It’s Never Going to Work

Nan Democrats, Elections, Politics, Republicans, , , , , ,

I’m going to begin this post by reiterating my stance on faith … I am not a believer. I left Christianity nearly 20 years ago and have not regretted my decision for one single moment.

Now, having said that, I want to share something that Gronda Morin wrote in one of her latest posts. In it, she talks about how Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic candidate for POTUS, has hit a nerve with the GOP by (gasp!) talking about religion.

To hear the right talk, one would think that there’s not a religious left. But there is and this has always been the case. The difference is that democrats are believers in the concept of the separation of religion and government. Then the religious left do not require that every person of faith think alike. In general they’re respectful of others practicing the dictates of their faith as long as they don’t impose their beliefs on those who aren’t of like minds. Many have left religion institutions behind because they aren’t impressed with those who claim the Christian mantel and who can blame them. Just watching White Evangelicals supporting a morally bankrupt, racist leaning president would send most sane would be Christians running in the opposite direction. But most Democrats do self -identify as being Christians.

Democrats become politically active around issues to lift peoples up, to protect their rights, to correct an injustice which is how they display their moral values.

IMO, it’s unfortunate that religion plays any part in politics. Yet there’s no argument that it does. A very MAJOR part, in fact. Particularly when Republicans are the ruling party. For them, religious issues become front and center in determining how people in this nation should live. And there can be no argument. It must be their way or no way.

Democrats, on the other hand (as Gronda points out), take a different stance. They believe religion should stand on its own. In other words, if you want to practice your religious faith, you are totally and absolutely free to do so. In fact, this is even written into the Constitution. However, attempts to impose your religious beliefs on others is a line that is not be crossed.

If we’re honest, none of us likes being told how to live our lives. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you’re on. This is the primary reason problems arise in relationships … and society. One side insists the other side live by their rules.

It’s never going to work.

Yet we know there are those on the Republican (religious) side who are going to do their damndest to tear down anyone who doesn’t meet their criteria.

For everyone’s sake, I hope they fail.

34 thoughts on “It’s Never Going to Work”

  1. Me too. I also, like some folks on your “Trump” post have gone out of their way to point out, have stopped following you, Nan. Yep. Even though I read every post; comment on almost all of them, and then post follow up comments to those, I’m not following you and have no way of knowing what you’re posting or what’s being discussed on your blog. Now, if you believe that, perhaps you’ll believe that Republicans really only have your best interests at heart when they try to force their religious beliefs up your rump. Perhaps. But I doubt it. 🙂

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

      • I know, right. I mean, they’re NOT following you, yet there they are, not only commenting on the blog post, but responding to specific comments that they must ALSO be following in order to do so. Nutty! I don’t follow Brainyawn’s blog or CS’s blog, and, thus, you’ll not see me commenting there cause I’ve NO idea what they’re posting. That’s what “not following” means to me. But, hey, wadda I know. I’m a leftist, atheist, libtard who thinks republicans are slimy, criminal traitors destroying our democracy.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

  2. Hello Nan. Grand thoughts in your post. I think another problem with religion and the republican party are the increasing numbers of single issue voters. One of the reason I hear as an excuse for the people who have preached to us that character counts and how we must live moral lives according to their views of sexuality give tRump a pass is they think getting judges on courts with their views is more important than the morals they preached. They would vote for Jeffrey Dahmer if he would promise to get rid of legal abortion for them. I just don’t see how they do not see the irony in how fast they dumped everything they have been screaming the last 30 years to fall into line behind tRump. I wonder if they will go back to their old mantras if a Democrat wins the Presidential election in 2020? Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • For some (many?) tRumpsky is God’s man for hastening the Rapture and New World Order. In the meantime, of course, he’ll take care of the judges and laws and such that support their cause. Blinders on when it comes to the person he really is …

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. Stinkin thinkin smells no matter your politics. There is no way to mitigate fallacious reasoning and it’s effects on decision making. Religious beliefs are so ingrained in the lexicon of society that most people never question their foundational beliefs. From my point of view you either care about how to evaluate what is true or you don’t. Debunking the supernatural is easy. The hard part comes when you have no reason to consider the question.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  4. If your post is right, wouldn’t Pence have rejected Trump? Trump is a scoundrel in his personal life. Someone as righteous as Pence should have rejected Trump. But he didn’t, did he? We’re not here to judge you. On that note, Mike Pence isn’t judging Pete Buttegieg at all — not sure why PB is picking a fight with MP these days. Maybe to prove he can be a tough guy? I don’t know but that’s not necessary.

    Like

    Reply

    • Hello First Nation Patriot. Allow me to explain that Mike Pence has both judged and attacked gay people by trying to enshrine his religious beliefs of how marriage and rights are accorded in a secular country. If you followed Pence’s time in politics you will see as a congressman he tried to divert money from the Ryan White act which was money for aids research and medical assistance to programs for conversion therapy. Conversion therapy not only has been totally disproven but implies that LGBTQ are ill or sick and need to be cured. He has often promoted his religious views over the civil rights of LGBTQ, again in a secular country. If you think that is a protection of religious liberty to discriminate and is fine, then substutute any of the LGBTQ words with the words “black” , “Jewish”, or “woman”. That shows how clearly wrong the “freedom” to discriminate based on religion is. Remember religion is a choice, while being born LGBTQ is not. Hugs

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • Thanks. I’m aware of the things he’s said in the past. I just don’t get what’s happened recently. Specifically to PB. Anyway, I’m one of those on the religious right that believes gays are created perfectly naturally. I know it occurs naturally among humans and in nature among animals. I don’t have any of the answers — none of us does. Anyway, I’m here. But I’m not here judge PB. I have no idea what his relationship with God is, but I can read and it does, in fact say in the Bible that laying with a man as you would lay with a woman is an abomination. You can’t change that. Learning as I go ….

        Like

        Reply

        • Hello First Nation. Again I would remind you we are a secular nation not a theocracy so it really makes no difference what any “holy book” has to say on the matter. I will also add that Mayor Pete is not “picking a fight” with Mike Pence, while the far right evangelicals sure have piled on Mayor Pete. If you believe that god created every being and we know LGBTQ is an inborn trait then it follows god makes peopel LGBTQ. Mayor Pete merely said if you have an issue with him being gay , take it up with his creator. Regardless of the understanding of desert dwelling goat herders of 2000 years ago we know today that to discriminate on that basis is wrong. Hugs

          Like

          Reply

          • I agree that it’s wrong. And I agree that many like me won’t see it that way. I wrote a blog post earlier and wrote that where I’m from (deep south) they weren’t ready for a bi-racial potus, a female potus and I’m sorry but they’re not ready for a gay potus yet. It’s still really old fashioned down here. And they’re pleased as punch with Trump’s performance.

            One thing is for sure, it’s going to be extremely exciting. Especially when it comes down to the debates!

            Liked by 1 person

          • Hello First Nation. I live in Southwest Florida in a rather small city / town. I know that our state is barely red and would have switched to blue with a Democratic Governor had there not been so much voter suppression going on. With all the dirty tricks it was still really close. I think we in the south are ready for a woman president and as the polls show a gay man is the third ranked nationally right now. With polling nationally for gay acceptance by the public at over 64% we could have a gay president, a woman president , or a non-white president. Remember in both Georgia and Florida POC almost won the governorships. Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

          • Dear First Nation Patriot. Exactly who are you naming yourself after? Do you have native “American” blood in you. If no, why are you claiming it. The First Nations of the Americas lived with respect for all, including non-humans. I hear nothing of their beliefs in your words.

            Like

          • My Sioux name is Girl with the Funny Hair. I’m an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes on the Ft. Berthold reservation in Newtown North Dakota since birth. Thank you very much for your guardianship of my culture but I assure you it’s not necessary. Happy Easter.

            Liked by 1 person

        • As I’ve been often told by Christians when I try to point out some of the more horrid verses in the Bible…you’re ignoring the context. And yet it always seems to be fine for Christians to do when it suits their purposes and Leviticus 18:22.

          From http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

          Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

          If the verse is considered in isolation — as it is most often done — then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.

          If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

          It’s fairly obvious there are a lot of rules in Leviticus that nobody pays attention to anymore. Yet the one about homosexuality seems to still bother many Christians while you don’t see any of them getting all that upset about eating shellfish, getting tattoos, wearing blended fabric, or having sex with their wives during their period. So apart from the fact that it’s not 100% obvious what is being talked about in that verse given the old language it’s being translated from, it’s clear that there is something more visceral that Christians are reacting to regarding homosexuality…and it’s a lot stronger for two men then it is for two women. It seems that the hyper-masculinity that Christianity promotes might be more the reason for rallying around 18:22 than anything else.

          It’s also clear that when you read Leviticus most of it is a hygiene guide. Something that would have been very important back then without knowledge of germs or viruses. Hence specifying certain foods, telling the priest about rashes, and not coming into contact with blood. Certain anal sex would have been a concern in terms of anal tearing and coming in contact with blood. There might be practical reasons for making that a rule. Reasons that no longer exist. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible does it speak against loving and consensual relations between two people of the same sex. Sodom and Gomorrah has everything to do with lust, greed, and excess, rather than any issues with people of the same sex loving each other.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          • Gee, Swarn … you’re being so logical! Don’t you know that will never work when trying to convince Christians about things in their beloved scripture?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Did I say there wasn’t more places in the bible that mentioned homosexuality? You brought up Leviticus so that’s what I discussed. You also completely ignored any arguments I made to simply give me a “whataboutism”. As in I refuse to address your arguments, what about this other bible verse.

            Once again context matters. Perhaps you could share with us your knowledge of what sexual practices were like at the time Romans was written to address the historical context discussed by this author here:

            https://eewc.com/?s=romans+1%3A24

            There are numerous interesting articles talking about what Paul mean in Romans 1:24-1:27.

            Now you may argue about the context and that’s fine, but that’s the point. We can’t know actually what the author meant and historical context can lend itself to multiple interpretations. What’s definitely true is that we can find no harm that comes from a small percentage of the population having consensual same sex relations in society. The Bible only actively protests about lustful sexual activity and the dangers it poses to all people in the spread of sexual transmitted disease, excess population growth, and the confusion that ultimately comes from numerous illegitimate children making property rights claims after the passing of the family patriarch. This is what marriage was for after all. Property rights not some romantic union of two people in love.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Please read my response above to Scottie related to why “righteous” people (such as Pence) refuse to reject Trump. They are more than willing to overlook the ugliness of who he is to further their “cause.”

      I wouldn’t say Pete is “picking a fight” with Pence. Rather, he knows that eventually the fact that he’s gay is going to become an issue with conservative Christians … and he’s trying to head it off at the pass. Even though the two of them were able to remain civil within their home state, national politics is an entirely different situation.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • Explain to me what’s civil about the active denial of a person humanity let alone civil rights. Pence represents a larger issue than the two of them but the notion that the Mayer is “picking a fight” with the VP belies the bigger issues here. Being marginalized and worse has been a way of life for people how have been singled out by Christianity. The Mayer is just say’n there’s a choice hear and it sounds like you’ve made yours.

        Like

        Reply

    • Pence is just as capable of monumental hypocrisy as fundamentalists in general are. Fundamentalists as a group have been Trump’s most loyal supporters despite the sleaze and crookedness of his personal life, because he is appointing judges who will support their campaign to impose their taboo system on the whole country.

      It doesn’t matter that Pence didn’t attack Buttigieg personally. Pence made his anti-gay true colors very clear when he was Governor of Indiana. Buttigieg is too honorable a man to give Pence a pass for his bigotry just because he personally was not targeted.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • Dear FNP, Nan’s post is saying Pence will not reject Trump because he is willing to use Trump to get what he really wants, whatever that is. Evangelicals are willing to place their morals aside on one level to gain something on a different level. Where is the integrity in that?

      Like

      Reply

  5. I think we need to address the argument made by some Christians that, by forcing them to treat all people equally, we violate THEIR religious freedom. I refer of course to laws permitting stores to reject LGBTQ customers or allowing professionals like doctors to refuse treatment.

    I think most on the left would argue that this is “unChristian”. But that is a moral call that will not persuade. The fact is that a society cannot permit its citizens to pick and choose which laws to obey. It’s a slippery slope that leads to anarchy. If I am a Quaker, can I refuse to pay taxes that support the military? Surely forcing me to actually use my money to buy weapons is a bigger violation of my faith than forcing a baker to make a cake.

    If you choose to open a commercial venture open to the public, you must serve everyone equally. If you don’t want to cater a gay wedding, don’t go into business. Society cannot allow you to create second class citizens based upon your whim.

    Republicans keep trying to legislate their faith. You use actual lies as justification, saying the Founders were Christians. The Founders went to great lengths to ensure separation of church and state. We can’t let anyone blur those boundaries.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  6. They’re blurred now. From cost to cost there are laws on the books and being proposed that are the result of Christians using their legislative powers to implement their religious agenda on their citizenry. It’s a constant battle. The FFRF is working full time on this. It’s a monumental assault on our secular society.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. As another non-believer, while I always try to be respectful of other people’s religions as long as they respect my lack thereof, I find every religion I have seen to be largely arrogant and hypocritical. I think I was age 3 or perhaps 4 when I began questioning, and by age 20, I had decided that I was done … Done … with religion. Live and let live … if you must judge people, judge them based on how they treat others, for that is, at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters, isn’t it? The Founding Fathers were wise to call for a separation between church and state (though they didn’t actually say that in so many words), and we are in danger of losing that separation, which I believe would be a big mistake. This is NOT a Christian nation, nor should it be, but it is rather a nation founded on the concept of religious freedom. Take that away, and this nation becomes no better than Saudi Arabia, or others where there is a ‘state religion’.

    Like

    Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.