BibleForums Christian Message Board

Context suggests it's more dehumanizing language for LGBT+ people.

Anybody who looks at how the history of America, for example, was told 50 years ago would admit that the history is being told quite differently now, with a huge focus on diversity, Indian rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. etc.

This is because for a long time, "history is written by the winners", and America was ruled by straight, white, Protestant men. This country has a long history of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and LGBT-phobia embedded into its cultural fabric. Drawing attention to that, and identifying the different ways America either failed to protect, or outright oppressed, those groups is both morally necessary and historically factual.

So of course history is being told differently. Fifty years ago was the early seventies. Minorities of all kinds were not exactly treated very well in the US. (Many of them still aren't, except now the people mistreating them have to pretend they aren't.)

Calling it "propaganda" or "indoctrination" or "identarian", or some other delegitimizing term, reads to me as a way of denying the reality of those peoples' experiences. If, for example, the Black experience in America throughout the 20th century was largely defined by systemic abuse and discrimination (voting, dining, transportation, public office, workplace, school, police brutality, etc.), then it is "propaganda" to deny those facts and hence the need to change how history has been taught so that it more accurately reflects the harm those people have endured.

And the Democrats, I believe, are more on the side of religious liberals and on the side of diversity and pluralism, in a negative, anti-social, anti-moral way.

I think the lack of conscience and a formal sense of religious beliefs cause Democrats

People having a different framework from you by which they build their system of ethics does not mean they are without ethics (or even formal religious beliefs) at all.

Just so you know, it feels very dehumanizing to be told I'm "utterly evil to the core", "anti-social, anti-moral", and "lack of conscience".

How does this cause Democrats and Liberals to side against Jewish human rights?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're not asking a fair question, because the premise of the question isn't true.

I find the original article very misleading and disappointing, for the usual methods of deceptive reporting (cherry-picked quotes, minimizing decades of Republican antisemitism, especially from the last five years, etc.).

Some of you are saying the media is controlled by "the left", and is "propaganda" against Israel. But the media is reporting on these attacks. They're reporting comments from Democratic politicians condemning the attacks. BBC, NBC, ABC, NYT, WaPo, PBS, CNN, USA Today, Variety... You can't have it both ways. Either these media outlets are "propaganda" arms of "the left" and are "comfortable" and "silent" with the attacks, or they're reporting that the attacks have been happening and that they should be condemned.

The left is very good at playing identity politics with whatever group of people they wish and pit group against group.

In 2020, "the left" in Congress was ~35% non-whites, ~23% non-Christians (~40% Protestants), and ~35% women.

The same year, "the right" was ~10% non-whites, ~7% non-Christians (~70% Protestants), and about ~15% women.

Both sides need improvement here, but these statistics beg the question: What is it about the Republican party which causes it to overwhelmingly favor white Protestant men?

Although both Democratic and Republicans parties have had problems with racism, sexism, and religious bigotry across US history, one side has made leaping strides toward fixing those problems over the last twenty years, while the other has crawled. Neither side is perfect. But the Republican party simply has not made as much progress in condemning bigotry within its ranks, and appears to have regressed over the last five years.

Republicans had an out white supremacist in Congress until just last year. The leading Republican pundit on TV espouses white supremacist ideology on a regular basis. The Republican president of the last four years publicly told four non-white women in Congress to "go back" to their home countries, despite three of them being born in the US and the fourth immigrating to the US when she was a child in the 90s. He defended neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates on multiple occasions. When they chanted "blood and soil", "white lives matter", and "Jews will not replace us", he called them "very fine people". When they attacked the Capitol building and waved a Confederate flag inside, and caused the death of five people (including a police officer), he called it a "love fest" and told them "we love you". One of the most visible Republicans in Congress this year tried to make the transparently racist "Anglo-Saxon Caucus", and genuinely can't grasp why comparing anti-vaxxers to Jews in the Holocaust is so offensive.

The accusation that "the left" is just "playing identity politics" is a cognitive dissonance strategy to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion: "the left" is simply far more inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming of women, non-whites, immigrants, non-Christians, LGBT+, which is why "the left" is so much more diverse on all those fronts.

Look at the violence (of which they did not hide or even condemn) last summer with the BLM protests RIOTS.

The huge majority of BLM protests were legal and non-violent. The premise of their complaint, since the beginning, has been the disproportionate use of violence by police against non-whites, that white people have routinely silenced Black voices, and that white people often justify violence against Black people with the age-old lie that Black people "riot" while white people "protest". When violence did erupt at BLM protests, and when some did turn into all-out riots, Democrats unequivocally denounced it. For example, VP candidate Kamala Harris' public statements in August 2020 after a recent police shooting led to an outbreak in looting.

It will not be long, as it is already happening, for Christians to become the target of the full brunt of their attention.

I was taught this for decades. It is a persecution complex with no grounding in reality. "The left" has no interest in "targeting" Christians. It's not a thought that even crosses their minds, much less a conspiracy on the rise. The source of the claim is the large strides society has taken over recent decades in recognizing the legal rights of groups who have historically been denied those rights. Conservative Christians think of "rights" as "power", so more rights means more power. (Because I guess Christianity is supposed to be defined by its "power" over society?) It might be a shock, but equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for Christians.

In fact, most people on "the left" are Christians, and the majority of the ones who aren't, are still tolerant and respectful of Christians. Most of the time you hear anyone on "the left" complaining about Christians, it has to do with condemnation of pastors, churches, or Christian communities enabling abuse, protecting abusers, or using politics to justify abuse: sexual abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, economic abuse, child abuse, spouse abuse, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

I try not to use this word directed to people, but the left is just utterly EVIL. To the core.

I know most of you are going to be leaning right, but I hope the general consensus of the forum is not that I am utterly evil to the core.