Winning over the religious right

[TroySmith]

I think Communism answered the second part of that.

 

[Ricky201]

I love when threads start to turn into a pissing contest instead of something productive.

 

[mczerone]

Dr. Paul is a self professed Christian and a man of faith.

Any other form of "collectivist" labeling of people around here is immediately shouted down as hateful, impolitic and counter productive, with two exceptions.

The religious.

The "truthers".

Then it's open season.



How long would that take to get a warning or ban?

Now, are the "evangelicals" hostile to Ron Paul, by and large?

Of course, they booed him for calling Christ "The Prince of Peace".

But still, to make that blanket accusation against people that are here, that have already "seen the light" does no good at all.

RCA went over a line I wouldn't cross, but a person's chosen faith is vastly different from the uncontrollable circumstances of the identity of one's parents.

 

[scottditzen]

Got ya. Thanks for clarifying your point.

I have very different opinions I suppose. When I think back to those "simpler" times my mom used to mention, I associate them with old fashioned naivete.

I mean, just taking your tv point, I enjoyed watching My Three Sons and Leave it to Beaver just like you. However I find the mythic, John Wayne-esque, "all american" fare to be so ridiculously black and white/wrong vs. right to the extent of being offensive. It reminds me of the mindset of my dad and all of his friends who volunteered for Vietnam because, in their simple point of view, you put your faith in your country and served by fighting.

We would probably disagree over what "smut" is and the meaning of "high moral values."

But in one aspect I am in complete agreement with you....I'd love a world where I could trust my neighbors, leave my door unlocked, not worry about crime and expect to be treated with the same amount of respect I afforded to others.

Anyhow, I think I've gone pretty off topic and apologize!

It isn't simply about personal freedom. It is about the society values in general. Even though I am not religious myself, I share their basic values. And while the image of the past is often idealized and many of what we want from the past never exist, it was still at least slightly more common back then. At the least you had a two parent household as more common than it is now, you had more often a parent who stayed home with their children instead of outsourcing their responsibilities to a third party, you had media that wasn't full of smut. I mean look at shows like Leave it to Beaver and compare it with modern trash like Friends. There was plenty of bad then and somethings have improved, but why do we just drop all the positive attributes too? Why not take the good of the past and get rid of the bad so we can have the best for the future?

I want a community that wants high moral values, that is populated with people who have a lot of personal integrity. I miss the days you could leave your house unlocked all day and not worry about it whatsoever.

Trying to find anyone who is chaste, pure-hearted, loyal, etc seems next to impossible. Even less likely if you take out those who are religious.

 

[MikeStanart]

You're assuming religious people are able to think critically.

Why stir the pot? You're accomplishing NOTHING. The OP was asking the community strategies to convert people to Liberty and you go off and divide the forum.

Considering a large number of people on this forum are relgious, what were you hoping to accomplish?

 

[MikeStanart]

To the OP:

Talk to people about the Just War theory which roots come from Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

This might be a useful start.

 

[emazur]

To the OP:

Talk to people about the Just War theory which roots come from Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

I brought that up in my earlier post - the brainwashed actually used the Just War theory as a reason to invade Iraq. This guy isn't the only one to do so:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2006/03/A-Christian-Defense-Of-The-War-In-Iraq.aspx
As president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the Rev. Richard Land is one of the most influential moral voices on the conservative Christian scene. He spoke to Beliefnet's Holly Lebowitz Rossi about why, as a Christian, he supports the war in Iraq as much today as he did when it began 3 years ago.

That was your view of events from a political perspective. How do you reflect on the war as a Christian?

I believe in just-war theory, and the first item in just-war criteria is that it has to be a just cause. I believe our cause in Iraq was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done. We went to liberate a country that was in the grip of a terrible dictator who had perpetrated horrible atrocities and crimes against humanity, against his own people, as well as his neighbors. We removed him and we are giving the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves and to build a stable democracy.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

I brought that up in my earlier post - the brainwashed actually used the Just War theory as a reason to blah blah blah

See, here's what I don't understand. If you think that religious people are "brainwashed," that's your opinion. Fine.

But judging from the links in your signature, you're trying to build support for a political movement, right? Bragging about all the people who watch your YouTube channel and linking to Ron Paul 2012 and all that.

But do you notice the part where the man you're deriding as "brainwashed" is the leader of 16 million people. People who, by virtue of being religious, are more likely to vote than the average person, and who probably don't consider the leader of their faith to be "brainwashed," despite what he might have said about the Iraq war five years ago.

Does it ever cross your mind that maybe this guy really meant what he said, that he had good intentions and that his congregants are also good people? That maybe their minds could be changed if some smug, condescending internet bloggers were not calling them "brainwashed" for being religious and having different views about national security and war? I mean, they share the exact same "brainwashed" religious beliefs of the man you're ostensibly supporting for President of the United States, Ron Paul.

I can only assume you genuinely don't realize how incredibly counter-productive statements like the one you just made are.

If I had to choose between my political commitments and my religious commitments, there is no contest. Since Ron Paul is also a believing Christian, I can only assume he feels the same way. That leaves folks like you the odd man out in this here little movement, buddy, no matter how proud you are of your youtube channel.

 

[MikeStanart]

See, here's what I don't understand. If you think that religious people are "brainwashed," that's your opinion. Fine.

But judging from the links in your signature, you're trying to build support for a political movement, right? Bragging about all the people who watch your YouTube channel and linking to Ron Paul 2012 and all that.

But do you notice the part where the man you're deriding as "brainwashed" is the leader of 16 million people. People who, by virtue of being religious, are more likely to vote than the average person, and who probably don't consider the leader of their faith to be "brainwashed," despite what he might have said about the Iraq war five years ago.

Does it ever cross your mind that maybe this guy really meant what he said, that he had good intentions and that his congregants are also good people? That maybe their minds could be changed if some smug, condescending internet bloggers were not calling them "brainwashed" for being religious and having different views about national security and war? I mean, they share the exact same "brainwashed" religious beliefs of the man you're ostensibly supporting for President of the United States, Ron Paul.

I can only assume you genuinely don't realize how incredibly counter-productive statements like the one you just made are.

If I had to choose between my political commitments and my religious commitments, there is no contest. Since Ron Paul is also a believing Christian, I can only assume he feels the same way. That leaves folks like you the odd man out in this here little movement, buddy, no matter how proud you are of your youtube channel.

lol you've got the wrong guy. Emazur wasn't conveying what you thought. He was simply saying that some christian extremists have perverted the original intent of the Just War theory to push their own agenda's. It's a valid point. You're thinking of another poster.

 

[the_strand]

Rand Paul has probably already won them over, Ron to some degree as well I would think.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

lol you've got the wrong guy. Emazur wasn't conveying what you thought. He was simply saying that some christian extremists have perverted the original intent of the Just War theory to push their own agenda's. It's a valid point. You're thinking of another poster.

How am I misreading it? Emazur used the term "the brainwashed" immediately before directly referring to the president of the Southern Baptist Convention with "this guy isn't the only one to do so." He then directly quoted the aforementioned president of the SBC.

I see no way to interpret that other than that he is calling the president of the Southern Baptist Convention "brainwashed." And he is making this statement in the course of a conversation about "the religious right" in general.

The leader of 16 million Baptist congregants is a "Christian extremist?"

Even if emazur's point is valid, his rhetoric and terminology--and yours--are inflammatory and offensive to a huge group of potential voters.

 

[emazur]

See, here's what I don't understand. If you think that religious people are "brainwashed," that's your opinion. Fine.

I'm not saying that religious people are brainwashed (I stuck up for them in my previous post when they were being somewhat antagonized by others), I'm saying some people who have so much cognitive dissonance that they would use the just-theory theory as a justification for a preemptive strike are brainwashed. I'd be just as happy to call out militant atheists who call for tyranny, and I did give historical examples in my previous post about Marx and Mao.

Ron Paul talks about the just war theory here and how some religionists were rejecting it (@4:25). He never use the term 'brainwashed', so on that point, you're right. I wouldn't say it either if I was running for office and generally speaking I never assume a religious person is brainwashed (they may or may not be based on their behavior, just like an atheist). This Richard Land guy seemed to me like he came straight out of 1984 - War = Peace, Freedom = Slavery, and now Just War = Preemptive War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc

 

[LinusVanPelt]

I'm not saying that religious people are brainwashed (I stuck up for them in my previous post when they were being somewhat antagonized by others), I'm saying some people who have so much cognitive dissonance that they would use the just-theory theory as a justification for a preemptive strike are brainwashed. I'd be just as happy to call out militant atheists who call for tyranny, and I did give historical examples in my previous post about Marx and Mao.

Ron Paul talks about the just war theory here and how some religionists were rejecting it (@4:25). He never use the term 'brainwashed', so on that point, you're right. I wouldn't say it either if I was running for office and generally speaking I never assume a religious person is brainwashed (they may or may not be based on their behavior, just like an atheist).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc

Emazur, I understand where you're coming from. I'm sorry I missed your other post defending religion in the maelstrom. As a Catholic, it especially bothers me to see Just War theory invoked (improperly, in my opinion) by people who don't fully subscribe to the faith that actually produced it.

But there is my opinion on the beliefs of others, and then there is my opinion on how best to affect the beliefs of those with whom I disagree, you know what I mean?

And certainly I've used my fair share of inflammatory and confrontational rhetoric. I'm bringing up points I have only partially learned through hard-fought experience and burned bridges. We're all passionate, but politics is a game of addition, right? So I'm offering the perspective of one person who can maybe bring a different point of view to the table. Sorry if I overreacted.

 

[MikeStanart]

How am I misreading it? Emazur used the term "the brainwashed" immediately before directly referring to the president of the Southern Baptist Convention with "this guy isn't the only one to do so." He then directly quoted the aforementioned president of the SBC.

I see no way to interpret that other than that he is calling the president of the Southern Baptist Convention "brainwashed." And he is making this statement in the course of a conversation about "the religious right" in general.

The leader of 16 million Baptist congregants is a "Christian extremist?"

Even if emazur's point is valid, his rhetoric and terminology--and yours--are inflammatory and offensive to a huge group of potential voters.

For the record, I'm a Christian. But, I'm willing to admit that certain leaders within our religion have wrongfully condoned unecessary wars (Pat Robertson, for example) Leaders aren't infalliable.