Post-Harper Conservatives seem more inclined to shuffle out social conservatives, than stand behind them

[Aniest]

There should be NO religion in politics.

I believe in NO religion in politics because:

1) Religion is the organization and application of governing to faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth;
AND
2) Politics is the use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control in governing, in this case of a country.

If we want people to govern us, to control the country for us and lead this country the way we want, the only true way is if it is based on proof. If we allow religious politics the intrigue or strategy to gain control of our government to be based on faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth, then we are asking our government to not be based on proof, reality and/or truth.

People had faith in the COVID vax with no proof, reality and/or truth: look where it got us. Faith is faith: it doesn't need to be real. That's the definition of faith. And faith is faith: it doesn't concern itself with being of religion or medicine or whatever. Faith can be just as dangerous in Fauci or the Pope.

When people speak of wanting more 'religious conservatism' in politics they are either a) misunderstanding that the accountability, morals, and ethics asked of people in religions can be asked of politicians without religion, OR, b) they want a government to do ask they dictate as dictators, made possible by a government that has no requirement to be based on proof, reality and/or truth. I try to correct the prior and exclude the later.

[M1917 Enfield]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/b...ening-age.html

How Christians Destroyed the Ancient World

THE DARKENING AGE
The Christian Destruction of the Classical World
By Catherine Nixey
Illustrated. 315 pp. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. $28.

Apparently some other scholars feel Cathy may have an axe to grind, her father was a monk and her mother was a nun and maybe she is rebelling from her religious upbringing.

This is what others have to say about the above author and her book that is the darling of the progressive media.



"Unfortunately, objectivity and nuance aren’t part of the skillset that Nixey brings to the project. Her terminology instead constructs a binary opposition of good versus evil. The prologue sets the stage, characterizing the Christians as “destroyers,” “marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots” who were “terrorizing the east of the Roman Empire” (xvii). “Their attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective,” Nixey writes. “These men moved in packs—later in swarms of as many as five hundred—and when they descended utter destruction followed” (xvii). All this, in the book’s first 75 words! When an author starts by describing her subject in the terms of an animalistic horde, the reader can hardly expect a nuanced and balanced study to follow.

Pagan writers and leaders are valorized, while the church fathers are repeatedly skewered.

And indeed it doesn’t. The recurring topics, cycling over and over, are the destruction of pagan temples and idols, the eradication of Greco-Roman literature and learning, and the closed-minded foolishness of the ancient church’s leaders as they attempted to root out demonic religion. Pagan writers and leaders are valorized, while the church fathers are repeatedly skewered.

Of course, little is said about the pagan persecution of Christians immediately prior to this era. Standing in the tradition of Candida Moss (see The Myth of Persecution), Nixey can feel confident in dismissing the existence of any real Roman opposition to Christianity, because the percentage of martyrdoms was small (60–67). Her dismissive wave of the hand toward centuries of cultural hostility toward Christianity—a hostility that sometimes turned bloody—is the kind of one-sided storytelling that characterizes every page of her book. “Martyrs have always made good drama,” she writes. (60). Sure. It was just drama. Nothing to see here. Only the Christians can form a bloodthirsty mob.

The reality is—if Nixey had cared to strive for a balanced approach—that both pagans and Christians could be capable of horrendous deeds. That being said, no bishop ever unleashed, or even advocated, the kind of cataclysmic and fiendishly cruel pogrom that Emperor Diocletian inflicted on the Christians in AD 303, the travesty that historians today call the “Great Persecution.” If we could measure cruelty in a balance, the pagan government of Rome would outweigh the ancient church by a long shot.

And Nixey also omits the valuable social benefits that Christianity offered the ancient world. Granted, that isn’t precisely her subject of investigation, yet any mitigating factors should certainly be relevant in a book with the subtitle “The Christian Destruction of the Classical World.” The parabalani are a great example. Yes, they could be thuggish. Historian G. W. Bowersock called them a “terrorist charity in Late Antiquity.” But it’s the “charity” part of that phrase that ought to be brought to the fore in any balanced historical treatment.

Early Christianity spawned the rise of a medical-care movement that the world had never before seen. The modern institution of charitable hospitals—facilities that actively seek out and care for the indigent and marginalized, not just those who can pay—owes its existence to Christian ideals of love and mercy, concepts that were foreign to the mindset of pagans, who viewed sick outcasts as deserving their fate from the gods.

All the hospitals and places of higher learning we all now take for granted started as Christian institutions that much later where taken over by government. Same deal with orphanages, poorhouses and other social services and institutions that at the time governments could not be bothered to offer or provide but now feel is their sole domain to regulate and control.

Christianity boasts a relationship with education that stretches back more than a thousand years, and students in the United States and other western countries today may attend Christian colleges that are affiliated with many different denominations. Christians built all the early or first schools in Europe in the Middle Ages, and many of those schools eventually became universities. Today, these colleges and universities operate under a variety of denominations, including the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic churches."

[M1917 Enfield]

I believe in NO religion in politics because:

1) Religion is the organization and application of governing to faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth;
AND
2) Politics is the use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control in governing, in this case of a country.

If we want people to govern us, to control the country for us and lead this country the way we want, the only true way is if it is based on proof. If we allow religious politics the intrigue or strategy to gain control of our government to be based on faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth, then we are asking our government to not be based on proof, reality and/or truth.

People had faith in the COVID vax with no proof, reality and/or truth: look where it got us. Faith is faith: it doesn't need to be real. That's the definition of faith. And faith is faith: it doesn't concern itself with being of religion or medicine or whatever. Faith can be just as dangerous in Fauci or the Pope.

When people speak of wanting more 'religious conservatism' in politics they are either a) misunderstanding that the accountability, morals, and ethics asked of people in religions can be asked of politicians without religion, OR, b) they want a government to do ask they dictate as dictators, made possible by a government that has no requirement to be based on proof, reality and/or truth. I try to correct the prior and exclude the later.

How is the present governments record of governing their masses with truth and science going so far?

More governments have killed people they disagree with or their citizens than any religion has in the last 200-300 years!

Climate change is as I have said before their new religion and if you are not a devout follower you will be fined and penalised at the minimum.

And don't forget the religion of covid which in reality is just a distraction for governments to instil more fear and control among their aimless peon masses.

[harbl_the_cat]

I believe in NO religion in politics because:

1) Religion is the organization and application of governing to faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth;
AND
2) Politics is the use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control in governing, in this case of a country.

If we want people to govern us, to control the country for us and lead this country the way we want, the only true way is if it is based on proof. If we allow religious politics the intrigue or strategy to gain control of our government to be based on faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth, then we are asking our government to not be based on proof, reality and/or truth.

People had faith in the COVID vax with no proof, reality and/or truth: look where it got us. Faith is faith: it doesn't need to be real. That's the definition of faith. And faith is faith: it doesn't concern itself with being of religion or medicine or whatever. Faith can be just as dangerous in Fauci or the Pope.

When people speak of wanting more 'religious conservatism' in politics they are either a) misunderstanding that the accountability, morals, and ethics asked of people in religions can be asked of politicians without religion, OR, b) they want a government to do ask they dictate as dictators, made possible by a government that has no requirement to be based on proof, reality and/or truth. I try to correct the prior and exclude the later.

The problem with relying on proof is you get egomaniacal sociopaths like Trudeau who are always so self assured that they are right about everything.

What is needed is HUMILITY in government, not dogmatic obsession that one has enough proof to validate their claims to tyranny.

[LCSulla]

That is one book by an author who lays it out passionately and not necessarily "woke" because its against the previous orthodox white wash and absolution of the first NWO and great reset with new priests, dogmas and zealots to carry out dictates. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon is her inspiration.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/agora/...-christianity/

Cancel culture of wokeness:

380: Christianity the Religion of the Roman Empire
All people in the Roman Empire “shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans.” We consider the non-Christians “demented and insane.” They will suffer “the heretical dogmas.” (Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosios, February 28, 380, ThC., 16.1.2)

Apparently some other scholars feel Cathy may have an axe to grind, her father was a monk and her mother was a nun and maybe she is rebelling from her religious upbringing.

This is what others have to say about the above author and her book that is the darling of the progressive media.



"Unfortunately, objectivity and nuance aren’t part of the skillset that Nixey brings to the project. Her terminology instead constructs a binary opposition of good versus evil. The prologue sets the stage, characterizing the Christians as “destroyers,” “marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots” who were “terrorizing the east of the Roman Empire” (xvii). “Their attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective,” Nixey writes. “These men moved in packs—later in swarms of as many as five hundred—and when they descended utter destruction followed” (xvii). All this, in the book’s first 75 words! When an author starts by describing her subject in the terms of an animalistic horde, the reader can hardly expect a nuanced and balanced study to follow.

Pagan writers and leaders are valorized, while the church fathers are repeatedly skewered.

And indeed it doesn’t. The recurring topics, cycling over and over, are the destruction of pagan temples and idols, the eradication of Greco-Roman literature and learning, and the closed-minded foolishness of the ancient church’s leaders as they attempted to root out demonic religion. Pagan writers and leaders are valorized, while the church fathers are repeatedly skewered.

Of course, little is said about the pagan persecution of Christians immediately prior to this era. Standing in the tradition of Candida Moss (see The Myth of Persecution), Nixey can feel confident in dismissing the existence of any real Roman opposition to Christianity, because the percentage of martyrdoms was small (60–67). Her dismissive wave of the hand toward centuries of cultural hostility toward Christianity—a hostility that sometimes turned bloody—is the kind of one-sided storytelling that characterizes every page of her book. “Martyrs have always made good drama,” she writes. (60). Sure. It was just drama. Nothing to see here. Only the Christians can form a bloodthirsty mob.

The reality is—if Nixey had cared to strive for a balanced approach—that both pagans and Christians could be capable of horrendous deeds. That being said, no bishop ever unleashed, or even advocated, the kind of cataclysmic and fiendishly cruel pogrom that Emperor Diocletian inflicted on the Christians in AD 303, the travesty that historians today call the “Great Persecution.” If we could measure cruelty in a balance, the pagan government of Rome would outweigh the ancient church by a long shot.

And Nixey also omits the valuable social benefits that Christianity offered the ancient world. Granted, that isn’t precisely her subject of investigation, yet any mitigating factors should certainly be relevant in a book with the subtitle “The Christian Destruction of the Classical World.” The parabalani are a great example. Yes, they could be thuggish. Historian G. W. Bowersock called them a “terrorist charity in Late Antiquity.” But it’s the “charity” part of that phrase that ought to be brought to the fore in any balanced historical treatment.

Early Christianity spawned the rise of a medical-care movement that the world had never before seen. The modern institution of charitable hospitals—facilities that actively seek out and care for the indigent and marginalized, not just those who can pay—owes its existence to Christian ideals of love and mercy, concepts that were foreign to the mindset of pagans, who viewed sick outcasts as deserving their fate from the gods.

All the hospitals and places of higher learning we all now take for granted started as Christian institutions that much later where taken over by government. Same deal with orphanages, poorhouses and other social services and institutions that at the time governments could not be bothered to offer or provide but now feel is their sole domain to regulate and control.

Christianity boasts a relationship with education that stretches back more than a thousand years, and students in the United States and other western countries today may attend Christian colleges that are affiliated with many different denominations. Christians built all the early or first schools in Europe in the Middle Ages, and many of those schools eventually became universities. Today, these colleges and universities operate under a variety of denominations, including the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic churches."

[LCSulla]

Agreed. Very dangerous when its based upon a cult-style thinking. The best option is no religion, therefore, no infiltration of institutions. I've been around dogmatic charismatic Christians and they are the same creatures that annihilated Rome and suppressed any and all learning. The conservatives on here who want to f7ck around with this are pretending to know what that means whereas they are playing with a viper/dragon/leopard/fox hybrid and are ill prepared to deal with the consequences as conservatives are always a day late and a dollar short in reacting to bad mojo. I recommend people read "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. This ain't exactly new stuff here. He wrote that in the early 50s and Eisenhower liked the book. Christians and communists have a lot in common. The structure of their zealotry is the same. This new batsh7t crazy wokeism denying nature and common sense is from the same source communism, Christianity, Islam or any other cultic belief comes from. Read about Jim Jones and what he could get people to do. My very brief take: most humans are downright dangerous when mind viruses take over and they accept the parameters of the new operating system to enforce the new dogma. Reason and other virtues are gone; period. The rest usually becomes a nightmare.

I believe in NO religion in politics because:

1) Religion is the organization and application of governing to faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth;
AND
2) Politics is the use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control in governing, in this case of a country.

If we want people to govern us, to control the country for us and lead this country the way we want, the only true way is if it is based on proof. If we allow religious politics the intrigue or strategy to gain control of our government to be based on faith, a belief that is not based on proof, reality and/or truth, then we are asking our government to not be based on proof, reality and/or truth.

People had faith in the COVID vax with no proof, reality and/or truth: look where it got us. Faith is faith: it doesn't need to be real. That's the definition of faith. And faith is faith: it doesn't concern itself with being of religion or medicine or whatever. Faith can be just as dangerous in Fauci or the Pope.

When people speak of wanting more 'religious conservatism' in politics they are either a) misunderstanding that the accountability, morals, and ethics asked of people in religions can be asked of politicians without religion, OR, b) they want a government to do ask they dictate as dictators, made possible by a government that has no requirement to be based on proof, reality and/or truth. I try to correct the prior and exclude the later.