Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[Joohan]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

mods might think otherwise
also, there are nonchristian rightwingers lingering in this thread
there's hana and fahran and uh

There in lies an ideological difference. For many among us, at present me and Dio, our politics are inseparable from our religious views.

[Bear Stearns]

Neocons do support killing people...and torture...and domestic surveillance...

Neocons support killing terrorists and other criminals. Not genocide or atrocities against innocent people. And what is wrong with domestic surveillance? I would rather live under domestic surveillance than be oppressed by a Wahhabi caliphate.

"Terrorists"

lol - were these the ones neocons funded or the American citizens stripped of constitutional rights?

Also...guess who funded the Wahhabi caliphate...neocons!

[Nakena]

mods might think otherwise
also, there are nonchristian rightwingers lingering in this thread
there's hana and fahran and uh

I mean, it depends on how willing one is to place me in the philosophical tradition of the Abrahamic faiths; some folks (who I've since ceased contact with) referred to me (in a rather dismissive tone) as merely a sophisticated Christian apologist.

On what reason? You never came across to me as one.

[Kowani]

I would certainly appreciate leaders who don't call themselves "the chosen one," but the President can not take Communion officially as the President, but rather as an individual. The government cannot espouse any religion, and unfortunately many seem to forget that this protects not just the government, but also religions themselves, as it keeps secular politics and religion out of religious and doctrinal decision.

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

In the US? Nah, that’d be a radical fucking move.

[Xuloqoia]

Also, it depends on how willing one is to consider me "right-wing"; I believe I've mentioned this issue before in previous thread iterations?

[The Wasatch]

I would certainly appreciate leaders who don't call themselves "the chosen one," but the President can not take Communion officially as the President, but rather as an individual. The government cannot espouse any religion, and unfortunately many seem to forget that this protects not just the government, but also religions themselves, as it keeps secular politics and religion out of religious and doctrinal decision.

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

This is a threat to religious freedom of all people, even people belonging to the state religion, and of religions freedom from government influence. As soon as one group becomes the majority, all other groups will be suppressed. Government and religion ought not mix-- national religions are best left in the past. There is a reason that the Vatican is not within any other nation.

[Neko-koku]

this would be better tackled in the christian thread, i think

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

We need to get rid of stupid catch-all terms such as "leftism" and "rightism".

Was Ayn Rand a leftist because she was secular? The word "leftist" is ill-defined. Same for "rightist".

[Xuloqoia]

I mean, it depends on how willing one is to place me in the philosophical tradition of the Abrahamic faiths; some folks (who I've since ceased contact with) referred to me (in a rather dismissive tone) as merely a sophisticated Christian apologist.

On what reason? You never came across to me as one.

Something, something, "Puritan", something, something, "crypto-theist", something, something, "bootlicking scum". It was quite a while ago, and admittedly I'm rather short on the details. Perhaps Grahnol might be able to fill you all in, but I'm not even sure if it was on the Discord server we were both in a while ago or not.

[The Wasatch]

I believe that it is sufficiently evident that I am actually not right-wing, though I am religious and a bit legalist, which I guess are sometimes associated with the right wing, though I believe that they ought not only be considered right wing values, and I suppose that there are many recognized religious leftists.

[Kowani]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

We need to get rid of stupid catch-all terms such as "leftism" and "rightism".

Was Ayn Rand a leftist because she was secular? The word "leftist" is ill-defined. Same for "rightist".

No, she was just an idiot.

[Joohan]

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

In the US? Nah, that’d be a radical fucking move.

In the US, totally. But the idea in general hasn't been uncommon among western states.

[Xuloqoia]

Secularism is left wing poison.

You're on RWDT - As above so below baby!

We need to get rid of stupid catch-all terms such as "leftism" and "rightism".

Was Ayn Rand a leftist because she was secular? The word "leftist" is ill-defined. Same for "rightist".

Oh, there's a term for Ayn Rand, and there's quite a few actually; I'm sure that you wouldn't like them, however.

[Bear Stearns]

On what reason? You never came across to me as one.

Something, something, "Puritan", something, something, "crypto-theist", something, something, "bootlicking scum". It was quite a while ago, and admittedly I'm rather short on the details. Perhaps Grahnol might be able to fill you all in, but I'm not even sure if it was on the Discord server we were both in a while ago or not.

The Puritans were unironically right on a lot of things...and deadly wrong on others.

[Grahnol]

Also, it depends on how willing one is to consider me "right-wing"; I believe I've mentioned this issue before in previous thread iterations?

I find myself quite a bit to the right on economic issues. Broadly speaking, I'm for deregulations but there is a lot of leeway for what kinds of regulation I want or don't want. I'm for environmental regulations, yes but I also think that private healthcare should continue existing alongside public healthcare and I'm perfectly fine with privatising many things like public transportation, electricity, water, etc.

[Diopolis]

Those quotes from the Catechism of the council of Trent don't use the actual word submission, but they do use the term subject to, which is synonymous. I don't know about the new Catechism.

Well, "subject to," and "submission" do have different meanings, and, while similar, have different connotations.

It's true that subject to often has a more restricted meaning than submission, but it's clear in the context of the quote on women's role in marriage that it's intended as a synonym. Honestly it looks like a quirk of translation.

I am honestly curious about the Church teaching on this; I have witnessed varied explanations and interpretations.

Well, there's the catechism of the council of Trent, which is infallible. Novus Ordo-ey types have never seemed clear enough on what they believe to be fully comprehensible- the mutual submission doctrine comes closest, but that always seemed rather specific to the marital debt and its relation to the permissibility of NFP.

[Neko-koku]

We need to get rid of stupid catch-all terms such as "leftism" and "rightism".

Was Ayn Rand a leftist because she was secular? The word "leftist" is ill-defined. Same for "rightist".

Oh, there's a term for Ayn Rand, and there's quite a few actually; I'm sure that you wouldn't like them, however.

Such as?

Objectivist (tm)?

[Camelone]

I believe that it is sufficiently evident that I am actually not right-wing, though I am religious and a bit legalist, which I guess are sometimes associated with the right wing, though I believe that they ought not only be considered right wing values, and I suppose that there are many recognized religious leftists.

You are aware that this thread is substantially farther on the right wing of the spectrum to say it easily? What other things do you believe that influence this decision?

[Neko-koku]

We have authoritarian "leftists" and authoritarian "rightists". There is no room for liberty.

[Xuloqoia]

Oh, there's a term for Ayn Rand, and there's quite a few actually; I'm sure that you wouldn't like them, however.

Such as?

Objectivist (tm)?

Oh, no. I'm referring to far less... pleasant descriptors for her worldview.

[Joohan]

I know, at least in the United States, the president is prevented from doing so in his official capacity, but think that he should be able to. This certainly wouldn't be too radical a move, plenty of modern countries even today have relations between the state and national churches. Heck, the British Monarch also doubles as the head of the Anglican church. It wouldn't be too radical a transition - but I think an affirmation of a nations' faith would mean the world.

This is a threat to religious freedom of all people, even people belonging to the state religion, and of religions freedom from government influence. As soon as one group becomes the majority, all other groups will be suppressed. Government and religion ought not mix-- national religions are best left in the past. There is a reason that the Vatican is not within any other nation.

For a state to acknowledge a specific faith as being intrinsic to the well being of society is not, in itself, a threat to religious freedom. To place restrictions upon the worship of other faiths would be. Tolerance isn't a Christian virtue, and I don't really care about parity between faiths.

[Diopolis]

Something, something, "Puritan", something, something, "crypto-theist", something, something, "bootlicking scum". It was quite a while ago, and admittedly I'm rather short on the details. Perhaps Grahnol might be able to fill you all in, but I'm not even sure if it was on the Discord server we were both in a while ago or not.

The Puritans were unironically right on a lot of things...and deadly wrong on others.

They were very much right in a lot of ways. They were wrong on a few things, of course, chiefly the truth of Faith.

[Neko-koku]

Such as?

Objectivist (tm)?

Oh, no. I'm referring to far less... pleasant descriptors for her worldview.

That's fine. Say them lol.

[Grahnol]

We have authoritarian "leftists" and authoritarian "rightists". There is no room for liberty.

*quitely sits as a liberal (by European definitions) with bassboosted cricket noises*

inb4 liberty can't dominate and control the world or something like that

[Xuloqoia]

Also, it depends on how willing one is to consider me "right-wing"; I believe I've mentioned this issue before in previous thread iterations?

I find myself quite a bit to the right on economic issues. Broadly speaking, I'm for deregulations but there is a lot of leeway for what kinds of regulation I want or don't want. I'm for environmental regulations, yes but I also think that private healthcare should continue existing alongside public healthcare and I'm perfectly fine with privatising many things like public transportation, electricity, water, etc.

Speak of the Devil and he shall appear, huh? Do you remember when I was called a crypto-Abrahamic apologist hack? Or was that not on SporeWiki/Cafe-Sci?

[Joohan]

We have authoritarian "leftists" and authoritarian "rightists". There is no room for liberty.

yes, because anarchists and libertarians have been so well known for facilitating stable and secure societies were liberty might actually be enjoyed...