The assault on the first amendment (and the return of McCarthyism)

You mean abortion? Jesus didn't say anything about that. It's not even mentioned in the OT, and they outlawed lots of stuff.

God obviously hates pork a lot more than he cares about abortion.

The pedophile thing is funny when Trump is hiding the Epstein files and has pardoned convicted child rapists and murderers.

OK, well we still agree on something.

so you agree for a complete ban on immigration of anyone who actually believe in Muslim bullshit, Hindu bullshit and the like?

we should have people from muslim countries going on video saying they hate Allah and the Quran and they think Muslim people are intellectually deficient, before they are allowed in any western country. and they should eat pork on video as well.

same for every other religion and country ofc

Lol, I probably wouldn't require them to be filmed eating pork. But yes, the so-called Muslim ban was one of very few things Trump ever did of which I approved.

I would also love to see the immigration of any religious person disallowed, including people who believe in that Christian bullshit.

But I was fine for it to have started with the religion in whose name a plane was dropped on a building a mile from my house.

I think there are some defensible reasons to believe in theism, souls, reincarnation, etc even if I don’t personally subscribe to those beliefs. Rationality is hard to grasp on what we mean by that. If we just mean having some reasons to believe then we might have something that justifies religious belief.

The vast majority of believers aren’t philosophers though so it tends to end up damaging to assent to the theological precepts. Then again that the vast majority of people have no critical thoughts towards religion might be a good argument for it, if it could be harnessed in the right ways. It just seems many can’t deal with the horror (to them) of realizing there is no God, no objective value, and so on.

No I’m not fascist …

And yes the number of communist in the US is so big .
McCarthyism 2.0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthy...

How it started ?

Then

- Many fbi people got fired and others in judicial system
- Surprised , entertainment business huh ?
- Universities attacked by the administration

It’s getting there missing the unions leaders but since unions are almost totally gone , I guess that last missing last group is irrelevant….

History rhymes doesn’t it ..

It's amazing that some people are still worried about those scary communists hiding in their midst.

We have a mayoral candidate running for office that identifies as a socialist. However looking at the other options, I suspect he was actually chosen because of the rampant corruption and fecklessness of the moderate part of NYCDP.

It doesn’t help that they seemed more interested in showing loyalty to a country with a military regularly credibly accused of committing war crimes and that is part of an ongoing illegal annexation project rather than bringing prices down and making the city government more competent.

Still, I take seriously when people say they are anarchists and communists. When people are capitalist and accused of being communist I don’t take that seriously at all.

Paging housenuts.

I cited religions for a reason, not "belief in the supernatural" or any kind of "spiritualism". For people who want to control others (statists) religion is the blueprint for mind control basically.

You can have objective values even without god existing btw.

Biology exists and as a member of a species you can be pro that species inherently like all other living forms are, which doesn't mean being pro every individual of that species.

Once you start with that, and apply survival instincts like that one to yourself individually and your family and so on, a lot of rational corollaries spring up very easily.

You can build a hierarchy of values using biology and survival.

He run a superb campaign, that matters as well. Mamdani social media people were among the best i have ever seen in technical terms. The videos they published were absolutely perfect for the role of winning a democratic primary in a major urban center. And he is wildly charismatic in those videos as well

Would you ban the practice of religion? Would you endorse the state using violence to suppress religion?

I wouldn't personally also because the 1a exists but i would remove "religious exceptions" as an option to opt out of regulations in general as a concept and i would use religiosity as an indication of (bad) moral character for immigrants which would be legal to do to disqualify them from entrance

can we agreee this is leftist political violence?

The man suspected of firing 3 shots into the window of an ABC affiliate in California after the Kimmel decision is a former teacher's union legislative director whose X feed is full of far-left rhetoric encouraging escalation.

https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/196947...

I wasn't asking whether the 1a existed. We all know the 1a exists. I was asking whether in his perfect world the practice of religion would be banned by law.

I am not religious at all. I am no more Christian than I am Muslim or Hindu. That said, your apparent view that religion has never been the inspiration for anything positive in the world is a weird position for someone to take who is an enamored with the cultural significance of Italy as you are.

no it wouldn't make sense at all to ban it why would it? but it should be allowed to keep religiosity in consideration when judging someone qualitatively, it's can be a real red flag, and i disagree with the 1a protection of religion as "special", we shouldn't treat behaviors differently if they are religious or not basically.

Italian successes came from undermining religion lol. I mean in some sense you can consider your enemies as a source of your success because you grew by defeating them ok.

For example we developed banks first in the world basically, because we stopped caring about religious bans on "usury". In theory theologically all interest was a sin until well into the XIX century (like it still is in islam)... we had banks in the XIV century.

And of course most of italian magnificence comes from the Romans. The coliseum is still there and perhaps the most visited monument in the world (or maybe top5?) and that's where christians were butchered live to the people satisfaction i mean. In some sense italian greatness is founded on the genocide of religious zealots.

Of course you know how the "religious" buildings of great magnificence were actually built by atheists deeply opposed to the church right? but the church had to use them because they were the best (and often the only) people at building things. The theme became mainstream with dan brown mass novels but the idea was well established a lot before.

The Carmina Burana (tavern poems of the 13th century) ethos is what made the comuni in northern italy great (and some of the most succesful places on earth at the time) , and that was directly opposed to the church as well. It's what allowed scientific thought to develop , in direct opposition to church "ipse dixit" approaches. We had the universities in direct opposition to the church will

Florence burnt Savonarola to ashes, after *having falsified the excommunication papers*.

We call "the Renaissance" the time in history where the anti christian forces coalesced and started to win basically. And that's when the horrors of the previous 1k+ years (of church domination) , also called "the dark ages", started getting reversed and we flourished.

The Renaissance was the return to greek-roman anthropocentrism, to actual humanism, after a dark millennium of theocentrism.

The vatican condemned slavery in 1839. My city abolished it in 1257 (first in the world). And it was the secular political power in the city that did that (for economic reasons as well as moral reasons, as usual), not the religious powers.

Anyway i know some of my claims here are controversial, but that's my narrative for our history. The file rouge is we did our best everytime we managed to destroy the shackles of religion. Far from religion being the unifying force, it was the opposition to it to unify the best and the brightest

Serious question roco

You seem to have an existential crisis thinking that discussing politics in 2025 and beyond isn’t safe anymore

Fine

What the **** do you get out of engaging Lucy in debate as consistently and unapologetically as you do, especially now?

I didn't have anything close to an existential crisis.

My concerns don't have anything to do with whether I am interacting with Luciom, Victor, or someone in between the two. What do I get out of talking to any specific person here? I obviously don't agree with Luciom on much of anything. You respond all the time to people to people you think have loathsome views. Also, my question about religion was directed to chillrob, not Luciom. Luciom decided to answer for whatever reason.

The only people I really try to avoid are the super low-content trolls. You can't have a discussion, or even an argument, with those guys.

You clearly aren't.

No and no. I would endorse the observation of religious organizations which have shown themselves to be influential in the creation of violent actors.

If I could somehow make it so no one believes any religion (or anything supernatural) , I would do that.

It was likely political violence, but not necessarily leftist. And he shouldn't have taken the action he did, either morally or tactically. But I'm not a leftist, and I agree with everything quoted here.

The current battle isn't between left and right, it's between right and wrong.

In my perfect world, everyone would be educated that religious beliefs are all incorrect, and no one would have the desire to practice them, so laws regarding religion wouldn't be necessary.

since when does education work to instill shared values on everyone? that was the idea of communist states everywhere but it didn't work even there

Because you can't do what you want with it in place. This is why totalitarian regimes either don't have or subordinate their bill of rights to something like the CCP.

With 1a in place you can't play grand inquisitor, requiring theists to prove their claim. The burden is on you to prove no such thing exists. There's no other way to establish your claim that no reasonable person would believe in such things.

I think the default view on this is that we don’t know why anything exists at all, or what it means or doesn’t mean to experience existence. So even though it's a negative, you still need to affirm that the theist explanation is false or impossible to make it unreasonable to believe in that.