Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 42 Days Left


42 Day Poll  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Trump was +10 in TX at this time last year. Here is now +1 in TX. What does this probably mostly reflect?

    • That polls are way off this year.
    • That TX likes Biden way more than Clinton.
    • That TX dislikes Trump in 2020 more than they did in 2016.
    • This is larger than TX. This reflects a general growth of anti-Trump voters nationally.
  3. 3. Who Should Trump nominate to the Supreme Court? (He says he will pick someone Friday or Saturday and that they'll be a woman). Here's his presumed short-list:

    • Amy Coney Barrett - IN (She's 48, so will serve like 40 years. She's also a vocal religious conservative, somewhere between Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann.)
    • Barbara Lagoa - FL (She's 52. Cuban-American who could help Trump win FL. She's also very conservative, but with less of a religious emphasis. Federalist Society Member.)
    • Bridget Shelton Bade - AZ (She's 54. She was made a federal judge by Trump only last year. I'm not sure how conservative she is.)
    • Martha Pacold - IL (She's 41, so she could serve for half a century. She's a former member of the Federalist Society, but she's also probably the most moderate judge on this list. Could help win moderates for Trump.)
    • Allison Jones Rushing - NC (Only 37 years old. She'd serve for half a century. She's a current Federalist Society Member; therefore, likely very conservative).
    • Sarah Pitlyk - MO (She's 43. Could serve half a century. Former Kavanaugh clerk and Federalist Society member. The ABA voted her not qualified when Trump made her a federal judge last year.)
      0
    • Kate Todd - DC (One of Trump's Chief Counsel officers in the White House. Not much about her. Federalist Society Member. She looks like she's in her mid to early 40s.)
      0
  4. 4. Should Democrats Pack the Court if Trump gets a justice confirmed, despite the Merrick Garland precedence of 2016?

    • Yes, despite the fact that the GOP might pack the court in the future.
    • Yes, but also pass a law to prevent future court packing so GOP can't respond in kind.
    • No, but only because I don't like the precedence it will set for future court packing.
    • No, because it defies tradition and is too political.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0
  5. 5. Is it a problem that Trump's short list is composed of mostly women in their 40s to early 50s (and even one in her 30s!)?

    • No. A president is smart to pick someone who is youthful enough to serve for half a century, regardless of limited experience.
    • No. These are probably the most qualified female judges for the US Supreme Court.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's limiting himself to women.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's not selecting top legal minds, who are likely to have decades of experience and are probably 65+ years old.
    • Yes, there needs to be term limits, or an age range requirement, or a retirement age, so presidents aren't picking SC justices based on their youth.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, CPE said:

How would you feel about having 9 male judges on the bench?

 

Exactly this.  I still hear the same thing regarding the Tories in Canada regarding LGBT rights or abortion.  When I am there, I still hear so many people repeating the same old boogeyman myth that the CPC is going to take away your rights to an abortion or to get married if you are in a homosexual relationship, despite the official party platform making no mention of such.  It is like talking to a wall with these kinds of people, no matter how much proof you show them, it still does not convince them.  Are there individual members that would support such measures, yeah sure, but you can find them in the Liberal Party as well if you closely enough and in the right areas.  The CPC knows it would be political suicide to attempt such a thing, but people still believe the old boogeyman myth regardless. 

The Canadian Tories and the Republican Party are very different and have acted very differently in the past on this issue.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are right about IN. She was born in LA. You are wrong about where I place her ideologically. She's a religious nut! 

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty. We have a really in

Enraged Conservatives by not wanting to look into credible allegations that immensely impeded his integrity (in fact, potentially called it into completely into question). If that was something that "

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Is there any significant reason to believe the nominee will actually be Barrett? Why is so much heat being put on Barrett? Is she just the most egregious from the lib perspective?

She's considered the frontrunner in several outlets for whatever reason. No other justice is getting as much attention. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Then based off your analysis of Barrett, do you think she upholds that law as ruled in Roe v Wade or do you think she seeks to overturn the law of the land? 

I don't think the majority of Christians care one way or another on abortion honestly. It's just the vocal social conservatives who have turned activist about it. 

I believe this has to do with technical questions regarding Roe vs. Wade, but I'm not a legal scholar. My understanding is there isn't a lot in her record that bears directly on that question.

It's true that Christianity in the U.S. covers a large spectrum of opinions, but I'm pretty certain the majority of active Christians in the U.S. care about abortion, and most of those are for further restrictions on it.

'Active' is a key word - many people would say they're Catholic, for example, but do so in the way many secular Jews say they are Jewish - they don't mean they believe Catholic doctrine, go to Mass weekly, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I believe this has to do with technical questions regarding Roe vs. Wade, but I'm not a legal scholar. My understanding is there isn't a lot in her record that bears directly on that question.

It's true that Christianity in the U.S. covers a large spectrum of opinions, but I'm pretty certain the majority of active Christians in the U.S. care about abortion, and most of those are for further restrictions on it.

'Active' is a key word - many people would say they're Catholic, for example, but do so in the way many secular Jews say they are Jewish - they don't mean they believe Catholic doctrine, go to Mass weekly, and so on.

Christianity is also a broad tent. Catholics will vary different from Protestants, and especially Evangelicals from Mainline Protestant churches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I believe this has to do with technical questions regarding Roe vs. Wade, but I'm not a legal scholar. My understanding is there isn't a lot in her record that bears directly on that question.

It's true that Christianity in the U.S. covers a large spectrum of opinions, but I'm pretty certain the majority of active Christians in the U.S. care about abortion, and most of those are for further restrictions on it.

'Active' is a key word - many people would say they're Catholic, for example, but do so in the way many secular Jews say they are Jewish - they don't mean they believe Catholic doctrine, go to Mass weekly, and so on.

What is your difference between your definition of "active" Christian and "fundamentalist" Christian? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What is your difference between your definition of "active" Christian and "fundamentalist" Christian? 

A fundamentalist Christian is someone who buys into the anti-modernist response of some Christians to Biblical exegesis. Basically, fundamentalists hold that the Bible is to be meant 'literally' and inerrantly.

An active Christian is someone who is active in their Christian life - typically, this would be someone who goes to church regularly, is engaged with their church community, and so on. Again, this is distinguished from someone who is, say, a Catholic as part of their ancestral identity, but that doesn't translate into anything particularly Christian about what they say or do - they don't attend Mass regularly, don't read the Bible, don't read any theological books, don't engage in works of corporal mercy, and so on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

What I am truly worried about is Stephen Breyer. He is what, 80? We need a Biden presidency to stop this from going to God forbid it, 7-2. Then I will be really concerned. Roe v. Wade, LGBT+ rights could be on the docket then. 

I also do think that now that we've done all this with the filibuster, why not get rid of it entirely? Why have it gone for something like the Supreme Court, but simple things like changing the speed limit on highways require 60 votes? At this point it's a little silly. 

Great argument for voting Trump that I didnt think about. Guess I'll be submitting my vote for him. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billay said:

Great argument for voting Trump that I didnt think about. Guess I'll be submitting my vote for him. 

You act like that was in doubt in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

The Canadian Tories and the Republican Party are very different and have acted very differently in the past on this issue.

Fair enough, I concede that.  I was just supporting the point that the media in both Canada and the US likes to conduct smear campaigns against any right-wing politician in general.  Mind you, both sides conduct smear ops, but the media outlets in both countries lean more left than they do right, so it is amplified by a 100 it seems.

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

She even is being referred to now by acronym (ACB), so perhaps she is indeed the most likely to be nominated at this point.

Believe it or not, I have know a few conservatives in the US right now that will be very disappointed if she is actually the nominee.  They cite a recent ruling that she made differentiating between political gatherings and BLM protests.  They consider her a RINO to be quite honest.

Just a few of my thoughts on the whole matter :

It honestly sickens me how politicized the judiciary has become in the United States, and to a lesser extent, Canada as well.  I fully concede that the judicial appointment process where I live right now is corrupt in its own form as well, you have to be politically connected or part of the "in" group in order to be appointed, but it still is nowhere near the clown show that has been occurring in the States the last two years.

As someone with a legal background, the Kavanaugh (sp?) affair sickened me.  The whole reason that a statute of limitations exists is to prevent such a scenario from occurring, the case that was presented would have never held up any civil or criminal court court that I am familiar with.  I am not partisan when I say that as well, I am equally critical of the Tara Raede affair that plagued Biden several months back as well; if you have an allegation to make against someone, you certainly do not wait 20 or 30 years to come out with it, never mind not filing a police report at all.  Those kinds of cases immediately lose credibility in my sight, unless there is substantial evidence to prove contrary.  God forbid that any of you here ever have a male relative that suffers at the hands of a false allegation, you do not need to be convicted in order to have your life ruined and the false accuser walks away free without any form of repercussions in more cases than not.

I understand Democratic outrage 100% on this matter, it definitely is a divisive measure to appoint a new justice so close to an election.  I am saddened to hear that some are proposing stacking the courts though, the highest court of the land would be rendered as nothing more than a kangaroo bench if such a travesty occurred.  That is the kind of event that destroys nations, even FDR himself was forced to back down on that front.

I personally believe that there does need to be term limits for Supreme Court justices in the United States, it is crazy to think that this new appointee can potentially sit on the bench for 40 or 50 years.  I would personally extend that to other elected positions as well (disregarding the Presidency of course, as they already exist for that position),  including representatives and senators.  Career politicians should never exist; from my experience, they are usually the kind of people that could never survive in the private sector without their juicy political connections.  It is a travesty to think that some politicians only know how to play politics for a living. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CPE said:

someone with a legal background, the Kavanaugh (sp?) affair sickened me.  The whole reason that a statute of limitations exists is to prevent such a scenario from occurring, the case that was presented would have never held up any civil or criminal court court that I am familiar with.  I am not partisan when I say that as well, I am equally critical of the Tara Raede affair that plagued Biden several months back as well; if you have an allegation to make against someone, you certainly do not wait 20 or 30 years to come out with it, never mind not filing a police report at all.  Those kinds of cases immediately lose credibility in my sight, unless there is substantial evidence to prove contrary.  God forbid that any of you here ever have a male relative that suffers at the hands of a false allegation, you do not need to be convicted in order to have your life ruined and the false accuser walks away free without any form of repercussions in more cases than not.

This is the court of public opinion, not the court of law. 

 

7 minutes ago, CPE said:

definitely is a divisive measure to appoint a new justice so close to an election.  I am saddened to hear that some are proposing stacking the courts though, the highest court of the land would be rendered as nothing more than a kangaroo bench if such a travesty occ

Then where do you draw the line? How do you retaliate? Are Democrats just supposed to sit there and "take it," while Republicans get away with it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

One thought: with Kavanaugh, Dems overplayed their hands and enraged conservatives. Both sides have to be careful not to do so this time around. A Dem smear campaign against a nominee (which either successfully derails or not) that nominee could make conservatives put aside all scruples with Trump and vote. And the nominee might be confirmed anyway (as in Kavanaugh's case).

Another thing I am wondering is what procedural tactics Pelosi and Schumer are considering to delay any vote. FWIW, if they can delay to Nov. 30th, Kelly might replace McSally in the Senate.

Enraged Conservatives by not wanting to look into credible allegations that immensely impeded his integrity (in fact, potentially called it into completely into question). If that was something that "enraged Conservatives," then what sort of ethical upper do they have. They might as well just admit there is none, and that, "being enraged," was not hypocritical mudslinging, and their thin-skins are just as bad as they say certain other types of peoples' are. Of course, if Justices were NOT nominated for the repugnant reason of partisan spoils and patronage, Kavanaugh wouldn't have even have been the one being considered, and the feelings of Conservatives and other socio-political groups about it would be quite irrelevant.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Enraged Conservatives by not wanting to look into credible allegations that immensely impeded his integrity (in fact, potentially called it into completely into question). If that was something that "enraged Conservatives," then what sort of ethical upper do they have. They might as well just admit there is none, and that, "being enraged," was not hypocritical mudslinging, and their thin-skins are just as bad as they say certain other types of peoples' are. Of course, if Justices were NOT nominated for the repugnant reason of partisan spoils and patronage, Kavanaugh wouldn't have even have been the one being considered, and the feelings of Conservatives and other socio-political groups about it would be quite irrelevant.

Look, if I'm going to respond to you, I want my paragraph long sentences from Patine back! There are at least 4 there!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Been there, done that hahaha. But really I wouldn't like either very much. I do believe we will have a majority female court sooner than later.

Fair enough lol.  The growing trend of embracing ID politics in the Western world as a whole is highly disturbing to me.  Demonstrating that you are "progressive" is far more important than actually having the qualifications and skills necessary to competently serve in your profession nowadays.  This is going to end very badly for all parties involved very soon.

I don't view an all female court as a good thing at all, it reeks of appointments on the sole basis of physical characteristics with merit not considered at all.  It only reinforces the viewpoint that those critical of feminism in general have regarding the fight never being about equality in the first place.

To be quite honest with you, a large number of the female attorneys that I have encountered are not what I would call "top of the line" attorneys at all.  Not sure how it is in the States, but many here attend law school in the United Kingdom (British Commonwealth).  The affirmative action policies of universities and law schools really are beginning to show themselves, law school graduates on the whole (men and women) are not the same as they were 10-20 years ago, at least from my personal experience.  The curriculum has been watered down far too much...

13 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes. 18 years in the Senate is enough guys, c'mon.

It truly is.  I have seen several instances of nations where the current generation of political leadership dies off/retires due to old age while failing to prepare the next generation to assume authority.  What ends up happening is the country is in chaos for the next 5-10 years while the new blood tries to figure out how to run things.  No professional got started knowing everything about their trade, and the same applies to politics.  There really should be a mechanism to ensure that young blood has a chance to compete for experience for the inevitability that they will eventually have to lead some day.

 

14 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

This is the court of public opinion, not the court of law. 

 

Then where do you draw the line? How do you retaliate? Are Democrats just supposed to sit there and "take it," while Republicans get away with it? 

Fair enough, I think that it starts amounting to defamation of character when allegations of this level are brought about on the public stage, public figure or not.  The stain follows you for the rest of your life, even if they are not true at all.

I honestly do not know what to tell you on the second point, but I agree that it is a very divisive move.  It looks like Murkowski and Collins will probably vote no, not sure about Romney.  It seems that other Republican senators will fall in line, especially if Graham is going to vote in favour (every Republican I know hates the guy with a passion).  I just think that stacking the court is rather dangerous; eventually a Democrat will probably win the Presidency again, and a Republican at some time after that.  If a Democrat President stacks the court, you can be assured that Republicans will just do the same thing again when they regain office.  It just devolves into a clown show until it reaches Venezuela levels of corruption and clownery.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CPE said:

Fair enough, I think that it starts amounting to defamation of character when allegations of this level are brought about on the public stage, public figure or not.  The stain follows you for the rest of your life, even if they are not true at all.

 

Many people believe the allegations (including myself) which makes me believe that it's not defamation of character because it's true. Just watching him treat sitting senators like Amy Klobuchar like that made me doubt the veracity of any of his statements alone, not to mention what Blasey Ford herself had to say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

It's very easy to oppose abortion like this when you're well off enough to have a family doctor who will quietly take care of it when your daughter finds herself in trouble.  It's only when people who don't have that luxury go to publicly funded clinics that the shouting starts.

Well, I'm not well off enough to have a family doctor. Quite frankly folks that do that are the worst part of society. Anyone who uses wealth to flout the law, especially at the expense of the vulnerable are some of the worst types. I have a similar disdain for Big Abortion (the board room of Planned Parenthood getting rich and powerful off of their abortion machine) as I do for companies which exploit undocumented workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well, I'm not well off enough to have a family doctor. Quite frankly folks that do that are the worst part of society. Anyone who uses wealth to flout the law, especially at the expense of the vulnerable are some of the worst types. I have a similar disdain for Big Abortion (the board room of Planned Parenthood getting rich and powerful off of their abortion machine) as I do for companies which exploit undocumented workers.

"Big Abortion vs. Big Evengelization." Sounds like a great title for a socio-political commentary book. Personally, the abortion issue is a not more to solving than slapping harsh criminal sentences on mothers and doctors who engage in it (which is completely the wrong way to do it), congratulate oneselves, and call it a day. There are massive, deep-seated, and entrenched social, cultural, and economic issues, and political and judicial gross failings that need to be dealt with on a tremendous scale. It's not simply one bureaucracy targeted as a scapegoat to focus. And a lot of the issues that do they need to be dealt with would be very distasteful for many American Conservatives, because they involve MANY, MANY core root problems created by social, political, cultural, and economic ideals instigated by, and still held dear by them, in many areas - and everyone knows "looking in the mirror," is not a popular approach to policy making nowadays, at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

A fundamentalist Christian is someone who buys into the anti-modernist response of some Christians to Biblical exegesis. Basically, fundamentalists hold that the Bible is to be meant 'literally' and inerrantly.

An active Christian is someone who is active in their Christian life - typically, this would be someone who goes to church regularly, is engaged with their church community, and so on. Again, this is distinguished from someone who is, say, a Catholic as part of their ancestral identity, but that doesn't translate into anything particularly Christian about what they say or do - they don't attend Mass regularly, don't read the Bible, don't read any theological books, don't engage in works of corporal mercy, and so on.

I agree with this. 

My hierarchy of extremism goes something like this:

  1. Fundamentalist Christian (same as your definition)
  2. Theocrat (my term for a public individual--often political--that has a difficult time separating religion from secular laws, theory, norms, etc. by action or rhetoric and imposes their views on others.
  3. Active Christian (your definition) and Religious Christian (my definition). As you say, regularly attends church, reads the bible, partakes in life as a Christian. However, they don't necessarily impose their views on others. 
  4. Spiritual Christian. This is someone that identifies as a Christian. Believes. Prays, but doesn't attend church, except maybe Christmas and Easter. Is more or less a secularist Christian. 
  5. Convenient Christian. Someone that gives little thought to faith except in a crisis or when it is expedient to show faith for personal gain or to make people around them comfortable. 
  6. Spiritual Agnostic. May find some truths in Jesus's message, and in other religions and religious figures but is conflicted on uninterested in praying to a divine power without further proof of his/her/its existence. 
  7. Pure Agnostic. Neither believes nor disbelieves since God cannot be proven or disproven. Likely to be critical of Christianity when it becomes authoritarian or interferes with secular decisions or judgment. Often not opposed to people being religious. May not think about religion often and could possibly be uninterested it. 
  8. Superficial Atheist. Someone who is outspoken about their anti-religious standing and their disbelief in God, but whom are spiritual at the core and prone to run back to religion in a tragedy, although likely to leave it again once they feel internally secure again. 
  9. Inactive Atheist. Disbelieves, but like the pure agnostic, is mostly uninterested in a sparring match on religion. Likely to dislike religion but isn't an activist about, possibly to keep the peace. 
  10. Active Atheist. Similar to your Active Christian. Keeps up on literature about Atheism or anti-Christian literature. Likely to hang out primarily with other like-minded thinkers. However, unlikely to necessarily impose their views on others. 
  11. Atheocrat. A public individual that has a difficult time showing equal tolerance and affection towards religious people as they show to atheists in action and rhetoric. Might even dislike agnostics as fence-sitters. 
  12. Fundamentalist Atheist. Seeks to dismantle and destroy religion, religious institutions, religious symbols, and religious traditions 

I sort of bounce between #6 and #7. Many of my close friends #3, #4, #5, and #6. I think most Americans are actually #4 and #5, followed by #3. I don't think weekly church attendance is that great in the US and few Christians probably read the Bible. Of the Christians, I only have an issue with #1 and #2. I put Cruz, Bachmann, and judge Barrett in #2. I've heard the argument that Cruz might just be a Convenient Christian (#5) just for the sake of power and influence. Trump is definitely #5. Biden could be #3 or #4. He's definitely more religious than Trump. Of the non-religious, I have issues with #11 and #12. I wouldn't want any judge that was #1, #2, #11, or #12 on this list. I'd be most comfortable with a judge that was #7. I think all things being equal, #7 is likely to be the least biased judge since they're personal "spiritual philosophy" is evidence-based by nature. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

A fundamentalist Christian is someone who buys into the anti-modernist response of some Christians to Biblical exegesis. Basically, fundamentalists hold that the Bible is to be meant 'literally' and inerrantly.

An active Christian is someone who is active in their Christian life - typically, this would be someone who goes to church regularly, is engaged with their church community, and so on. Again, this is distinguished from someone who is, say, a Catholic as part of their ancestral identity, but that doesn't translate into anything particularly Christian about what they say or do - they don't attend Mass regularly, don't read the Bible, don't read any theological books, don't engage in works of corporal mercy, and so on.

 

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I agree with this. 

My hierarchy of extremism goes something like this:

  1. Fundamentalist Christian (same as your definition)
  2. Theocrat (my term for a public individual--often political--that has a difficult time separating religion from secular laws, theory, norms, etc. by action or rhetoric and imposes their views on others.
  3. Active Christian (your definition) and Religious Christian (my definition). As you say, regularly attends church, reads the bible, partakes in life as a Christian. However, they don't necessarily impose their views on others. 
  4. Spiritual Christian. This is someone that identifies as a Christian. Believes. Prays, but doesn't attend church, except maybe Christmas and Easter. Is more or less a secularist Christian. 
  5. Convenient Christian. Someone that gives little thought to faith except in a crisis or when it is expedient to show faith for personal gain or to make people around them comfortable. 
  6. Spiritual Agnostic. May find some truths in Jesus's message, and in other religions and religious figures but is conflicted on uninterested in praying to a divine power without further proof of his/her/its existence. 
  7. Pure Agnostic. Neither believes nor disbelieves since God cannot be proven or disproven. Likely to be critical of Christianity when it becomes authoritarian or interferes with secular decisions or judgment. Often not opposed to people being religious. May not think about religion often and could possibly be uninterested it. 
  8. Superficial Atheist. Someone who is outspoken about their anti-religious standing and their disbelief in God, but whom are spiritual at the core and prone to run back to religion in a tragedy, although likely to leave it again once they feel internally secure again. 
  9. Inactive Atheist. Disbelieves, but like the pure agnostic, is mostly uninterested in a sparring match on religion. Likely to dislike religion but isn't an activist about, possibly to keep the peace. 
  10. Active Atheist. Similar to your Active Christian. Keeps up on literature about Atheism or anti-Christian literature. Likely to hang out primarily with other like-minded thinkers. However, unlikely to necessarily impose their views on others. 
  11. Atheocrat. A public individual that has a difficult time showing equal tolerance and affection towards religious people as they show to atheists in action and rhetoric. Might even dislike agnostics as fence-sitters. 
  12. Fundamentalist Atheist. Seeks to dismantle and destroy religion, religious institutions, religious symbols, and religious traditions 

I sort of bounce between #6 and #7. Many of my close friends #3, #4, #5, and #6. I think most Americans are actually #4 and #5, followed by #3. I don't think weekly church attendance is that great in the US and few Christians probably read the Bible. Of the Christians, I only have an issue with #1 and #2. I put Cruz, Bachmann, and judge Barrett in #2. I've heard the argument that Cruz might just be a Convenient Christian (#5) just for the sake of power and influence. Trump is definitely #5. Biden could be #3 or #4. He's definitely more religious than Trump. Of the non-religious, I have issues with #11 and #12. I wouldn't want any judge that was #1, #2, #11, or #12 on this list. I'd be most comfortable with a judge that was #7. I think all things being equal, #7 is likely to be the least biased judge since they're personal "spiritual philosophy" is evidence-based by nature. 

"The render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's,"

-Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, personally, in His own words, drawing the line between Church and State. Transgressing that line is to ignore the guidance of Christ and risk stumbling on the Path to Salvation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I agree with this. 

My hierarchy of extremism goes something like this:

  1. Fundamentalist Christian (same as your definition)
  2. Theocrat (my term for a public individual--often political--that has a difficult time separating religion from secular laws, theory, norms, etc. by action or rhetoric and imposes their views on others.
  3. Active Christian (your definition) and Religious Christian (my definition). As you say, regularly attends church, reads the bible, partakes in life as a Christian. However, they don't necessarily impose their views on others. 
  4. Spiritual Christian. This is someone that identifies as a Christian. Believes. Prays, but doesn't attend church, except maybe Christmas and Easter. Is more or less a secularist Christian. 
  5. Convenient Christian. Someone that gives little thought to faith except in a crisis or when it is expedient to show faith for personal gain or to make people around them comfortable. 
  6. Spiritual Agnostic. May find some truths in Jesus's message, and in other religions and religious figures but is conflicted on uninterested in praying to a divine power without further proof of his/her/its existence. 
  7. Pure Agnostic. Neither believes nor disbelieves since God cannot be proven or disproven. Likely to be critical of Christianity when it becomes authoritarian or interferes with secular decisions or judgment. Often not opposed to people being religious. May not think about religion often and could possibly be uninterested it. 
  8. Superficial Atheist. Someone who is outspoken about their anti-religious standing and their disbelief in God, but whom are spiritual at the core and prone to run back to religion in a tragedy, although likely to leave it again once they feel internally secure again. 
  9. Inactive Atheist. Disbelieves, but like the pure agnostic, is mostly uninterested in a sparring match on religion. Likely to dislike religion but isn't an activist about, possibly to keep the peace. 
  10. Active Atheist. Similar to your Active Christian. Keeps up on literature about Atheism or anti-Christian literature. Likely to hang out primarily with other like-minded thinkers. However, unlikely to necessarily impose their views on others. 
  11. Atheocrat. A public individual that has a difficult time showing equal tolerance and affection towards religious people as they show to atheists in action and rhetoric. Might even dislike agnostics as fence-sitters. 
  12. Fundamentalist Atheist. Seeks to dismantle and destroy religion, religious institutions, religious symbols, and religious traditions 

I sort of bounce between #6 and #7. Many of my close friends #3, #4, #5, and #6. I think most Americans are actually #4 and #5, followed by #3. I don't think weekly church attendance is that great in the US and few Christians probably read the Bible. Of the Christians, I only have an issue with #1 and #2. I put Cruz, Bachmann, and judge Barrett in #2. I've heard the argument that Cruz might just be a Convenient Christian (#5) just for the sake of power and influence. Trump is definitely #5. Biden could be #3 or #4. He's definitely more religious than Trump. Of the non-religious, I have issues with #11 and #12. I wouldn't want any judge that was #1, #2, #11, or #12 on this list. I'd be most comfortable with a judge that was #7. I think all things being equal, #7 is likely to be the least biased judge since they're personal "spiritual philosophy" is evidence-based by nature. 

3 and 4 are big jumps imo. But not sure its that big of a deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...