Religion Can Muslims live peacefully with Christians, and vice versa?

I'm an evangelical Christian. I go to an evangelical College. I'm sure I know many more Evangelical Christians than you do. They can be intolerant or close minded or legalistic. They're also pretty well to do people. They're morally good(I'm not talking about adultery or whatever else. I'm talking about kindness, respect towards others and being unselfish) people. To say they're violent is absolutely wrong though. The rednecks in the communities who are known for violence and drinking go directly against their communities values. Equivulating rednecks with evangelical Christians, which is what you're doing, is false. They're two different subcultures within rural America.

1.) First off, I'm Swedish AND American, have lived in the US for at least half of my life, did my undergrad and grad studies there, and did extensive fieldwork throughout the bible belt and midwest where I intimately interacted with America's splendidly diverse peoples that included Christian Evangelicals. Moreover, my mother is a practicing Norwegian Lutheran and I spent a fair amount of my formative years in one of the most religiously diverse (and devout) communities in the US. I say this to say, I never speak from a place of ignorance. (y)

2.) "Morality" is subjective; I don't consider unabashedly intolerant bigots to be good, "moral" people. Personally I've only ever experienced Christian evangelicals that treated me with kindness and hospitality (at least until they learned my brand of politics and belief system); the problem is that they were far less kind, gracious, tolerant and hospitable to those who did not look, act and (especially) believe (as far as religion) the way they did. They're as kind as can be to be those who exist within their bubble which stands in stark contrast to (the alleged) Jesus, who (allegedly) opened his heart to those from wildly different, diverse and controversial walks of life.

3.) "To say they're violent is absolutely wrong though." LOL For someone who supposedly knows a lot of Christian Evangelicals, you sure don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06...calls-gun-physical-violence-transgenders.html

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/the...y-celebrating-the-orlando-nightclub-massacre/

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12...olence-planned-parenthood-womens-clinics.html


In my experience evangelical Christians are peaceful and kind people. Because someone wants gun rights and wants to hunt doesn't mean they're violent. That's logical fallacy. The people who want gun rights are a non violent demographic. I know an evangelical pastor who owns an endless collection of guns and knifes, an endless collection of animal furs and bones, and he's very nice. The most violent people in America by far are Black men between the ages of 16 and 40. I'm not intending to be racist I'm just stating the fact. You can respond with that fact with your obsessive condemnation of "the white man" if you want, which is a type of bigotry you possess. I'm also mentioning it because you don't like to accept problems in the world where white people aren't the primary source of it. Statistically Evangelical Americans are probably some of the most non criminally violent.

1.) To say that people who own and sometimes idolize guns and gun culture don't have a violent streak is beyond preposterous and ridiculous--that's patently illogical; furthermore, evidently you're unaware of the fact that there are degrees of violence and violent behavior. I am an avid hunter; I have an arsenal of weaponry and I'm a collector of ancient weapons in particular; They fascinate me because I'm very interested in humanity's relationship to life/death, power/dominance, predator/prey dynamics and I, myself, am innately a "hunter" personality type. The adrenaline rush I receive is unlike any other--I most certainly have a violent streak. I can be honest about that.

I know people who could never in a million years pick up a gun to harm a living thing, whether for sustenance or sport but I, on the other hand, actually enjoy it. To pick up a gun and kill something is a form of violence. Granted, I only (humanely--for some, this is very ironic) hunt and kill what I intend to eat but if a vegan from the PETA organization claimed that I was violent towards animals and possessed a potent violent streak, how could I easily refute that or at least, not see their perspective? I commit acts of violence against certain animals but not against human beings--that's where I draw the line. Obviously, others draw the line differently. I'd never participate in a war, for example, because I don't want to kill people. But again, there are those who don't want to kill anything, whether spider, deer or human--imo, that is true non-violence. From what I've seen and experienced, Christian Evangelicals seem to be quicker to gun violence against people who don't share their belief system and I personally find that to be troubling.

2.) Let me tell you why you appear (to me) to be racist, subconsciously or otherwise: whether from a place of actual ignorance or willful obtuseness, you consistently say things and cite "facts" that are either untrue, half true or if true to whatever degree, almost certainly lack context, which I find to be intellectually dishonest. When people don't tell the whole truth about something, there is an agenda behind it and a degree of confirmation bias--they want to believe that the low nutrient crap they digest is good for them.

a.) If one considers the absolute number of offenders and it turns out that there are a larger number of white offenders than there are of black offenders, then it stands to reason that white men are the greater threat in terms of likelihood of criminal acts. The statistical fact is that you’re more likely to be a victim of a white perpetrator than a black one just because there are so many more whites in the population.

b.) When talking about risk/threat assessment, yes, black men are about 7x more likely to be ARRESTED and CONVICTED for violent crime than white men. But, a single criminal could be counted several times if he is arrested for different offenses; and it is an undeniable and proven FACT that police departments patrol certain neighborhoods more than others, which makes arrests in those places more likely. The point is that racial bias factors into the arrest and conviction rate of black men. This is a crucial and important contextual item to take into consideration when assessing one's actual threat. But people like you rarely utilize context because that would alter and balance the stigmatizing, hate propagating narrative you choose to endorse.

c.) When conservatives hurl accusations of "anti-white hatred" and "white guilt" at liberals, it makes me laugh to keep from crying because all they are doing is projecting > classic projection 101. Conservatives have done more to stifle, debase, disenfranchise and dehumanize than any other American demographic and so it's fitting that they project their guilt on those who seek to fight for and defend the disenfranchised. I have never felt guilty about being who I am because I know that I don't persecute or propagate hatred against the disenfranchised. I can't help my "privileges," what I look like and what some of my ancestors may have done, I can only affect what I do and the choices I make with the information I now have. Neither I nor any of my progressive friends who are white EVER feel guilty about being white. But we do take issue with white supremacist systems and institutions that perpetuate hatred, bigotry and injustice. A lot of people unknowingly support racist and bigoted systems and institutions put into place centuries ago. But when conservatives directly and indirectly support voter suppression, for example, that explicitly targets people of color in order to silence them, I can't help but put the blame squarely on their cheating, corrupt, racist shoulders where it belongs.

This is true. A teacher of mine, who's evangelical, says there's sexism and subtle racism in evangelical churches. He has also mentioned they're statically the most involved fathers and husbands. Thinking women should only be in the kitchen and sexually abusing women/"bitches" are two different things. Donald Trump is the former and some evangelical Christians are the latter. Evangelical Christian men are often the opposite of the former. Like I said morally sound people.

Wrong. One sets the foundation for the other. And I'm going to use the words, thoughts, opinions and research carried out by Christian Evangelicals themselves to prove my point and invalidate yours.

It's sorta fun (though annoying and slightly disheartening) to educate people who claim to know their people so well about the plights of their own people:

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/January/Combating-Domestic-Abuse-in-the-Church

CBN News recently spoke with Dr. Benjamin Keyes, with Regent University's (a Christian Research center) Center for Trauma Studies, about the problem.


He shared why so many Christian women stay in abusive relationships; and, the conversation the church needs to have on the issue.


"Unfortunately, in Christian marriages we have a much greater frequency of domestic violence than we do in non-Christian homes," Keyes explained.


Keyes said part of the reason for that is in a traditional role structure, whether in evangelical, fundamental, or charismatic home, the woman is subservient to the man. When that gets out of place the man gets disturbed.


"He will do anything, including physical violence to maintain that control within the family structure. And he'll do it with his spouse, he'll do it with the children, and that's why we have a continuing rise in Christian homes," he said.



http://www.imaworldhealth.org/images/stories/technical-publications/PastorsSurveyReport_final.pdf
The top priority in sexual and domestic violence should be to ensure the immediate safety of victims or potentialvictims. This philosophy is well understood among anti-violence practitioners and those in the health community,but it may be countercultural for U.S. clergy, especially those who are strongly affiliated with values that viewfamily matters as strictly private, place a high priority on family “stability,” teach an absolute prohibition againstdivorce, practice “male headship” and submission of women, or who see untrained “counseling” as part of theirpastoral duty. As a result, research indicates that abused women who seek help from untrained clergy typicallyfind themselves in a worse situation than before.9

The Survey revealed that pastors who have responded to incidents of violence among their flocks indeed may behandling them inappropriately or even harmfully. For example, counseling someone to remain at home with theirabusive spouse or partner and “work it out” can potentially lead to devastating consequences for the safety andhealth of the victim and others in the home. A large majority (62%) of pastors surveyed say they have respondedto sexual or domestic violence by providing couples or marriage counseling. This is considered a potentiallydangerous or even potentially lethal response.10

Domestic violence is a leading cause of injury and death to women worldwide, and gender violencecauses more death and disability among women ages 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, orwar. Regrettably, and statistically, the church is not immune to this problem. Numerous studiessuggest that incident rates among active churchgoers are nearly the same as those among the general populace.11

If you detect some snark in my tone, then your nose is working properly because I must admit that I have little patience for people who thrive on anecdotal evidence and avoid facts and research, especially when they proport to actually have the facts and "statistics" but don't. If you want to discuss logical fallacies, let's discuss a false balance, which it seems that most conservatives subscribe to: when people confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information.

Um.....how common are these attackes? "They" you mean one crazy guy, who I'm pretty sure never mentioned he was Christian at all. Lets be honest here your rant about evangelical Christians is hate speech. You hate us, be honest. Hate can have truth to it. What you do is exagerate the truth to justfy your hate. Your intolerance is no different from theirs. It's human intolerance. Just admit it man. When everyone in the left and right can admit where they're wrong and where they're hateful, we can have a much more peaceful and productive country.

IF YOU REACT WITH ME WITH AGGRESSIVE HATE THEN YOU'RE IMMATURE AND ALLOW CHILDISH EGO and TRIBALISM TO CONTROL YOUR BEHAVIOR

1.) http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don’t know it’s all lies. These extremists turn to violence—against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials—in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
The fundamentalists are primarily Christian identity groups that believe the biblical war of good vs. evil is between descendants of Anglo-Saxon nations and all other ethnic groups. Tangential to the fundamentalists are the anti-abortion attackers, who also invoke religion as a foundational motive for their violence. These disparate groups of people—violent and nonviolent—pine for different versions of a highly idealized past.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2015/11/...ommitted-by-christian-terrorists-not-muslims/

The Top Five Attacks On America Committed By Christian Terrorists, Not Muslims

1. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting


Jim David Adkisson, a devout Christian and anti-abortion right-winger, walked into a Knoxville church on July 27th, 2008, and began firing a shotgun at children who were performing Annie Jr. He killed two and wounded seven, targeting “the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country.”


2. The Campaign of Terror Against Abortion Doctors


In 1993, Dr. Richard Gunn was shot dead by an anti-abortion protester. In 1994, Drs. John Britton and James Barrett were shot to death by Reverend Paul Jennings. In 1998, Dr. Barnett Sleipan was shot dead in his home by a Christian terrorist. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot by Scott Roeder in a church. The ability for Christian right-wingers to justify cold-blooded murder in the name of their pro-life beliefs is a colossal hypocrisy worthy of a terrorist group like ISIS. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers since 1977. Terrorist groups like the Taliban and ISIS are very fond of acid attacks and chemical weapons like anthrax; apparently Christian right-wing terrorists share that same preference.


3. The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombings


Timothy McVeigh, America’s most notorious domestic terrorist, was obsessed with the Seventh-Day Aventist splinter group known as the Branch Davidians, who resisted an ATF raid on their citadel at Mount Carmel in 1993. He travelled to Waco, Texas during the Waco Siege and heavily supported the religious extremists within it. Two years later, he detonated a fertilizer bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing a hundred and sixty-eight people, including nineteen children, and wounded 648 others. This Christian specifically targeted innocent civilians and committed horrific acts of violence to make his political point heard – something Mr. Huckabee believes he should be incapable of, since he’s not a Muslim.


4. Everything The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done


Since its creation after the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan has been terrorizing Americans in the name of Protestantism and racial purity. Known for their terrifying costumes and hoods, they wrought have fear and violence against blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays, and Catholics for hundreds of years, responsible for countless massacres, lynchings, rapes, and bombings that have killed thousands. In the modern day, it still has a membership of 5,000 to 8,000 terrorists that operate in individual chapters. Just two weeks ago, Frazier Glenn Cross, the leader of the Carolina Knights of the KKK, was sentenced to death by lethal injection for murdering a fourteen year old girl and two seniors outside the Overland Park Jewish Community Center in Kansas City. The man gave the Hitler salute during his trial and declared that “Jews are destroying the white race.” None of his victims were Jewish.


5. The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.


On Wednesday, June 17th of this year, a man rose from a pew in the historically black Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, and opened fire with a .45 caliber pistol, killing nine worshipers, including pastor and State Senator Clementa Pickiney. The shooter has been photographed wearing patches representing the racist apartheid regimes in Southwest Africa, had a Confederate license plate on his vehicle. All signs points to this being a hate crime- not only is it the oldest black church in the South, it was a symbol of resistance against slavery, and a survivor reported that the shooter yelled ‘I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.” Roof was a member of a local Lutheran church, yet somehow his baptism didn’t prevent him from gunning down innocent people in a house of worship, defiling a sacred place with hate and murder.


So the next time one of your conservative friends tries to “school” you on the “evils of Islam,” just name a couple items from this list. The rampant xenophobia that has taken hold of the Republican Party is an affront to everything this nation stands for. Terrorism spawns from the desperation of humankind, and for that, we are all guilty.

2.) "South Carolina Lutheran Pastor: Dylann Roof Was Church Member, His Family Prays For Victims"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19/dylann-roof-religion-church-lutheran_n_7623990.html

Roof, who reportedly sat in a Bible study at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church for almost an hour and argued with congregants about Scripture before pulling out his gun, was himself a member of a Lutheran church in Columbia, the church’s pastor confirmed Friday.

“He was on the roll of our congregation,” Rev. Tony Metze of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, told The Huffington Post. Metze is also the pastor to Roof’s family, and said he has been providing them with “Christian care” since the shooting. The pastor did not respond to questions on how often Roof had attended the church or if had been there recently. He referred HuffPost to the South Carolina Lutheran synod bishop, who did not immediately respond to request for comment.

3.) "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity." Here is the legal definition:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

I didn't intend to degrade anybody, nor do I say things to incite hatred with no meaning or basis, I have just given my opinion based on objective and subjective data. Therefore, you need to understand the words you use before recklessly distributing and attributing them out of clear ignorance.

a.) But this is how hypocritical and disingenuous you are: you have no problems spouting off (non-contextual, skewed, doctored) "facts" that affirm whatever "racial reality" you subscribe to concerning black men while claiming not to be racist BUT take severe umbrage with me providing actual, contextualized data and statistics concerning Christian Evangelicals and then accuse me of hate speech. LOL Will the double standards ever cease with you people? Undoubtedly. But that's fine, it just makes it all the easier to discredit you.

b.) I don't hate Christians or anyone for that matter--my mother is one of the best people I know and she is a proud Lutheran. If more Christians were like her, I'd gladly be one. I have friends and family who are very religious--I, too, am religious or more aptly, spiritual. I identify as an agnostic but I also subscribe to various tenets of Norse spirituality. Granted, I am not a fan of the Abrahamic religions, but that is largely because (objectively and as far as religion is concerned) they have had the most destructive and disastrous effects on humanity and that is an undeniable FACT and not hate speech. If you don't like the truth, that's your problem and not mine.

4.) Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered, you are a teenager at the beginning of his college education. If that is in fact the case, it's important that you know I have about a decade more living and life experience than you do and a decade of undergrad, postgrad, and post-post grad degrees and scholarship under my belt from the best institutions America and the UK have to offer. Though I now work in a STEM field, a decent amount of my studies were rooted in history, theology and social anthropology with a New World focus. I've done extensive field work all across the United States, with a hyperfocused lens on inner cities and rural communities. I say all of this to say, I know what I'm talking about and I prefer to engage those who also know what they are talking about. Take from that what you will.
 
Last edited:
You must be realising that blaming capitalism for all these listed barbarism is like blaming a knife for a murder. Capitalism is not ideology like socialism of feudalism, but a blunt tool to use in economy. Surely it has it's shortcomings and need to be regulated, like everything else we should say. All listed above blames existed in feudalism, simple farming or hunter gatherer societies and are not particularly coming from nature of capitalism. If anything we should blame human condition.
Also we can't blame capitalism for greed of some individuals. Greed exists in human nature like stupidity. We might as well blame education for producing stupid people.

I don't mind criticising aspects of capitalism, just let's keep in mind that there is not even one example of prosperous country without capitalism in a mix. For the balance of things I wouldn't mind hearing from its biggest critics something good about it. ;)

Lebrok, I'm about to be an entrepreneur soon (and I actually come from a long line of entrepreneurs)! :LOL: Trust me, I believe in capitalism, of the balanced and humane variety; My ultimate goal is to help others but I also want my business to be profitable, and hopefully very profitable for me, but ultimately, most profitable to humanity--you see what I did there? In my first comment, I intentionally highlighted unbalanced and unhinged capitalism because that is the form of capitalism that I think has been so destructive and bad for humanity overall, especially for the "least" of us. But I wholeheartedly support the entrepreneurial spirit > drive, ambition, innovation, and creativity. And especially when the goal is to create and distribute products and services that benefit and elevate humankind, all of us.

It shouldn't be that surprising that I support an economic model more akin to the "Nordic" one, which combines tenets from both socialism and capitalism: its emphasis is on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarianism and income redistribution. The most vulnerable in a society must be safeguarded and protected while still allowing for everyone to profit from their individual innovative and creative merits. When people are being paid livable and competitive wages regardless of gender/ethnicity, when parents can have paid maternal/paternal leave and free or affordable childcare, when people can have paid vacations to actually enjoy their lives, when they can be comfortable that should they ever become unemployed, they won't starve to death and become homeless, an equal work/life balance will be more attainable. IMO, the point should be to work to live and not live to work. I just think that capitalism works best when the end goal is not rooted in greed for a select few but betterment for everybody--that way, it stays more humane.
 
Lebrok, I'm about to be an entrepreneur soon (and I actually come from a long line of entrepreneurs)! :LOL: Trust me, I believe in capitalism, of the balanced and humane variety; My ultimate goal is to help others but I also want my business to be profitable, and hopefully very profitable for me, but ultimately, most profitable to humanity--you see what I did there? In my first comment, I intentionally highlighted unbalanced and unhinged capitalism because that is the form of capitalism that I think has been so destructive and bad for humanity overall, especially for the "least" of us. But I wholeheartedly support the entrepreneurial spirit > drive, ambition, innovation, and creativity. And especially when the goal is to create and distribute products and services that benefit and elevate humankind, all of us.

It shouldn't be that surprising that I support an economic model more akin to the "Nordic" one, which combines tenets from both socialism and capitalism: its emphasis is on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarianism and income redistribution. The most vulnerable in a society must be safeguarded and protected while still allowing for everyone to profit from their individual innovative and creative merits. When people are being paid livable and competitive wages regardless of gender/ethnicity, when parents can have paid maternal/paternal leave and free or affordable childcare, when people can have paid vacations to actually enjoy their lives, when they can be comfortable that should they ever become unemployed, they won't starve to death and become homeless, an equal work/life balance will be more attainable. IMO, the point should be to work to live and not live to work. I just think that capitalism works best when the end goal is not rooted in greed for a select few but betterment for everybody--that way, it stays more humane.

Too bad life isn't this simple. Elaborate more on your points.
ie:
Gender inequality? In what sense, and what would you do or suggest?
Income redistribution?? Who qualifies?
Define a "livable" wage?

Do we all have equal talents? Do we all work hard? Not at all. I get what you are saying, to a point, but not sure if everyone merits the exact same reward at the end, and/or deserves to "check out" with a permanent vacation at 65. As long as you can put food on the table and a mediocre roof over your head, that should be enough. Also, children are a privilege, not a right. If you cannot afford them, you probably shouldn't have them.
 
Too bad life isn't this simple. Elaborate more on your points.
ie:
Gender inequality? In what sense, and what would you do or suggest?
Income redistribution?? Who qualifies?
Define a "livable" wage?

Do we all have equal talents? Do we all work hard? Not at all. I get what you are saying, to a point, but not sure if everyone merits the exact same reward at the end, and/or deserves to "check out" with a permanent vacation at 65. As long as you can put food on the table and a mediocre roof over your head, that should be enough. Also, children are a privilege, not a right. If you cannot afford them, you probably shouldn't have them.

Ugh. Just because life is complex, does not mean that the highest minded ideals and standards should not be chased and sought after. I'm not mediocre and therefore, I don't believe in accepting mediocrity and the "status-quo." As long as people remain curious and keep searching, there will always be a better way. Smart, innovative, creative, logical, out the box thinkers understand this. They are the ones who move society forward, unlike those who live in fear, apathy and mediocrity and only provide stagnancy and/or retrogression.

1.) What is there not to understand about gender equality? Overall, gender equality exists when women and men enjoy the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued and favoured. And within the context of the balanced capitalism and the workplace, the genders should all make the same amount of money for the same work. That isn't rocket science. And it's not unreasonable and impossible to achieve. And I should know because I live in a country where the gender income gap is getting smaller and smaller, placing us way ahead of most other nations.

2.) The point of income redistribution is to level out incomes across a society through the transfer of income from wealthier to poorer individuals, thereby making society more egalitarian and doing away with social ills like poverty, which affects the life quality of everyone living within a society. The point is to provide balance. And economically, it makes good sense because it boosts the consumer class by increasing their assets, which increases their buying power, which fuels the economy. Asking "who qualifies" is a silly question. Who do you think qualifies? Obviously, everyone who lives within the society. Again, the point is to empower everyone because when everyone is empowered, the quality of life rises for everyone. It really is a simple concept, not that revolutionary.

3.) A livable wage is something that allows for all of one's basic needs (i.e. shelter, food, healthcare, and other basic necessities of life) to be met adequately, depending on where you live as opposed to an arbitrary wage across the board. By adequately, I mean that working should allow someone to find shelter that is safe and up to code, for example, and not ridden with asbestos because it's cheap. Working at Walmart and making $10.00 may be enough in Mississippi but inadequate in New York. Understand now? Again, not rocket science.

4.) No, we do not all have equal talents but those who may lack ample "talent," whatever that is, should at least not have to live in subhuman squalor. And that is the point you keep missing. It's not about a software designer/computer engineer making the same money or living the exact same quality of life as a 7 Eleven cashier, but there should be a limit and standard that no one falls below and the most privileged should be tasked, in part, with maintaining that. Everyone benefits when resources are shared. Those who possess a lot will still live good lives even when they share a greater portion of their wealth--it's not about stripping them of their "hard work." Greed and covetousness are bad for the tribe and modern Scandinavians wouldn't exist today had we not taken care of our tribes through interdependent, communal, collectivist worldviews. The integrity of the community is all.

Personally, I sit somewhere in between the individualist and collectivist polarities; I believe that I have some level of responsability for others (as in, there is a sense of human connectedness where I think we all deserve to be content and fulfilled and I don't mind contributing to that, especially concerning the disabled, etc....) but I also don't believe in unabashedly carrying those who are able to work (and are given the opportunities to do so) but will not. There used to be many native, ethnic Scandinavians who sat around collecting benefits while doing nothing all day. And now there are immigrants who can't find jobs as easily (due to a lack of education, not being able to speak the language, prejudice, etc....) and so some of them sit around and collect benefits as well. And unsurprisingly, the ethnic Scandinavians who made a living from doing nothing are the loudest, most vocal and most vehemently xenophobic because the immigrants are supposedly taking their benefits--the benefits they also never "earned" or worked for. LOL I don't want anyone to slack off and do nothing but I have more sympathy for the immigrants that face actual obstacles to employment than I do the ethnic Scandinavian cry babies who are mad that their welfare stipends have become smaller and smaller.

5.) No, we don't all work hard. It's impossible for some of us to even work at all e.g., the disabled, the elderly, etc.... What should happen to them? See #4.

6.) I agree about the children thing. Don't have them if you can't afford them. And if you don't want them, use birth control. At the very least, condoms are not hard to come by.
 
Lebrok, I'm about to be an entrepreneur soon (and I actually come from a long line of entrepreneurs)
All the best to you, and welcome to the club.


Trust me, I believe in capitalism, of the balanced and humane variety; My ultimate goal is to help others but I also want my business to be profitable, and hopefully very profitable for me, but ultimately, most profitable to humanity--you see what I did there? In my first comment, I intentionally highlighted unbalanced and unhinged capitalism because that is the form of capitalism that I think has been so destructive and bad for humanity overall, especially for the "least" of us. But I wholeheartedly support the entrepreneurial spirit > drive, ambition, innovation, and creativity. And especially when the goal is to create and distribute products and services that benefit and elevate humankind, all of us.
What I was getting at, defending concept of capitalism, was that for whatever capitalism was blamed in the past wasn't coming from capitalism per se but from society it operated in. The child labour, long working days, slavery, imperialism and poverty were the symptoms of society, its social structure of the time. Long hours of work or child labour existed in farming communities till 20th century, similar with slavery. Imperialism already existed since Iron Age. Poverty, shortage of work and low wages were rampant in early capitalism and not only when population growth exceeded speed of new job creation and investments in new factories. Physical abuse was very common everywhere way back too.
Capitalism came with very few main rules, like guaranty of possession of private property, charging interest on capital, and free market in trade and labour. This is pretty much all its ideology. The rest of its conduct comes from existing society and its traditions of the era. What I mean is that the unbalanced and unhinged parts of old capitalism didn't come to existence because of capitalism, but were already there in society. Capitalism doesn't set social norms like Socialism, but actually complies with social norms. It has very flexible nature. It started in feudal societies, it exists and cooperates with modern social structures and even can be run by a communist party of China. Imagine that.
Actually, this was capitalism which changed society for better. It started producing so much that it improved health and standard of life, brought money for education for all, gave employment and independence to women, built vacation places for all, enabled democratic governance, and by its wealth gave support to modern social structure. See, with wealth, people have full bellies, are more relaxed, they share more, they are more tolerant, open and inclusive. All modern societal changes that we like and cherish wouldn't be possible without help of the best wealth making system in history of mankind.

If it comes to socialism, I never liked the production ideology of it. It's been tried by many countries and failed in every instance. People were so unhappy that they needed to be controlled by dictatorship of one party or a tyrant, and substandard social support for population. I experienced this in communist Poland. On other hand I'm a fan of social support system and ideals of equality. Capitalism is not a threat to it, because it is a system of production and not ideology of social contracts. I always embrace things that work in real life for betterment of our societies. Therefore I'm for capitalistic economic system and socialism in social structure. The bottom line is to have as much freedoms, equality, sharing and support for all society as long is it doesn't kill the hen that lays golden eggs.

Funny story, recently I'm even willing to supply alcohol and drugs for all the homeless supplied for free, because it will be good for all society. Shocking? This is why: Homeless in Canada have many social needs covered for free by our wealthy society. They have shelter, healthcare, meals, cloths, etc supplied daily. All of this but alcohol, cigarettes or other drugs (I'm sure it is a similar case for all developed countries). For that reason you can still see them begging in the streets. The only reason they beg these days is not for food, but they beg for money to buy alcohol and drugs. If they can't get money for alcohol or other drugs, they will steal, breakin, or do violent crimes to get it. We all know how many bad things people can do from desperation, addicts included. They will also drink cheaper products containing alcohol like antifreeze for cars, and do drugs of iffy quality. Many of them will burn their guts and destroy liver and end die or end up in hospital undergoing serious surgery. It is not only damaging to their health or killing them but also ending up costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare bills or damages to property. Death and health damage due to impure drugs becomes very common these days. Just last month there were 15 fentanyl related deaths in Vancouver alone. By any measure, it is more beneficial to homeless alcoholics and drug addicts and way cheaper for whole society to supply better quality drugs and alcohol to them directly.
There is not a good reason not to do that. However I understand there will be a big backlash against such radical idea, because it is counterintuitive and can be perceived as enabling them to do more of bad stuff they are addicted to, and "help" to make them die faster. A form of euthanasia to clean the streets. I hope people will see that it is actually the opposite. Well, except "cleaning the street part" from begging and crime.
And to be well understood, I'm in full support of taxpayers funded addiction centers whenever they feel like kicking the habit, and research in medication which could break the addiction pathways in a brain. Actually, the savings from lowering crime and healthcare cost would pay for centers and research. Win-win scenario.
 
All the best to you, and welcome to the club.

Thank you Monsieur. :grin:


What I was getting at, defending concept of capitalism, was that for whatever capitalism was blamed in the past wasn't coming from capitalism per se but from society it operated in. The child labour, long working days, slavery, imperialism and poverty were the symptoms of society, its social structure of the time. Long hours of work or child labour existed in farming communities till 20th century, similar with slavery. Imperialism already existed since Iron Age. Poverty, shortage of work and low wages were rampant in early capitalism and not only when population growth exceeded speed of new job creation and investments in new factories. Physical abuse was very common everywhere way back too.
Capitalism came with very few main rules, like guaranty of possession of private property, charging interest on capital, and free market in trade and labour. This is pretty much all its ideology. The rest of its conduct comes from existing society and its traditions of the era. What I mean is that the unbalanced and unhinged parts of old capitalism didn't come to existence because of capitalism, but were already there in society. Capitalism doesn't set social norms like Socialism, but actually complies with social norms. It has very flexible nature. It started in feudal societies, it exists and cooperates with modern social structures and even can be run by a communist party of China. Imagine that.
Actually, this was capitalism which changed society for better. It started producing so much that it improved health and standard of life, brought money for education for all, gave employment and independence to women, built vacation places for all, enabled democratic governance, and by its wealth gave support to modern social structure. See, with wealth, people have full bellies, are more relaxed, they share more, they are more tolerant, open and inclusive. All modern societal changes that we like and cherish wouldn't be possible without help of the best wealth making system in history of mankind.

If it comes to socialism, I never liked the production ideology of it. It's been tried by many countries and failed in every instance. People were so unhappy that they needed to be controlled by dictatorship of one party or a tyrant, and substandard social support for population. I experienced this in communist Poland. On other hand I'm a fan of social support system and ideals of equality. Capitalism is not a threat to it, because it is a system of production and not ideology of social contracts. I always embrace things that work in real life for betterment of our societies. Therefore I'm for capitalistic economic system and socialism in social structure. The bottom line is to have as much freedoms, equality, sharing and support for all society as long is it doesn't kill the hen that lays golden eggs.

Good points and I see what you're saying; I agree with you.

Funny story, recently I'm even willing to supply alcohol and drugs for all the homeless supplied for free, because it will be good for all society. Shocking? This is why: Homeless in Canada have many social needs covered for free by our wealthy society. They have shelter, healthcare, meals, cloths, etc supplied daily. All of this but alcohol, cigarettes or other drugs (I'm sure it is a similar case for all developed countries). For that reason you can still see them begging in the streets. The only reason they beg these days is not for food, but they beg for money to buy alcohol and drugs. If they can't get money for alcohol or other drugs, they will steal, breakin, or do violent crimes to get it. We all know how many bad things people can do from desperation, addicts included. They will also drink cheaper products containing alcohol like antifreeze for cars, and do drugs of iffy quality. Many of them will burn their guts and destroy liver and end die or end up in hospital undergoing serious surgery. It is not only damaging to their health or killing them but also ending up costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare bills or damages to property. Death and health damage due to impure drugs becomes very common these days. Just last month there were 15 fentanyl related deaths in Vancouver alone. By any measure, it is more beneficial to homeless alcoholics and drug addicts and way cheaper for whole society to supply better quality drugs and alcohol to them directly.
There is not a good reason not to do that. However I understand there will be a big backlash against such radical idea, because it is counterintuitive and can be perceived as enabling them to do more of bad stuff they are addicted to, and "help" to make them die faster. A form of euthanasia to clean the streets. I hope people will see that it is actually the opposite. Well, except "cleaning the street part" from begging and crime.
And to be well understood, I'm in full support of taxpayers funded addiction centers whenever they feel like kicking the habit, and research in medication which could break the addiction pathways in a brain. Actually, the savings from lowering crime and healthcare cost would pay for centers and research. Win-win scenario.

Wow, great example Lebrok and I completely agree. This perfectly illustrates how a very progressive, forward thinking policy that I'm sure many would resist and find to be repugnant at face value, is not only quite humane but logical and practical more than anything else. I have always adhered to the saying "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." If we continue to think "globally," meaning expansively, and are always considering what's best for everyone involved, which would likely not involve draconian and strictly punitive measures (which can frequently border on the inhumane), some of our more prevalent social "crises" would abate.

Sweden would most certainly benefit from such a policy; the drug laws are so oppressive that addicts tend to get left behind in the process. When someone overdoses at a party, for example, people are more inclined to not do anything because they fear the repercussions. And there are obvious, negative consequences for this: In 2011, Sweden had almost twice the European average of drug-related deaths, at 35.5 per million people. Though Swedes do less drugs overall than other Europeans, they still do it, and are going to continue doing it; therefore, hyper-criminalizing it is counterproductive; people must feel comfortable "stepping into the light" with their afflictions in order to get the proper help in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary, treatable fatalities. Even Norway has considered medical heroin to in order to curb their alarming overdose rate.
 
Funny story, recently I'm even willing to supply alcohol and drugs for all the homeless supplied for free, because it will be good for all society. Shocking? This is why: Homeless in Canada have many social needs covered for free by our wealthy society. They have shelter, healthcare, meals, cloths, etc supplied daily. All of this but alcohol, cigarettes or other drugs (I'm sure it is a similar case for all developed countries). For that reason you can still see them begging in the streets. The only reason they beg these days is not for food, but they beg for money to buy alcohol and drugs. If they can't get money for alcohol or other drugs, they will steal, breakin, or do violent crimes to get it. We all know how many bad things people can do from desperation, addicts included. They will also drink cheaper products containing alcohol like antifreeze for cars, and do drugs of iffy quality. Many of them will burn their guts and destroy liver and end die or end up in hospital undergoing serious surgery. It is not only damaging to their health or killing them but also ending up costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare bills or damages to property. Death and health damage due to impure drugs becomes very common these days. Just last month there were 15 fentanyl related deaths in Vancouver alone. By any measure, it is more beneficial to homeless alcoholics and drug addicts and way cheaper for whole society to supply better quality drugs and alcohol to them directly.
There is not a good reason not to do that. However I understand there will be a big backlash against such radical idea, because it is counterintuitive and can be perceived as enabling them to do more of bad stuff they are addicted to, and "help" to make them die faster. A form of euthanasia to clean the streets. I hope people will see that it is actually the opposite. Well, except "cleaning the street part" from begging and crime.
And to be well understood, I'm in full support of taxpayers funded addiction centers whenever they feel like kicking the habit, and research in medication which could break the addiction pathways in a brain. Actually, the savings from lowering crime and healthcare cost would pay for centers and research. Win-win scenario.

next step will be to supply them with free prostitutes?
 
What I was getting at, defending concept of capitalism, was that for whatever capitalism was blamed in the past wasn't coming from capitalism per se but from society it operated in. The child labour, long working days, slavery, imperialism and poverty were the symptoms of society, its social structure of the time. Long hours of work or child labour existed in farming communities till 20th century, similar with slavery. Imperialism already existed since Iron Age. Poverty, shortage of work and low wages were rampant in early capitalism and not only when population growth exceeded speed of new job creation and investments in new factories. Physical abuse was very common everywhere way back too.
Capitalism came with very few main rules, like guaranty of possession of private property, charging interest on capital, and free market in trade and labour. This is pretty much all its ideology. The rest of its conduct comes from existing society and its traditions of the era. What I mean is that the unbalanced and unhinged parts of old capitalism didn't come to existence because of capitalism, but were already there in society. Capitalism doesn't set social norms like Socialism, but actually complies with social norms. It has very flexible nature. It started in feudal societies, it exists and cooperates with modern social structures and even can be run by a communist party of China. Imagine that.
Actually, this was capitalism which changed society for better. It started producing so much that it improved health and standard of life, brought money for education for all, gave employment and independence to women, built vacation places for all, enabled democratic governance, and by its wealth gave support to modern social structure. See, with wealth, people have full bellies, are more relaxed, they share more, they are more tolerant, open and inclusive. All modern societal changes that we like and cherish wouldn't be possible without help of the best wealth making system in history of mankind.

If it comes to socialism, I never liked the production ideology of it. It's been tried by many countries and failed in every instance. People were so unhappy that they needed to be controlled by dictatorship of one party or a tyrant, and substandard social support for population. I experienced this in communist Poland. On other hand I'm a fan of social support system and ideals of equality. Capitalism is not a threat to it, because it is a system of production and not ideology of social contracts. I always embrace things that work in real life for betterment of our societies. Therefore I'm for capitalistic economic system and socialism in social structure. The bottom line is to have as much freedoms, equality, sharing and support for all society as long is it doesn't kill the hen that lays golden eggs.

I agree with that.
The industrial revolution didn't create poverty.
It already existed before that.
It created a population explosion and made poverty more visual.
But at that time capitalism created opportunities only for the happy few.
Now there are opportunities for almost everybody who is willing to work for it.

The story of abusive capitalism is the bible of the socialists.
It is something they want you to believe.
 
As far as I know no group in particular founded the American democracy. Early America was full of Protestant groups from Britain and other parts of Europe but I'm pretty sure some of the founding fathers weren't even Christian.
As far as I know the Evangelical branch it's part of the so called Protestantism. Hence I said that they founded the American democracy. The Protestantism was the most spread religion at the time of the American revolution.
Of course, the American democracy isn't something formed by the religious principles, but it's founded by the principle of freedom.
USA it's indeed somehow the continuity of the ancient Roman republic.
 
week.

The dawn of American democracy didn’t come in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. It didn’t come in 1788, when the Constitution was ratified by the states, or in 1789, when George Washington took office. According to Harry Rubenstein, chair and curator of the Division of Political History at the American History Museum, the symbolic birth of our system of government didn’t come until its noble ideals were actually put to the test. On September 19, 215 years ago, Washington published his farewell address, marking one the first peaceful transfers of power in American history and cementing the country’s status as a stable, democratic state.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-real-birth-of-american-democracy-83232825/

Tracing the origins of American democracy is no easy task.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=clevstlrev
 
next step will be to supply them with free prostitutes?
It doesn't make sense. Do they beg for money for prostitutes? Are they sexual addicts? Will be they harmed if they have sex with non-prostitute? The issue of homeless health, death and financial strain on a system were addressed. Pay attention.

Even if you don't care for well being of homeless and you think they should work for their money, it will not happen. They are mentally handicapped people, they won't find work, and even if you force them to work they will do more damage at work than good. I thought the argument of saving money spent on saving their lives and health in our expensive hospitals, or lowering crime rate and property damage would make you think positive about this idea.
 
I agree with that.
The industrial revolution didn't create poverty.
It already existed before that.
It created a population explosion and made poverty more visual.
But at that time capitalism created opportunities only for the happy few.
Now there are opportunities for almost everybody who is willing to work for it.
I generally agree.

The story of abusive capitalism is the bible of the socialists.
It is something they want you to believe.
Make sure you separate economic production socialists from social socialists. Don't throw everyone to the same pot.
 
Wow, great example Lebrok and I completely agree. This perfectly illustrates how a very progressive, forward thinking policy that I'm sure many would resist and find to be repugnant at face value, is not only quite humane but logical and practical more than anything else. I have always adhered to the saying "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." If we continue to think "globally," meaning expansively, and are always considering what's best for everyone involved, which would likely not involve draconian and strictly punitive measures (which can frequently border on the inhumane), some of our more prevalent social "crises" would abate.

Sweden would most certainly benefit from such a policy; the drug laws are so oppressive that addicts tend to get left behind in the process. When someone overdoses at a party, for example, people are more inclined to not do anything because they fear the repercussions. And there are obvious, negative consequences for this: In 2011, Sweden had almost twice the European average of drug-related deaths, at 35.5 per million people. Though Swedes do less drugs overall than other Europeans, they still do it, and are going to continue doing it; therefore, hyper-criminalizing it is counterproductive; people must feel comfortable "stepping into the light" with their afflictions in order to get the proper help in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary, treatable fatalities. Even Norway has considered medical heroin to in order to curb their alarming overdose rate.
I wish I could take credit for this idea. I heard it on a radio from some researcher who collected compelling statistical evidence, that it will work, and benefit all parties. I'm not a type to try old ways again and again and scratch my head why it doesn't work? I'm always eager to try something else, especially if science and economy is behind it. Well, at least theoretically for the moment.

What do you think about our (western world) 40 year old War on Drugs? Do you feel like we are winning? If not, what fresh approach is needed? Should we try something new, even experimental, instead of comply to basic definition of insanity for next decades?
 
I wish I could take credit for this idea. I heard it on a radio from some researcher who collected compelling statistical evidence, that it will work, and benefit all parties. I'm not a type to try old ways again and again and scratch my head why it doesn't work? I'm always eager to try something else, especially if science and economy is behind it. Well, at least theoretically for the moment.

What do you think about our (western world) 40 year old War on Drugs? Do you feel like we are winning? If not, what fresh approach is needed? Should we try something new, even experimental, instead of comply to basic definition of insanity for next decades?


war against drugs is nothing more but a 'mafia' war, and many times army was used for 'mafia wars'
they only change the chemist or the product, and dealers, not even the pushers,

yes I know I am 'stuck' with 'global conspiracy' :heart:

there is none 'global conspiracy' :useless: , but there is a 'war against drugs' :innocent:

(true - false theory)
 
war against drugs is nothing more but a 'mafia' war,
they only change the chemist or the product, and dealers, not even the pushers,
But isn't it better for every country if there is only one mafia, the government. If there are two or more there are shootings and assassinations, and lost tax revenue.

yes I know I am 'stuck' with 'global conspiracy' :heart:

there is none 'global conspiracy' :useless: , but there is a 'war against drugs' :innocent:
How do you explain that half of people in in US prisons are there for drugs. Probably more because some homicide, assaults and burglary are related to drug gangs fights and stealing money to buy drugs. How do you explain prosecution of biggest drug lord El Chapo. The war is fake?
 
But isn't it better for every country if there is only one mafia, the government. If there are two or more there are shootings and assassinations, and lost tax revenue.

How do you explain that half of people in in US prisons are there for drugs. Probably more because some homicide, assaults and burglary are related to drug gangs fights and stealing money to buy drugs. How do you explain prosecution of biggest drug lord El Chapo. The war is fake?
Even if we agree on that the government is a sort of mafia, however we can't compare the street mafia with the government, because the later may be elected by democratic elections, and the former can't.
 
Even if we agree on that the government is a sort of mafia, however we can't compare the street mafia with the government, because the later may be elected by democratic elections, and the former can't.
Sure, it was just a very rough comparison for Yetos purposes.
 
Part 1: Are Evangelicals Violent?

@Wanderlust,

First I must say I don't think if the left and right, you and me, remove our hateful tribalism we'll realise we agree on a lot of issues and our society will make more progress than it currently is. I'm not claiming you or I are very hateful but I do believe we both possess some hate for the left or right. The "Tribalism" I'm speaking of is choosing to agree the views of the left or right because it comes from the left or right and that's your tribe.

To say that people who own and sometimes idolize guns and gun culture don't have a violent streak is beyond preposterous and ridiculous--that's patently illogical; furthermore, evidently you're unaware of the fact that there are degrees of violence and violent behavior…...I am an avid hunter...I most certainly have a violent streak. I can be honest about that…...I commit acts of violence against certain animals but not against human beings--that's where I draw the line. Obviously, others draw the line differently.

The two of us are referring to two different types of violent. I’m referring to criminal violence. You’re referring to an enjoyment of committing violence in fun activities. I and I think most people see nothing wrong with the later. If anything the later is a good characteristic.

I stated in one of my previous posts which was in response to you, “Statistically Evangelical Americans are probably some of the most non criminally violent. ”, but you obviously
ignored that statement.

Because someone enjoys to box, to hunt, to play football doesn’t mean they’re going to harm others in society; be violent criminals. You admitted you enjoy hunting and weapons. Is it bad that many Evangelical Christians do as well? If you believe it is bad then why do you continue to do the same?

Now since I said Evangelical Christains aren’t criminally violent let’s see if I was right. I collected data from three different sources to do that by fidning the violent crime rate in 17 counties in the South, MidWest, and West which were 88-100% white, 65%+ “Adherent”ly religious(regularly attend church), and 50%+ Evangelical and Mainline Protestant.

My source for population size and racial makeup of the counties is; American Fact Finder.
My source for the violent crime rate in the counties is; County Health and Ranking Roadmaps
My source for the adherently religious percentage and percentage of Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants is; The Association of Religion Data Archives

Here are the results. Keep in mind the average US crime rate per 100,000 people was 403.6 according to the FBI in 2010(Violent Crime, FBI).

Violent Crime per 100,000
Cleburne, Alabama
224​
Cullman, Alabama
201​
Lamar, Alabama
50​
Logan, Arkansas
241​
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
421​
Cottonwood, Minnesota
119​
Henry, Ohio
82​
Holmes, Ohio
36​
Alfalfa, Oklahoma
88​
Burt, Nebraska
84​
Chase, Nebraska
117​
Bottineau, North Dakota
26​
Brown, South Dakota
202​
Campbell, South Dakota
Waupaca, Wisconsin
109​
Clark, Illinois
307​
Douglas, Illinois
195​



Only 1 of 17 of the counties reached the US average and this county actually exceeded it by a little bit. 7 of 17 are below 100 which means they’re over 4 times under the US average. Anyways this data doesn’t suggest Evangelical/Protestant Americans are abnormally criminally violent.

Now let's look at the violent crime rate of states with the highest amount of a license to carry. My source for state by state crime rate is; Violent Crime Rate By State. My data for the frequency of licenses to carry is; Crime Prevention Research Center.

US rank for State Criminal ViolenceViolent Crime per 100,000 people
Washington
31​
285.2​
Utah
43​
215.6​
South Dakota
25​
326.5​
Iowa
35​
273.5​
Indiana
22​
365.3​
Tennessee
3​
608.4​
Alabama
12​
427.4​
Georgia
20​
377.3​
West Virginia
29​
302​
Pennsylvania
27​
314.1​


8 of 10 are below the US average for violent crime. These states aren’t abnormally non-violent but they aren’t abnormally violent.



 

This thread has been viewed 187819 times.

Back
Top