USA politics following Trump's election

[marooned]

And while I hate to derail your point a bit I gotta point this rather significant fact out. See, we like to dress it up, use euphemisms, etc. But really, there is only one of two ways Humans can organize themselves in any way that can last long term. A)Ethnically and B)Religiously. Trump is going for B by and large and anyone with half a brain ought to commend him for that one as that's the only way you "trump" A.

Translation: A) Tribally (which actually doesn't work, given how the tribes are constantly fighting each other) and B) Ideologically or through a shared value system and worldview. (A often opposes B.)

I mean the only reality "religiously" is that the Christian pro-Trump right very much seems to want everyone in this country to have to live their way and by their rules, which isn't a pathway to stability because it means suppressing everyone who doesn't want to live that way. So all those people will constantly be fighting against the Christian right and their need to impose their "value" system on everyone. And gosh, without a way to unify the tribes, it seems we have... division.

I hate it, but I ain't about to incur the consequences of denying reality. Only a common "God" can overcome differences in accent, skin tone, eye color, etc. Without that common factor? Well, here's an equation that history hasn't failed to verify every time it came up without that mitigating factor I just mentioned. Diversity+Proximity=War. War to the knife, the hilt, the extermination/subjugation/enslavement of the other/loser. Again, I hate that fact, but a fact it remains. Deal with it or die a fool.

Even you put God in quotes, so you must know that people can unify behind anything they share in common and are passionate about?

[End]

Translation: A) Tribally (which actually doesn't work, given how the tribes are constantly fighting each other) and B) Ideologically or through a shared value system and worldview. (A often opposes B.)

I mean the only reality "religiously" is that the Christian pro-Trump right very much seems to want everyone in this country to have to live their way and by their rules, which isn't a pathway to stability because it means suppressing everyone who doesn't want to live that way. So all those people will constantly be fighting against the Christian right and their need to impose their "value" system on everyone. And gosh, without a way to unify the tribes, it seems we have... division.

Even you put God in quotes, so you must know that people can unify behind anything they share in common and are passionate about?

Hahaha, Ok then, here's another concept for ya: "Better Jehovah than Foucault". I get in full the sentiment and logic behind it. As I always seek more data, please, I humbly implore you provide me some. What do you think makes me agree with that? And no, it ain't just because I'm a believer. Think on it long and hard. Please, I will truly owe you one if you give me something coherent that I can learn from .

[marooned]

Hahaha, Ok then, here's another concept for ya: "Better Jehovah than Foucault".

I don't understand why it has to be one way. If the Christian right wants to rail against abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and wants to break the separation of church and state, all of those are aggressive moves involving overstepping one's bounds since it starts infringing on the rights of others. They aren't being persecuted from my pov, it's that when they start becoming invasive that problems start. It's the difference between living according to one's own values and insisting that everyone else live by them too. (Although I really suspect it's actually piles of money driving the Christian right ahem, like with everything.)

I get in full the sentiment and logic behind it. As I always seek more data, please, I humbly implore you provide me some. What do you think makes me agree with that? And no, it ain't just because I'm a believer. Think on it long and hard. Please, I will truly owe you one if you give me something coherent that I can learn from .

You are asking the Te PoLR to provide you data? You are asking me to tell you why you agree with something?

[End]

I don't understand why it has to be one way. If the Christian right wants to rail against abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and wants to break the separation of church and state, all of those are aggressive moves involving overstepping one's bounds since it starts infringing on the rights of others. They aren't being persecuted from my pov, it's that when they start becoming invasive that problems start. It's the difference between living according to one's own values and insisting that everyone else live by them too. (Although I really suspect it's actually piles of money driving the Christian right ahem, like with everything.)

Sigh... you fail to grasp the point. Thing is, some set of values must be held as absolute if a culture/civilization is to survive. The "people" must, as I have stated many a time, either share an ethnicity or a "god". That is to say, they must all in some way or another believe, accept, and enforce with an iron will that all those who seek to become "us" do X or else they are "other" and will in the end either get genocided or driven out of the lands.

For example, why do most "Americans" hate the concept of "Illegal Immigration" and/or "amnesty"? Simple, the "myth" of America demands that you be honest and accept that, in fleeing from the tyranny of your former homeland, you make this "new world" your new home and vehemently insist that it is, was, and always will be the true home of all your descendants from now on henceforth. Yeah, my/your most distant ancestor came from some "old" world (Europe, Africa, Asia), but that's why our ancestors got on the boat. There was a new world, a new promise. Work hard, endure, and (I am not ashamed to say), believe in Christ, and we can all get along.

Oh, BTW, the reason that "separation of Church and State" became a thing was because of the necessity of people who were broadly "Christian" to get along with one another within the same geographical space. Catholics and Protestants literally fought wars over minor differences in theology. That was stupid as if your beliefs are true they ought to win out over time. Sadly, we fallen humans ain't so patient as our professed lord and savior. Thus, freedom of religion. Either the papists are right and all schisms will be healed eventually, or the protestants are right and the filthy fucking papists will become the enthusiastic servants of the Antichrist.

The whole damn concept was based upon a single universal tenet. Freedom of "Christian" religion. Thomas Jefferson and all the rest would never even consider the prospect of a synagogue or a mosque being constructed without some serious opposition if the builder failed the witch test (i.e. failed to confess that Jesus is the Christ and God raised him from the dead). After all, if they and their congregation passed it, that'd make them yet some other protestant denomination and thus in need of inclusion so as to avoid yet another largely pointless religious war.

I mean fuck, Suuni or Shia? They hate each other yet they, like Catholics and Protestants, really agree on pretty much any and all things that logically matter when ya get down to it. Get those theologians in a room and lock the door. I'd bet that instead of a murder scene you'd get an opinion that'd heal the schism.

[marooned]

Sigh... you fail to grasp the point. Thing is, some set of values must be held as absolute if a culture/civilization is to survive. The "people" must, as I have stated many a time, either share an ethnicity or a "god". That is to say, they must all in some way or another believe, accept, and enforce with an iron will that all those who seek to become "us" do X or else they are "other" and will in the end either get genocided or driven out of the lands.

I'm skeptical this is even true. It sounds a bit like authoritarianism to me. I don't believe truly we have to share an ethnicity or a god. And it seems you didn't see what I was saying about tribalism. Humans don't only form tribes based on ethnicity or religion. Humans are far too versatile to be that limited. However, tribalism is in our nature, and it can pose a challenge when we form our little groups and the groups can't find common ground.

For example, why do most "Americans" hate the concept of "Illegal Immigration" and/or "amnesty"? Simple, the "myth" of America demands that you be honest and accept that, in fleeing from the tyranny of your former homeland, you make this "new world" your new home and vehemently insist that it is, was, and always will be the true home of all your descendants from now on henceforth. Yeah, my/your most distant ancestor came from some "old" world (Europe, Africa, Asia), but that's why our ancestors got on the boat. There was a new world, a new promise. Work hard, endure, and (I am not ashamed to say), believe in Christ, and we can all get along.

um. Lots of people have their own religion. The US values freedom of religion so no one will have to suffer state sanctioned religious persecution or worse. I don't believe most Americans hate the things you mention. I certainly don't. I know my ancestors didn't have to do much to get into this country. I know they were poor and low-skilled. I know my Irish ancestors came during the potato famine and were fleeing oppression by the English, both class and religious oppression. I know a lot of people trying to get into this country now are fleeing terrible things, literally running for their lives, and I have great sympathy for that. I want this to be a place people can flee to for safety. ETA: Also our immigration system is broken and it isn't just. Since it doesn't offer reasonable legal pathways, it invites illegal immigration. But naturally it will not address itself for its own shortcomings, instead it will put it all on the people who have already suffered far too much, hence their desperation to enter the country. Never mind how illegal immigrants ARE a part of the American workforce, but perhaps the US does not want to admit to how this is part of our economy. In any case, it blames immigrants consistently for its failures.

The whole damn concept was based upon a single universal tenet. Freedom of "Christian" religion. Thomas Jefferson and all the rest would never even consider the prospect of a synagogue or a mosque being constructed without some serious opposition if the builder failed the witch test (i.e. failed to confess that Jesus is the Christ and God raised him from the dead). After all, if they and their congregation passed it, that'd make them yet some other protestant denomination and thus in need of inclusion so as to avoid yet another largely pointless religious war.

the point is that when the state is involved in religion it will only tolerate one and insist that this is the one everyone follows which leads to mass atrocities against everyone else. As we can all imagine what that's like hopefully we can all understand why it is wrong to try to force people to believe what isn't in their hearts, why it is wrong to impose upon them belief and value systems they disagree with, why it is wrong to use religion as a driving force of oppression.

I mean fuck, Suuni or Shia? They hate each other yet they, like Catholics and Protestants, really agree on pretty much any and all things that logically matter when ya get down to it. Get those theologians in a room and lock the door. I'd bet that instead of a murder scene you'd get an opinion that'd heal the schism.

I am not sure this is true. I feel like if it were so simple it would have happened already.