In some distant place, Hitler must be smiling at the 6 Republicans on the Court’s growing conflation of church & state in America - because it's what helped make his horrors possible
The problem Thom is pointing out is nothing less than what is happening in Afghanistan with the Taliban: Sharia Law there, evangelical christianity here. The religious beliefs may differ, but the goals are the same.
That's the perfect picture for this Report, because it shows women elevating a woman. Horrors!
Organized religion is about control, and it's often about convincing the believers there is nobility in suffering. No thanks, I'll listen to my common sense, whether I got that from nature or god.
So the logic of Madison is simple and solid. We the people are the government and control the government, not the other way around. It's so civilized---this having rights, laws, and funds for the general welfare. We don't need a dictator in heaven or on earth.
Back to the pic, I want to see a woman elevated---Representative Val Demings should be elected senator. Women deserve better than Rubio. Everyone deserves better than the twisted religious nuts we have on the Court and in our government.
The role of religion in America has always been, at its best, to be the voice of our conscience. The Abolitionist movement was largely driven by church people who believed the enslavement of other human beings was anathema to the teachings and spirit of Christ. The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s was similarly driven by men and women of faith. Rev. King was a Baptist minister. The teachings of Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, based on Islam, helped to kindle a great awakening among African Americans, and many white people as well, regardless of their faith. Throughout history it has been as it is our time: The people who truly stand with God, however that is perceived, have always had to do so in the face of great opposition from common social, governmental AND religious powers. Spirit is interwoven in our national fabric. The threads of that tapestry are Native American, Judeo/Christian (in various forms), Muslim and Eastern. When that part of America rises up without prejudice, in common cause and mutual love and respect for each other, and demands human dignity, social, economic and environmental justice, ensuring freedom of practice and personal autonomy for all, THEN America will live up to the great potential we have always claimed has been given to us by Providence.
I think your concerns about church and state are unfounded, because the church has lost its relevance in our society - they've done it to themselves. What you're seeing from evangelicals is a desperate attempt for attention, because they know they're a dying breed. How do I know this? Because of all of the deaths from overdoses, for one. Many of those who died were looking for hope, which is something the church used to provide. Today, as I said, the church is no longer relevant, and these hope-seekers turn to poison in an attempt to reach their altered state.
What y'all need to be concerned about is big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, and other large corporations. There's where you need to push for separation, between those parties and the state. They're the ones who hold power in today's world - it's not the church anymore you need to worry about.
Hey Thom. Is it fair to challenge you with Godwin’s law? I realize the Hitler references are nothing new these days. However, the broad implication of Godwin’s law reveals all kinds of truths about our communication, namely the explicit absurdity found within Nazi comparisons. As we know, Leo Strauss actually spoke of this tactic and saw that “playing the Nazi card” was a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness. I think Strauss was entirely accurate. Of course it’s all subject to interpretation. Some depend on playing the Nazi card to coerce arguments in the favor of their demanding ideology. But many other kinds critical thinkers always see how boring this rhetoric has become.
Also, your conclusion concerning the “merging of church and state, 16th century laws against abortion, forced school prayer, taxpayer subsidies for religious schools” simply doesn't permit any other interpretations of our laws or public policy. In fact your language adamantly disallows any alternative and intelligent discourse concerning faith, religion, and government’s role in mediating the many interesting and diverse values within the public square. There are scores of arguments for many more intelligent perspectives on these policy and legislative matters.
I understand you’re expressing your opinion but your single frame continues to give your opposition many reasons to discount your arguments. But as I’ve previously written, somehow I believe you couldn’t care less how your opponent think about the singularity of your argument. Evidence for this comes in your concluding words about Hitler and Müller being happy with our process and the Founders lamenting over it. Personally, I believe this kind of rhetoric is beneath contempt ... which I realize probably doesn’t matter at all to you.
When people use "Nazi" in this way, they aren't saying that all people on the right are actual adherents of Hitler's "National Socialism" per se. I get your argument, but what Thom is pointing out, in my opinion (and quite convincingly, I might add) is that there is a conspiracy involved in all of this, one which actually congealed into a state system under the Nazis. Although that particular experiment ultimately failed, the vision among those who held to it has never died, and the forces that are coming together now in America and elsewhere have striking similarities. Remember, it took the "Yellow Peril" from Japan to get us into WWII; what Hitler was doing actually had quite a bit of support in this country. The Bush patriarch Prescott actually financed the Third Reich through the Prudential Bank.
The political motivations of individual politicians, even groups, may not be connected to that fascist ideal in any conscious way; in fact, many would be appalled at the suggestion. However, there is a motive force that has been working very consciously and methodically toward a world under the control of oligarchs with their corporations, who will dominate all production and distribution, whether agricultural or industrial, and the masses will be, essentially, vassals in the service of this New World Order. The most visible manifestation of this in recent times began with the Reagan Revolution in 1980, and has slowly unfolded since. Like the frog in the pot where the temperature is slowly increased, we don't notice that we're about to boil until it's too late. So I see Thom as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and it''s important for him to paint in broad, unequivocal strokes and not get lost in the sea of nuances that are used to blind us to the reality.
Thank you for your response. Appreciate your perspective. Certainly thoughtful readers clearly understand the nuances of rhetoric. So obviously I realize what’s Thom’s attempting to do with his word choices and subsequent accusations. And he certainly has all the right in the world to take literary license and use extremist language to communicate his points. Both sides do this, why can’t he? However, he’d be such a more effective “voice in the wilderness” if he’d stop the incessant name calling and refrain from constantly condemning his enemies. No doubt the original Voice in the Wilderness took a whole other more persuasive approach to move his audience.
So to be completely clear, if and when any of the sides chose to use sophomoric and hyperbole, as Leo Strauss said, it’s a certain sign of desperation or intellectual laziness. As for your other theme regarding the control of oligarchs with their corporations, i.e. the New World Order, I’d certainly argue that this group has very little Republican Party involvement. And the oligarchs and corporate elite that are in charge, most would never give Trump of ounce of support. Maybe small businesses support him but most of the elites do not.
If you believe the New World Order is comprised of Republicans and/or conservatives you just haven’t been reading outside your own ideological tradition. Those that are actively engineering our social order consists of the richest people in the world and in fact vocal about the Great Reset of society and the world. This force comprises the World Economic Forum, the billions that fund the Open Society organizations around the world and include the power moguls within Big Tech and the Banks. I’d bet 99% of those involved with the Great Reset or Open Society organizations despise Donald Trump. These people are diligently working to rid all vestiges of Nationalism, secure borders, and countless American traditions. And don’t misunderstand, this is certainly not a conspiracy. The Open Society organizations fighting for a whole new way of life, make their agendas crystal clear. They do not hide their intentions. The literature is everywhere and their influence can be found in the universities around the world, at all levels of government and within the vast network of NGOs around the world. Most of all the power is moving rapidly into their hands. And again, what I’m saying is not conspiratorial. There are many well researched texts that allow us to know exactly the objectives of these organizations. So I’d probably disagree with you and your thoughts about how necessary it is for Thom to paint in broad, unequivocal strokes. The world far more complex than his rhetoric seems to communicate. The nuances he doesn’t speak of are indeed forces that are blinding us to “reality.”
Among the many I’d point you to would include people like Daniel Kahneman and Jacques Ellul. These among many other truly understand how people can be blinded by their own rhetoric, the consequences of which can be devastating. Kahneman said, “The confidence that individuals have in their beliefs depends mostly on the quality of the story they can tell about what they see, even if they see little.” And Ellul said, “Those who read the press of their group and listen to the radio of their group are constantly reinforced in their allegiance. They learn more and more that their group is right, that its actions are justified; thus their beliefs are strengthened. At the same time, such propaganda contains elements of criticism and refutation of other groups, which will never be read or heard by a member of another group...Thus we see before our eyes how a world of closed minds establishes itself, a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else.”
Many thanks for your comments. AND yes Thom is a polymath, and I’d agree he is forceful and passionate. But compassionate? Not so much. He certainly has compassion for those that agree with him. Haven’t seem much compassion for those he opposes. I sometime refer to his opposition as his enemies because the rhetoric he uses can often be full of enmity. The bitter name-calling is what you hear from bitter enemies … not from people that simply disagree with one’s opinions.
Not sure what you’re saying about an edit button? Or when you wrote” “to copy entirely, paste to a separate (.txt) file, delete the former, and then replace w the corrected latter.” Are you challenging me to use the tools on the PC and be more careful with my spelling and grammar? If so, challenge accepted … and appreciated!
Yes I agree about the waywardness wallowing. But I wonder how it could be any different. There are so many conflicting "truth" claims that come at us from every direction.
There are so many pundits like Thom on the radio and network and cable news. And of course they are ubiquitous on social media. The problem however, seems to come down to how they use their rhetoric. Much of what these radio hosts (etc.) offer are opinionated worldviews that reflect their biases and beliefs. Of course they rarely if ever admit that. Rather the way they communicate must always be crafted as though their opinions are TRUE opinions. They may believe what they say is true but just below the surface we usually find just a well-articulated opinion ... or feeling.
People intuitively seem to get this. So most tune out and do the wayward herd thing. Or they embrace the words of their favorite pundit, fall into that "groupthink" mentality and then live in the echo chamber. That’s why I believe Jacques Ellul was accurately describing how people close their minds. His description seems to be so right one. We live in “a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else.”
I thought the younger generations would save us from the insanity and inanities of religion. You cite some numbers to that effect, thanks. Can't figure it out, can't see it in the voting.
We need separation of Hate and State -- best luck to US, b.rad
The problem Thom is pointing out is nothing less than what is happening in Afghanistan with the Taliban: Sharia Law there, evangelical christianity here. The religious beliefs may differ, but the goals are the same.
Yes, our Founders must have tears in their eyes. Me too... and a sinking dread in my stomach.
That's the perfect picture for this Report, because it shows women elevating a woman. Horrors!
Organized religion is about control, and it's often about convincing the believers there is nobility in suffering. No thanks, I'll listen to my common sense, whether I got that from nature or god.
So the logic of Madison is simple and solid. We the people are the government and control the government, not the other way around. It's so civilized---this having rights, laws, and funds for the general welfare. We don't need a dictator in heaven or on earth.
Back to the pic, I want to see a woman elevated---Representative Val Demings should be elected senator. Women deserve better than Rubio. Everyone deserves better than the twisted religious nuts we have on the Court and in our government.
The role of religion in America has always been, at its best, to be the voice of our conscience. The Abolitionist movement was largely driven by church people who believed the enslavement of other human beings was anathema to the teachings and spirit of Christ. The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s was similarly driven by men and women of faith. Rev. King was a Baptist minister. The teachings of Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, based on Islam, helped to kindle a great awakening among African Americans, and many white people as well, regardless of their faith. Throughout history it has been as it is our time: The people who truly stand with God, however that is perceived, have always had to do so in the face of great opposition from common social, governmental AND religious powers. Spirit is interwoven in our national fabric. The threads of that tapestry are Native American, Judeo/Christian (in various forms), Muslim and Eastern. When that part of America rises up without prejudice, in common cause and mutual love and respect for each other, and demands human dignity, social, economic and environmental justice, ensuring freedom of practice and personal autonomy for all, THEN America will live up to the great potential we have always claimed has been given to us by Providence.
US Citizens have religious freedom by law, but stupidity is not a religion — b.rad
I think your concerns about church and state are unfounded, because the church has lost its relevance in our society - they've done it to themselves. What you're seeing from evangelicals is a desperate attempt for attention, because they know they're a dying breed. How do I know this? Because of all of the deaths from overdoses, for one. Many of those who died were looking for hope, which is something the church used to provide. Today, as I said, the church is no longer relevant, and these hope-seekers turn to poison in an attempt to reach their altered state.
What y'all need to be concerned about is big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, and other large corporations. There's where you need to push for separation, between those parties and the state. They're the ones who hold power in today's world - it's not the church anymore you need to worry about.
Hey Thom. Is it fair to challenge you with Godwin’s law? I realize the Hitler references are nothing new these days. However, the broad implication of Godwin’s law reveals all kinds of truths about our communication, namely the explicit absurdity found within Nazi comparisons. As we know, Leo Strauss actually spoke of this tactic and saw that “playing the Nazi card” was a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness. I think Strauss was entirely accurate. Of course it’s all subject to interpretation. Some depend on playing the Nazi card to coerce arguments in the favor of their demanding ideology. But many other kinds critical thinkers always see how boring this rhetoric has become.
Also, your conclusion concerning the “merging of church and state, 16th century laws against abortion, forced school prayer, taxpayer subsidies for religious schools” simply doesn't permit any other interpretations of our laws or public policy. In fact your language adamantly disallows any alternative and intelligent discourse concerning faith, religion, and government’s role in mediating the many interesting and diverse values within the public square. There are scores of arguments for many more intelligent perspectives on these policy and legislative matters.
I understand you’re expressing your opinion but your single frame continues to give your opposition many reasons to discount your arguments. But as I’ve previously written, somehow I believe you couldn’t care less how your opponent think about the singularity of your argument. Evidence for this comes in your concluding words about Hitler and Müller being happy with our process and the Founders lamenting over it. Personally, I believe this kind of rhetoric is beneath contempt ... which I realize probably doesn’t matter at all to you.
When people use "Nazi" in this way, they aren't saying that all people on the right are actual adherents of Hitler's "National Socialism" per se. I get your argument, but what Thom is pointing out, in my opinion (and quite convincingly, I might add) is that there is a conspiracy involved in all of this, one which actually congealed into a state system under the Nazis. Although that particular experiment ultimately failed, the vision among those who held to it has never died, and the forces that are coming together now in America and elsewhere have striking similarities. Remember, it took the "Yellow Peril" from Japan to get us into WWII; what Hitler was doing actually had quite a bit of support in this country. The Bush patriarch Prescott actually financed the Third Reich through the Prudential Bank.
The political motivations of individual politicians, even groups, may not be connected to that fascist ideal in any conscious way; in fact, many would be appalled at the suggestion. However, there is a motive force that has been working very consciously and methodically toward a world under the control of oligarchs with their corporations, who will dominate all production and distribution, whether agricultural or industrial, and the masses will be, essentially, vassals in the service of this New World Order. The most visible manifestation of this in recent times began with the Reagan Revolution in 1980, and has slowly unfolded since. Like the frog in the pot where the temperature is slowly increased, we don't notice that we're about to boil until it's too late. So I see Thom as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and it''s important for him to paint in broad, unequivocal strokes and not get lost in the sea of nuances that are used to blind us to the reality.
Thank you for your response. Appreciate your perspective. Certainly thoughtful readers clearly understand the nuances of rhetoric. So obviously I realize what’s Thom’s attempting to do with his word choices and subsequent accusations. And he certainly has all the right in the world to take literary license and use extremist language to communicate his points. Both sides do this, why can’t he? However, he’d be such a more effective “voice in the wilderness” if he’d stop the incessant name calling and refrain from constantly condemning his enemies. No doubt the original Voice in the Wilderness took a whole other more persuasive approach to move his audience.
So to be completely clear, if and when any of the sides chose to use sophomoric and hyperbole, as Leo Strauss said, it’s a certain sign of desperation or intellectual laziness. As for your other theme regarding the control of oligarchs with their corporations, i.e. the New World Order, I’d certainly argue that this group has very little Republican Party involvement. And the oligarchs and corporate elite that are in charge, most would never give Trump of ounce of support. Maybe small businesses support him but most of the elites do not.
If you believe the New World Order is comprised of Republicans and/or conservatives you just haven’t been reading outside your own ideological tradition. Those that are actively engineering our social order consists of the richest people in the world and in fact vocal about the Great Reset of society and the world. This force comprises the World Economic Forum, the billions that fund the Open Society organizations around the world and include the power moguls within Big Tech and the Banks. I’d bet 99% of those involved with the Great Reset or Open Society organizations despise Donald Trump. These people are diligently working to rid all vestiges of Nationalism, secure borders, and countless American traditions. And don’t misunderstand, this is certainly not a conspiracy. The Open Society organizations fighting for a whole new way of life, make their agendas crystal clear. They do not hide their intentions. The literature is everywhere and their influence can be found in the universities around the world, at all levels of government and within the vast network of NGOs around the world. Most of all the power is moving rapidly into their hands. And again, what I’m saying is not conspiratorial. There are many well researched texts that allow us to know exactly the objectives of these organizations. So I’d probably disagree with you and your thoughts about how necessary it is for Thom to paint in broad, unequivocal strokes. The world far more complex than his rhetoric seems to communicate. The nuances he doesn’t speak of are indeed forces that are blinding us to “reality.”
Among the many I’d point you to would include people like Daniel Kahneman and Jacques Ellul. These among many other truly understand how people can be blinded by their own rhetoric, the consequences of which can be devastating. Kahneman said, “The confidence that individuals have in their beliefs depends mostly on the quality of the story they can tell about what they see, even if they see little.” And Ellul said, “Those who read the press of their group and listen to the radio of their group are constantly reinforced in their allegiance. They learn more and more that their group is right, that its actions are justified; thus their beliefs are strengthened. At the same time, such propaganda contains elements of criticism and refutation of other groups, which will never be read or heard by a member of another group...Thus we see before our eyes how a world of closed minds establishes itself, a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else.”
Thanks again for sharing your ideas.
Many thanks for your comments. AND yes Thom is a polymath, and I’d agree he is forceful and passionate. But compassionate? Not so much. He certainly has compassion for those that agree with him. Haven’t seem much compassion for those he opposes. I sometime refer to his opposition as his enemies because the rhetoric he uses can often be full of enmity. The bitter name-calling is what you hear from bitter enemies … not from people that simply disagree with one’s opinions.
Not sure what you’re saying about an edit button? Or when you wrote” “to copy entirely, paste to a separate (.txt) file, delete the former, and then replace w the corrected latter.” Are you challenging me to use the tools on the PC and be more careful with my spelling and grammar? If so, challenge accepted … and appreciated!
Yes I agree about the waywardness wallowing. But I wonder how it could be any different. There are so many conflicting "truth" claims that come at us from every direction.
There are so many pundits like Thom on the radio and network and cable news. And of course they are ubiquitous on social media. The problem however, seems to come down to how they use their rhetoric. Much of what these radio hosts (etc.) offer are opinionated worldviews that reflect their biases and beliefs. Of course they rarely if ever admit that. Rather the way they communicate must always be crafted as though their opinions are TRUE opinions. They may believe what they say is true but just below the surface we usually find just a well-articulated opinion ... or feeling.
People intuitively seem to get this. So most tune out and do the wayward herd thing. Or they embrace the words of their favorite pundit, fall into that "groupthink" mentality and then live in the echo chamber. That’s why I believe Jacques Ellul was accurately describing how people close their minds. His description seems to be so right one. We live in “a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else.”
I thought the younger generations would save us from the insanity and inanities of religion. You cite some numbers to that effect, thanks. Can't figure it out, can't see it in the voting.
We need separation of Hate and State -- best luck to US, b.rad