have to convince me to change my personal definition of anything. But by defining yours, as you have, I can understand where you're coming from. The fact that I don't consider it hatred doesn't much matter.
So @thepixelfox's point (and I suppose your point too) that I am cold and unfeeling towards foreigners who break into the US illegally is absolutely correct. Again I want to emphasize that I don't hate these people emotionally. But I don't think they deserve an ounce of our sympathy either. They're not our neighbors; they're hostile invaders.
You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
I'd treat it as a moral failure to disrespect a neighbor, and the flag symbolizes our neighbors. Moreover, I believe the US is one nation under God, and that concept is represented in our flag.
Listen, I'm a sinner, and I don't pretend to be even slightly perfect. There is so much I deserve to be judged for, and I'll accept that judgment when the day comes. But one of the few sins I'm not guilty of, to the best of my knowledge, is idolatry.
And in my experience, it's uncommon for others to worship the flag either. Treating it with respect out of respect for our neighbors and our nation is wholly different from worshiping it.
They’re not our neighbors; they’re hostile invaders.
They aren’t hostile though. They commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population. And they aren’t moving here out of malice, they are doing so to have better lives.
I’d treat it as a moral failure to disrespect a neighbor, and the flag symbolizes our neighbors.
Not everyone sees the flag that way. A lot of people see it in a negative light for a lot of different reasons. But that’s it’s own tangent.
My point is, regardless of what the flag represents, it is a symbol/image (idol) other than god that is worshiped.
it’s uncommon for others to worship the flag either
When Kaepernick kneeled instead of standing for the flag/anthem, people hated his guts ultimately because he wasn’t worshiping it, and worshiping it is often seen as the default. I won’t speak to how common it is, but it is definitely common enough to be noticeable. Another good example is how school children worship the flag every day with the pledge of allegiance.
Once somebody becomes an illegal, everything they do is inherently illegal until they retreat from American soil. How is it possible for them to be less illegal than a bona fide American when their entire state of being, and everything they do, is inherently illegal? It seems like you're telling me I'd see that they're actually good citizens if only I'd ignore the facts that they're neither good nor citizens.
Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them. But you're right, that's it's own tangent.
With regard to your position on idolatry, I do understand your viewpoint, and I don't defend idolatry. Of all the various reasons one might refuse to salute the flag, I think a fear of idolatry is perhaps the only one I'd consider valid. I get why you wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I only ask that you trust me when I say I don't worship the flag.
In my personal life, whenever I pledge my allegiance to the flag (which happens at least once per week), it's always preceded by a prayer. That's the same way it always was for school children too until SCOTUS banned it in '62. I believe that was a mistake, and saying the pledge without an opening prayer can certainly leave the wrong impression.
Once somebody becomes an illegal, everything they do is inherently illegal until they retreat from American soil. How is it possible for them to be less illegal than a bona fide American when their entire state of being, and everything they do, is inherently illegal?
That’s not how the legal system treats it. Being in the country illegal is counted as one crime.
Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them.
The government deporting people based on political opinions like this is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, and is un-american. It’s also a violation of the first amendment.
I only ask that you trust me when I say I don’t worship the flag.
I’m sorry but I can’t trust that when you treat people who don’t respect the flag as a moral failures.
saying the pledge without an opening prayer can certainly leave the wrong impression.
Opening prayer and the allegiance itself leaves the wrong impression. People should not be forced to partake in another’s religion, nor should they be forced to worship the flag/the country.
That’s not how the legal system treats it.
I'm aware. The Left has a voice in the legal system, and as a result it's soft on crime, and especially crime related to this discussion. But in truth, an illegal immigrant cannot even brush his teeth legally if he does so on American soil.
The government deporting people based on political opinions like this is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, and is un-american.
"Love it or leave it" is a traditionally American patriotic slogan. It's simple but true, and it applies to all things in life, not just the country. But when it comes to the country, it should be policy. I don't favor kicking out any legitimate citizen who recognizes this is the best country in the world, and would gladly fight and die to defend it. But for the leftists who hate America and want to change it to become more like some other country, they really need to pack up and move to that other country. There's nothing un-American about saying Americans ought to be American at heart.
It’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Not really, because I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to freely express their position, even if that means criticizing America. They have every right to cuss up a storm while they spew their hatred of everything American, while I help them pack, and escort them to the airport.
I’m sorry but I can’t trust that when you treat people who don’t respect the flag as a moral failures.
That fact makes you certain I worship the flag? That doesn't make any sense. I stand up for my neighbors, and by extension my country, and by extension the cloth that symbolizes it. That's not worship. That's just following what Jesus said is the second most important commandment.
Opening prayer and the allegiance itself leaves the wrong impression. People should not be forced to partake in another’s religion, nor should they be forced to worship the flag/the country.
It's worthwhile to look at the background of the '62 ban on school prayer. Protestants read from the KJV, and Catholics didn't like the KJV. The argument was all about which translation to use in public schools. SCOTUS decided that the only way to solve the problem was to choose no Bible at all.
It's also worthwhile to consider the Crusades, which were successful by some measures, but are also widely criticized for valid reasons. One of those reasons is that it's truly impossible to force anyone to believe in a religion if they don't want to. And it's counterproductive to try.
So I agree that people shouldn't be forced to partake in religious practices against their will. But that just means we should leave Protestant vs Catholic fights to other forums, and prayers in public forums like schools should be generic. Whatever religion Americans hold, we can safely assume it's some form of Christianity, with a slim possibility of Judaism in some places.
When it comes to satanists, atheists, or anyone else who rejects the God for which America was founded, they should be given a genuine chance to repent and accept God before being politely deported.
And as for being "forced to worship the flag/the country", again, the pledge of allegiance just says "I promise to love my neighbor." If someone can't pledge to do that, you've got to wonder why they live here.
But in truth, an illegal immigrant cannot even brush his teeth legally if he does so on American soil.
That’s not true. I hate to repeat myself, but that’s not how the judicial branch treats it. To treat brushing your teeth in this manner to be illegal would be a violation of the 5th amendment of the constitution, because that would be double jeopardy. And this isn’t a thing the left is responsible for, because the left did not write the constitution.
“Love it or leave it” is a traditionally American patriotic slogan.
And it’s one that is a great disservice to this country.
But for the leftists who hate America and want to change it to become more like some other country, they really need to pack up and move to that other country.
I would if I could. But that costs thousands of dollars, and that’s assuming you find a good country that will take you in at all. Your expectation for people to up and move is unrealistic given the reality that it isn’t possible for a third to half of Americans to immigrate to Europe.
There’s nothing un-American about saying Americans ought to be American at heart.
That’s not what you said though:
“Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them.”
Deporting american citizens because they disagree with you is un-american. And it’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Not really, because I wouldn’t want to take away anyone’s right to freely express their position, even if that means criticizing America. They have every right to cuss up a storm while they spew their hatred of everything American, while I help them pack, and escort them to the airport.
The government forcing people out of the country because of their expressed opinion/position is a direct violation of the first amendment. The government CANNOT punish people for their opinions, and deporting them is a form of punishment.
That fact makes you certain I worship the flag? That doesn’t make any sense. I stand up for my neighbors, and by extension my country, and by extension the cloth that symbolizes it. That’s not worship. That’s just following what Jesus said is the second most important commandment.
If you said the same thing about Jesus as you did the flag I would think the same about you worshiping Jesus.
But that just means we should leave Protestant vs Catholic fights to other forums, and prayers in public forums like schools should be generic.
Prayer in schools even if generic is still a form of forcing religion upon others.
When it comes to satanists, atheists, or anyone else who rejects the God for which America was founded, they should be given a genuine chance to repent and accept God before being politely deported.
This is the same un-american violation of the first amendment as above.
the pledge of allegiance just says “I promise to love my neighbor.”
That’s not at all what it says.
- “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”
double jeopardy
I acquiesce this is technically correct. I didn't really mean it like that, exactly, but it's useless to belabor the point because we're beating a dead horse.
I would if I could. But that costs thousands of dollars,
Interesting. Where would you move, out of curiosity?
At times in the past I've mulled over starting a non-profit for the purpose of funding politically-oriented moves like this, where funds are granted to people of all political persuasions to relocate to a more politically appropriate place, and where funds are donated by people wanting to help accelerate that sorting process.
I wouldn't really start that non-profit, because ultimately it would distract from legitimately good charities, but it does cross my mind now and then.
and that’s assuming you find a good country that will take you in at all.
Yes, well this is also one of the reasons why all of my calls for deportation are unrealistic.
Deporting american citizens because they disagree with you is un-american. And it’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Agreed, but disagreeing with me is not the problem. I enjoy open disagreement, as I'm mostly enjoying this conversation with you. We can learn from engaging with people of differing perspectives.
When you talk about people who harbor a negative association with the American flag, though, that's far beyond a disagreement. You're talking about domestic terrorists there. They're absolutely not American at heart, so why would we allow them to live here? These are people who are likely to commit mass murder at the drop of a hat. I imagine there's probably less than a dozen such people nationwide.
Prayer in schools even if generic is still a form of forcing religion upon others.
Not whatsoever. There are a zillion denominations and factions of Christianity, and they're all welcome here, no matter how zany they are. Moreover, prayer is an open dialog with God, so almost all Christian prayers are fairly applicable to Jews and Muslims too, if they overlook a few words. That's the broadest acceptable spectrum of every religion in America. Bear in mind that we have the freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
That’s not at all what [the Pledge] says.
You're being overly literal. I know what the words to the Pledge are, thank you. I just recited it earlier today in church. What I meant was that it ultimately tells us to love our neighbors. That's the root meaning behind it.
Interesting. Where would you move, out of curiosity?
If I could move anywhere? Probably the Netherlands. They have walkable cities, good job, good healthcare, a healthy respect for the environment. They have many of the policies I would like to see happen here, and they are the happiest nation on Earth if I recall.
In reality? I will probably be moving to Costa Rica, at the very least for when I retire. My girlfriend is there and the cost of living is a decent bit cheaper there. When we move depends on a lot of things, but it is currently our backup. We are pretty damn terrified of the authoritarian/fascist policies that are becoming popularized in the U.S., and we don’t want to be persecuted for being who we are. So if things get particularly bad we might just end up getting a greencard wedding is Costa Rica.
I wouldn’t really start that non-profit, because ultimately it would distract from legitimately good charities, but it does cross my mind now and then.
There is one charity like that which comes to mind to me. It’s called the Rainbow Railroad, and it’s for LGBTQ+ people who are trying to escape persecution, who want to move to a place where they will be safe.
I suspect you would not be a fan of it though.
When you talk about people who harbor a negative association with the American flag, though, that’s far beyond a disagreement. You’re talking about domestic terrorists there.
It’s ultimately a disagreement, a huge one sure, but a disagreement. And it’s not domestic terrorism because that involves violence.
They’re absolutely not American at heart, so why would we allow them to live here?
Because the alternative is persecuting them for their beliefs, which is un-American and a 1st amendment violation.
These are people who are likely to commit mass murder at the drop of a hat
You have no evidence for that, but I would actually suspect it’s the opposite, or at least a similar crime rate as the rest.
And the reason for my suspicion is that most mass shootings are done by straight white men, and most domestic terrorism is right wing motivated. Neither of which aligns with the demographics that view the flag in a negative light. The nature of domestic terrorist attacks differs quite a bit between left vs right as well.
nij.ojp.gov/…/public-mass-shootings-database-amas…
csis.org/…/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-ami…
ojp.gov/…/radical-right-vs-radical-left-terrorist…
I imagine there’s probably less than a dozen such people nationwide
It’s considerably more than that.
…yougov.com/…/how-americans-view-flags-and-symbol…
pewresearch.org/…/5-national-pride-and-shame/
npr.org/…/we-asked-americans-how-they-feel-about-…
From the first one, it would work out to roughly 30 million Americans who overall view the flag negatively. And that’s before you could the people who have a mixed view of it.
That’s the broadest acceptable spectrum of every religion in America
It doesn’t matter if it covers all religions because it’s generic, it’s still religious and forcing it upon children is forcing religion.
Bear in mind that we have the freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
It’s logically impossible to have one without the other. If the state has the ability to force you to partake in religion then we have no freedom of religion. They are one in the same.
What I meant was that it ultimately tells us to love our neighbors. That’s the root meaning behind it.
I don’t think that’s true. The meaning to mean quite clear is limited to this: By reciting the pledge you are promising loyalty to the state, its primary symbol (the flag). The last bit is about affirming the ideals of our country. The under god part of the ideals was in response to the red scare, the one nation indivisible in response to the civil war, etc.
It’s meant to be a patriotic, unifying/rallying cry. But it comes off as incredibly dystopian and creepy.
It doesn’t mention anything about our neighbors.
Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories
Persons who committed public mass shootings in the U.S. over the last half century were commonly troubled by personal trauma before their shooting incidents, nearly always in a state of crisis at the time, and, in most cases, engaged in leaking their plans before opening fire. Most were insiders of a targeted institution, such as an employee or student. Except for young school shooters who stole the guns from family members, most used legally obtained handguns in those shootings.
I hit the 5000 character limit! I thought that had been abolished, since we've both been writing some seriously long replies. I'll split my reply in two.
Part 1 of 2:
Probably the Netherlands.
Here's what comes to mind when I hear about the Netherlands:
- I like what little I know of the Dutch language, and I'd like to become fluent someday. It's a nice language.
- They've suffered a massive influx of Moroccan immigrants since the 1970s, and those immigrants commit crimes at five times the rate of native Dutch. Source, see table 1.7 on page 17. (Sound familiar?)
- As if that wasn't bad enough, their liberal drug policies turned the place into a drug infested hell-hole. Indeed quite a few US States have been imitating their idiotic legalization of marijuana, and I'm blessed not to live in any of them, but when I drive through them I see the visible impacts: litter, graffiti, and the stench of marijuana everywhere. And I avoid urban areas, so I can't even imagine how much worse it must be in the cities. I guess you got your wish on that one.
That being said, I'm not trying to bash a country you like, and I'm sure you may be happy there even if I wouldn't be. I was only offering my perspective as a point of contrast.
and we don’t want to be persecuted for being who we are
If you don't mind my asking, who are you (broadly speaking)? Do you just mean that you favor leftist political perspectives?
There is one charity like that which comes to mind to me. It’s called the Rainbow Railroad, and it’s for LGBTQ+ people who are trying to escape persecution, who want to move to a place where they will be safe.
Wow, that's remarkably close to my idea. Thank you! I'd rather help them turn to Christ and straighten out their act, instead of paying to help them to move away, but I'm impressed how similar it is to my idea.
It’s ultimately a disagreement, a huge one sure, but a disagreement. And it’s not domestic terrorism because that involves violence.
You could reduce every criminal perspective to a disagreement with well-adjusted society. Someone who hates a country simply doesn't belong in that country, whether it's the US or anywhere else.
Such a person may not have committed any violence yet, but if they hate Americans and the American principles we stand for, then it's only a matter of time before they do commit violence.
I honestly find it unfathomable that anyone could associate anything negative with the American flag of all things. I mean, across the world it's a symbol of freedom, but especially here at home, everywhere you look you see American flags because we all love our country.
We can have criticisms, sure — like any conservative, I don't much like Biden, for example — but it's not a flag of the White House or Congress; it's the flag of We the People.
I'll split my reply in two.
No worries, I understand. I had to create a kbin account because lemmy.world was struggling so much to keep track of this mess of a thread.
Here's what comes to mind when I hear about the Netherlands:
I think what is most telling about the statistics you bring up is that even with those problems the Netherlands still has a homicide rate 11 times lower than the U.S. (0.6 vs 6.8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
A literal "drug infested hell-hole" as you call it is significantly safer of a place to live. If that isn't a poignant example of what a terrible state the U.S. is in then I don't know what is.
If you don't mind my asking, who are you (broadly speaking)? Do you just mean that you favor leftist political perspectives?
My girlfriend and I are both leftists, bisexual, and I am an atheist. All three demographics that have been historically persecuted under authoritarian states. I intend to be living safely elsewhere if/when the death penalty starts getting handed out for such non-crimes.
You could reduce every criminal perspective to a disagreement with well-adjusted society.
You've moved the goal posts to criminal perspective.
Such a person may not have committed any violence yet, but if they hate Americans and the American principles we stand for, then it's only a matter of time before they do commit violence.
You do not have evidence for this.
I honestly find it unfathomable that anyone could associate anything negative with the American flag of all things.
Like I said in the other thread, 'the american flag represents the countries history as well, and there are many dark sections of history to this country. You don’t have to be that far from the center to recognize that.'
I mean, across the world it's a symbol of freedom
Across the world is is also a symbol of imperialism, oil wars, subversion of democracy, etc.
I had to create a kbin account because lemmy.world was struggling so much to keep track of this mess of a thread.
Welcome to kbin! I considered creating a lemmy.world account, but thought I'd give it a day or two to see if it finally sync'd.
Note kbin has a bug: as soon as this conversation spills over to a second page, the notifications to page 2 and beyond will be broken links. You'll have to search for the text in the notification to find the relevant reply. It's a known bug.
This thread is quite a mess here too. I considered creating a new magazine just to break this conversation out into a series of new conversations, but that seems excessive. I'm not sure of the best solution.
A literal "drug infested hell-hole" as you call it is significantly safer of a place to live. If that isn't a poignant example of what a terrible state the U.S. is in then I don't know what is.
It only seems terrible if you measure according to un-American values. Our American perspective is well captured by the famous Ben Franklin quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Our culture has always been a bit dangerous because we're a free people. We carry firearms to defend ourselves, and we use them as needed. Yes, that results in deaths, and we agree that deaths are undesirable, but as an American I hold liberty as being 100x more important than safety.
My girlfriend and I are both leftists, bisexual, and I am an atheist.
Earlier in our conversation I thought you were a Christian, because of what you said about idolatry. But I find it completely believable that you're an atheist, because as we dug into the topic, you exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what idolatry is all about.
You are not "bisexual" if you're a man with a girlfriend, unless you cheat on her. You may experience evil temptations to sin, but indeed we all do. The nature of our temptations varies according to our weaknesses, but we're all tempted. If you turn to Christ, you'll be able to pray to be shielded from your temptations, and prayer works.
I intend to be living safely elsewhere if/when the death penalty starts getting handed out for such non-crimes.
I find this beyond ridiculous. I completely support your moving to a place where you'd fit in better, and you'd be happier, as we've already established — but the US is so left of center that there's no way anything like this could happen here. Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
You've moved the goal posts to criminal perspective.
Not really. I was making a point that it's not a matter of silencing an alternative viewpoint when that viewpoint is essentially pro-criminal.
You do not have evidence for [the idea that people who hate America and Americans are apt to commit violence].
True, but that only reflects the fact that I don't make a habit of compiling evidence to support my points in future discussions. But I don't see how you could disagree with this. People who love express love towards those who they love; people who hate express hatred towards those who they hate.
Across the world is is also a symbol of [a list of bad stuff]. That history is what people think about when they see the flag.
I'm sure that's true of some people. Like anything, it is what you make of it. But you need to cherry-pick your list of bad things from a vast sea of lovable good things. I'm not trying to pretend that we're perfect, but why would you want to focus on the tiny number of negative things instead of giving glory to God and focusing on all His copious blessings? Don't you find it unbearably depressing to maintain such an irrationally negative disposition?
It's a known bug.
Thank you for the warning!
It only seems terrible if you measure according to un-American values. Our American perspective is well captured by the famous Ben Franklin quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The Netherlands ranks 11th in freedom whereas the U.S. ranks 15th on the world freedom index. So I would have the best of both worlds, more freedom, more safety.
Our culture has always been a bit dangerous because we're a free people.
It's because we are an individualist society. We simply do not care for the well-being of others as well as other nations do.
Earlier in our conversation I thought you were a Christian, because of what you said about idolatry. But I find it completely believable that you're an atheist, because as we dug into the topic, you exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what idolatry is all about.
I used to be a christian, and I will refer you back to the time when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of jehovah's witnesses that the pledge of allegiance was idolatry:
It's not something I just made up.
You are not "bisexual" if you're a man with a girlfriend, unless you cheat on her.
Sexuality labels such as that one refer to one's sexual attraction, not the status of their current relationship. I am attracted to both men and women, and so by definition I am bisexual.
You may experience evil temptations to sin, but indeed we all do.
I watch both heterosexual and homosexual content, and I enjoy both. Not everybody does that. I've been with both sexes, not everybody does that.
If you turn to Christ, you'll be able to pray to be shielded from your temptations, and prayer works.
I'm happy just the way I am. And in my experience, prayer never works. Over the years I've talked with christians, countless of them have prayed for me to change, to stop being an atheist/leftist/bisexual/etc. None of it has changed a thing.
the US is so left of center that there's no way anything like this could happen here. Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
The U.S. is a right wing, authoritarian state, not a left one. It's not an objectively measurable thing, because politics is such a messy thing to study, but on the world stage we are in no way a leftist country.
Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
The U.S. has been embracing authoritarianism for a while now. LGBTQ+ persecution is at an all time high, we almost had an election hijacked, the public is spied on by the government, xenophobia is on the rise, hate crimes are on the rise, there is talk of implementing laws to disenfranchise voters. I could go on with all the authoritarian things that have been happening, but I"ll keep it brief for the sake of time.
Authoritarianism, and fascism specifically are self feeding. 1920s Germany wasn't great, and it kept self feeding until the 30s and 40s. I worry the same thing will happen here.
But you need to cherry-pick your list of bad things from a vast sea of lovable good things.
Don't you find it unbearably depressing to maintain such an irrationally negative disposition?
I don't think I am cherry picking or being irrational. The sea of good things the U.S. has done is just as vast as the despicable things we've done. And I would rather be truthfully depressed than happy and oblivious.
The Netherlands ranks 11th in freedom whereas the U.S. ranks 15th on the world freedom index.
What is this "world freedom index"? You never answered that. Link?
So I would have the best of both worlds, more freedom, more safety.
You missed my point. Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat. Safety is fine when we provide it for ourselves and our families, but if a government provides it for us then we lack freedom.
It's because we are an individualist society. We simply do not care for the well-being of others as well as other nations do.
Yes, we're individualist, but that's not what individualism is.
I used to be a christian
No, you weren't. That much is abundantly clear. You have conflated salvation with religious affiliation. You have misunderstood idolatry. You have failed to grasp the dichotomy of good and evil. You have been blind to the spiritual warfare that rules our world. You deny having evidence for God's glory. You have not yet been born again. You have not yet given your life to Christ. You have not yet been saved. Once saved, always saved.
and I will refer you back to the time when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of jehovah's witnesses that the pledge of allegiance was idolatry:
That link says nothing about idolatry.
Sexuality labels such as that one refer to one's sexual attraction, not the status of their current relationship. I am attracted to both men and women, and so by definition I am bisexual.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant. If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin. Repent for it, and don the armor of God that it may shield you from temptation. Know that we are all tempted to sin, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's your response to the temptation that matters.
I watch both heterosexual and homosexual content, and I enjoy both. Not everybody does that. I've been with both sexes, not everybody does that.
By "content" do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you're not being explicit here, so thank you. I don't judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
I'm happy just the way I am.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
And in my experience, prayer never works.
Well it probably won't work very well if you don't first establish a relationship with Christ. Otherwise it's like receiving a call from a number that's not in your contacts — He's apt to ignore it.
Over the years I've talked with christians, countless of them have prayed for me to change, to stop being an atheist/leftist/bisexual/etc. None of it has changed a thing.
That would also require you to actually want to change, you know. Your "I'm happy just the way I am" attitude suggests you don't.
The U.S. is a right wing, authoritarian state, not a left one. It's not an objectively measurable thing, because politics is such a messy thing to study, but on the world stage we are in no way a leftist country.
Agreed that it's subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I'll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
- Open borders
- No prayer in schools
- Legal marijuana
- DEI
- ESG
- Neo-Marxism
- Homosexuality
- Transvestites
- Paid abortion vacations
- Birth control
- Post-Temperance Feminism
- Size of the federal government
- The mass media
- SPLC's influence
- Woke Hollywood
I don't think I am cherry picking or being irrational. The sea of good things the U.S. has done is just as vast as the despicable things we've done. And I would rather be truthfully depressed than happy and oblivious.
Well that says it all. Instead of giving thanks to God for being an American, you deny all that is holy, and contemplate the despicable. You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
Unfortunately this another one that will have to be split up. The 5000 character limit is sorta making me miss reddit.
What is this "world freedom index"? You never answered that. Link?
Sorry, I didn't realize you had asked. This is what I was referring to:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive.
Not really. You can have countries that are free and safe (Netherlands), countries that are free and unsafe (USA), countries that are neither free nor safe (Afghanistan).
The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat.
I would say that is an inherently worse kind of safety in comparison to the safety of not having any threats to begin with.
Yes, we're individualist, but that's not what individualism is.
I wasn't stating that it was the definition of individualism, I meant that a lack of care for one another is the result. Sorry, I should have chosen my words better there.
No, you weren't.
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
That link says nothing about idolatry.
It doesn't, but the ruling it mentioned does. Sorry, I should have given you a better link than that.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant.
I'll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can't ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
The 5000 character limit is sorta making me miss reddit.
Yes, this thing is buggy. But it's brand new. If these problems are still unresolved in a year, that'll be bad, but it's open source and I'm under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
Sorry, I didn't realize you had asked. This is what I was referring to:
Thank you. They write in their intro:
Human freedom enables and empowers people to do as they please, free from constraints or punishments, so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of another.
That's a libertine definition of freedom. It advocates for legal cocaine and prostitution. I acknowledge they're not the only ones to hold that definition, but I do not.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God, do His will, worship Him as they see fit, and (as a result) to be blessed with emancipation from sin.
(Skipping a bunch here. Sorry, I'm reading what you wrote, and I don't have much to say in reply that I haven't already said. I guess that's for the best, all things considered.)
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It doesn't, but the ruling it mentioned does. Sorry, I should have given you a better link than that.
Thank you, that was informative. Much as I disagree that the Pledge is idolatry, I respect that you're not the only one to believe it. Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I've got a few grains of salt. I completely side with SCOTUS on that ruling, that compelled speech breaks the first amendment. I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
I'll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can't ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
I'd argue with you on the ethics point, and the claim of a "dying world" (what), but your follow-up point about her disability overrides anything I'd say. I'm happy for you! When's the wedding?
and I'm under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
I am quite hopeful. Look how far linux has come as an OS, I'm confident that lemmy/kbin can do the same.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you "freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters" or "work will make you free", I'm sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you've said yourself?
(Skipping a bunch here.
No worries, I've been skipping stuff too. That's sorta how it has to be or else this already splintered conversation would be ten times worse.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It's been years ago, well over a decade ago so I don't remember the details too well. But what I can tell you is that I felt what I thought was a connection to something greater than myself, that yes, Jesus was raised. I know there was more but I honestly cannot remember it all.
And I didn't "decide" that none of it was true. Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I've got a few grains of salt.
Don't get me wrong, I think JWs are off in the deep end too, but on that particular issue they have merit.
I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can't really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
and the claim of a "dying world" (what)
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63875331
For instance, bug population is on a huge decline, and they are pretty low in the food chain and therefore very important to the health of the planet. The further trends like this increase, the greater the chance of a food chain collapse. I couldn't ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn't have her current health issues.
I'm happy for you! When's the wedding?
Thank you! We aren't official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable. But so far we have agreed that we will be getting married in her home country, Costa Rica, and the church will not be involved (sorry!).
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you "freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters" or "work will make you free", I'm sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you've said yourself?
I understand how that seems like cognitive dissonance or self-contradiction to a non-believer. Consider Romans 6:22:
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
We must be servants of someone, but we have freedom to choose who it is that deserves our loyalty and obedience. True freedom is freedom from sin, as the alternative is to be servants of Satan.
Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
That's ignoring the whole notion of faith. You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can't really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
True, and I think that's a very good thing. In practice, maybe one out of ten thousand kids would refuse to pray. The few who insist have their freedom to succumb to evil, but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students. That's how we always were, beginning before the founding of the country.
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
You and I should be cautious of starting new branches of the conversation! But I did ask, and you were just answering me. Suffice it to say I trust that God's in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God's plan.
I couldn't ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn't have her current health issues.
Based on your perspective, I understand your conclusion.
Thank you! We aren't official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable.
Waiting for that mythical living wage? You don't really need money to marry. Life is short.
We must be servants of someone
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
Suffice it to say I trust that God's in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God's plan.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It's our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
You don't really need money to marry. Life is short.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren't exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don't have much money so I would likely need to help them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. So financially it doesn't make sense to get married here.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
Wiktionary's definition of "freedom" is better than M-W's, which is typical. M-W's not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it's antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
That's correct, and I'm glad you're familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the "right" to vote, etc.
Don't be misled by the terms "negative" and "positive". They don't indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called "rights". They're only called "negative" and "positive" on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You're forced to the same way you're forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you're forced to have your eyes open or closed. It's somewhat disingenuous to use the word "forced". It's just a product of living in reality.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
And [peer pressure to pray] is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It's impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it's a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
[To trust that God's in control] is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It's our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
To suppose we're responsible for "the problem" is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We're tiny and insignificant. To suppose we're capable of "fixing" it is equally arrogant. We're barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God's will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they're in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it's the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth's current climate is God's will because it's Earth's current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God's will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there's somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
Wiktionary's definition of "freedom"
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface
It's not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the "right" to vote, etc.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
You're forced to the same way you're forced to either be awake or asleep
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn't a form of control by some other being.
But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
To be honest I don't think that is a choice either. I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It's impossible.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
To suppose we're responsible for "the problem" is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We're tiny and insignificant. To suppose we're capable of "fixing" it is equally arrogant. We're barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We've released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
let alone changing the entire planet.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we've done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/how-nuclear-testing-transformed-science/607174/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Needless to say, I side with dominion.
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy.
A republic is a type of democracy.
Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture.
I don't seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
That is not the meaning of the 1st amendment.
I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
And a light bulb doesn't serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
so I'm not going to get into it here.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don't really see free will as something that makes sense.
I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods
You advocate for school prayer
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government.
That's because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they're going against "established dogma".
The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions.
Just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't true.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god's will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god's creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
I don't want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
And a light bulb doesn't serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
It's a good comparison because I'm trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
Just know going forward I don't really see free will as something that makes sense.
You don't need to understand something in order to accept that it's true, or that it exists.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god's will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god's creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You can't have one without the other.
It's a good comparison because I'm trying to make a point about possible states.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You don't need to understand something in order to accept that it's true, or that it exists.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that god doesn't want humans to solve climate change on our own? "Just pray for an answer" doesn't tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of "no".
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some "sign"?
[Re: "But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion."] You can't have one without the other.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You're free to join any church you'd like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That's our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you'd be locked away in a mental asylum.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You're so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb "serves" its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you're really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that god doesn't want humans to solve climate change on our own? "Just pray for an answer" doesn't tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of "no".
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some "sign"?
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
Those aren't just a bunch of archaic random words; they're instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times?
We haven't. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you'd be locked away in a mental asylum.
Atheists in the U.S. have existed the whole time, and haven't been locked up for it. Instead people have persecuted atheists for different reasons made up on the spot. And atheists throughout history generally keep it to themselves for that very reason, which is why it is next to impossible to find examples.
You're so fixated on this.
As are you it seems.
If you insist, yes, a light-bulb "serves" its master
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan.
It's not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
Just saying something is evidence doesn't make it evidence.
"The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn't exist!"
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don't) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don't mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control?
We find the answer is in Scripture. Let's review Genesis 1:26-28:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
That is the specific nature of our dominion.
And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
That's agenda-driven nonsense. There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn't cause in the first place. Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don't mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
I fully agree, 100%. We're not responsible for climate change because it's not the result of our own actions. We are each individually responsible for our own individual actions, though, yes.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26-28 - King James Version
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
That is the specific nature of our dominion.
Yeah, that aligns with what I say.
There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn't cause in the first place.
And so when we have evidence it shows we did cause it. It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible. You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
That's not what I said.
You != all prophets
Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
So there are a number of problems with this question. Number one, somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments, so this is a question with a really useless/mislead goal. Second, it's an argument from authority. Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
We're not responsible for climate change because it's not the result of our own actions.
It objectively is, the evidence is overwhelming. And we've known this for over a century at this point:
https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change
It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.
It's not an argument of any type. It's a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.
That's not what I said [that "all prophets are heretics"].
What you said, specifically, was, "That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical." A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I'm no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God's plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That's not heresy.
somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments
You're either with God or you're against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
Second, it's an argument from authority.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
I don't deny there's a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I'll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it's possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you're right that I'd have to question their church's Statement of Faith. But that's no fallacy; it's just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You have no method to reach truth then, because you've shut out the possibility of anybody other than you being correct. That is incredibly vain.
It's not an argument of any type.
It's not a formal argument, but you know what I meant.
A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics.
That's not what I said though. I never even used the word in the first place.
They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
And as a result you cannot dismiss evidence based on who is presenting it.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
You've completely missed my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
But that's no fallacy;
It's a true scottsman fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.
Then I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with how logical fallacies work, because you've been using so many of them.