Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[Northern Davincia]

I have met with many Korean Christians and prayed with them often. I greatly enjoyed the experience and I think of them fondly, but my opinion of South Korea is very high all the same.

Without a state monopoly on violence, what is to prevent business from using violence on their opponents, similar to how organized crime does now?

Mutually-assured destruction.

[Joohan]

Without a state monopoly on violence, what is to prevent business from using violence on their opponents, similar to how organized crime does now?

Mutually-assured destruction.

Lol wut?

MAD is only realistic between two equal powers. If Walmart wanted to go stomp on dollar general, there's nothing that DG is gonna be able to do about it.

Not that that even matters though! Violence could be seen and used as a tool to gain position, just as it is with organized crime right now! Gangs fight each other all the time to secure business ventures and profit. You think business's wouldn't do the same? Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Competition and innovation against competitors! Guns and dynamite become just as useful as lawsuits ( only, I guess there wouldn't be anymore lawsuits now would there ).

[Stylan]

welp
Trump has just been impeached
here we go lads, buckle up

[Joohan]

welp
Trump has just been impeached
here we go lads, buckle up

And the senate's going to vote it down.

[Salus Maior]

welp
Trump has just been impeached
here we go lads, buckle up

It can only go into effect if the Senate confirms it.

Which I don't think they'll do.

[Northern Davincia]

Mutually-assured destruction.

Lol wut?

MAD is only realistic between two equal powers. If Walmart wanted to go stomp on dollar general, there's nothing that DG is gonna be able to do about it.

Not that that even matters though! Violence could be seen and used as a tool to gain position, just as it is with organized crime right now! Gangs fight each other all the time to secure business ventures and profit. You think business's wouldn't do the same? Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Competition and innovation against competitors! Guns and dynamite become just as useful as lawsuits ( only, I guess there wouldn't be anymore lawsuits now would there ).

Are you assuming I'm an anarchist? In any case, many gangs understand the concept of turfs.

[Napkizemlja]

welp
Trump has just been impeached
here we go lads, buckle up

It can only go into effect if the Senate confirms it.

Which I don't think they'll do.

Yes but the damage is done. American politics is continuing down a road it really should not be going down. Alas, it will come to an end one day - though the manner in which is will come to an end may not be a good one.

[Joohan]

Lol wut?

MAD is only realistic between two equal powers. If Walmart wanted to go stomp on dollar general, there's nothing that DG is gonna be able to do about it.

Not that that even matters though! Violence could be seen and used as a tool to gain position, just as it is with organized crime right now! Gangs fight each other all the time to secure business ventures and profit. You think business's wouldn't do the same? Isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Competition and innovation against competitors! Guns and dynamite become just as useful as lawsuits ( only, I guess there wouldn't be anymore lawsuits now would there ).

Are you assuming I'm an anarchist? In any case, many gangs understand the concept of turfs.

You've defended anarcho-capitalism, as well as various ancaps in the past. It was a fair assumption. Turf's stop meaning anything when the other guy's want it.

[Turbofolkia]

Can one really be a good nationalist if one belongs to a religion which has not been historically the national religion? In the case of America, I would consider liberalism to be the "national religion," since that's basically what it is. An illiberal American nationalist would be odd, probably why many of the more far-right ones are white nationalist or Southern secessionists. In countries such as Thailand, Britain, and Thailand, where the head of state is also a religious figure, belonging to a different religion is tantamount to declaring their authority null.

Islam is generally seen as compatible with Croatian nationalism, despite the vast majority of us being Catholic and despite Islam being the religion of the Bosniaks. The Ustaše declared Catholicism and Islam to be the two official religions of the Croatian people and it’s not uncommon to see crescent moons in amongst crosses at gravesites of those who died in the Homeland War. One of the most hard right nationalist politicians in the Croatian parliament is also a Muslim.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians are absolutely not seen as compatible.

[Baltenstein]

It should be noted the American civil was deliberately build to be able to incorporate general Judaeo-Christianity so as to allow all Christians and Jews, amongst arguably others to be easily folded into it. By general reference to a non specified God, without going into any theological details.
The problem is of course the rise of atheism after the Cold War causes issue with that.

Unlike say French or the (former now dying) Turkish Civil religion which tends towards being specifically irreligious and would not reference God at all.

Weren´t the Founding Fathers strongly influenced by Deism?

[Isles of Metanoia]

Who is going to multiplayer Stellaris? Aren't we supposed to plan a multiplayer of it here?

[Diopolis]

Who is going to multiplayer Stellaris? Aren't we supposed to plan a multiplayer of it here?

Video games are degenerate though.

[Isles of Metanoia]

Who is going to multiplayer Stellaris? Aren't we supposed to plan a multiplayer of it here?

Video games are degenerate though.

Nah, depends, I think that strategy games and games which increase IQ like math or word games are good. Multiplayer Strategy games are like modern chess in my opinion.

[Novus America]

It should be noted the American civil was deliberately build to be able to incorporate general Judaeo-Christianity so as to allow all Christians and Jews, amongst arguably others to be easily folded into it. By general reference to a non specified God, without going into any theological details.
The problem is of course the rise of atheism after the Cold War causes issue with that.

Unlike say French or the (former now dying) Turkish Civil religion which tends towards being specifically irreligious and would not reference God at all.

Weren´t the Founding Fathers strongly influenced by Deism?

They were.
Nearly all were members of or at least attended established churches but most cared little or nothing for detailed theology in favor of a more general deism.
Which helps explain the difference in French/Former Turkish Laicite and US civil religions.

Our civil religion was from deists instead of anti-clerical anti-theists.
So it it regularly references a God or higher power without any mentions as to the specifics. In no small part because the Founding Fathers did not think specific theology was important, and also to avoid different religious identities conflicting with the Nationalism they sought to build.

They did not view their Deism and Christianity/Judaism as incompatible.
George Washington was notable for attending mass at a wide variety of churches of different denominations, Protestant, Catholic and Quaker.
He even corresponded with Synagogues.

Interestingly George Washington refused to confirm or deny that he was Christian when explicitly asked.

Although not used at the time their deism has later been called “Theistic rationalism” to differentiate from a “pure” deism. They were deistic but not dogmatically so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism
They actually thought the values religions taught were valuable.

“American Founding Fathers (and especially Washington) believed that, as leaders of the nation, they should remain silent on questions of doctrine and denomination, to avoid creating unnecessary divisiveness within the nation; instead they should promote the virtues taught by religion in general.“
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio ... arly_views

Although it also did evolve over time, the references to a general God instead of “Providence” increased during the Cold War to differentiate the US vs the State Atheist Soviet and Co.

American Civil religion can thus mesh with rather than directly conflict with most religions, so long as they respect the religious freedom of others and are not theocratic.

Or at least did before strident anti-theism started to become a small but loud minority here.

[Diopolis]

Video games are degenerate though.

Nah, depends, I think that strategy games and games which increase IQ like math or word games are good. Multiplayer Strategy games are like modern chess in my opinion.

No, kids should play with each other, not the idoodad.

[Salus Maior]

Can one really be a good nationalist if one belongs to a religion which has not been historically the national religion? In the case of America, I would consider liberalism to be the "national religion," since that's basically what it is. An illiberal American nationalist would be odd, probably why many of the more far-right ones are white nationalist or Southern secessionists. In countries such as Thailand, Britain, and Thailand, where the head of state is also a religious figure, belonging to a different religion is tantamount to declaring their authority null.

Islam is generally seen as compatible with Croatian nationalism, despite the vast majority of us being Catholic and despite Islam being the religion of the Bosniaks. The Ustaše declared Catholicism and Islam to be the two official religions of the Croatian people and it’s not uncommon to see crescent moons in amongst crosses at gravesites of those who died in the Homeland War. One of the most hard right nationalist politicians in the Croatian parliament is also a Muslim.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians are absolutely not seen as compatible.

And this is nonesense.

[Salus Maior]

It should be noted the American civil was deliberately build to be able to incorporate general Judaeo-Christianity so as to allow all Christians and Jews, amongst arguably others to be easily folded into it. By general reference to a non specified God, without going into any theological details.
The problem is of course the rise of atheism after the Cold War causes issue with that.

Unlike say French or the (former now dying) Turkish Civil religion which tends towards being specifically irreligious and would not reference God at all.

Weren´t the Founding Fathers strongly influenced by Deism?

No. Only a few were deists.

And that wasn't the reason for the separation of church and state anyway.

[Northern Davincia]

Are you assuming I'm an anarchist? In any case, many gangs understand the concept of turfs.

You've defended anarcho-capitalism, as well as various ancaps in the past. It was a fair assumption. Turf's stop meaning anything when the other guy's want it.

It would be easier for a company to buy it out, as the damage in infrastructure and loss of life would be far more disastrous.

[Novus America]

Weren´t the Founding Fathers strongly influenced by Deism?

No. Only a few were deists.

And that wasn't the reason for the separation of church and state anyway.

Influenced by Deism is different than being strictly Deist in a dogmatic sense.
They did not view Deist thought and practicing Christianity as incompatible.

But they were influenced by it.
Although coined later theistic rationalism is a better description than strict deism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Sure, the reason they supported separation of Church and state was not because they rejected the church, or churches. But because the care little for the details of denomination or doctrine and did not want society divided by them, and to protect freedom of religion.

[North German Realm]

Islam is generally seen as compatible with Croatian nationalism, despite the vast majority of us being Catholic and despite Islam being the religion of the Bosniaks. The Ustaše declared Catholicism and Islam to be the two official religions of the Croatian people and it’s not uncommon to see crescent moons in amongst crosses at gravesites of those who died in the Homeland War. One of the most hard right nationalist politicians in the Croatian parliament is also a Muslim.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians are absolutely not seen as compatible.

And this is nonesense.

It's really not though. I mean I don't get the part about Islam being compatible, but Croatians not seeing Orthodoxy to be compatible with "Croatian-ness" makes sense.

[Novus America]

Islam is generally seen as compatible with Croatian nationalism, despite the vast majority of us being Catholic and despite Islam being the religion of the Bosniaks. The Ustaše declared Catholicism and Islam to be the two official religions of the Croatian people and it’s not uncommon to see crescent moons in amongst crosses at gravesites of those who died in the Homeland War. One of the most hard right nationalist politicians in the Croatian parliament is also a Muslim.

Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians are absolutely not seen as compatible.

And this is nonesense.

Based on your premise, but if you accept that Croat and Serb identity are defined in no small part on opposition to the other then it makes more sense.

Both are Slavs, both speak a similar language, the difference is that one looked west and the other east, and thus developed separate national identity.

In that view if you are Orthodox you have gone Eastern, thus rejecting the Western, or vice a versa.
Whereas Islam is viewed as not having decided which one, not west nor east, so not as rejecting the western or eastern Christianity. Or weird as it may seem it is viewed better to reject both Eastern and Western Christianity than choose the wrong one.

Sure it is a bit tortured logic to say the least, but if you view Catholicism and Orthodox as mutually exclusive identities, and Islam as not a mutually exclusive identity then it flows from that.

Odd as it may seem, accepting Orthodoxy or Catholicism is seen as embracing “the enemy” where Islam is not viewed as the enemy is a common belief amongst Croatian ultra-nationalists.

Looking at it rationally from the outside you can say WTF, but remember identity is a much a feeling as it is elucidated belief to many, if not most.

Feelings are not necessarily rational. If you feel something is the enemy, those who embrace that are the enemy and those that do not embrace it are not necessarily the enemy.

[Salus Maior]

No. Only a few were deists.

And that wasn't the reason for the separation of church and state anyway.

Influenced by Deism is different than being strictly Deist in a dogmatic sense.
They did not view Deist thought and practicing Christianity as incompatible.

But they were influenced by it.
Although coined later theistic rationalism is a better description than strict deism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Sure, the reason they supported separation of Church and state was not because they rejected the church, or churches. But because the care little for the details of denomination or doctrine and did not want society divided by them, and to protect freedom of religion.

The opposite is true, actually.

Many of the states themselves had strong, dogmatic state churches. In the South, the Episcopal church was the legally established church, and in Massachusetts and Connecticut you had the Puritan-derived Congregationalists who saw the Episcopalians as heretics, and so on. Freedom of religion was a rarity, and only a handful of areas, like NYC and Rhode Island, actually had a real sense of freedom of religion.

The only way to keep a union with this kind of religious disunity would be by agreeing that there wasn't going to be a federal state church. Because having no federal church is better than having the other as a federal church. Dogmatism would decline in America once the interdenominational Evangelical movement started, but up until that point, dogma and doctrine was a serious matter to the colonials.

[Novus America]

Influenced by Deism is different than being strictly Deist in a dogmatic sense.
They did not view Deist thought and practicing Christianity as incompatible.

But they were influenced by it.
Although coined later theistic rationalism is a better description than strict deism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Sure, the reason they supported separation of Church and state was not because they rejected the church, or churches. But because the care little for the details of denomination or doctrine and did not want society divided by them, and to protect freedom of religion.

The opposite is true, actually.

Many of the states themselves had strong, dogmatic state churches. In the South, the Episcopal church was the legally established church, and in Massachusetts and Connecticut you had the Puritan-derived Congregationalists who saw the Episcopalians as heretics, and so on. Freedom of religion was a rarity, and only a handful of areas, like NYC and Rhode Island, actually had a real sense of freedom of religion.

The only way to keep a union with this kind of religious disunity would be by agreeing that there wasn't going to be a federal state church. Because having no federal church is better than having the other as a federal church. Dogmatism would decline in America once the interdenominational Evangelical movement started, but up until that point, dogma and doctrine was a serious matter to the colonials.

These ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The main Founding Fathers, especially Washington showed little interest in the specifics of dogma or doctrine, again he was notable for attending churches of different denominations and corresponding with synagogues.

Remember the very educated, intellectual Founding Fathers had a different understanding than the average person.

What they believed as what the average less educated person in the colonies believed were different.

True having no one church was better than the wrong one, for many of the average people, for Washington and the like there was no one right or wrong church.

Although interest in dogma and doctrine had already entered into decline by then, although there were still established churches as hold overs from the 1600s they were weaker than they had been. Puritanism was already dead by then for example, the Salem Witch Trials were an utter disaster for dogma in the mind of many people.

A large portion of society, especially the educated wanted to move past that sort of insanity.

Religious views in 1775 were quite dramatically changed from 1675.

However you are correct not all had. The Founding Fathers themselves mostly found obsession with dogma backwards but were also aware not everyone felt the same.

And it worked. After all if you are staunch Catholic, your Neighbor a staunch Protestant you both can vote for the same moderate Deist who will protect you both from the other.

It actually makes more sense than voting for a staunch Catholic who loses so that a staunch Protestant wins instead.
The same person who will protect you both is better than the one that will start conflict, even if on your behalf.

[Bear Stearns]

As much as I like the idea of immigrants assimilating and adopting Anglo-American cultural norms, there is something untrustworthy about someone who changes their identity so they can social climb.

[Bear Stearns]

Influenced by Deism is different than being strictly Deist in a dogmatic sense.
They did not view Deist thought and practicing Christianity as incompatible.

But they were influenced by it.
Although coined later theistic rationalism is a better description than strict deism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Sure, the reason they supported separation of Church and state was not because they rejected the church, or churches. But because the care little for the details of denomination or doctrine and did not want society divided by them, and to protect freedom of religion.

The opposite is true, actually.

Many of the states themselves had strong, dogmatic state churches. In the South, the Episcopal church was the legally established church, and in Massachusetts and Connecticut you had the Puritan-derived Congregationalists who saw the Episcopalians as heretics, and so on. Freedom of religion was a rarity, and only a handful of areas, like NYC and Rhode Island, actually had a real sense of freedom of religion.

Both were still Calvinist strongholds. Rhode Island was just for Calvinsits who were anti-Puritan.

New York was a merchant hub, so would naturally be more diverse, but back when it was New Amsterdam, there were religious restrictions and an established church

The only way to keep a union with this kind of religious disunity would be by agreeing that there wasn't going to be a federal state church. Because having no federal church is better than having the other as a federal church. Dogmatism would decline in America once the interdenominational Evangelical movement started, but up until that point, dogma and doctrine was a serious matter to the colonials.

Mainline Protestants were ~80% of the US population in 1920, which is probably the only time in US history where a single denomination (or group of very similar denominations) came close to truly being national.