Values Voters Gaining Strength

[kalm]

Me too, Gil. But many people believe we get our values through religion and we make decisions as a nation based on values.

Whether it’s economic stimulus, freedom, or social distancing/mask wearing, the right is losing ground in this battle.

Ah, the "right" is synonymous with "religion" in your mind.

That explains a lot about you.

Well the context for this discussion is literally “values voting” within American politics (the article should have tipped you off). Did you know there’s something called the “Values Voters Summit”?

Not all religion is right leaning just like not all conservationists are considered politically left. Which is why I agreed with Gil.

But the political right dominates values voting in our system and the idea that right wing Christian values are being challenged more by a different set of values is interesting and a positive development.

But yeah...keep plinking away.

[AZGrizFan]

Wrong. We’re fighting a different battle. For the absolute survival of our country as it was imagined.

How was it imagined?

It wasn’t imagined to look/run like Venezuela.

[kalm]

How was it imagined?

It wasn’t imagined to look/run like Venezuela.

Nice dodge, dodger!

[AZGrizFan]

It wasn’t imagined to look/run like Venezuela.

Nice dodge, dodger!

Fine. It was imagined as a country of limited government, personal freedoms and personal responsibility, without the yoke of “royalty”. One where where a man was free, with a few exceptions, to do what he wanted, believe what he wanted and say what he wanted without fear of government reprisal.

We’ve already deteriorated a LONG way from those ideals. No need to take it to the Venezuelan conclusion.

[kalm]

Nice dodge, dodger!

Fine. It was imagined as a country of limited government, personal freedoms and personal responsibility, without the yoke of “royalty”. One where where a man was free, with a few exceptions, to do what he wanted, believe what he wanted and say what he wanted without fear of government reprisal.

We’ve already deteriorated a LONG way from those ideals. No need to take it to the Venezuelan conclusion.

Well the country and the world have changed just a little since then.

[AZGrizFan]

Fine. It was imagined as a country of limited government, personal freedoms and personal responsibility, without the yoke of “royalty”. One where where a man was free, with a few exceptions, to do what he wanted, believe what he wanted and say what he wanted without fear of government reprisal.

We’ve already deteriorated a LONG way from those ideals. No need to take it to the Venezuelan conclusion.

Well the country and the world have changed just a little since then.

Yes. I just said that in my last sentence, Mr. Redundant.

[kalm]

Which side of the political spectrum does this fall? Would those 74 million Trump supporters agree with it?

What does it say about our society that people think of the elderly so dismissively—and moreover, that they feel no shame about expressing such thoughts publicly? I find myself wondering whether this colossal moral failure is exacerbated by the most troubled parts of our cultural and economic life. When people are measured and valued by their economic productivity, it is easy to treat people whose most economically productive days have passed as, well, worthless.....

From a religious perspective, if there is one thing we ought to teach our children, it is that our worth as human beings does not depend on or derive from what we do or accomplish or produce; we are, each of us, infinitely valuable just because we are created in the image of God. We mattered before we were old enough to be economically productive, and we will go on mattering even after we cease to be economically productive.

Varied ethical and religious traditions find their own ways to affirm an elemental truth of human life: The elderly deserve our respect and, when necessary, our protection. The mark of a decent society is that it resists the temptation to spurn the defenseless. It is almost a truism that the moral fabric of a society is best measured by how it treats the vulnerable in its midst—and yet it is a lesson we never seem to tire of forgetting. “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old,” the Bible says—look out for them and, in the process, become more human yourself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... F607864%2F

[AZGrizFan]

Which side of the political spectrum does this fall? Would those 74 million Trump supporters agree with it?

What does it say about our society that people think of the elderly so dismissively—and moreover, that they feel no shame about expressing such thoughts publicly? I find myself wondering whether this colossal moral failure is exacerbated by the most troubled parts of our cultural and economic life. When people are measured and valued by their economic productivity, it is easy to treat people whose most economically productive days have passed as, well, worthless.....

From a religious perspective, if there is one thing we ought to teach our children, it is that our worth as human beings does not depend on or derive from what we do or accomplish or produce; we are, each of us, infinitely valuable just because we are created in the image of God. We mattered before we were old enough to be economically productive, and we will go on mattering even after we cease to be economically productive.

Varied ethical and religious traditions find their own ways to affirm an elemental truth of human life: The elderly deserve our respect and, when necessary, our protection. The mark of a decent society is that it resists the temptation to spurn the defenseless. It is almost a truism that the moral fabric of a society is best measured by how it treats the vulnerable in its midst—and yet it is a lesson we never seem to tire of forgetting. “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old,” the Bible says—look out for them and, in the process, become more human yourself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... F607864%2F

Who has expressed these types of thoughts publicly? What is it about “Trump supporters” that makes you think they would agree with this sentiment?

[kalm]

Which side of the political spectrum does this fall? Would those 74 million Trump supporters agree with it?



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... F607864%2F

Who has expressed these types of thoughts publicly? What is it about “Trump supporters” that makes you think they would agree with this sentiment?

[AZGrizFan]

Who has expressed these types of thoughts publicly? What is it about “Trump supporters” that makes you think they would agree with this sentiment?

Nice dodge. Apology accepted.

[kalm]

Nice dodge. Apology accepted.

Some questions require this.

[AZGrizFan]

Nice dodge. Apology accepted.

Some questions require this.

Sure. Paint with broad sweeping generalizations then claim shock when called on it. Nice work.

[UNI88]

Which side of the political spectrum does this fall? Would those 74 million Trump supporters agree with it?

What does it say about our society that people think of the elderly so dismissively—and moreover, that they feel no shame about expressing such thoughts publicly? I find myself wondering whether this colossal moral failure is exacerbated by the most troubled parts of our cultural and economic life. When people are measured and valued by their economic productivity, it is easy to treat people whose most economically productive days have passed as, well, worthless.....

From a religious perspective, if there is one thing we ought to teach our children, it is that our worth as human beings does not depend on or derive from what we do or accomplish or produce; we are, each of us, infinitely valuable just because we are created in the image of God. We mattered before we were old enough to be economically productive, and we will go on mattering even after we cease to be economically productive.

Varied ethical and religious traditions find their own ways to affirm an elemental truth of human life: The elderly deserve our respect and, when necessary, our protection. The mark of a decent society is that it resists the temptation to spurn the defenseless. It is almost a truism that the moral fabric of a society is best measured by how it treats the vulnerable in its midst—and yet it is a lesson we never seem to tire of forgetting. “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old,” the Bible says—look out for them and, in the process, become more human yourself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... F607864%2F

Wouldn't this be an indicator that it's the ctrl-leftists who are dismissing the elderly?

“To be perfectly honest, and this is awful, but to the young, watching as the elderly over and over and over choose their own interests ahead of Climate policy kind of feels like they’re wishing us to a death they won’t have to experience. It’s a sad bit of fair play.”

[kalm]

Some questions require this.

Sure. Paint with broad sweeping generalizations then claim shock when called on it. Nice work.

Thanks!

But Trump did get 74 million votes, right? And there’s been zero politicization from the right or claims of “let those who are compromised, fuck right off”?

[AZGrizFan]

Sure. Paint with broad sweeping generalizations then claim shock when called on it. Nice work.

Thanks!

But Trump did get 74 million votes, right? And there’s been zero politicization from the right or claims of “let those who are compromised, fuck right off”?

There’s that broad brush again.

[JoltinJoe]

Ah, the "right" is synonymous with "religion" in your mind.

That explains a lot about you.

Well the context for this discussion is literally “values voting” within American politics (the article should have tipped you off). Did you know there’s something called the “Values Voters Summit”?

Not all religion is right leaning just like not all conservationists are considered politically left. Which is why I agreed with Gil.

But the political right dominates values voting in our system and the idea that right wing Christian values are being challenged more by a different set of values is interesting and a positive development.

But yeah...keep plinking away.

Do the things you say actually make sense to you?

[JoltinJoe]

Webster defines secularism as: "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations." That is the historical, philosophical, and theological understanding of the term.

I know there's been a recent attempt to redefine "secularism" as per the definition you've found. In fact, the academics who edit the Oxford Dictionary have recently redefined "secularism" so that it now means nothing more than "separation of church and state."

Just like "court packing" has recently been changed due to recent political considerations.

So you are comfortable claiming to be a secularist because you believe in the separation of church and state.

Erasmus may have accepted the concept of separation of church and state, but he never would have identified himself as a "secularist," at least as a mature thinker. That's modern spin to make people feel comfortable.

I'm not as well read on religion as you or D1B so I can't debate with you at that level but I do remember reading about Erasmus as a thought leader for secular humanism more 30 years ago. Is that recent? Maybe it's a mistake on my part to consider secularism and secular humanism as related.

My point that the religious and anti-religious extremists are mirror images of each other stands regardless.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Erasmus was the leading thinker of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Among other things, Erasmus called for the Catholic Church needed to "pull back" from entanglement with secular authority, as he believed that the moral authority of the Church was compromised by these entanglements. In that sense, he can be called a "secularist," as he called for a stronger separation of church and state.

Erasmus can also be called a "humanist" in that he believed that the Catholic Church needed to focus more on affirming individual dignity (which went hand in hand with his call to pull back from entanglements with the sovereigns).

But Erasmus can't be called a "secular humanist" as that term is applied today. Erasmus is more accurately called a "Christian humanist."

Today, a "secularist humanist" identifies either as an atheist or agnostic. Erasmus was a theist; a Catholic. Erasmus is, however, very influential among "secularist humanists" today because his "humanism" is a cornerstone of the ethical/moral values that secular humanists have adopted. They have just thrown away Erasmus' "theism" and otherwise appropriated much of "humanism." [This doesn't really logically follow, though, because Erasmus saw the dignity of the person derived from his identity as a child of God, but that's an issue for another day.

"Secular humanists" like to say that they have "reformed" the Church and that the Church has adopted "their" morality. This is not true. The Church, over the years, has been influenced and "tamed" by Erasmus. "Secularist humanists" really took Church theology and made it their own; not the other way around.

[UNI88]

I'm not as well read on religion as you or D1B so I can't debate with you at that level but I do remember reading about Erasmus as a thought leader for secular humanism more 30 years ago. Is that recent? Maybe it's a mistake on my part to consider secularism and secular humanism as related.

My point that the religious and anti-religious extremists are mirror images of each other stands regardless.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Erasmus was the leading thinker of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Among other things, Erasmus called for the Catholic Church needed to "pull back" from entanglement with secular authority, as he believed that the moral authority of the Church was compromised by these entanglements. In that sense, he can be called a "secularist," as he called for a stronger separation of church and state.

Erasmus can also be called a "humanist" in that he believed that the Catholic Church needed to focus more on affirming individual dignity (which went hand in hand with his call to pull back from entanglements with the sovereigns).

But Erasmus can't be called a "secular humanist" as that term is applied today. Erasmus is more accurately called a "Christian humanist."

Today, a "secularist humanist" identifies either as an atheist or agnostic. Erasmus was a theist; a Catholic. Erasmus is, however, very influential among "secularist humanists" today because his "humanism" is a cornerstone of the ethical/moral values that secular humanists have adopted. They have just thrown away Erasmus' "theism" and otherwise appropriated much of "humanism." [This doesn't really logically follow, though, because Erasmus saw the dignity of the person derived from his identity as a child of God, but that's an issue for another day.

"Secular humanists" like to say that they have "reformed" the Church and that the Church has adopted "their" morality. This is not true. The Church, over the years, has been influenced and "tamed" by Erasmus. "Secularist humanists" really took Church theology and made it their own; not the other way around.

1) We're down in the weeds and avoiding my assertion that religious and anti-religious extremists are mirror images of each other.

2) It's your opinion that today's secularist humanists identify either as atheist or agnostic. I consider myself a secular humanist and I don't identify as an athiest or agnostic.

3) I will admit that my religious upbringing influenced my values but not as much as my parents did.

[JohnStOnge]

Some questions require this.

Sure. Paint with broad sweeping generalizations then claim shock when called on it. Nice work.

You lose in that exchange. The attitude of the bulk of Trump supporters is obvious. The GIF was spot on.

[kalm]

Well the context for this discussion is literally “values voting” within American politics (the article should have tipped you off). Did you know there’s something called the “Values Voters Summit”?

Not all religion is right leaning just like not all conservationists are considered politically left. Which is why I agreed with Gil.

But the political right dominates values voting in our system and the idea that right wing Christian values are being challenged more by a different set of values is interesting and a positive development.

But yeah...keep plinking away.

Do the things you say actually make sense to you?

Most of the time, Joe. Let me know if you need more help. I can be very patient with the agnorant and ignorgant.

[AZGrizFan]

Sure. Paint with broad sweeping generalizations then claim shock when called on it. Nice work.

You lose in that exchange. The attitude of the bulk of Trump supporters is obvious. The GIF was spot on.

Speaking of broad, sweeping generalizations.....here’s JSO!!

[JoltinJoe]

I can be very patient with the agnorant and ignorgant.

Excellent. Self-patience is a virtue.

[JoltinJoe]

Erasmus was the leading thinker of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Among other things, Erasmus called for the Catholic Church needed to "pull back" from entanglement with secular authority, as he believed that the moral authority of the Church was compromised by these entanglements. In that sense, he can be called a "secularist," as he called for a stronger separation of church and state.

Erasmus can also be called a "humanist" in that he believed that the Catholic Church needed to focus more on affirming individual dignity (which went hand in hand with his call to pull back from entanglements with the sovereigns).

But Erasmus can't be called a "secular humanist" as that term is applied today. Erasmus is more accurately called a "Christian humanist."

Today, a "secularist humanist" identifies either as an atheist or agnostic. Erasmus was a theist; a Catholic. Erasmus is, however, very influential among "secularist humanists" today because his "humanism" is a cornerstone of the ethical/moral values that secular humanists have adopted. They have just thrown away Erasmus' "theism" and otherwise appropriated much of "humanism." [This doesn't really logically follow, though, because Erasmus saw the dignity of the person derived from his identity as a child of God, but that's an issue for another day.

"Secular humanists" like to say that they have "reformed" the Church and that the Church has adopted "their" morality. This is not true. The Church, over the years, has been influenced and "tamed" by Erasmus. "Secularist humanists" really took Church theology and made it their own; not the other way around.

1) We're down in the weeds and avoiding my assertion that religious and anti-religious extremists are mirror images of each other.

2) It's your opinion that today's secularist humanists identify either as atheist or agnostic. I consider myself a secular humanist and I don't identify as an athiest or agnostic.

3) I will admit that my religious upbringing influenced my values but not as much as my parents did.

(1) I'm simply addressing your point concerning Erasmus and "secular humanism." I don't have any quarrel with your characterization of the fundamentalist right (or at least elements of the fundamentalist right), and I don't see where I expressed any objection to that observation anywhere in this thread. I thought we were discussing whether Erasmus can be called either a "secularist" or a "secular humanist."

(2) It is not my opinion that secular humanists identify either as atheist or agnostic. That's just a fact of modern usage. In today's conversation, to say that you're a secularist humanist, but not atheist or agnostic, is confusing. Then again, you could firmly believe, like some theists of old, in a non-personal god that created man, and left him to his own, and that man's sense of moral values does not derive from the will of the Creator -- and thus call yourself a "secular humanist." But such theism is rare today, and is usually expressed as a fall-back position for an agnostic (i.e., "I have no firm conviction on whether there is a God, but if he does exist, he is not interested in the affairs of his creation").

(3) But what influenced your parents?

I would only say this. If you believe in a personal God who has created each individual person, and endowed all persons with essential rights and human dignity, and that all of what is right and wrong hinges on the issue of the dignity of creation (and of each person of creation), then you are not a "secular humanist" as that term is used today. You are a "humanist," a "Christian humanist," a "Judeo-Christian humanist" or a "religious humanist." But what I have expressed here is the essence of Christian humanism set forth by Erasmus and like thinkers. It is a foundational concept of both the philosophical Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment.

And my beef with the political left today (and the secular humanists) is that they are seeking to undermine the concept that the INDIVIDUAL is endowed with rights and human dignity (by a Creator), because they believe that the interests of the "collective state" are greater than the rights of any individual. And they need to destroy this concept in order to create the collective state that they seek to establish.

[kalm]

1) We're down in the weeds and avoiding my assertion that religious and anti-religious extremists are mirror images of each other.

2) It's your opinion that today's secularist humanists identify either as atheist or agnostic. I consider myself a secular humanist and I don't identify as an athiest or agnostic.

3) I will admit that my religious upbringing influenced my values but not as much as my parents did.

(1) I'm simply addressing your point concerning Erasmus and "secular humanism." I don't have any quarrel with your characterization of the fundamentalist right (or at least elements of the fundamentalist right), and I don't see where I expressed any objection to that observation anywhere in this thread. I thought we were discussing whether Erasmus can be called either a "secularist" or a "secular humanist."

(2) It is not my opinion that secular humanists identify either as atheist or agnostic. That's just a fact of modern usage. In today's conversation, to say that you're a secularist humanist, but not atheist or agnostic, is confusing. Then again, you could firmly believe, like some theists of old, in a non-personal god that created man, and left him to his own, and that man's sense of moral values does not derive from the will of the Creator -- and thus call yourself a "secular humanist." But such theism is rare today, and is usually expressed as a fall-back position for an agnostic (i.e., "I have no firm conviction on whether there is a God, but if he does exist, he is not interested in the affairs of his creation").

(3) But what influenced your parents?

I would only say this. If you believe in a personal God who has created each individual person, and endowed all persons with essential rights and human dignity, and that all of what is right and wrong hinges on the issue of the dignity of creation (and of each person of creation), then you are not a "secular humanist" as that term is used today. You are a "humanist," a "Christian humanist," a "Judeo-Christian humanist" or a "religious humanist." But what I have expressed here is the essence of Christian humanism set forth by Erasmus and like thinkers. It is a foundational concept of both the philosophical Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment.

And my beef with the political left today (and the secular humanists) is that they are seeking to undermine the concept that the INDIVIDUAL is endowed with rights and human dignity (by a Creator), because they believe that the interests of the "collective state" are greater than the rights of any individual. And they need to destroy this concept in order to create the collective state that they seek to establish.

Good post, Joe.

1). Secular humanism seems like such a 1990’s movement. How many are members today, and is their political power, organization, and desire for control substantial enough to affect policy and legislation? Honest question and examples would help.

2). Can the rights of the individual diminish or eliminate the rights of the many?

[JoltinJoe]

2). Can the rights of the individual diminish or eliminate the rights of the many?
[/quote]

Yes.

When the individual's right is a fundamental right (for example, free exercise of religion, conscience), that right can diminish the non-fundamental rights of the many.

This is why the Little Sisters of the Poor shouldn't have to pay for their employees' contraceptive insurance coverage.

Free exercise? Fundamental right.

Right to have someone pay for your contraceptives? You may have a strong desire for such coverage, but that "right" isn't fundamental, or not constitutionally protected.

It is also is why a photographer shouldn't be compelled to photograph a gay wedding, based on religious objections. Free exercise is a fundamental right. Your interest having a specific photographer shoot your wedding is not constitutionally protected.

This is the essence of our constitutional system. That an individual's right, even a fundamental right, must be diminished in the interest of the many, is a utilitarian principle common to both Fascism and Communism. [PS -- Ultimately, the "holder" of the "rights of the many," and the party who may enforce the "rights of the many," turns out to the government, when the "rights of the many" are used to outweigh the individual's right]. It is the trademark of every oppressive government that it restricts the rights of the individual in the name of the "many."