#but *whether or not Christianity agrees with it should not have been the primary debate* | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

laurensliminalspace · 1 year

Text

Reflections on forced forgiveness

I've been reflecting recently on the theme of forgiveness, especially after watching the film Women Talking. The movie features a group of women from a Mennonite community, who discuss how to handle the problem of sexual abuse from a group of men in their community. The topic of forgiveness is brought up often, and also debated hotly. One of the primary concerns they bring up is that if they don't forgive these men, they won't be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

This view may sound rather extreme, and yet it's actually a pretty standard view for theologically conservative Christians. It is understood that you have to forgive others, otherwise God won't forgive you. That said, one of the women in the movie points out that forgiveness is not the same as permission. And this was something I was taught too - that forgiveness does not mean you have to trust the person again, or have any kind of contact with them. This is an important distinction, though not always clear.

That said, it's still quite an extreme view to take - that if you don't forgive people, even if just internally, you will go to hell. In the movie one woman brings up the issue that, if forgiveness is forced like that, is it really forgiveness at all? Is it truly coming from the heart?

It's something I have often pondered, as forgiveness is also brought up often in non-Christian spiritual and personal growth circles. It's a popular theme in new age literature as well. New agers probably wouldn’t tell you that you’re going to hell for not forgiving, but they might tell you that you haven’t been healed from illness or trauma because of it.

I like what Jeff Brown has to say on this topic - he takes a strong view against premature or forced forgiveness. As I get older, I tend to agree with him on this one. Premature forgiveness can really stifle the process of healing trauma, and disconnect people from healthy anger - anger which often enables people to set strong, healthy boundaries and practice assertiveness.

In terms of polyvagal theory, it can push people down into freeze and fawn mode, which disrupts and halts the process of releasing trauma. We actually need to be able to move through the fight/flight mode in order to heal and release trauma completely.

“Anger is a river. It wants to be released into the vaster ocean. It wants to move naturally. When we repress it with premature forgiveness, block it with false positivity, repress it in the name of pseudo-peace, we just dam(n) our natural flow. The river then turns inward, against the self, or explodes outwardly, against innocents. Better we express it when it is in our awareness- not in a way that is destructive to humanity- but in a way that is authentic and that restores the integrity of our being. Anger isn’t the enemy. Misplaced anger is. Let the river flow…”

I find that for myself, forgiveness tends to come more naturally with time and distance from a situation. It's also a heck of a lot easier to forgive when you're happy and life is generally going well. Resentments tend to fester more when one is sick or depressed or under stress. So I don't feel it's my place to judge anyone for holding onto resentment or anger, because it actually often has to do with life circumstances that are out of people's control.

It's also often deeply tried to trauma and PTSD which isn't something you can just snap your fingers and cure overnight. Healing from trauma and PTSD, whether acute or complex, is a challenging path and rarely quick or easy.

So my personal view is that it's best not to force forgiveness, and I don't think anyone should feel obligated to forgive at all. If it is helpful and supportive on your healing and spiritual journey, then go for it. But I don't think it should be seen as something compulsory or absolutely necessary. Besides, forgiveness often does happen of its own accord, when one starts to heal and get distance from a situation. I tend to think it's most healing when it unfolds organically.

I do agree that forgiveness does not equal trust or reconciliation with anyone from our pasts. It's possible, and in fact very wise, to forgive and never to reconnect with the people who harmed us.

Another thing I would add is that forgiveness isn't necessarily a one-time decision. It can be a long process. We may go back and forth, feeling forgiveness sometimes and then deep hatred at other times. And that's actually okay! It's also possible to forgive and still feel some residual anger or resentment lingering. It's complicated, and it doesn't help to deny our real feelings here. So, as always, be patient and compassionate with yourself.

One of the problems I found with religion in general is that it tends to cultivate a mindset of dissociation and numbing, because certain thoughts or feelings were seen as sinful or wrong. There may be a forgiving part of you, and there may be another part that doesn't want to forgive. The more we can accept and embrace these different parts of ourselves, the more we will experience a sense of wholeness and integration. And that is my wish for you.

#forgiveness #healing #trauma #partswork #ifs #ptsd #anger #emotions #wholeness #integration #jeffbrown #womentalking

0 notes

wisteria-lodge · 3 years

Text

lion primary (bird model) + slightly burnt lion secondary

Hi there! I’m a fan of your sorting posts, and of your kind and insightful way of supporting people in finding out more about themselves. So naturally I’d be very interested in your take about my own sorting, if you’re game! :)

I won’t talk much about my Secondary, because now that I’m starting to unburn my Lion seems very clear to me, even when my explosion-prone Badger model still tries to get in the way of that clarity sometimes. The more interesting riddle is my Primary. So far I’m operating under the working theory that I am a Lion with a very strong Bird model - or is it the other way ‘round?

The supposed dichotomy between “thinking” and “feeling” in many of the more binary personality models has always bugged me, so it’s no wonder this is the area where whenever I feel like I’ve decided on who I am (for now) a new question mark pops up (so much fun!).

If ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ doesn’t work for you as terminology, it might help to think of Lion as leading with subconscious reasoning, and Bird as leading with conscious reasoning.

Instead of trying to formulate a cohesive text, which would have gotten even longer, I’m putting together an associative list of thoughts and stories that kept turning up while I was trying to figure out my Primary.

A very Lion primary way to solve a problem, not gonna lie ;)

- I think I got my Bird model from my father, who made quite an effort to teach me to look at things from all angles. As a child, whenever I got in a fight with this friend I had, he would sit me down and ask me to put myself in my friend’s shoes. It was hard, because a lot of the time my friend was being unfair to me and I actually could have used some support, someone to tell me that it was not okay to treat me this way. But I’m still immeasurably grateful for my father’s lessons, through which I’ve learned to understand peoples’ motivations and gained an understanding for the complexities of every conflict. He also taught me to doubt, to look closer, to not just believe the first thing I see, or want to see. To this day I still consider my ability to pin down the relevant factors of a situation before I make judgments one of my strengths.

That definitely sounds like a very strong, beloved Bird model.

- Whenever I had to write an essay at school or uni, I first had to come up with some aspect about the subject that I really cared about, even could be passionate about. (I am passionate about many things, so it was usually possible to find some connection to that.) Then I would use the essay to discuss this aspect in great detail, ending with a polemic flourish. I had the time of my life doing that; meanwhile the text would structure itself magically in relation to the issue I had chosen to focus on. Whenever I tried to write without such a focus, I’d get bored, stressed and the text would be of a much lower quality.

- Something similar happened in oral exams at uni: Only when I got the opportunity to bring a discussion paper (a few pointed statements regarding the exam topic) which I could then debate, I was able to recollect all the important details I needed for that. If I just had to report on the topic or answer questions, I often got confused, to the point of drawing a complete blank.

Linking things to emotion and passion - thinking with emotion and passion, basically - is a Lion primary thing. Especially if doing that makes you feel safe & comfortable & effective & happy.

- Even as a teenager I was very interested in philosophy, ethics and moral decision making.

I love teaching philosophy to teenagers. It’s the perfect time for it, they are so into it, and if it were up to me I would absolutely make it a required class.

I picked up certain philosophical ideas and concepts that I liked and integrated them in my belief system (yes, I know how very Bird that sounds).

I had my mind blown by Genealogy of Morals in high school, and I still won’t shut about Eichmann in Jerusalem. But what was so staggering to me in high school was… here are these ways of thinking that are possible and allowed. The fact that here they are in words in front of me made me a great deal more expansive.

Now that I think about it — I don’t remember adjusting my beliefs as in any way traumatic back then. The shift from a belief in the Christian God to Mother Goddess to my very own brand of agnostic paganism was smooth, natural.

Now that I think about it… I would describe myself as a mythic relativist (which is a term I just made up.) Systems of belief are metaphors, and they’re metaphors trying to describe and say something large and beautiful about what it means to be human, and what it means to live a good life. And since we are all human, they are all attempting to describe the same central, indescribable thing in different ways.

I feel this very deeply, but it took me a long while to be able to articulate it.

I constantly reevaluate, and I adapt.

You stop reevaluating and adapting, might as well be dead.

Still, there are some basics I’ve kept with me that just make too much sense to me to give up, and some that perhaps I keep because I just really like them and I’m kind of attached to them.

… somebody’s thinking with Pathos :)

- I’m a constructivist at heart, so that makes it much easier to tweak the content of my beliefs while staying true to the principle that we (socially) construct our reality, and (my take on this): that I choose what kind of world I want to live in, and according to that I make choices which are the most likely to create that world.

- At uni I attended a seminar about the development of moral judgment and action. What I remember most clearly about it is how much it bugged me that the other students didn’t seem to understand that morality always depends on the perspective. Even though I had definite moral convictions that I was ready to fight for, at the same time it seemed obvious to me that theoretically there could be a justification for every kind of moral guideline; it depended on your principles and the world you wanted to live in.

A human after my own heart.

I wanted to understand these different perspectives, not talk about empty categories like “right and wrong” or “good and evil” that meant nothing to me. I still feel that way.

Absolutely. I don’t use alignments when I DM Dungeons & Dragons. I mean, I can list evil *things* but that’s not the same thing as defining *being evil.* I want to know WHY these people did these evil things.

It just seems so impractical and complicated to base a conversation on those broad categories that don’t have any definition people can agree on instead of referring either to defined principles (in order to explain what good/ bad is *for you*) or consequences of certain actions, and whether you want them/ accept them/ don’t want them.

Oh that’s a fun discussion. Asking a highschooler to define “evil.”

(and then they have to figure out what moral systems Jigsaw, Pinhead, the Joker, and Bane all subscribe to.)

- Between “the Revolutionary” and “the Grail Knight”, I would love to be the former, but I’m clearly the latter. I’m someone who questions, not someone who knows.

Take my archetypes with a grain of salt, they are supposed to describe characters. (Who are different from people - but still useful, because they are attempts to describe us.) I actually want to write more about the differences I see between the way fictional secondaries are written and the way real-life secondaries work.

And just “knowing”... is dangerous. That’s how Exploded Lions happen.

There are a lot of causes I find worthy to fight for, but I haven’t committed to any one, which so far I’ve attributed to my Burned Secondary (How do I do things?).

Sounds about right.

If I’m honest, though, it feels a bit strange to really, really fight for anything. I’d rather contribute to the cause by keeping an eye on whether we stay aligned to our values on every level of the fight, not by storming sightlessly in front of some army. (I got polemic again, didn’t I? ;))

So after all this Bird talk, why do I think that I’m a Lion?

… that was the Bird segment?

- I trust my intuition. It has never steered me wrong, with one exception: My Primary burned for a time when I first understood the concept of privilege and internalized bias, which was coincidentally at a time when I also went through a lot of changes in my personal life. Like many people unaware of their own privilege, I had thought of myself as “one of the good ones”. I learned that even with the best intentions I could cause great harm without even noticing it. This then also happened to me in a relationship, when I was already confused, hurt and more than a bit burned. It seemed like I couldn’t trust my intuition anymore, but I also couldn’t figure out intellectually what to believe, because I felt mentally overwhelmed by all those new concepts, all of which put my previous convictions into question. Which Primary burned then?

Been there, done that, it’s brutal. It sounds to me like a Lion dramatically changing direction - that’s what I mean when I say that it *hurts* when a Lion changes their mind. Birds see their past selves that thought wrong as almost different people. “I wasn’t aware of my privilege then, now I am, and can take steps doing forward.” But if you’re a lion it’s like… I *should* have been aware, and the fact that I wasn’t says something terrible about my moral/emotional calibration, and THAT has to be put right.

- I felt like everything I had learned about the world and myself didn’t count anymore. My concepts and my strategies didn’t serve me anymore. So I started to rebuild everything from scratch, this time with less pride and more practicality.

Yeah. That’s some Lion recalibration. With a Bird Model, to help.

- Anyway, I trust my intuition. It contains my experiences, instinct and all my accumulated unconscious observations of the situation, and it’s very reliable. Usually I use it as an important source of information which I try to back up with data/ understanding, but when push came to shove and the apparent facts would contradict what my intuition told me, I would be unable to set my gut feeling aside. I wouldn’t follow it blindly, of course. But I would never just go against it either. If the voices of my unconscious and conscious mind don’t align, I keep poking at the issue until they do. If I absolutely cannot come to a satisfying conclusion, I go with my gut. Since I know it usually knows what it’s doing, I’ll find out the reasons for my feelings later. (Weird, says my inner bird who is busy compiling these examples.)

I’LL FIND THE REASON FOR MY FEELINGS LATER. What a perfect way of articulating what is perhaps the central experience of being a Lion primary.

- Probably I’m just both, you know. Some interesting lion/bird-chimaera. I like it.

I read you as a pretty clear Lion Primary, Bird primary model. But as always, the decision is very personal.

- I have a weird way of processing information: I read/ hear it, work to understand it, work to connect it to existing knowledge in my mind, then my beliefs, my existing knowledge and my feelings about it all wind around each other, grow into each other, some dissolve together, becoming a swamp which then nourishes the plants of new ideas and connections that grow from it.

You grok it. And that’s not weird.

I often can’t remember where certain knowledge came from. I can’t take it out of a memory shelf and tell you about it. I usually remember that I’ve read a certain book and whether I liked it / it influenced me, but I won’t exactly remember what was in it, even if it was important to me. Because all that information is already processed/ digested/ transformed into something new. It’s much easier to access my memory swamp intuitively than consciously.

and you seriously had like… any doubt that you were a Lion.

In intellectual discussions I tend to get stuck because I just can’t remember enough of the details (for my satisfaction), just my conclusions about the topic and how I feel about it.

I’m inclined to think that not accessing the details is either a secondary thing, or an entirely unrelated processing thing.

What do you make of all this? I’m very curious!

[On an unrelated note, I’d like to specify the compliment I made at the beginning of this post. I’m really impressed with your ability to pick up on what people need, not just what they say they want. As a counselor this is a skill I try to hone, so I know how difficult it is to not get too distracted by the story people tell and miss the more subtle cues. You have a powerful combination of perceptiveness, insight and so much kindness, which you use to effectively support people who have questions, are in distress or confused. You don’t generalize. You don’t judge. You see the people who talk to you. I love that you’re a teacher, because I can see you’re using the influence that gives you in a way that contributes to making the world a better place. Fellow Idealist, I’d like to give you a High Five for that, if I may. :)))]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been given a better compliment. Thank you.

#submission #sortinghatchats #lion primary #lionpri #bird primary vs lion primary #philosophy stuff

22 notes · View notes

woman-loving · 4 years

Text

I don’t identity as a “bi lesbian,” but I feel there is room for a woman to identify as both bisexual and gay/lesbian, and I don’t agree with the arguments I’ve seen against “bi lesbian” identity.

One thing that annoys me about detractors of the identity is the occasional claim that it is basically an internet phenomenon that arose within the last five years or so. Actually, women have been claiming both bisexual and lesbian identities for decades. There have constantly been debates about how bi women fit within lesbianism, lesbian identity, and lesbian community since the gay/lesbian movements have been active. This isn’t something that has ever been universally agreed upon, and there never will be universal agreement on it.

Just for reference and historical interest, I’ve compiled a few selections from articles and books, mostly from the 80s and 90s, that are by or about lesbian-identified (or gay-identified) bisexual woman, or that at least mention them. Inclusion doesn’t indicate my approval of the author’s perspective or argument; this is to provide a bit of history on the discourse.

What is a Lesbian? To me, a lesbian is a woman-oriented woman; bisexuals can be lesbians. A lesbian does not have to be exclusively woman oriented, she does not have to prove herself in bed, she does not have to hate men, she does not have to be sexually active at all times, she does not have to be a radical feminist. She does not have to like bars, like gay culture, or like being gay. When lesbians degrade other lesbians for not going to bars, not coming out, being bisexual or not sexually active, and so on, we oppress each other.

--Trish Miller, "Bisexuality," Lavender Woman, Vol 2 Issue 5, August 1973.

The definition of lesbian that I suggest, one that conforms to the two methodological considerations above, is the following:

5. Lesbian is a woman who has sexual and erotic-emotional ties primarily with women or who sees herself as centrally involved with a community of self-identified lesbians whose sexual and erotic-emotional ties are primarily with women; and who is herself a self-identifed lesbian.

My definition is a sociopolitical one; that is, it attempts to include in the term lesbian the contemporary sense of lesbianism as connected with a subcultural community, many members of which are opposed to defining themselves as dependent on or subordinate to men. It defines both bisexual and celibate women as lesbians as long as they identify themselves as such and have their primary emotional identification with a community of self-defined lesbians. Furthermore, for reasons I will outline shortly, there was no lesbian community in which to ground a sense of self before the twentieth century, a fact which distinguishes the male homosexual community from the lesbian community. Finally, it is arguable that not until this particular stage in the second wave of the women’s movement and in the lesbian-feminist movement has it been politically feasible to include self-defined lesbian bisexual women into the lesbian community.

Many lesbian feminists may not agree with this inclusion. But it may be argued that to exclude lesbian bisexuals from the community on the grounds that “they give energy to men” is overly defensive at this point. After all, a strong women’s community does not have to operate on a scarcity theory of nurturant energy! On feminist principles the criterion for membership in the community should be a woman’s commitment to giving positive erotic-emotional energy to women. Whether women who give such energy to women can also give energy to individual men (friends, fathers, sons, lovers) is not the community’s concern.

--Ann Ferguson, “Patriarchy, Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution,” Signs, Autumn 1981.

Individuals who came together a month ago to discuss bisexuality and its relationship to radical feminism decided recently to begin a serious, regular study group on human sexuality and its social/political/psychological manifestations in our culture.

There are eight of us in the group. For all, understanding bisexuality, both in our own lives and and in our society, is a primary goal. To this end, we decided on a format of readings and discussion, with a facilitator for each meeting, that would bring us through the range of sexual options available in the United States today, from male-identified heterosexuality to lesbianism, to a final informed examination of bisexuality in the context of all that we had learned. Throughout our exploration, feminism will provide both a point of departure, and a point of return.

We started by trying to define some terms, specifically "feminism," "gay-identified bisexual," and "bisexual". Alot of us were amazed to see how many different interpretations each term, especially "gay-identified," could have. Is someone "gay-identified" because they devote a majority of their time, energy and emotion to the gay community? Or does an individual's radical critique of heterosexuality make them "gay-identified"? And does "gay-identified" also imply "women-identified"? Some people felt that one could be gay-identified, and still not be woman-identified. And exactly how many Meg Christian concerts make you "lesbian-identified"?

We didn't reach any conclusions, but had fun realizing that being bisexuals, we are dealing with a whole realm of experiences that can be classified in any number of different ways; and that the variety of possible bisexual lifestyles is as varied as the women who are in the Network.

--Barb H, “Study Group,” BBWN, Vol. 2 No. 4, July-Aug 1984

I recognize that homophobia is at the root of biphobia. I came to lesbianism long before my sexuality was clear to me. I lived an open lesbian lifestyle for four years. I cannot deny the importance of this experience, nor do I want to. For me lesbian identity is more than, and/or in addition to sexuality; it is a political awareness which bisexuality doesn't altar or detract from. 10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn't make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn't lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it's real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another's sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn't healthy--emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it's ineffective.

Since I have come out I have triggered many lesbians to blurt in whispered confidence--"I have a man in the closet. You're brave to be so open. What am I going to do?" These are not easy times. AIDS has given biphobia free reign in the lesbian community (and admittedly with much less destructive effect than how AIDS is fueling homophobia in society at large), it is all right to trash bisexuals, not to trust us for fear of AIDS. Bisexuals are untouchable to some lesbians.

We have to deal with oppression in a constructive way or we will be factionalized forever. Time is running out. We have to see the whole and the part we play in it. Forming family communities with people who share your sexual identity is important, but trashing is nonproductive. The sexual choices we make are equally valid for our individual experiences. AIDS is not a gay disease; it is a human tragedy, a plague that doesn't recognize boundaries. I urge bisexuals to take a political stand, and to become a visible, viable energy force. It is important and timely to open this dialogue in each of our communities. Nobody belongs in the closet. The only way to get a sense of "our" community is for us to begin to speak out and identify ourselves. When we verify the connections and the networks of our oppression, we build a unity that avoids the, "I'm more oppressed than you" syndrome

--Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco

What makes the Third Annual Northeast Conference on Bisexuality what it is? The breakfasts and dinners--the entertainment--the excitement of meeting others who feel like family. My first event of the conference was stumbling onto a cocktail party just around the corner from the Registration Desk, which turned out to be part of the Woman's History Week! A bit embarrassing after greeting many people with wine glasses in hand, asking them how they heard about the bisexuality conference!

I'll skip now to describe my experiences at the lesbian-identified affinity group and the two workshops I attended. Why do women who identify as lesbians go to a bisexuality conference? There were about 10 of us in the room, each with a different answer. Most of our relationships at the present time were with women; after that the similarity ended. One woman had affairs with men when not seriously involved with women. Another, in a non-monogamous long-term lesbian relationship, had recently begun a sexual involvement with a man. one woman, now involved with a bisexual woman, was here to discuss her feelings about the situation. Some of us had led exclusively lesbian lives for a number of years and were wondering if we'd closed off important parts of ourselves. Whether or not we would act on our sexual attractions for men, acknowledging them were important to us.

Our personal herstories contributed to our diverse opinions. For some, coming out was relaxed and easy and relationships with women refreshingly egalitarian. Others found sexual awakening and coming out difficult, and lesbian relationships fraught with many of the same difficulties as straight ones. We also discussed reasons lesbians don't accept bisexual women, such as fear that she'd leave for a man or desire to preserved woman-only space. We questioned the reality of "heterosexual privilege," wondering whether any women could really have it. We discussed the sorrows in our lives, such as family histories of alcoholism, incest or physical abuse, and the joys of our relationships, our work and our lives.

--Stacie, “Lesbian-identified Affinity Group Workshops: Lesbian Sexuality & Politics of Sexuality,” BBWN, Vol. 4, No. 2, April-May 1986

[Robyn Ochs]: What is your current sexual identity?

[Betty Aubut]: I call myself a "bisexual lesbian." I will always politically identify as bisexual, which to me means opposing restrictive categories. Some days I feel real separatist, and other days I feel that I want to be involved with men. Being bisexual to me means that I see men and women whom I'm attracted to. A man would have to be very special for me to want to get involved with him but I will fight for bisexual rights whether or not I'm sleeping with men. I see the bisexual community and movement as a very important bridge between gays, lesbian and straights. As long as gays and lesbians are considered completely 'other' from the mainstream, we'll never have any power. I consider myself gay. I think bisexuals are gay and gay liberation is our liberation. I don't consider myself 100% straight and 100% gay; I am 100% gay. That doesn't mean I won't sleep with a man every now and then--some lesbians do that. I never used to identify as lesbian out of respect for women who made the lifelong choice never to sleep with men, but then I realized that was a lot of bullshit. Calling yourself lesbian does not necessarily mean you have made that lifelong decision. Now I mostly identify as a lesbian--so I call myself a bisexual lesbian. I don't sleep with men right now, but I have male friends whom I spend time with and cuddle with. I've even become socially involved with some of the men from the men's network. I'm proud of where I am now because it's been so hard for me. People who have known me for a long time can't believe the change.

--Robyn Ochs, “Bi of the Month: Betty Aubut,” Bi Women Vol. 5, No. 2, April-May, 1987

Sharon Sumpter is a bisexual lesbian activist and psychotherapist who works with women survivors of abuse, institutionalization and sexual oppression. Her book-in-progress, In Pieces, is dedicated to opening the closet doors for former "mental patients." "I went into my work to undo the criminal things that were done to me and that I saw done to other women." She thanks Deena Metzger and Asherah for this, her first published work.

--Contributors' Notes, Sinister Wisdom, Issue 36, Winter 1988/89

Representatives of lesbian-feminist separatism may feel singled out as special targets of our anger and distress. To the extent that this is true, the seeds of anger lie in lesbian separatism as a politic: In this reading of feminism, specific sex acts take on politicized meaning. These are said to have consequences for the consciousness of the person performing them. Lesbian feminism is arguably the most proscriptive gay or lesbian politic, generating in its adherents the greatest tendency to judge others' (especially sexual) behavior. Gay men, for example, seem more likely to cite personal antipathy or simple stereotypes about bisexuals as a source of their chagrin. A great many bisexual women, particularly those who are feminist and lesbian-identified, have felt both personally and politically rejected and judged by the separatist sisters. Even those with no such experience may feel wary having heard of other bisexual women's stories. No one like to feel attacked, even politically.

----Carol A. Queen, "Strangers at Home: Bisexuals in the queer movement," Out/Look, Vol. 4, Issue 4 (16), Spring 1992

Closer to Home successfully deals with these and other problems of self-identification. As most of the writers are "lesbian-identified bisexuals" (one of several labels used for the sake of convenience), the definition of lesbianism is also reevaluated. Is a lesbian a woman who relates emotionally and erotically with women or a woman who does not relate emotionally and erotically with men? Must a woman fit both criteria to be considered a lesbian?

The "Principles and Practice" section expands these main course theories of identity with side dishes of memories and personal feelings--feelings of not being queer enough; of breaking all the rules, even the gay rules; of being dissatisfied with the waste of energy from political infighting. It's odd for lesbian-identified bi's to find themselves viewed as politically incorrect. It's maddening to have one's past feminist work invalidated by the inclusion of a man (or men) in one's life. It's frustrating to find oneself faced with a choice of being honest or potentially losing support of women's groups. It's confusing to work for the freedom to come out of one closet only to be asked to stay in another. As Rebecca Shuster write:

"If we choose a lesbian identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package that includes marginality; invisibility; isolation...; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. If we choose a bisexual identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package deal that include a feeling of not belonging or having a home; defensiveness; isolation...; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. Precisely because bisexuality represents freedom of choice, society ensures that the identity comes with its own package of mistreatment and constraints."

----Beth Herrick, "Bisexual Women Pushing the Limits," Sojourner, Vol. 18, Issue 10, June 1993

The first step is to move toward building alliances within our bisexual communities. Many communities are united by a commonality of the oppression. This is not so in our community, partly because of the different ways people identify as bisexual: gay-identified, queer-identified, lesbian-identified, or heterosexual-identified. Some people are bisexual in an affectional manner only; some are bisexual both affectionally and sexually; and some are bisexual only sexually. Since there are so many ways to express our bisexuality, the first step toward alliance-building is to work internally to accept all members of our own community. It is imperative that we build alliances across our own differences; otherwise, alliance-building will fail. Acceptance of the diversity of bisexual labels within our community will allow us to pursue alliance-building with decisive strength in the heterosexual community and what many of us consider our own lesbian/gay community.[3]

--Brenda Blasingame, "Power and Privilege Beyond the Invisible Fence, in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions, 1995

Personally, I am unable to separate out the various ways that I am oppressed (as a woman, as an African American, as a bisexual lesbian, as an impoverished single mother) and say that one oppression is worse than the other, or that I desire one form of liberation more than another. I do not want to experience threats to my life, my child custody, or my job security because of racism or homophobia. I don't want to be oppressed for any reason!!!

--Dajenya, "Which Part of Me Deserves to Be Free?," in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions, ed. Naomi Tucker, 1995

A good deal of criticism has been written about heterosexuals who are surprised when they find out the true sexual orientation of someone who they didn't think "looked gay." These criticism assert what is of course true--that there is no such thing as a gay or lesbian "look," since of course, everyone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual, looks that way.

Unfortunately, many of my experiences as a lesbian-identified bisexual woman have said to me that having an appearance or demeanor that diverges from the expected means I will not be accepted as truly belonging in the lesbian community. Despite my attendance at gay pride parade, dollars spent at gay resorts and in support of gay causes, and numerous attempts to participate in gay and/or lesbian groups and volunteer events, I have often felt unaccepted by this community.

--Amy Wyeth, "Don't Assume Anything," Bi Women Vol. 13, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1995

Joan Tollifson relays her struggle to make sense of her life and her spiritual awakening in Bare-Bones Meditation. Born with only one hand, she grew up feeling different, found identity and purpose as a bisexual lesbian and a disability rights activist, but struggled with drug and alcohol addiction. She first embraced Zen Buddhism then a very bare-bones form of spirituality that has no form. This exuberant and amazing testament is for the many people who don't fit into the conventional molds of existing religious traditions.

--"And on Publisher's Row," complied by Jenn Tust, Feminist Bookstore News, Vol. 19, Issue 4, Nov-Dec 1996

#bisexuality #bi lesbian

489 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 5 years

Text

A memo sent to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks made public in 2016 has not gotten the attention it deserves. Now is the time. After President Donald Trump tweeted that he was pulling American troops out of Syria, Clinton joined his vociferous critics who want more war in Syria.

“Actions have consequences, and whether we’re in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war,” Clinton tweeted in response to Trump. “Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Iran’s hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.”

Actions indeed have consequences.

The memo shows the kind of advice Clinton was getting as secretary of state to plunge the U.S. deeper into the Syrian war. It takes us back to 2012 and the early phase of the conflict.

At that point, it was largely an internal affair, although Saudi arms shipments were playing a greater and greater role in bolstering rebel forces. But once the President Barack Obama eventually decided in favor of intervention, under pressure from Clinton, the conflict was quickly internationalized as thousands of holy warriors flooded in from as far away as western China.

The 1,200-word memo written by James P. Rubin, a senior diplomat in Bill Clinton’s State Department, to then-Secretary of State Clinton, which Clinton twice requested be printed out, begins with the subject of Iran, an important patron of Syria.

The memo dismisses any notion that nuclear talks will stop Iran “from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program—the capability to enrich uranium.” If it does get the bomb, it goes on, Israel will suffer a strategic setback since it will no longer be able to “respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.” Denied the ability to bomb at will, Israel might leave off secondary targets and strike at the main enemy instead.

Consequently, the memo argues that the U.S. should topple the Assad regime so as to weaken Iran and allay the fears of Israel, which has long regarded the Islamic republic as its primary enemy. As the memo puts it:

“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.”

This document, making the case to arm Syrian rebels, may have been largely overlooked because of confusion about its dates, which appear to be inaccurate.

The time stamp on the email is “2001-01-01 03:00” even though Clinton was still a New York senator-elect at that point. That date is also out of synch with the timeline of nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

But the body of the email gives a State Department case and document number with the date of 11/30/2015. But that’s incorrect as well because Clinton resigned as secretary of state on Feb. 1, 2013.

Central to the Great Debate

Consequently, anyone stumbling across the memo in the Wikileaks archives might be confused about how it figures in the great debate about whether to use force to bring down Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. But textual clues provide an answer. The second paragraph refers to nuclear talks with Iran “that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May,” events that took place in 2012. The sixth invokes an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour conducted with then-Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “last week.” Since the interview took place on April 19, 2012, the memo can therefore be dated to the fourth week in April.

The memo syncs with Clinton’s thinking on Syria, such as calling for Assad’s overthrow and continuing to push for a no-fly zone in her last debate with Donald Trump even after Gen. Joseph Dunford had testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that it could mean war with Russia.

The memo was sent to her shortly before Clinton joined forces with then-CIA Director David Petraeus to push for an aggressive program of rebel military aid.

Needless to say, the memo’s skepticism about negotiating with Iran proved to be unwarranted since Iran eventually agreed to shut down its nuclear program. The memo, which Clinton twice asked to be printed out for her, underscores the conviction that Israeli security trumps all other considerations even if it means setting fire to a region that’s been burned over more than once.

But the memo illustrates much else besides: a recklessness, lack of realism and an almost mystical belief that everything will fall neatly into place once the United States flexes its muscle. Overthrowing Assad would be nothing less than “transformative,” the memo says.

“…Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles.”

It was “a low-cost high-payoff approach,” the memo says, that would eliminate one enemy, weaken two more, and generate such joy among ordinary Syrians that peace talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv will spring back to life. The risks appeared to be nil. Since “the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region,” the memo supposes, referring to the overthrow of strongman Muammer Gaddafi six months earlier, the Syrian operation wouldn’t either. In a passage that may have influenced Clinton’s policy of a no-fly zone, despite Dunford’s warning, the memo says:

“Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example [in which NATO bombed Russian-ally Serbia] shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.”

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Republicans Are Against Donald Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-republicans-are-against-donald-trump/

What Republicans Are Against Donald Trump

Trump Aides Aim To Build Gop Opposition To Afghan Refugees

Republicans face backlash for speaking out against Trump ahead of impeachment trial

WASHINGTON As tens of thousands of Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban arrive in the U.S., a handful of former Trump administration officials are working to turn Republicans against them.

The former officials are writing position papers, appearing on conservative television outlets and meeting privately with GOP lawmakers all in an effort to turn the collapse of Afghanistan into another opportunity to push a hard-line immigration agenda.

It is a collaboration based on mutual conviction, said Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trumps most conservative immigration policies and among those engaged on the issue. My emphasis has been in talking to members of Congress to build support for opposing the Biden administrations overall refugee plans.

The approach isnt embraced by all Republican leaders, with some calling it mean-spirited and at odds with Christian teachings that are important to the white evangelicals who play a critical role in the partys base. The strategy relies on tactics that were commonplace during Trumps tenure and that turned off many voters, including racist tropes, fear-mongering and false allegations.

And the hard-liners pay little heed to the human reality unfolding in Afghanistan, where those who worked with Americans during the war and many others are desperate to flee for fear they could be killed by the new Taliban regime.

This Retiring Republican Just Handed More Power To Donald Trump

I dont believe he can ever be president again, Gonzalez told The New York Times of Trump. Most of my political energy will be spent working on that exact goal. Of the broader GOP, Gonzalez said. politically the environment is so toxic, especially in our own party right now.

Know what else is true? That Gonzalez, by retiring from Congress, hands Trump yet another win, a further demonstration that crossing the former president always ends badly for those who do it.

Gonzalez, a former star wide receiver at Ohio State University, was widely seen as a rising star in the party both in the state and nationally when he was elected in 2018. But unlike the vast majority of his House Republican colleagues, Gonzalez never gave over to the utter fealty demanded by Trump. And in the wake of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, Gonzalez was one of 10 House Republicans who voted with Democrats to impeach the President.

Gonzalezs decision to walk away rather than fight back will be taken a win by Trump and his forces. In fact, the president was already busy taking a victory lap Friday morning.

So while Gonzalezs retirement is being touted in some circles as an act of principle, the practical political effect of his decision is the opposite.

Weve learned the wrong lesson as a party, Gonzalez told the Times, but beyond that, and more importantly, its horribly irresponsible and destructive for the country.

His retirement empowers those irresponsible and destructive forces.

Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump Face Censure At Home

North Carolina Senator Richard Burr is the latest to be censured by local Republicans for his impeachment trial vote.

State Republican leaders in North Carolina voted to censure Senator Richard Burr over his vote to convict Donald Trump during last weeks impeachment trial, making Burr the latest to be rebuked for opposing the former United States president.

Burr, a third-term North Carolina Republican who has said he does not plan to seek re-election in 2022, was one of just seven out of 50 Republican senators to vote to convict Trump for inciting his supporters January 6 attack on Congress, which left five people dead.

The North Carolina Republican Party Central Committee voted unanimously to censure Burr, saying it agrees with the strong majority of Republicans that the effort lies outside the United States Constitution.

Trumps second Senate impeachment trial concluded on Saturday with a 57-43 vote in favour of convicting. The tally fell short of the two-thirds needed to secure conviction.

North Carolina Republican Chairman Michael Whatley condemned Burr for voting against the former president, calling the move a shocking and disappointing abdication of his duty to voters.

The Central Committee of the released a statement following their unanimous vote to censure Senator Richard Burr for his impeachment vote. #ncpol#ncgov#ncsen

NCGOP

Read Also: When Is The Last Time Republicans Controlled Congress

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

Republican Leaders Start Making Sense Although In Small Numbers

Joe Biden won Michigan in the 2020 elections by a large margin. Despite this, the Republican leaders led an investigation trying to find discrepancies in the election but found nothing.

Michigans GOP-led Senate is now all against Donald Trump. Michigans Senate Republicans issued a report calling Trump claims outright deception.;

Even though state Republicans have rebutted Donald Trump, they continue to support new voting laws in the State. This depicts that voter suppression is not only a Trump priority but the Republicans agenda.

Then came the heroics of the former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who co-authored a report about the Arizona election recount and criticized it, saying the contractors were inexperienced and unqualified.

Trumps former attorney general William Barr, a hardline supporter of Donald Trump, who was forced to resign due to his failure of unfolding the Hunter Biden controversy before elections, also criticized Trump to a large extent. The erstwhile ally of Trump heavily criticized Trumps claims saying, It was all bullshit.

If a highly conservative Republican like Barr is not buying the theories of Trump, the ideas must have something controversial in them.

Texas and Florida governors are the in full motion to promote Trumps America first vision in their respective state with voter suppression laws, anti-immigration rhetoric and enhancing guns rights

Recommended Reading: When Did Political Parties Switch Platforms

Trump Celebrates Retirement Of Gop Congressman Who Voted For His Impeachment

Former President Donald Trump celebrated the retirement of a Republican congressman who voted for his impeachment, as the GOP continues its purge of those who have pushed back against lies surrounding the 2020 election.

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, told the New York Times he would not be running for reelection in 2022, citing threats to his family and a tough primary race against a Trump White House aide challenging him who has the former presidents endorsement.

I dont believe he can ever be president again, Gonzalez told the Times, referring to Trump. Most of my political energy will be spent working on that exact goal.

The outgoing congressman, who turns 37 this week, called Trump a cancer for the country.

Gonzalez was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the violence of Jan. 6. He is the first of those Republican lawmakers to announce his retirement.

A former star wide receiver at Ohio State University, Gonzalez said in a Jan. 13 statement after his vote that Trump helped organize and incite a mob that attacked Congress and abandoned his post while many members asked for help, thus endangering all present.

In the immediate aftermath of the vote, Jim Renacci, chair of the Medina County Republican Party in Ohio, told BuzzFeed News he was slammed with residents calling for Anthony Gonzalez to step down, be recalled, and/or primaried.

____

In Gop Poll From Hell Republicans Say They Want Donald Trump Jr To Be President In 2024

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

A recurring nightmare among millions of Americans is that come 2024, Donald Trump will forget the fact that he actually hated being president, decide to run again, and win. Seriously, can you think of a more horrifying scenario, except perhaps falling through a sidewalk into a rat-filled chasm,;which some people might still prefer? We maintain that you cannot. But an equally terrifying, skin-crawling situation would definitely be to turn on the TV on January 20, 2025, and see Donald Trump Jr. being sworn in as president of the United States, which a number of Republican voters apparently actually want to happen.

The poll, which was conducted between July 6 and 8, did not include Donald Trump Senior, who maintains an inexplicable grip on voters despite the mass-death stuff, an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and a mental state that suggests he should be in a home or studied by a team of Swiss doctors.

And the fact that Don Jr. came out on top is not where the scary news ends. Because apparently if Republicans cant have Sheep Killer over here, their second-favorite choice is Florida governor Ron DeSantis, the man currently responsible for this:

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click;here;to subscribe.

More Great Stories FromVanity Fair

Don’t Miss: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Richard Burr North Carolina

Burr, who has said he will not seek re-election, had previously voted to dismiss the impeachment trial on constitutional grounds. Burr’s term expires in 2022.

“I have listened to the arguments presented by both sides and considered the facts. The facts are clear,” explained Burr in a statement.

“By what he did and by what he did not do, President Trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” he explained, adding that he didn’t come to “this decision lightly.”

Supreme Court Goes Bonkers So Do Republican Governors

2 Times In 2 Days Republicans Vote Against President Donald Trump | The Last Word | MSNBC

Nonetheless, those in influential Republican circles, who are actually in a position to bring Donald Trump to justice, are still mostly denying the admission of his guilt.;

The reluctance to establish a January 6 commission is a classic example in this regard.

The Republicans bid to entertain voter suppression laws in different states, following Trumps footprints, also decries the same.

While Democrats control the White House and the national legislature, Republican governors in different red states are introducing sweeping measures to second his agenda.

Republican governors such as Greg Abbott from Texas and Ron DeSantis from Florida are as conservative as Trump. Recently, the Texas governor signed seven laws, enhancing gun possession laws, proclaiming to protect the second amendment.

The Florida governor also banned local government officials from further regulating guns in the state.

Expansion of guns rights is not the only way the governors are trying to please the former Republican president.

In fact, their policy approaches towards immigration, social media, and voter suppression laws also depict their will to compromise the national interest at the expense of promoting conservatism.

The top US justices of the United States are also playing their part to extend conservatism at the national scale.;

The top bench, manned by Donald Trump, recently failed to protect the voting rights of marginalized groups.

Also Check: What Is Difference Between Democrats And Republicans

Will Not Support Trumps Re

Former President George W. Bush: Although he has not spoken about whom he will vote for in November, people familiar with Mr. Bushs thinking have said it wont be Mr. Trump. Mr. Bush did not endorse him in 2016.

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah: Mr. Romney has long been critical of Mr. Trump, and was the only Republican senator to vote to convict him during his impeachment trial. Mr. Romney is still mulling over whom he will vote for in November he opted for his wife, Ann, four years ago but he is said to be sure it wont be the president.

John Bolton, the former national security adviser: As he rolled out his recently published book, The Room Where It Happened, Mr. Bolton said in multiple interviews that he would not vote for Mr. Trump in November. He added that he would write in the name of a conservative Republican, but that he was not sure which one.

Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont: Mr. Scott has said multiple times this summer that he will not be voting for the president, a position that he also took in 2016. He says he has not yet decided whether or not he will vote for Mr. Biden.

William H. McRaven, a retired four-star Navy admiral: Several Republican admirals and generals have publicly announced they will not support the president. In an interview with The New York Times, Admiral McRaven, who directed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said, This fall, its time for new leadership in this country Republican, Democrat or independent.

Gop Leader Mccarthy: Trump ‘bears Responsibility’ For Violence Won’t Vote To Impeach

Some ambitious Republican senators have never been as on board the Trump train as the more feverish GOP members in the House, and the former might be open to convicting Trump. But their ambition cuts two ways on the one hand, voting to ban Trump opens a lane to carry the Republican mantle in 2024 and be the party’s new standard-bearer, but, on the other, it has the potential to alienate many of the 74 million who voted for Trump, and whose votes they need.

It’s a long shot that Trump would ultimately be convicted, because 17 Republicans would need to join Democrats to get the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction. But it’s growing clearer that a majority of the Senate will vote to convict him, reflecting the number of Americans who are in favor of impeachment, disapproved of the job Trump has done and voted for his opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Correction Jan. 14, 2021

A previous version of this story incorrectly said Rep. Peter Meijer is a West Point graduate. Meijer attended West Point, but he is a graduate of Columbia University.

Recommended Reading: Main Differences Between Republicans And Democrats

Gop Primary Challengers Line Up Against Texas Gov Abbott Despite Trumps Endorsement Yahoo News

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has $55 million banked for his re-election campaign, a 73 percent approval rating among Republicans, and an endorsement from former President Donald Trump.

And, thanks to restrictive abortion and voting bills Abbott has signed in recent months, Texas has become an epicenter of the national conservative causes that rally the GOP base.

None of that, though, has stopped a crop of critics including Allen West, a former Florida congressman with a right-wing following who briefly served as the Texas GOP chairman from announcing plans to challenge Abbott in next years primary.

Their complaint isnt so much that Abbott is not a conservative. Its that hes not the hard-line conservative they believe that Texans crave particularly when compared with some Republican peers and their hands-off approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Hes not Ron DeSantis, and hes not Kristi Noem, one veteran of Texas GOP politics said, referencing the governors of Florida and South Dakota whove upped their national profiles by resisting extended lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates and other restrictions to limit the spread of Covid.

Story continues

They dont have any money, they dont have any fundraising ability, said John Wittman, Abbotts former communications director who now runs a public affairs firm in Austin. They are all fighting over the same 10 to 12 percent of Republican primary voters.

The primary challengers have other grievances.

Republicans Voting For Mrs Clinton

Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state

Ex-President George HW Bush

Richard Hanna, New York congressman

Hank Paulson, former treasury secretary

Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser

Chris Shays, former Connecticut congressman

Meg Whitman, prominent Republican donor; CEO of Hewlett Packard

William Bennett, former secretary of education

You May Like: How Many Senate Seats Do The Republicans Have

Here Are All Of The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

Ten members of the GOP joined with Democrats in the vote.

President Donald Trump impeached for ‘incitement of insurrection’

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump — making him the only president in American history to be impeached twice.

Unlike his first impeachment in 2019, 10 Republicans joined Democrats to charge Trump for the “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with a final vote of 232-197.

Some Republicans may have feared for their own safety if they voted for impeachment, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of those who voted against Trump, said. Kinzinger told ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast that some members of his party are likely holding back from voting for impeachment due to fear of highlighting their own participation in supporting the president’s false claims of election fraud.

Democrat Jason Crow, of Colorado, relayed similar thoughts in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday morning.

“I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears talking to me and saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment,” he said.

Here is a list of the 10 Republicans who took a stance against Trump:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.“It’s not going to be some ‘Kumbaya moment’ on the floor — it’s going to be an awakening by the American people to hold their leaders accountable to their rhetoric,”

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

Why Do Republicans Wear Blue Ties

How Did The 2000 Election Solidify Red For Republican And Blue For Democrat

How To Combine & Wear A Pocket Square With Ties, Shirts & Suits

The 2000 election between Gore and Bush was a momentous event for American politics. The election became a constitutional crisis and dragged on for 36 days, leading to constant television and newspaper coverage of recounts and debates over which candidate won each swing state. Networks banded together on their color selection for each party for the purposes of uniformity, choosing red to represent states Bush won, and blue for those Gore won.

It was also during this election that the New York Times and USA Today ran their first full-color electoral state maps featuring red for Republican and blue for Democrat.;

Do you know where the Democrat and Republican Parties got their names? Find out here.;

But why these particular colors? Thats a difficult question to answer because all news stations want to take credit for what is now the standard.

The credit of the colors rests in part with New York Times graphics editor Archie Tse, who used red for Republicans in 2000 election maps because red begins with R, Republican begins with R. Whatever the reason, all of the news outlets certainly played a part in establishing blue and red as the colors when they collectively used them the same way.

What Does Your Tie Color Mean

Get the girl.

What do these three things have in common?; The right image.

We all know that first impressions can be influenced by what you wear.; Whether conscious or not, people make grandiose assumptions based upon your everyday appearance.

A tie is one of the most influential tools at your disposal.; Thats why you always reach for your lucky tie when you are about to close a deal or why the girl at happy hour playfully touches your tie to show shes interested.; Your tie makes a powerful statement and its important to know what image you are projecting.

Its called the power tie for a reason, and by wearing a red tie you are implying that you mean business.; Just like Tiger Woods wears a red shirt to convey dominance, the red tie is a reaffirmation of strength, authority and dominance within the professional world.; For a less aggressive approach, switch out your vibrant red for a softer shade of burgundy.

Yellow/Gold

Yellow is the approachable cousin of the power tie.; While still conveying authority, intelligence and positivity, yellow is the subtle version of a red power tie.; This is the perfect tie to wear for a first interview, because it shows you are confident and not afraid of a challenge.

Blue

Green

Orange

Orange is the wild card of tie colors.; A bright orange tie will imply that you are enthusiastic, open-minded and adventurous.; It is the perfect tie for making a memorable first impression and creating a sense of excitement within the workplace.

Trending In London: Fashion Rental Energy Healing And Pigmentation

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee John McCain take part in the first debate of the 2008 elections at the University of Mississippi on September 26, 2008 in Oxford, MS. AFP PHOTO / PAUL J. RICHARDS

;The default color scheme for presidential ties is so conservative that it is nearly impossible to imagine something like pistachio, fuchsia or neon-anything ever making the cut. Sometimes, of course, being an outlier can help secure the needed benefit of the doubt. Bob Dole wore a moderate-green tie to his 1996 debate against the incumbent Bill Clinton. Such a choice helped create an overall image that pundits found informed, thoughtful, and elevated. It briefly albeit unsuccessfully buoyed Doles campaign. Hillary Clinton did not wear ties during her runs for the presidency. Still, her accessories were scrutinized by the media with particular focus on , bracelets, and headbands. Alternately, when democratic primary candidate Andrew Yang showed up to a 2019 Democratic Primary debate with no tie at all, his historic bold move turned heads across the political spectrum from Fox News to the New Yorker. Ultimately, it was a minor side note in what cost him the nomination proving that the country is just not ready for a tie-less president.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Need To Vote For Impeachment

Desks Are Closets Too

Heather: I have an emergency blazer in my desk that I can whip out if I feel I need to, and then an extra pair of flats in my desk. You do so much walking in DC that flats wear out really quickly. Ill keep Band-Aids and Neosporin in my desk, too, for when Im breaking in a pair of shoes. Ill get new flats every four months Ill just go to Marshalls and get whats on sale.

Jen: Im a big fan of having a lot of jackets that I keep in the office. You never know what day youll need to go staff your boss on the senate floor. Jackets that you can put on regardless of whether youre wearing slacks or a dress or a skirt and a top I think thats one of the easiest things to keep on hand. Then I have a black sweater, because these buildings can be terribly temperature controlled.

Dont Miss: Did Republicans Riot After Obama Was Elected

There Arent Real Forces Within The Gop Leading Change

There is some appetite for change within the GOP. In those 2024 polls, at least a third of Republicans either were supporting a GOP presidential candidate other than Trump or were undecided.;

In YouGov Blues polling, only about 40 percent of Republicans identified themselves as Trump Republicans. A recent survey from Fabrizio, Lee and Associates, a GOP-leaning firm that worked on Trumps presidential campaigns, found that about 40 percent of Republican voters didnt want Trump to continue to be a leader in the party. Those numbers dont necessarily mean that those voters want the GOP to change drastically. But there is a substantial number of Trump-skeptical/ready-to-move-on-from-Trump Republican voters. But that sentiment isnt really showing up in the Republican Partys actions during the last three months basically everything GOP officials in states and in Washington are doing lines up with the Trumpian approach. So what gives?;

related:Why The Recent Violence Against Asian Americans May Solidify Their Support Of Democrats Read more. »

It is hard to see Republicans changing course, even if a meaningful minority of voters in the party wants changes, without some elite institutions and powerful people in the party pushing a new vision. And its hard to see real anti-Trumpism forces emerging in the GOP right now.;

Read Also: Who Will Be Speaker Of The House If Republicans Win

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to.;

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. Pollsfound an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump.;

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

When Defeated Politicians Feel Blue They Wear It

He was feeling blue.;

There he stood, front and center in his home state,;cloaked in failure. Sad Senator Marco Rubio addressed the crowd Tuesday:

“While it is not God’s plan that I be president in 2016 or maybe ever, and while today my campaign is suspended…we must do all we can to ensure that this nation remains a special place.”

He certainly wore his heart on his sleeve well, in this case, his tie. It was dark blue.

Following in the footsteps of Jeb Bush, who sported a silk navy tie, and Ben Carson, who wore a powder blue striped shirt at their respective concessions, Rubio, too, wore the color.;

And it wasn’t by coincidence. Premeditated or subconscious, blue is the color when you’re feeling the shade.;

“Wearing a blue tie is the right choice for conceding in an election,” said Lauren Rothman, a Washington, D.C.-based political stylist, consultant and author of the Style Bible.

“The color communicates two emotions at the same time: optimism and sadness.”

Rothman,;who’s dressed many a politician for their concession speeches,;said that blue sends the message for supporters to continue following them on to their next chapters and that they have officially had a standstill.;

“There’s a sense of calmness to it and comfort as if showing that it’s okay, it’s going to be all right,” she said.

Lee Eiseman, a color specialist and expert, agreed.;

But Eiseman did clarify that there are different signifiers of blue depending on the hue.;

Don’t Miss: Did Any Republicans Vote For Trump Impeachment

How The Colors Came To Be Red White And Blue

Of the 205 sovereign nations in the world, 21 share red, white and blue as their flags colors. But why do so many share the same trio of colors, and what do they represent?

On July 4, 1776, a resolution was passed by Congress authorizing the development of a seal for the new country which reflected the Founding Fathers values.

When presenting the seal which was officially adopted on June 20, 1782 Secretary of the Continental Congress, Charles Thomson, explained, White signifies purity and innocence. Red, hardiness and valor, and blue signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice.

The meaning behind the colors have since shifted slightly. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan declared it the Year of the Flag, stating, The colors of our flag signify the qualities of the human spirit we Americans cherish. Red for courage and readiness to sacrifice; white for pure intentions and high ideals; and blue for vigilance and justice.

According to TIME Magazine, however, Mike Buss, a flag expert with the American Legion, points to the red, white and blue used in the Union Jack of England.

They come from the three colors that the Founding Fathers had served under or had been exposed to, said Buss.

Therefore, some of the correlation between the United States use of red, white and blue along with 20 other countries, including Puerto Rico, Australia and Cuba, could come from their historical correlation with England.

Why Politicians Wear Only Red And Blue Ties

Why does Trump Scotch tape his tie?

Joe Dziemianowicz of the Daily News wrote that even though President Obama doesnt like to reduce America into a collection of red states and blue states, he wore only red and blue neckties in his first 11 days in office. Is that just a coincidence?

Not according to science Robert Roy Britt of LiveScience explains why in high-stakes politics and business, there are only two color of ties, red and blue:

You May Like: How Often Does Joe Manchin Vote With Republicans

What Do The State Of The Unions Purple Ties Mean

Whats in a tie? If youre President Obama giving the State of the Union address, it can mean quite a bit. Tonight, Obama, along with Vice-President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner, made a sartorial show of solidarity. The three leaders sported purple ties because as every first-grade student knows blue and red make purple, and it may be a visual signifier of Obamas desire for bi-partisan cooperation. This isnt the first time Obama and Biden have rocked the royal hue: The pair, along with thenSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, all wore purple during the 2010 State of the Union. And then, as now, pundits speculated about its meaning. There is kind of a connotation in politics that comes through color, said fashion blogger Mary Tomer, of last years tie choices. I dont think its too much of a stretch to think purple couldve been chosen;symbolically.

Has Trump Been Wearing A Purple Tie More Often Lately

The last couple of weeks Ive noticed him wearing a purple tie.

Do Republicans notice this? Care?

Does it mean anything?

Why would it matter even if he was? Its a goddamn tie. You people love imagining bullshit where it doesnt exist.

Saying you people is almost always a derogatory remark. If you dont like the OPs question, address your answer to her.

Im with . Look around at other threads. Assumptions made on behalf of Trump supporters, and even supposing to know what our president plans, knows, wants, likes. Until Trump opposers are willing to stop lumping us in a pit of lost causes, expect the same in return.

, I have had the same observation, so perhaps he has. Does it have any significance? I believe only time will tell.

I think that if he is in fact wearing purple, he is doing it to reflect the electorate and its attitudes as the American population slowly moves to embrace the democratic party.

Are the colors of his tie supposed to mean anything?And WHY do Trump supporters get all bent out of shape and when thinking Trump opposers lump them in all together, but do the exact same thing when it comes to dealing with opposers?

So he bought a new tie. He wore the red one for almost three years, and he cant ever seem to tie it right. Glad he got a new one.

I think its some kind of white power salute.

Disclaimer: The above statement is a joke.

Which you people? and I?

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Like Donald Trump

Which States Are Considered Red And Which Are Blue

To go along with the colors, the terms red state and blue state were popularized by anchorman Tim Russert during and immediately after the 2000 election. Today, these terms are used to refer to which party a state voted for during a presidential election.;

Generally speaking, the Northeast and the West Coast are considered a collection of blue states as most of them have sided with the Democrats since the early 1990s.

The Southern states have sided with Republicans since the 2000s, while the Midwest tends to be tougher to predict. For example, Illinois and Minnesota are currently considered blue states, while Missouri and Nebraska are red. Hawaii and Alaska have been traditionally considered blue and red respectively as neither has switched parties since the late 1980s .

The Southwest has been split since 2000 with Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado going blue more often than red and Utah and Arizona voting predictably red. Finally, we come to the coveted purple states or swing states,;such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. These states switched colors in recent elections and are often a key focus of electoral campaigning and strategy. Swing states can vary by election year.

Color And Clothing Choices

When we see certain colors, they produce chemical reactions in our brains that can make us feel certain emotions. For example you are more likely to order more food in a restaurant that is decorated with a lot of red because that color makes us hungry. Sports teams often paint the opposing teams locker room pink because that color makes people tired. Guests on late night TV hang out in the Green Room before coming on stage because that color is the most calming and relaxing. So what could certain candidates be trying to sell you via their color and clothing choices?

Read Also: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Read Also: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

When Its Time To Head Back To The Office And On The Few Days When I Wear A Suit And Tie I Should Retire My Red Ties Right Unless I Want Everyone To Assume I Am A Trump Supporter Is It Possible For Any Man To Wear A Red Tie Now And Not Immediately Call To Mind The Former President Ken Newton Mass

Though the death of the tie is declared regularly especially given the pressures of both the long-term office-casual movement and our current working-from-home reality Guy Trebay, our mens wear critic, maintains that you should not count the accessory out quite yet. As he said, even if were not wearing them much during lockdown, you dont want to give up on an element of the wardrobe thats been around for 400 years.

Ties can, after all, be used to signal your club, your interests, whether you are a jokester, a brainiac or even a clown. Not to mention, as you say, political affiliation.

The question is whether the party dividing line between red and blue that has swept even the necktie into its maw will remain uppermost in everyones minds now that unity is the word of the moment . Given how central red ties were to President Trumps uniform, it is natural to think that we may now have a Pavlovian response to the color. But the fact is, red ties were a wardrobe staple long before Mr. Trump got hold of them.

Its the combination of shade and style that makes the statement of allegiance, not simply one or the other. Thats what you should keep in mind when getting dressed. Then go ahead: Tie one on.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-wear-blue-ties/

0 notes

lokeanwelcomingcommittee · 6 years

Note

Hello! I've been trying to find the god and goddess that I can best work with, and I think I found that in Loki and Sigyn. I'm a bit worried though since my dad(nordic and well versed in Their stories) said (direct qoute here) "He's an asshole in every incarnation" I don't completely believe him, but now I'm confused. Should I still go down this route?

The problem with saying anything definitively about the Norse gods is that… we actually don’t know much about them. How they were originally perceived by those who worshiped them. By the time anything was written down, most notably by Snorri Sturluson, and then by others, Christianity had a pretty firm grip on the region, and the majority of people who could read and write were Christian clergy – which, as you might imagine, had something of an impact on the way that stories were told and set down for posterity.

We have little to nothing written by the people who actually practiced the religion, and so we have to make our own guesses based on other polytheistic religions and spiritualities in the region and Christianity’s impact on those.

As far as we can tell, the ancient Norse didn’t perceive the world according to the Christian good/evil dichotomy. Loki, who is depicted in the Eddas as a sort of Lucifer figure – the evil nemesis of Odin who Does Bad Things And Must Be Punished – is far more likely to have been a force of change, the manifestation of the chaos of the universe. Something to be respected and perhaps feared, surely, but not something inherently evil. Something, in fact, that is necessary to prevent stagnation at the personal, societal, and even cosmic level.

Additionally, Loki occupies a liminal space between chaos and order; both Jotunn (a primordial spirit of untamed nature) and, as Odin’s blood brother, an honorary god (representative of humanity and the structure humans give to nature). The idea that one must be good and the other evil is a purely Christian conceit. Both have their purpose, and one is no better or worse than the other. Loki, being both, is doubly difficult to slot into one singular component of neat duality.

Does Loki do assholish things a lot in the stories? Yes, without a doubt. But so do the other gods. I would even argue that Loki’s motivations are less corrupt than those of gods such as Odin, since for the most part his assholery is for fun rather than a result of selfishness or malice – but that’s open to interpretation, and excludes the Lokasenna, in which he gives the rest of the gods a vicious dressing down purely because they desperately need it.

So in sum, I wouldn’t say your dad is wrong – just not completely right. If you want to work with Loki and Sigyn, give it a shot! There’s a whole community of people here who work with and adore them both. Lots of people have experienced Loki being an asshole, because he’s a god, so sometimes he is – but at the same time, there are plenty of people (many, like myself, who are also in the former group) whom he has helped, comforted, and lifted up.

Do what feels right, and don’t let Christian-influenced biases ruin a good thing. And if you ever need help or have questions, we’re here for you!

-Mod M

I totally agree with the above, but just since it’s a common misconception that I don’t want to unintentionally spread: you don’t have to focus your practice around one male and one female god. You can have one primary god, or none, or several, and you don’t need to maintain any kind of gender balance. It’s kind of debatable whether Loki counts as a male god, anyway. So yes, worship Loki and Sigyn if that’s who calls to you, but don’t feel limited just because you believe you need a heteronormative pair.

Best wishes on your spiritual journey!

- Mod E

#nokeans #anonymous

28 notes · View notes

glittergummicandypeach · 4 years

Text

The only people talking about Barrett's religion are Republicans

Seven senators brought up Barrett's faith during the first day of her confirmation hearing — and all of them were Republicans.

Senate Republicans have claimed for weeks that Democratic attacks on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's faith are just around the corner — but the only people at her confirmation hearing talking about Barrett's faith were Republicans.

Monday was the first day of Barrett's controversial confirmation hearing. During opening remarks, exactly seven senators mentioned her Catholic faith: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE).

During the hearing, Grassley said that in 2017, when Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Democrats suggested Barrett was "too faithful" or "too Catholic" to be a judge.

"One senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox Catholic," Grassley said. "Another (Sen. Dianne Feinstein) told her, 'The dogma lives loudly within you and that is of concern.'"

According to Grassley, that's unacceptable.

"Let me remind everyone that Article I clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office," he thundered at his fellow senators, none of whom had mentioned religion.

Sasse, too, was full of dire warnings to the Senate and to Barrett herself.

"Your faith, or your lack of faith, are none of the government's business," he said.

Hawley decried "anti-Catholic bigotry" at work against Barrett.

"As if you can't be a devout Catholic and a loyal American," Hawley said, though no one had questioned it.

Not one Senate Democrat mentioned Barrett's religion during Monday's opening remarks.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a statement after Donald Trump announced Barrett's nomination. It mentioned concerns about her stance on health care, Roe v. Wade, and LGBTQ rights, but nary a word about her Catholic faith.

In fact, prominent Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden — both Catholic themselves — have explicitly stated questions surrounding Barrett's faith are irrelevant.

Two weeks ago, Pelosi told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union" that Senate Democrats weren't worried about Barrett's religion.

Asked by Tapper if questions about Barrett's faith should be off-limits, Pelosi agreed they should.

"It's appropriate for (Senate Democrats) to ask how faithful she would be to the constitution," Pelosi said, but added that Barrett's personal faith "doesn't matter."

She added that her primary concern was Obamacare, not Barrett's religious convictions.

"What I am concerned about is anyone that ... Trump would have appointed was there to undo the Affordable Care Act," said Pelosi. "That is why he was in such a hurry."

Biden, also a practicing Catholic, told reporters Monday that Senate Democrats shouldn't concern themselves with Barrett's religious beliefs.

"No, I don't think there should be any questions about her faith," he said, adding that nobody's faith "should be questioned."

In 2011, Biden defended Mitt Romney against accusations that his Mormon faith should disqualify him from the presidency.

"I find it preposterous that in 2011, we're debating whether or not a man is qualified or worthy of your vote based on whether or not his religion ... is a disqualifying provision," Biden said at the time.

If elected, Biden would become only the second Catholic to be president in the history of the United States, with the first being the late President John F. Kennedy.

Biden's running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — who Hawley framed as an anti-Christian bigot in his opening remarks Monday — identifies as a Black Baptist, a Protestant Christian denomination, and attends Third Baptist Church of San Francisco.

Five other Catholics sit on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

While only one Senate Democrat voted to confirm Kavanaugh, 59 voted to confirm Sotomayor, 22 voted to confirm Roberts, 11 voted to confirm Thomas, and four voted to confirm Alito.

Of the 22 Catholics currently in the Senate, 12 are Democrats and 10 are Republicans.

Senate Democrats have been clear that Barrett's faith is not in question. But her legal philosophy and judicial record are fair game.

The post The only people talking about Barrett's religion are Republicans appeared first on The American Independent.

This content was originally published here.

0 notes

gibsongirlselections · 4 years

Text

Why I Don’t Trust McKay Coppins’ Account of Trump Trashing Evangelicals

On Tuesday, The Atlantic published a widely shared story titled “Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporters,” in which anonymous sources claimed the president has been regularly dismissive or derisive toward this integral part of his base.

When I saw the byline, I was immediately suspicious.

The author, McKay Coppins, is an accomplished staff writer for The Atlantic whose 2015 book The Wilderness chronicled intra-party battles within the GOP in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Much of it analyzed trends within the Republican Party before the rise of Donald Trump.

That meant significant coverage of my former boss, Senator Rand Paul, who was considered by some an early presidential frontrunner in that election. The book also covered the 2013 controversy regarding my relationship with Senator Paul given my controversial radio background, which was brought to light by the neoconservative Washington Free Beacon in July 2013. I addressed the controversy at length in Politico Magazine in November 2013.

Coppins’ account of my controversy recounted a number of things I had never heard of, while also leaving out significant developments at the time only known to myself, Senator Paul, and a select few others. Furthermore, Coppins’ overall portrayal of Paul and his relationship with his father, former congressman Ron Paul, didn’t reflect my experience working for both men in various capacities since 2010.

That said, I was willing to consider that there were possibly happenings I wasn’t aware of, particularly given the delicacy of my controversy.

But one passage, describing an exchange related to the Pauls’ father-and-son relationship in Coppins’ book, was flat out false.

I know because I was in the room when it happened.

I worked for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign and was backstage with the candidate before a GOP primary debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in January 2012, four months after he placed second in the Iowa straw poll.

Coppins wrote in The Wilderness, “A couple of weeks after losing Iowa, Ron was in the greenroom at a Republican primary debate in South Carolina when Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham came up to him and began effusively piling praise on his son.”

“They gushed about how Rand was a joy to work with in the Senate, a real contributor, someone with whom they felt they could work with productively despite their ideological differences,” Coppins wrote.

This exchange happened. I was a few feet away when it did. To my knowledge, South Carolina senators DeMint and Graham welcomed all of the Republican primary candidates that night before the debate.

What Coppins wrote next was fantasy.

“Finally Ron snapped, ‘Well, if he’s so great, he should run for president himself,’” Coppins reported.

“DeMint was taken aback by the outburst and quickly shut up,” Coppins claimed. “But Graham didn’t seem to catch on, because he just kept spurting commendations for Rand in his courtly Southern drawl, as Ron’s face twisted into a cranky scowl.”

This did not happen.

In The Wilderness, Coppins portrays Ron Paul as being jealous of his son’s success. Anyone who has ever been in the family’s orbit knows this is completely ridiculous. When I shared this passage with some people who had worked for Paul’s presidential campaign, they all laughed. When I shared it this week with someone who still works for Ron Paul and speaks with him most days, he thought it was hilarious.

When I shared it five years ago with the only other two staffers I recall being in the room beside myself when this exchange happened, they both found it absurd. No one thought to push back or correct the record at the time because it was just one part of one book that had not become part of the news cycle.

But this week, after Coppins’ story in The Atlantic critical of President Trump made waves, I reached out again to the two staffers whom I served with in 2012. They agreed that this did not sound like Ron Paul or that this interaction did not take place in the way that Coppins described.

Both requested to remain anonymous.

Not only did I witness the entire exchange myself up close, but I spoke to Senator DeMint immediately afterward, as we had recently worked together on a book project. He was chipper. In fact, the three men involved in that pre-debate discussion that night—Paul, Graham, DeMint—were cheerful and there was no tension. It was friendly and diplomatic.

There were certainly no angry “snapping,” “outbursts,” or “cranky scowls” from Ron Paul, nor was DeMint “taken aback” by alleged emotional reactions that did not happen.

One of the anonymous staffers in the room reiterated to me in an email on Tuesday, “Coppins made up those things about Ron.”

This person added, “I was around Ron and Rand a lot and none of that is familiar to me.”

Right after Graham and DeMint left Paul’s greenroom that night in 2015, I immediately texted a close libertarian-leaning friend about the exchange. My excitement was over how the interaction went, given that the habitually hawkish Graham had long been a harsh critic of antiwar Republicans Ron Paul and his son Rand.

That friend was Jim Antle, former editor of The American Conservative and current political editor at The Washington Examiner. When I reminded him of Coppins’ 2012 account of this interaction, he wrote in an email on Tuesday, “I remember you describing this exchange immediately after it happened, way before Coppins wrote about it, and it being nothing like this.”

So how did Coppins come up with this snapshot of an angry Ron Paul seething with jealous rage over his senator son’s political success?

Coppins described in The Wilderness how he used anonymous sources, “Where dialogue is quoted, it is based on the recollection of the speaker or someone else who was present for the conversation. If sources could not remember or agree on the specific wording, I reconstructed the dialogue without using quotation marks.”

Coppins used quotation marks when he quoted Ron Paul allegedly saying, “Well, if he’s so great, he should run for president himself.”

If Ron Paul said this, it is highly likely he was being tongue in cheek. Not out of anger or jealousy.

Coppins continued, “Similarly, the considerable sections of the book that portray the various subjects’ internal thoughts and feelings are based on descriptions from the subjects themselves, or from people in whom they confided; though my characterizations that comprise direct quotes, they represent a sincere effort to accurately and empathetically capture the subjects’ thinking.”

The only other people in the room to my recollection that night were Senators Graham and DeMint. I would love to hear how they remembered this exchange, which would likely differ significantly from Coppins’ account.

Coppins was not in the room that night. I do not know what other source from whom he would have possibly gathered such (mis)information.

If it was Senator Graham, why would he trust someone who has been so vocally anti-libertarian? It also raises questions of whether the author is allowing Never Trumpers or disgruntled ex-aides to characterize the president.

Such methodology could be problematic, to say the least.

For the record, as of now, I do not plan on voting for Donald Trump for president on November 3. I plan to vote for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. I am not interested in running cover for or defending any current presidential candidate.

I am only interested in truth.

I have no idea how valid Coppins’ claims are regarding Trump’s supposed secret attitude toward his Christian supporters as described in his recent story. Nor do I question the integrity of The Atlantic’s journalistic policies and standards.

But this is my experience with McKay Coppins’ reporting thirdhand information about a situation where I was in the room and he was not. Is it unreasonable to ask if there are similar discrepancies in his recent negative story about President Trump?

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

The post Why I Don’t Trust McKay Coppins’ Account of Trump Trashing Evangelicals appeared first on The American Conservative.

0 notes

aclayjar · 5 years

Link

So which version of the Bible is best? Which one should you choose to do your daily reading and study from? Or is there even a best one? There have been countless articles written on this topic over the years. And they often reach different conclusions. The intent of this post is to share my thoughts about how to choose the best translation for you. The Translation Type If you are using an English Bible, or any language other than the original, you will be dealing with translation issues. The Old Testament was mostly written in Hebrew while the New Testament was written in Greek. While it would be wonderful if there was a one-to-one correspondence for every word in Hebrew, Greek, and English, the reality is that there is not. Choices have to be made as to how best to translate from one language into another. Formal Equivalence Some translations attempt to keep the translation as close as possible to the form that it had in the original language. This includes as much as possible a direct translation of the individual words and sentence structure. But since vocabulary and sentence structure varies across languages, a direct translation would be very difficult to read. So the translations using formal equivalence will modify the sentence structure to make it more readable in English. In addition some of the more challenging language idioms may be changed for readability purposes. The KJV, NKJV, NASB and CSB are examples of translations that attempt as much as possible to translate in a more formal fashion. Functional Equivalence Other translations do not adhere as rigidly to the original form of a passage. Instead they focus more on producing a functional equivalent. These translations attempt to reproduce the message and intent of the Scripture without necessarily producing a translation that is as close in language as possible. Some expressions in the original language don't make much sense when directly translated. So more contemporary expressions with meanings as near as possible are used instead. The ESV, NIV and GNB are examples of translations that use a more functional approach. Paraphrase There is a third type of translation, commonly called a paraphrase. These are not really so much translations as they are English versions that carry the message of the Scripture, but told in contemporary terms. Paraphrases are generally easier to read, but not as useful for a more in-depth study of the Scripture. The Message and Living Bibles are examples of paraphrases. Manuscript Families There are thousands of partial and complete Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. And few of these manuscripts agree completely on the text they contain. The vast majority of the differences between them are minor scribal errors; misspellings, inserted, omitted, or reordered words. These differences are understandable when you realize that all of these manuscripts were hand copied. And that there were many generations of these hand copied manuscripts. Each copy is subject to potential scribal copy errors. As time went on the copies produced in a specific location would not vary much. But when compared between distinct locations the differences between the copies would become greater. Scholars today, in comparing the many manuscripts have identified between three and five distinct 'families' of manuscripts. The two most important of these for Bible scholars are the Alexandrian and the Byzantine families. Byzantine Family of Manuscripts This family of manuscripts is centered around Asia Minor and contains far and away the largest number of manuscripts; somewhere in the order of 5000. These manuscripts date as early as the 5th century although most are more recent. In the early 16th century Erasmus, a Roman Catholic scholar, compiled the known manuscripts into a single Greek text. Over the years he revised his work a couple of times, and others produced similar consolidated texts. It is worth noting that all of these consolidated texts were produced by comparing known manuscripts and attempting to produce what the authors thought would be the original. This involved attempting to identify scribal errors and what the text would have been before the error. The King James Version In the early 17th century the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was produced. While this was not the first English translation, it quickly became the most popular. This version was produced based on the work of Erasmus and a couple of other men. Their work was compared and the most common reading made it into the KJV. Sometime after the KJV was finished the Textus Receptus (TR) was produced. This was the Greek text that was chosen by the KJV translators. It became the standard Greek text of the New Testament for 200 years. But since its production, many older manuscripts have been discovered, but not incorporated into the TR. Alexandrian Family of Manuscripts A second important family of manuscripts was produced around the Egyptian city of Alexandria. While there are only a few hundred of these manuscripts, they are generally much older than the Byzantine family. Some of these manuscripts date back into the early 2nd century. In recent years other Greek texts have been produced that use these old Alexandrian manuscripts, as well as those of the Byzantine family. Like the work of Erasmus, these Greek texts are produced by comparing the existing ancient manuscripts to try and determine what the original text would have been; a process known as textual criticism. These texts, like the Nestle-Aland, are used by most of the modern English translations such as the NASB, the NIV, the CSB and the ESV. These more modern Greek texts generally give more weight to the Alexandrian manuscripts than they do to the Byzantine manuscripts. While the rationale is debated, it is generally felt the the older manuscripts are more reliable. So even though there are vastly more of the more recent manuscripts, the fewer but older manuscripts carry more weight in the translation process. Differences in the Manuscript Families I grew up reading the KJV and was rather shocked when I started reading the NIV; discovering that familiar passages in the KJV were either missing or relegated to footnotes in the NIV. And I know that I am not alone in the confusion that this causes. It is common for those who advocate the KJV to accuse the more modern translators of intentionally removing critical passages from the Bible. But the reality is that some passages, like the ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery are simply not found in the oldest manuscripts. They would appear not to be a part of the original text, but were something added by scribes during the copying process of the Byzantine manuscripts. But it worth pointing out that none of these additions/subtractions have any real impact on the doctrine of the church. Whether you use the KJV or the NIV, the doctrine it contains is the same. Format When I became a Christian nearly 50 years ago the only choice I had for reading the Bible was to either purchase a printed copy, or invest in a box of tapes and listen to someone read it to me. But that has changed recently. Digital Bibles have become very popular. I frequently read the Bible on my laptop, my Kindle and my phone. And most of my study happens on one of those devices. No matter where I am, I have access to my Bible. And not just a single translation. I have half a dozen different translations on my phone, and many more available if I have an internet connection. On-line Bibles I have found two different types of digital Bible. One is the online Bible. I primarily use Bible Gateway for this. There is a large number of translations to choose from, in a variety of languages. It is easy to search for passages, words, and expressions. And it's basic functionality is free. There are also a large number of study aids available for a modest subscription. The primary downside to it is that it requires an internet connection. If you are traveling, or otherwise disconnected, it is not available. Installed on Your Device The other format is one that is installed directly on you digital device. I use Olive Tree, although there are a number of other sources. This format has the advantage of always being available, but many of the translations and other resources have a one time cost associated with them. Most of the translations, and some of the resources are inexpensive; but some are quite pricey. What I like most about this, besides being always available, is that it is easy to share notes and highlights across devices. The notes I take on my laptop are available when I am out in the mountains, and vice versa. The Downside There is one major problem I have with on-line Bibles. And it is purely a personal one. I find it less convenient to put my finger on a page and then explore supporting passages. It is certainly doable with on-line Bibles. But I find it much easier with a printed copy. I suspect that has more to do with my age than anything. It is how did it for many years prior to the advent of digital Bibles. And it is what I am comfortable with. But that does not prevent me from using on-line Bibles extensively. Without question I spend more time on phone / kindle / laptop reading and studying than I do with a printed copy. Resources One of the issues that you might face with specific translations is the availability of study aids. Most commentaries, concordances and other study tools are either tied to a specific translation, or are referencing one. For commentaries that is not generally a big deal. But it is for concordances and dictionaries. Because of the great amount of effort involved in producing a printed concordance, they are only available for a limited number of translations. The KJV probably has the largest number of printed references, simply because it has been around the longest and has a large following. The NIV also has quite a number of specific study tools, but others will be lacking in this area. But, when using digital Bibles, the need for a printed concordance pretty much goes away. You will be able to search for words, or expressions, across any Bible that you have available. A Word About Study Bibles There are also a number of what are called 'Study Bibles'. These Bibles have commentary or other study notes built into them. These work well for many people. But I am not overly fond of them. I have found that it is sometimes hard to recognize the difference between the actual Scripture, which is God-breathed, and the associated notes, which are not. Just because they are side by side does not give them equal weight. If you use a Study Bible, please make every effort to observe that distinction. Recommendation So which English translation of the Bible should you use? In the end, I don't believe it matters all that much for our general reading and study efforts. Apart from those produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, or others, to promote a specific non-orthodox theology, they are all good. The most important aspect of picking a translation is to choose one that you will read. Readability is really the most important issue. If you will not read it, or cannot understand it, then it really makes no difference how good it is. Bible Gateway is a good on-line source where you can choose from 100's of translations. Find one that is meaningful to you, and that you will read, and then use it. Over time you may find that you will change to a new translation. And you may discover than using multiple translations works well for you. But, in the end, pick the one that you will read and use it.

#bgbg2

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Percent Of Republicans Are Religious

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-percent-of-republicans-are-religious/

What Percent Of Republicans Are Religious

Making Christianity Our National Religion Would Be Terrible For Christianity

Poll On Religion: What Do Republicans, Democrats Think?

On Tuesday Public Policy Polling released a survey measuring Republicans attitudes toward the upcoming presidential election. The survey assessed Republicans opinions of various candidates and political figures, along with their positions on a few policy issues. One of the more curious policy questions presented to respondents was whether or not Christianity should be established as Americas national religion.

A 57 percent majority of Republicans surveyed agreed that Christianity should, in fact, be established as the United States national religion. Broken down into different subsets, the numbers differed somewhat. Younger Republicans in the 18 45 age group were more favorable to the idea, with 63 percent of that cohort affirming that Christianity should be our national faith. Majorities of the older age groups still agreed, but in slightly smaller proportions. Among self-proclaimed Tea Partiers, 58 percent wished to establish Christianity as a state faith; and among those favoring former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary, 94 percent would support such a measure. Eighty-three percent of Rick Perry fans replied that they would prefer Christianity be made our national religion, along with 62 percent of Rand Paul advocates.

Religion: Pietistic Republicans Versus Liturgical Democrats

Religious lines were sharply drawn. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the Republicans. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. While both parties cut across economic class structures, the Democrats were supported more heavily by its lower tiers.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools, became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches constituted over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of personal morality issues. Prohibition debates and referendums heated up politics in most states over a period of decades, and national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 , serving as a major issue between the wet Democrats and the dry Republicans.

Voting Behavior by Religion, Northern USA Late 19th century

The Third Electoral System 1853-1892 p. 182

Religion May Not Rule Democrats Vote Choice

If there remains an obvious opportunity for some version of the religious left to emerge, it would be among black and Hispanic4 Democratic primary voters, who were significantly more likely than white Democrats to say that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives in the 2016 CCES survey.

And black Protestants are already quite powerful in the party. As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote earlier this year, black voters constitute about one-fifth of the Democratic electorate and have a long and deep alliance with the Democratic establishment, making them a key constituency in the primary. According to the CCES, the vast majority of black Protestants and nearly three-quarters of Hispanic Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

As the campaign continues, well learn more about the candidates approach to faith especially whether they prioritize outreach to religious voters in states like Iowa and South Carolina, where religion is likely to be a more important issue than in a relatively secular state like New Hampshire. But while mobilizing specific subgroups of religious Democrats will still be important, the dream of building a cohesive religious voting bloc on the left looks more distant by the year. Democrats may not have much to lose by talking about faith and values but it may not offer them much of a reward among primary voters either.

Recommended Reading: Democrats News

The Stark Racial And Religious Divide Between Democrats And Republicans In One Chart

The Public Religion Research Institute released a massive new survey of American religious adherence today. Among other things it contained this stunning insight into the current state of our political parties:

Today, roughly three-quarters of the Republican Party is white Christian, but fewer than one-third of the Democratic Party identifies this way.

Among Republicans, 35 percent are white evangelical Christians, 18 percent are white members of other Protestant denominations, and 16 percent are white Catholics. Among Democrats those shares are 8 percent, 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

Just 7 percent of Republicans are black;Protestants, Hispanic Protestants or Hispanic Catholics.;By contrast those groups comprise nearly one-third of today’s Democratic Party.

From a demographic standpoint, the modern Republican Party looks much like the America of 40 years ago in 1976, for instance, 81 percent of Americans were white and Christian. Today white Christians account for just 43 percent of the population.

President Trump, who campaigned on a platform of making America great;again, capitalized on white Americans’ anxieties about these demographic changes in 2016. In September of that year he told Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network if we dont win this election, youll never see another Republican and youll have a whole different church structure.

What Are The Strongest Predictors Of Opposing Religiously Based Service Refusals

A logistic regression model shows the strongest independent predictors of strongly opposing religiously based service refusals, while accounting for all other variables in the model.

Notably, religious affiliation serves as the largest independent predictor of strongly opposing a policy that allows small business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian people because of their religious beliefs. Members of almost every religious group are significantly more likely than white evangelical Protestants to oppose this policy. Members of other religious groups stand out as 3 times more likely than white evangelical Protestants to hold this view, making this the largest effect in the entire model. Unitarian Universalists , Jews , the religiously unaffiliated , Buddhists , and Orthodox Christians are all at least twice as likely as white evangelical Protestants to strongly oppose religiously based service refusals. Members of nearly all Christian subgroups are also more likely than white evangelical Protestants to oppose religiously based service refusals, but the effects are smaller than those among non-Christian religious groups .

Read Also: How Many Americans Are Registered Republicans

Qanon Now As Popular In Us As Some Major Religions Poll Suggests

Fifteen percent of Americans believe that patriots may have to resort to violence to restore the countrys rightful order, the poll indicated.

By Giovanni Russonello

As hopes fade for a bipartisan inquiry into the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, its increasingly clear that the Republican base remains in thrall to the web of untruths spun by Donald J. Trump and perhaps even more outlandish lies, beyond those of the former presidents making.

A federal judge warned in an opinion yesterday that Mr. Trumps insistence on the big lie that the November election was stolen from him still posed a serious threat. Presiding over the case of a man accused of storming Congress on Jan. 6, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court in Washington wrote: The steady drumbeat that inspired defendant to take up arms has not faded away. Six months later, the canard that the election was stolen is being repeated daily on major news outlets and from the corridors of power in state and federal government, not to mention in the near-daily fulminations of the former president.

But its not just the notion that the election was stolen that has caught on with the former presidents supporters. QAnon, an outlandish and ever-evolving conspiracy theory spread by some of Mr. Trumps most ardent followers, has significant traction with a segment of the public particularly Republicans and Americans who consume news from far-right sources.

New York Times Podcasts

Religion And Political Affiliation

57% Of Republicans Want A Christian Theocracy

Catholics in AmericaView the full series

Politics

This, our fifth survey, took place six months after the House and Senate elections of 2010, in the midst of the confrontation over budget deficits, spending cuts, and tax reform. This essay begins with a demographic overview of political party alignments in 2011. The 2011 question allowed respondents to indicate if they were strong, not strong, or leaning Republican or Democratic; undecided/independent; or other. We have chosen to place those leaning either toward the Democratic or Republican Parties in their respective parties, reducing the independents to 3 percent of the total. These independents will not be included in this essay.

Overall, 57 percent of Catholics affiliate with the Democrats and 40 percent with the Republicans when those leaning toward one or the other party are included. The Democrats held a three-to-two lead before we included the leaners.

The within generation comparisons for 2011 show more Catholics affiliated with the Democrats than with the Republicans in all four generations.

Three beliefs drew minimum support as very important to Republicans and Democrats alike: the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican ; the churchs teaching opposing the death penalty ; and a celibate male clergy .

Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans affirm their Catholic identity in phrases like Being a Catholic is a very important part of who I am.

Bishops positions

Summary

Don’t Miss: Who Raises Taxes More Democrats Or Republicans

Rise Of Conspiracies Reveals An Evangelical Divide In The Gop

Daniel A. Cox February 12, 2021

After the 2020 presidential election, much of the conversation about the future of the Republican Party has focused on the division between those who side with Donald Trump and those whose loyalties lie with the party. However, there is an emerging fissure among Republicans on the subject of political conspiracy theories between those who identify as white evangelical Christians and those who do not. White evangelical Republicans are far more inclined to believe in claims about the Deep State, QAnon, and that antifa was responsible for the violence at the US Capitol.

Fraud in the 2020 Election

The assertion that the 2020 presidential election was rife with voter frauda claim Trump has repeated consistently without evidenceis common among white evangelical Christian Republicans. But is less widely held among other Republicans. Seventy-four percent of white evangelical Republicans say the claim that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election is either mostly or completely accurate. In contrast, Republicans who are not evangelical are far less likely to believe this claim is accurate54 percent say it is mostly or completely accurate.

Political Conspiracies

Why White Evangelical Republicans Might Embrace Conspiracies

For this analysis, self-identified Republicans and independents who report that they leaned towards the Republican Party were combined to ensure that the sample sizes for all the subgroups were sufficient.

Religion And Politics In The United States

Religion in the United States is remarkable in its high adherence level compared to other developed countries. The First Amendment to the country’s Constitution prevents the government from having any authority in religion, and guarantees the free exercise of religion. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a “very important” role in their lives, a proportion unusual among developed nations, though similar to other nations in the Americas. Many faiths have flourished in the United States, including imports spanning the country’s multicultural heritage as well as those founded within the country, and have led the United States to become the most religiously diverse country in the world.

Historically, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the two major parties polarized along ethnic and religious grounds. In the North, most Protestants were Whigs or Republicans; most Catholics were Democrats. In the South, from the 1860s to the 1980s, most whites were Democrats and most blacks were Republicans. see Ethnocultural politics in the United States

The United States has more Christians than any other country in the world . Going forward from its foundation, the United States has been called a Protestant nation by a variety of sources.This is despite the fact that Protestants are no longer the majority in the United States .

Don’t Miss: Which Party Is Bigger Democrats Or Republicans

Sway: Is Jake Tapper For Sale

On todays episode, Kara Swisher spoke with Jake Tapper, the CNN anchor. They discussed how big tech might shape the future of broadcast journalism, his experience covering the Trump administration and its aftermath, whether CNN is a boys club, and how the real Washington is stranger than the fiction he writes.

Democrats And Democratic Leaners

Missionary Baptist < 1%

Conservative Baptist Association of America< 1%

Free Will Baptist< 1%

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches< 1%

Other Baptist 1%

Methodist Family < 1%

Nondenominational Christian < 1%

Interdenominational < 1%

Community Church < 1%

Other Nondenominational 1%

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod< 1%

Other Lutheran < 1%

Presbyterian Family 1%

Presbyterian Church in America< 1%

Other Presbyterian < 1%

Church of God < 1%

Foursquare Church< 1%

Pentecostal Church of God< 1%

Pentecostal Holiness Church< 1%

Apostolic Pentecostal < 1%

Nondenominational Pentecostal < 1%

Church of God of the Apostolic Faith< 1%

Other Pentecostal 1%

Episcopalian/Anglican Family < 1%

Christian Churches and Churches of Christ< 1%

Other Restorationist < 1%

Congregationalist Family < 1%

Conservative Congregational Christian Conference< 1%

Other Congregationalist < 1%

Holiness Family < 1%

Church of the Nazarene< 1%

Wesleyan Church< 1%

Christian and Missionary Alliance< 1%

Church of God < 1%

Other Holiness < 1%

Reformed Family < 1%

Christian Reformed Church< 1%

Other Reformed < 1%

Adventist Family 1%

Seventh-day Adventist1%

Other Adventist < 1%

Anabaptist Family < 1%

Pietist Family < 1%

Other evangelical/fundamentalist family < 1%

Nonspecific Protestant Family 1%

Other Episcopalian/Anglican < 1%

Restorationist Family < 1%

Disciples of Christ< 1%

Other Congregationalist < 1%

Reformed Family < 1%

Reformed Church in America< 1%

Other Reformed < 1%

Anabaptist Family < 1%

Recommended Reading: Are The Republicans Winning The Primaries

Shrinking Groups Tilt Toward Gop

The challenge for Democrats is that their potential gains from the growing groups are being muted by an increasing tilt toward the GOP among the groups that are shrinking, in this case whites who identify as Christian. The combined result has left the parties on something of a treadmill, as Republicans offset at least some of the demographic change that benefits Democrats with improved performance among the key groups of shrinking white voters.

Trump has accelerated the trends on both sides of that equation, consolidating the GOPs position among blue-collar, older, non-urban and evangelical whites at the price of sparking intense resistance among younger, white-collar, nonwhite and metropolitan voters.

For most of American history, white Christians represented a majority of the population; as recently as 1991, they still constituted about three-fourths of all adults, according to results in the annual General Social Survey from the National Opinion Research Center. But as America has grown more racially and religiously diverse, and more secular, white Christians fell below majority status of the population for the first time sometime between 2010 and 2012, according to the National Opinion Research Center data. White Christians compose just 41% of the adult population in the latest Pew data .

0 notes

bryanloritts · 7 years

Text

When I Don’t Hear From God...

Every last one of us has asked the question, What’s next? High school students trying to figure out where to go for college have asked this question. So have college students trying to lock in on a major (80% will change majors at least once), along with singles who are in a dating relationship and married people needing to discern when to have kids and how many. While these questions defy any unique faith category, Christians have historically filed these under the heading of the will of God. “God, what are you saying?,” we groan when faced with life’s proverbial forks in the road.

But this very question now sparks an age-old theological debate. While Christ followers contend that Christ does speak, we can be at odds over the method. Sure God’s primary voice is the Word of God, but does He also speak audibly? Garry Friesen’s, Decision Making and the Will of God, is weighted towards the no, while the title to Dallas Willard’s, Hearing God, let’s you know where he stands on the question.

If you’re looking for an answer to whether you should attend Stanford or Morehouse, marry Shiela or break up with her or take the out-of-state job, you just won’t find a chapter or verse in the Bible that will give you that answer. So what are we to do when faced with these decisions? I’ve found the following steps to be helpful:

Step One: Ask Him

In John 10, Jesus describes himself as “The Door” and “The Good Shepherd.” The metaphor of “The Door” points to salvation—how one gets into the sheepfold of the flock of God. The metaphor of “The Good Shepherd” depicts Jesus’ relationship with His sheep once they’re in. Then Jesus says, “When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice” (John 10:4). The Greek word for know is an intuitive knowledge, like the kind of knowing I had when after a few months of dating Korie I just knew she was going to be my wife. Or the kind of knowing one has when they meet someone for the first time and just know something’s not right. It’s that knowledge the sheep have when their shepherd speaks. Do you see what’s being implied here? The Shepherd is speaking long after the sheep have come through the door (of salvation). Jesus speaks.

A few chapters later, Jesus pictures the Holy Spirit as our guide. Now what does a guide do? He speaks. When I was a little boy, my father taught me the timeless principles of fishing—things like how to bait a hook, cast and reel. A few years ago, I went on a fishing trip where I hired a guide. All he did was take the basic truths I’d learned of fishing and he showed me how to apply them in specific places at specific times so that I had great success. This is how the Holy Spirit works with the Word. The Word gives us the timeless principles, and the Holy Spirit—our guide—shows us how to apply them in specific ways. We just need to ask Him.

Step Two: Use Wisdom

In his book, Hearing God, Dallas Willard tells the story of a preacher who was out in the middle of a field late one night, and he couldn’t see. The field was full of rocks which made his journey treacherous. Several times he heard someone calling his name. Finally, he stopped and felt around. It was a good thing he did this. A few more feet and he would have died. Oh, by the way, he never saw the person who was speaking to him, and concluded it had to have been God.

Can I confess to you that this rarely happens to me. Maybe a handful of times in my whole life have I heard the voice of God in this way. The normal pattern for me is that I pray and ask God to speak into something, and I don’t hear anything. Now what?

There’s a whole section of the Bible called Wisdom Literature. Books like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and several others make up this genre of Scripture. Wisdom is skillful living. It’s practically applying the timeless principles of Scripture to the specific scenarios of every day life. Now this is interesting, because embedded in the very idea of wisdom is choice.

By the end of this year, my boys will be teenagers, and what I’m trying to do, the older they get, is to not tell them exactly what they need to do. Hard, I know. I think good parenting empowers children to make age appropriate decisions. I also think this is how God parents us. A sign of immaturity is the need to be told exactly what to do in every situation. It’s the mature person who can make decisions within certain parameters.

So, when I don’t hear from God, I take that as God saying, make a decision. Now I know this will rub some of you the wrong way, because you think God needs to speak into every decision you make. But can I ask you a question? Did you pray about what pants to wear today? Or if you should wear pants at all? Did you pray about brushing your teeth, or where to get gas? Of course you didn’t, and you shouldn’t. We make decisions every day, wise ones. It’s the child who needs to be told to brush his teeth. The mature person doesn’t. Again, when you don’t hear anything from God, make the decision, a wise one. But how do we do that?

Step Three: Figure Out the Fences

Imagine your child asks you if she can play in the backyard. You say, “yes,” but a few minutes later she comes in and says can I play on the slide? You agree. A few minutes later she asks if it’s okay to play on the swing set? “Of course,” you say. Then she asks comes back in moments later and asks if she can play in the sandbox. You look your sweet daughter in the face and tell her your will is she plays within the fences of the backyard, and she can make whatever decision she wants as long as its within those fences.

The same holds true for us. I think it’s good to ask God about our “sandboxes,” but when we don’t hear an answer we have to figure out the fences—those biblical parameters—that will help us make a decision. So, for example, when thinking through a job situation, it’s always helpful to process these fences: 1. Will the job contribute to the common good of society; 2. Will it allow me to provide for my family (As a man this is my call); and 3. Has God given me the gifts and capacity to meet the demands of the job? While there’re more questions we could ask, these are the fences. Now we are free to choose.

For more insight into the will of God, tune into our Next series by downloading our app. Type in ALCF in your app store.

#Next series ALCFmessages BryanLoritts

3 notes · View notes

haramheathen · 7 years

Note

Hey I saw your comment on a photo I posted. Curious: what made you leave Islam? I've met many converts but don't know any exmuslims yet. PS: to be clear, i don't care to argue about why Islam is the "best" or put you down, just straight up intrigued by your comment and wanting to learn more. Thanks friend!

Hi, thanks for being kind enough to ask instead of automatically sending hostility which is the usual jazz, I’m happy to share why I left, but it’s not really a simple answer because for me personally there are many reasons why. I get this question a lot so i may as well explain in depth. I’m sorry if this answer get’s really long and I also I hope I do not in any way offend you with my reasons why I’ve left Islam, that’s really not my intention at all. I just want to answer your question. I really don’t want to start any kind of debate or anything. Please let’s keep this civil and informative. Anyway here goes :)

Ever since I was a kid I always felt l like there was nothing after death, so the idea of heaven and hell didn’t really make sense to me. I understood that ‘good’ people go to heaven and ‘bad’ people go to hell or good Muslims who obey Allah go to heaven and people who don’t follow Islam and do haram things go to hell, but the concept of some kind of reward system never really made sense to me because I always felt like you shouldn’t have to follow the ‘right’ religion to go to heaven and that everyone should just try to be decent human beings regardless of whatever outcome in the end after we die.

My grandad is a Hafiz and was a Islamic teacher when he was younger, he taught me to read Arabic when I was around 5 and taught me surah’s and would teach me to read the Quran. Of course as a kid I never really understood what I was reading, I finished the Quran many times but I was only taught how to read arabic, not actually understand it. I’ve always been an open minded person and even as a kid I attended Christian bible studies in primary school which was an optional thing here in some schools in New Zealand. Even as a kid back then those lessons never really made sense to me so when I was around 10 I chose to stop going to them.

When I was around 12 I got another Islamic studies teacher and she gave me a Quran with Arabic and English translation which was awesome. I could finally find meaning and understand all the prayers and things I was reading in the Quran and the more I started to read the English translations the more things didn’t sit well with me, there was a lot I didn’t agree with personally and just didn’t match my personal values and beliefs. I found a lot of things very conflicting. There were things I read that I found to be quite sexist, violent, hateful towards non Muslims, homophobic ect. I was never comfortable with it and I felt like I couldn’t even talk to anyone about it because I’d immediately get hate and abuse for even questioning it.

My younger sisters, being young would sometimes ask questions questioning some things in Islam and those questions would always get shut down and they’d be diverted or guilt tripped or warmed about hell. I once sorta just asked question questioning something and I was immediately made to feel guilty about even just asking the question. I felt like I never had an option or my own say on what I was allowed to believe I was born Muslim therefore that’s what I was and that had to be my identity whetheri liked it or not sorta thing but I felt like I should be allowed to make my own mind up. I never felt like that was an option for me and even now that I identify as an ex Muslim or atheist i feel like my family will literally disown me for it and it would be literally detrimental to me and my mental health and I would pretty much end up homeless. I don’t feel that’s right. The things the Quran says about apostates and atheists and non believers really don’t sit well with me at all, they are really hateful and violent and I’m fortunate that I live in New Zealand because I know If I was open about these things in an Islamic country the consequences would be bad.

My family were pretty strict with Islam, but they never forced me to wear Hijab, they gave me the option but I had to dress very modestly growing up and I would be shamed if you could accidentally see a bra strap or something. I would listen to my muslim friends and family shame people who didn’t dress modestly or showed too much skin, but I felt like it was wrong to do that because that’s their body and their choice. It made me uncomfortable that I always had to put on a scarf or was always being told to cover up around men or when grown men would come over because I felt like grown men or men in general shouldn’t look at me that way or a young girl to begin with. I didn’t like all the emphasis put on purity and virginity, it made me uncomfortable, I felt like there was so much more to a women than her hymen and how non virgin women were spoken about like ruined women. I felt like women should be respected no matter what they wear so I found it so conflicting and it just didn’t sit well with me. Growing up with muslim friends, not all of them wanted to wear Hijab, they were forced to by their parents/families so it’s always bothered me how people say it’s a choice because it’s not. It’s pretty sad to see muslim women say it’s a choice because there are muslim and ex muslim women who are forced to wear Hijab and just imagine how they feel specially when you have muslim women really out there enforcing the fact that it’s a choice.

I would hear family and other muslims say how people who aren’t dressed modestly or showing too much skin are asking for it and it was messed up. I was later sexual assaulted by a guy I was dating. I couldn’t really tell anyone or talk to my family because I know they would blame me for it. It would be my fault for having a boyfriend so it would be my fault that it happened to me. I kept that a secret for years until I talked about it. I’m never gonna tell them something like that because I know i’ll get blamed for it even though I never asked for that to happen. I never dressed overly provocative, not that it even matters.

I experienced and witnessed quite a bit of ‘religious abuse’ like once our Islamic teacher showed me and my younger sisters who were like 6 and 10 a picture of a decomposing corpse and she told us that’s what happens when you go to hell and do haram things ect. We were always told what it would be like in hell. I once asked my religious teacher if my best friend would go to heaven even though she’s a really good person but not Muslim, and she told me my friend would go to hell because she doesn’t follow Islam and pretty much tried to give me information to convert her which made me uncomfortable. Along with the stuff I read about non believers in the Quran.. it made me more uncomfortable.

I grew up with abusive parents, my mum was really abusive, mentally, physically, verbally, mentally and I was always told to obey and respect my mum because heaven is under your mothers feet and mothers are very important in Islam ect. My mum isn’t a good person, but she was pretty religious, she would always wear Hijab and stuff but I felt like she was pretty much hiding behind Islam to convince herself and others she’s a good person when she wasn’t. When I was a kid I would pray to Allah every nightbegging and crying to him to please help me and protect me and save me from all the abuse I was getting but let’s be real, nothing ever happened lol. I was a good kid. I prayed, fasted, read the Quran, was modest. And I was really over the idea of it just being a ‘test’ of my devotion and faith to Allah when It was just years of suffering and abuse and nothing happening. It made me think about all the other bad shit happening in the world and other people suffering. I can’t accept that it’s in god’s will or it’s some life lesson or test or whatever, it doesn’t feel right.

My grandma always says we suffer now and it will be worth it after you die when you go to heaven but I just found that incredibly sad and made no sense to me. I learnt that you gotta work hard to achieve shit in life, you gotta do things and make changes. That’s how I got out of the abuse myself, I left to go live with other family because my mums abuse was too much. My grandparents have been pretty unwell for a long time and in and out of hospital and a lot of it could have been avoided which really gets to me because instead of addressing things when they happen they ‘leave it in Allah’s hands’ or ‘pray’ instead instead of actively doing things to help themselves. My grandad used to do dua on people a lot and make dua water (prayer water) for unwell people ect.. and I understand and respect that people genuinely believe in that and believe in prayer but sometimes you just gotta do things to help yourself you can’t always rely on Allah and watching people loved ones just suffer because they had been taught their lives to just be submissive and obey Allah and pray instead of actively taking action is pretty hard.

Something that’s always bothered me is that no ones ever really taken me seriously either, like people don’t really take ex Muslims seriously. Muslims just assume you’re lost, misguided, going through a phase or just want to piss off your family ect lol. That’s really not the case. Like yeah, i’ve had a rough childhood and all but that’s not why I’m an ex Muslim, I’ve done my research and been a practicing Muslim, prayed, fasted, read the quran, helped at the mosque ect. it’s our right and our choice and it’s one we consciously make ourselves not because were stupid or lost or under the influence of shaytaan or something lol.

That kind of comes to the treatment of ex Muslims. The way ex Muslims are treated is another thing, were basically treated like were stupid, the Muslim community pretty much as no respect or empathy for us because we aren’t Muslim anymore. People literally get killed, disowned, abused for leaving Islam, being gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual. I can’t sit here and convince myself that it’s a religion of peace knowing what’s written in the Quran and how ex Muslims and how some Muslim women and lgbt Muslims and ex Muslims are treated. I also always found it ironic how converts are welcomed with open arms into Islam but if someone leaves islam they are treated like trash.

It’s hurtful when Muslims get so mad at even the idea of ex Muslims identifying as ex Muslims. Like we can still culturally be Muslims, sometimes it’s not even a choice like, we still have to fast, pray and wear hijab in order to not be disowned and stuff. They say it’s a choice to leave Islam but is it really? If for a majority of us the only choices are being disowned, homeless, abused, dead? That’s why you have a lot of angry ex Muslims, I’m not justifying the ones that get really riled up and hateful. They are probably mourning the fact they lost their childhood being forced to follow something that was never for them and something like that takes a while to accept and grow from. I think it’s important to listen to ex Muslims because that’s how were going to learn to move forward and learn to treat each other better and actually talk about and address issues. Like let’s be real, there are issues in Islam that effect us, whether you’ve left or not, problems with the treatment of Lgbt Muslims and women such.

These are important things.I could go on to explain other reasons but I’ve already made this post way too long lol. I just really wanted to open and honest. I hope I didn’t offend you, as I said that wasn’t my intention at all and if you have anymore questions I’m happy to answer them the best I can. Of course this is my personal story sort of thing as to why I left, i’m not speaking for all ex Muslims. I do feel its important to listen to our stories though. Thanks for reading this if you made it this far. Cheers :)

#ex muslim #islam #religion #sorry for the rambling #personal

29 notes · View notes

confrontingbabble-on · 7 years

Link

“A Humanist Ethical Code

1. Think for Yourself: Ethics is not simply a matter of what we do. It also compels us to think before we act. Nor can we act morally simply by appealing to what others think, because they may be wrong. As Socrates,the founder of moral philosophy, realized, moral thinking arises when we pass beyond the stage of being directed by traditional rules and begin instead to think for ourselves in critical terms. We have to think out our principles in the light of which we make our decisions. A key word is autonomy, which here means acting as independent moral agents. Unfortunately, only a minority of people ever seem to reach this stage. A common classification of cognitive moral development is the preconventional, conventional and post-conventional. Most people rarely proceed beyond the conventional stage, and this fact will be especially true in very traditional and conservative societies where there is likely to be a large measure of consensus on what is right and wrong and where there is little exposure to alternative viewpoints. In a society like Northern Ireland there is no shortage of authoritarian figures -priests, teachers, youth leaders, politicians -telling others how they should think. This conformism is particularly prevalent in religious societies, for religion has always been the greatest foe of free thought. The main agent of change has to be education. If morality has to be learned, then the young have to be led along the path to autonomy. So far, education has failed in this task, and it will continue to fail until at the very least there is integrated schooling and moral education becomes a subject in its own right, freed from the constraints of RE.

2. Respect Truth and Reason: The world's ills are not simply the result of human wickedness; they are also due to ignorance, stupidity, and misunderstandings. Knowledge and intelligence are therefore of crucial importance in any advanced code of ethics. We may not logically be able to derive 'ought' from 'is', but our nature and our needs require that we use knowledge to enhance the good life. 'Knowledge itself is power', noted Francis Bacon, and whether it is the medical discoveries that assist us in curing disease, the technological advances that improve our material welfare, or the psychological and sociological insights that enable us to make people happier and more fulfilled, knowledge clearly enriches human life. It is a primary means to achieving mental and physical health. Moreover, the search for truth is itself a good and the joy of discovery can be one of our greatest pleasures. The philosopher David Hume suggested that "'tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". But reason does play a crucial role in ethics as well as in the acquisition of knowledge. It is by our reason that we acquire the ability to sympathize with another's situation because we have to think out what it would be like to him or her in that situation. To empathize with others is to use our reason. The role of empathy explains the importance which Humanists place on the Golden Rule of human behavior. This principle is older than Christianity and is found, for example, in the Sutra Kritanga (circ. 550BC) and in Confucius: "Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself".

Reason in ethics also means taking into consideration all our relevant desires and not just the desire that happens to be strongest at the moment. In other words, it involves us thinking about the consequences of our actions. Thus, as Bertrand Russell put it, "a man is rational in proportion as his intelligence informs and controls his desires" (Can Men Be Rational?). It is also in this sense that Leonard Woolf spoke when he remarked: "the sordid and savage story of history has been written by man's irrationality, and the thin precarious crust of civilization which has from time to time been built over the bloody mess has always been built by reason" (BBC broadcast, 1949).

3. Be Skeptical, Yet Open-Minded: Much harm in the world results from, ideas, whether religious or secular, which are held dogmatically and imposed on whole communities. Humanists are naturally critical of religious ideologies, such as Catholicism or Protestant fundamentalism. But we are also critical of most political ideologies. This does not mean that we reject them all, but it does mean that we subject them to the severest critical scrutiny. It also means that we believe facile certainties are mistaken and dangerous, however secure they make their supporters feel in their own minds. From our more skeptical perspective, we think that there are no final solutions, that societies will always have problems, that life cannot be neatly wrapped up, and that knowledge is always expanding. We believe that people have no need to feel unhappy or insecure about a state of skepticism and doubt and that the world would be a better place if more people were, in the words of Francis Bacon, 'committed to uncertainty'.

4. Respect Values: Values are of crucial importance to Humanists. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and nobles that we are capable of as human beings. We value reason and science, human intelligence, justice and fairness, altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, freedom and responsibility. Humanists also prefer to stress the positive side of our natures: optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of bigotry and fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, and so on. Being a Humanist means BELIEVING IN HUMANE VALUES. It means, for example, supporting the rights of women and the rights of minorities such as Blacks or Gays. The following parts of the code outline some of these humane values.

5. Respect Life: Humanists might not go as far as Albert Schweitzer who advocated a total reverence for all life, including insects and plants as well as humans and other animals. We would, however, argue that -apart from special cases like self-defense or war -it is wrong to kill human beings irrespective of their race, religion, class or nationality. Even in those exceptional cases where killing may be justified, we should not kill unless there are no other alternatives or the alternatives have been full explored. It may be necessary to kill in order to avoid greater killing. But even in war the means should be just. The actual killing should not be disproportionate to the goal; serious attempts should be made to avoid civilian deaths; aggression should be directed towards its true object and not at the harmless; and the use of cruel weapons or weapons of mass destruction should be avoided. Some, but not all, Humanists accept a hierarchy of rights to life. They argue that the more autonomous, self-aware and conscious the being, the greater its right to life. This would mean that human beings in general have more right to life than other animals but that there is also a hierarchy of rights in the animal world itself. Other Humanists are convinced of the equality of all animals. We would certainly all agree that we should avoid inflicting suffering on other species.

6. Be Open and Honest: Respect for others entails that we do not deceive, abuse exploit them. Personal relationships should be based on trust, and this can only be secure if we are open rather than secretive and honest instead of deceitful. This honesty applies to opinion. While Humanists want to create a good impression, it would be against Humanist principles for us to pretend that we agree on everything. We are essentially freethinkers, which implies that we disagree on many things and indeed welcome argument and debate. It is indeed one of our strengths. Therefore, we should not think that we must conceal our opinion in order not to offend others or in order to present a 'good' image. We hope that openness and honesty is the best policy and that others will respect more for it.

7. Be Loving and Kind: Christians do not have a monopoly of love. Weal believe in its crucial importance in morality. We would however, reject its Christian basis in 'posthumous self-interest', to use Milton's phrase. To love others because a god commands it is to promote self-centered preoccupation with our own individual virtue and salvation. Instead Humanists see love as grounded in our nature as social animals. Like all gregarious creatures, much of our behavior is quite naturally co-operative and altruist "The inclination to goodness is deeply imprinted in the nature of man", wrote Francis Bacon. Darwin reached a similar conclusion: "It can hardly be disputed that the social feelings are instinctive or innate in the low animals; and why should they not be so in man?" The difference, of course, is that we have the capacity extend our loving nature outward from the immediate family to the whole of humankind. And that is what we mean by moral progress. It is, as the 19th century Irish historian Lecky noted, an expanding circle: "At one time the benevolent affections embrace merely the family, soon the circle expanding includes first a class, then nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man with the animal world" (The History of European Morals ). Consider also the words of Alfred Adler: "Every human being strives for significance; but people always make mistakes if they do not see that their significance must consist in their contribution to the lives of others" (What Life Should Mean To You ).

8. Help The Weak And Needy: There is much suffering and hardship in the world. Millions live on the margins of existence, dragged down by malnutrition, disease, squalor and illiteracy. Possibly 40% of the people of less developed countries, or at least a quarter of the world's population, live in absolute poverty. In relative terms, too, the gap between rich and poor nations has widened in recent years, and the level poverty in many developed countries also rose during the 1980s and early 1990s. Since Humanists strive to work together for the common good of humanity, we deplore this trend, both within countries and between them. Regarding the Third World, we would therefore support projects which minimize the dependence of poor nations on the importation of goods from developed nations, and would also commend policies which improve their terms of trade. We also call for an increase in aid programs and note that the UK's official aid as a percentage of GDP is lower than that of many European countries. We also favor aid distributed through multinational agencies rather than bilateral aid, which often has strings attached. Within the UK we deplore policies which increase poverty and unemployment.

9. Respect Nature: Humanism is not just a philosophy of humankind; it is also, because we are a part of the cosmos, a philosophy of nature. We are conscious of the essential unity of the natural and the human worlds and so we wish to protect and enhance the earth and preserve it for future generations. Ecological humanism seeks more humane priorities for production, in which there is achieved a balance between progress and conservation, a compromise between industrial modernization and environmental protection. We are not advocating a return to a pre-industrial era but rather supporting a policy of sustainable development which tries to conserve instead of depleting natural resources.

10. Support Worthy Causes: Humanism is not just an armchair philosophy; it is also a springboard to action. Humanists do not just sit around and talk but are also actively involved in attempts to improve society and the long run betterment of humankind. Most Humanists belong to other organizations in various walks of life and regard them also as expressions of their Humanism.

Humanists themselves give active support to such causes as: the Peace Movement; the campaign to extend the provisions for abortion which apply in Great Britain; greater availability of advice on sexual matters for young people, such as the Brook Centre; greater equality of rights for women in Ulster; equality of rights towards minority groups, such as homosexuals; voluntary euthanasia; the campaign for integrated education; replacement of RE by moral education; and the campaign to persuade other parties, such as Labour, to organize in Northern Ireland.

NOTE.The above principles are not the 10 Commandments of Humanism. We do not believe in dictating morals to one another. Not all Humanists will agree with ALL the sentiments expressed in them. For we value, above all, free thought and tolerance. They are therefore only intended as a guide”

Read in full... http://dev.humanistni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Humanist-Handbook.pdf

#atheist #agnostic #secular humanist #skeptic #Religion #Christianity

9 notes · View notes