Does "progressive Christianity" lead to conservative policy?

[Berhakonia]

When you look at the election of Donald Trump, it was a jarring contrast with prior variants of conservatism.

Conservatism used to be known for "Putin, you need to get out of Ukraine." Now it's known for "Putin, you can stay in Ukraine as long as you dig up dirt on our opponents while you're there."

Conservatism used to be known for worshipping capitalism. Now it carves out an exception for international trade.

Conservatism used to be known for fawning over the military. Now it fawns over people who call soldiers suckers and losers.

For an ideology whose supposed namesake is tradition, it sure doesn't seem to hold onto it. (Not that tradition was ever definable in the first place; what if the traditions of our medieval ancestors are at odds with our evolutionary ones?)

But if there is one thing modern conservatism has in common with old-timey conservatism, it's religion. When Trump forced those protesters out of the way, it was to make way for a photo op at a church across the street. He repeatedly invoked "God" in his speeches. People can try to No True Scotsman their way out of this all they like, but so long as the Bible contradicts itself, it leaves room for interpretation that scum like Trump can fit through. And with voters primed by religion for unreason, they won't care if his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Religion didn't either, and disregarding that set a precedent. Trump will never live down getting half a million Americans killed with his coronavirus policies. But who knows how many people religion killed with its opposition to stem cell research?

By comparison, you don't need religion to defend their polar opposite in the kinds of Nordic policies Sanders-types advocate. We know this because Nordic countries are less religious than the USA.

So when you hear of people trying to reconcile said Nordic policies with religion, emotionally I can't help but find it endearing, but intellectually I wonder if that may be doing progressive causes more harm than good. Would that not buy religion undue goodwill, delaying the day society casts aside religion altogether, prolonging religion's toxic continued existence and allowing religion to continue to put Trump-types in office?

Conservatism used to be known for strict adherence to protectionist and interventionist policies. Reagan, Thatcher and (to an extent) Nixon changed that when they began fawning over the free market.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I can take one look at the OP's sig and I'd understand that they're so far in the rabbit hole of "all religion is inherently evil and it's a scam and it's a mind control thing augh awoooogah" that they won't even consider that hey, religion is meant for the betterment of people.

As the person whose quote it is in the OP's signature, I feel obligated to respond to this.

Religion isn't BUYING itself "goodwill". It IS goodwill, or at least good intentions. Christian "charity" isn't a self-righteous scam. It's literally the example that our atoning Savior, Jesus Christ, set.

I'll leave you with this response that I wrote for someone else:

Fascists, too, really do believe in a strong national community that sticks together. Still doesn’t make their soup kitchens anything other than an obviously self-serving measure aimed at the destruction of values I care about. Just like Christian “charity”.

Acting out of genuine faith and acting maliciously are not mutually exclusive. An act of charity can be done out of a genuine desire to help people and still ultimately serve a nefarious end.

And if you want to fight that, consider the Bible verses that actively discourage/disown egofueling and fame. If you really have a bone to pick, pick a bone with the individual- not the system itself. I could also recommend verses from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants- which say the same thing- but I won't even try.

...and the 1936 Soviet Constitution guaranteed a wide variety of democratic rights and liberties. When had that ever stopped Stalin from stepping on them?

Any ideology, Christianity included, is more than merely its founding text. The creative extents to which people go to in the interpretation of that text is of equal if not greater importance to the nominal wording of the text itself. We can read the exit polls like everyone else, see the kind of things that Christians generally tend to campaign and vote for, and conclude with no small justification that Christians don't actually care very much about their fellow man, no matter what the Bible nominally says.

[Bombadil]

Sorry to break it to you but Jesus was clearly a socialist.

Jesus didn't exist in the early-industrial world that spurred socialist thought. He is a charitable, loving, and infinitely atoning entity, of course. And those teachings of his line up with some socialist principles, ie the flipping of the money tables, but I doubt our Lord would identify with a political ideology that generally trends to reactionary violence, authoritarianism, and the justification of sin through shallow selfish means.

Socialist principles have existed throughout history, the idea that a few get to dominate the poor has been a cause of friction for many many ages.

When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

America particularly applied capitalism to religion, hence the megachurches but also the huge variety of religious denominations.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Trump embodied everything that JC would have hated, selling paraphernalia in the name of Jesus would also not be tolerated, Jesus was for the meek, the poor, the disadvantaged.

He was a socialist even if that word wasn't invented yet, though I'd suspect the concept was absolutely there.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It's not that hard to call a deacon/bishop/whatever, or even consult the very internet people use to discourage the faithful to ask the faithful for answers?

Firstly, I have no doubt there might actually be a few well-meaning if misguided people in that walk of life, and if I happened to unbeknownst to myself be in the presence of a well meaning one when I let my anger over the stem cell issue get the best of me, I'd feel awful about it. At least people rejecting religion would be a more gradual change, buying deacons and bishops time to learn new skills to adjust to new careers. My real qualm is more with the worldview that has made otherwise good people do evil things, not necessarily with everyone involved in it, and especially not some local deacon or bishop probably subordinate to the higher-ranking ones elsewhere anyway.

If I knew for a fact I were dealing with a Jerry-Falwell-type, I'd have fewer qualms about mouthing off, but they tend to steer clear of my neck of the woods.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

I can take one look at the OP's sig and I'd understand that they're so far in the rabbit hole of "all religion is inherently evil and it's a scam and it's a mind control thing augh awoooogah" that they won't even consider that hey, religion is meant for the betterment of people.

As the person whose quote it is in the OP's signature, I feel obligated to respond to this.

Religion isn't BUYING itself "goodwill". It IS goodwill, or at least good intentions. Christian "charity" isn't a self-righteous scam. It's literally the example that our atoning Savior, Jesus Christ, set.

I'll leave you with this response that I wrote for someone else:

Fascists, too, really do believe in a strong national community that sticks together. Still doesn’t make their soup kitchens anything other than an obviously self-serving measure aimed at the destruction of values I care about. Just like Christian “charity”.

Acting out of genuine faith and acting maliciously are not mutually exclusive. An act of charity can be done out of a genuine desire to help people and still ultimately serve a nefarious end.

And if you want to fight that, consider the Bible verses that actively discourage/disown egofueling and fame. If you really have a bone to pick, pick a bone with the individual- not the system itself. I could also recommend verses from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants- which say the same thing- but I won't even try.

...and the 1936 Soviet Constitution guaranteed a wide variety of democratic rights and liberties. When had that ever stopped Stalin from stepping on them?

Any ideology, Christianity included, is more than merely its founding text. The creative extents to which people go to in the interpretation of that text is of equal if not greater importance to the nominal wording of the text itself. We can read the exit polls like everyone else, see the kind of things that Christians generally tend to campaign and vote for, and conclude with no small justification that Christians don't actually care very much about their fellow man, no matter what the Bible nominally says.

That is a fair point. I don't get what "nefarious end" is mentioned, however- at least to the common believer? I get institutions' motivations (just look at any megachurch), but what nefarious end? Telling people that they should take responsibility and stop boning/drinking themselves into stupors/aborting children? Holding true to biblical doctrine? Standing as (to at the very least themselves) moral vanguard?

Similarly, you shouldn't be able to compare a Christian charity and Fascist soup kitchen. A soup kitchen run by a Christian who refuses to serve a homeless person because they are gay or black clearly does not reflect christian values. Being opposed to something like gay marriage is one thing, but actively starving them is a betrayal of Jesus' life. Jesus suffered every temptation- Jesus suffered every pain. He talked to the lowest of low, those rejected by a high and mighty society. Any difference is surely only a matter of individual bigotry. That individual bigotry is exactly why Christians have a bad reputation for inclusivity. We must also consider what a Fascist soup kitchen has to gain. Let's look at this from a non-denominational Christian perspective. A Fascist soup kitchen gets glory for a specific entity- a single regime. A Christian soup kitchen has nothing to gain. What is there to gain for them? Glory can not be attributed for a belief so diverse and wide. If a simple nondenominational organization did it, there is no benefit to having conversions. Unless it's a church run by a rigid central organization- my example; the "mormon" church or the Roman Catholic Church, there is no benefit to pushing religion or getting press coverage.

[Immortan Khan]

It's not that hard to call a deacon/bishop/whatever, or even consult the very internet people use to discourage the faithful to ask the faithful for answers?

Firstly, I have no doubt there might actually be a few well-meaning if misguided people in that walk of life, and if I happened to unbeknownst to myself be in the presence of a well meaning one when I let my anger over the stem cell issue get the best of me, I'd feel awful about it. At least people rejecting religion would be a more gradual change, buying deacons and bishops time to learn new skills to adjust to new careers. My real qualm is more with the worldview that has made otherwise good people do evil things, not necessarily with everyone involved in it, and especially not some local deacon or bishop probably subordinate to the higher-ranking ones elsewhere anyway.

If I knew for a fact I were dealing with a Jerry-Falwell-type, I'd have fewer qualms about mouthing off, but they tend to steer clear of my neck of the woods.

Pretty certain most people, religious or not, will steer clear of your neck of the woods.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Firstly, I have no doubt there might actually be a few well-meaning if misguided people in that walk of life, and if I happened to unbeknownst to myself be in the presence of a well meaning one when I let my anger over the stem cell issue get the best of me, I'd feel awful about it. At least people rejecting religion would be a more gradual change, buying deacons and bishops time to learn new skills to adjust to new careers. My real qualm is more with the worldview that has made otherwise good people do evil things, not necessarily with everyone involved in it, and especially not some local deacon or bishop probably subordinate to the higher-ranking ones elsewhere anyway.

If I knew for a fact I were dealing with a Jerry-Falwell-type, I'd have fewer qualms about mouthing off, but they tend to steer clear of my neck of the woods.

Pretty certain most people, religious or not, will steer clear of your neck of the woods.

You know where I live? Did the mods tell you?

[Immortan Khan]

Pretty certain most people, religious or not, will steer clear of your neck of the woods.

You know where I live? Did the mods tell you?

No?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

That is a fair point. I don't get what "nefarious end" is mentioned, however- at least to the common believer? I get institutions' motivations (just look at any megachurch), but what nefarious end? Telling people that they should take responsibility and stop boning/drinking themselves into stupors/aborting children? Holding true to biblical doctrine? Standing as (to at the very least themselves) moral vanguard?

You don't need to look beyond, just to use the first example that comes to mind, Sundiata constantly claiming to "love" people while denouncing their identities and lifestyles to see why I might consider Christianity to be a reactionary ideology that I feel perfectly comfortable comparing with fascism and why I might want to equate Christian charity born of "universal love" to fascist soup kitchens born of national solidarity.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

You know where I live? Did the mods tell you?

No?

Then define "your neck of the woods."

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That is a fair point. I don't get what "nefarious end" is mentioned, however- at least to the common believer? I get institutions' motivations (just look at any megachurch), but what nefarious end? Telling people that they should take responsibility and stop boning/drinking themselves into stupors/aborting children? Holding true to biblical doctrine? Standing as (to at the very least themselves) moral vanguard?

You don't need to look beyond, just to use the first example that comes to mind, Sundiata constantly claiming to "love" people while denouncing their identities and lifestyles to see why I might consider Christianity to be a reactionary ideology that I feel perfectly comfortable comparing with fascism and why I might want to equate Christian charity born of "universal love" to fascist soup kitchens born of national solidarity.

Even denouncing people's identities and lifestyles, while not an approach I endorse, is cotton candy compared to the religious ideas that get people killed.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

Jesus didn't exist in the early-industrial world that spurred socialist thought. He is a charitable, loving, and infinitely atoning entity, of course. And those teachings of his line up with some socialist principles, ie the flipping of the money tables, but I doubt our Lord would identify with a political ideology that generally trends to reactionary violence, authoritarianism, and the justification of sin through shallow selfish means.

Socialist principles have existed throughout history, the idea that a few get to dominate the poor has been a cause of friction for many many ages.

When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

America particularly applied capitalism to religion, hence the megachurches but also the huge variety of religious denominations.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Trump embodied everything that JC would have hated, selling paraphernalia in the name of Jesus would also not be tolerated, Jesus was for the meek, the poor, the disadvantaged.

He was a socialist even if that word wasn't invented yet, though I'd suspect the concept was absolutely there.

Jesus Christ "being disappointed about", but I digress- I agree with the bulk of your response. He was for the lowest of low. Even the Book of Mormon talks about the people who clung to the rod being laughed at by the elite in the great and spacious building.

However, Jesus is also against worldliness as much as he is against corruption. For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom save it be saved through Him. He might be objectively a "socialist" to you because of his world, but also remember the sins of pride, the sins of profanity, the sins of promiscuity. Jesus is willing to save anybody, but they must come unto Him. Modern socialism, unfortunately, has values which would not line up with his Plan.

[Berhakonia]

No?

Then define "your neck of the woods."

A mere euphemism

Lighten up buddy, the CIA ain't coming after ya

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

That is a fair point. I don't get what "nefarious end" is mentioned, however- at least to the common believer? I get institutions' motivations (just look at any megachurch), but what nefarious end? Telling people that they should take responsibility and stop boning/drinking themselves into stupors/aborting children? Holding true to biblical doctrine? Standing as (to at the very least themselves) moral vanguard?

You don't need to look beyond, just to use the first example that comes to mind, Sundiata constantly claiming to "love" people while denouncing their identities and lifestyles to see why I might consider Christianity to be a reactionary ideology that I feel perfectly comfortable comparing with fascism and why I might want to equate Christian charity born of "universal love" to fascist soup kitchens born of national solidarity.

Denouncing somebody on the path to sin isn't reprehensible, though. I denounce people who drink, use substances, engage in fornication- all the time. Regardless, denouncing something which is, again at least to an individual, self-destructive is not the same as using that opposition to actively harm them. It's the same thing as the metaphor I mentioned earlier. You can be against gay marriage, but no good Christian should ever refuse to serve a gay person at the very soup kitchen they built. It should work the same on an institutional scale, but unfortunately- it doesn't because of individual bigotry and bias.

[Odreria]

Socialist principles have existed throughout history, the idea that a few get to dominate the poor has been a cause of friction for many many ages.

When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

America particularly applied capitalism to religion, hence the megachurches but also the huge variety of religious denominations.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Trump embodied everything that JC would have hated, selling paraphernalia in the name of Jesus would also not be tolerated, Jesus was for the meek, the poor, the disadvantaged.

He was a socialist even if that word wasn't invented yet, though I'd suspect the concept was absolutely there.

Jesus Christ "being disappointed about", but I digress- I agree with the bulk of your response. He was for the lowest of low. Even the Book of Mormon talks about the people who clung to the rod being laughed at by the elite in the great and spacious building.

However, Jesus is also against worldliness as much as he is against corruption. For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom save it be saved through Him. He might be objectively a "socialist" to you because of his world, but also remember the sins of pride, the sins of profanity, the sins of promiscuity. Jesus is willing to save anybody, but they must come unto Him. Modern socialism, unfortunately, has values which would not line up with his Plan.

Where did you come up with the idea that the great and spacious building’s residents are society’s elite? It’s pretty universally understood that they’re everybody who seeks after worldly things above all else.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

[...] It should work the same on an institutional scale, but unfortunately- it doesn't because of individual bigotry and bias.

...and when such biases are so common as to be overwhelming, one has to start wondering whether that bigotry exists despite Christianity, or because of it.

I do get your point about denouncing somebody on the path to sin, which is why I've given up on the idea of a truly tolerant society. Because rights and freedoms inherently infringe upon each other, it's not possible for a society to tolerate everything - a certain amount of denunciations are necessary to make a society function. It is not, for example, possible for a society to both accept gay people and also accept Christians who insist on denouncing gay people, so it is necessary for society as a whole to decide which one is going to be left suppressed.

I happen to lean on the side of it's better to suppress Christianity.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

Jesus Christ "being disappointed about", but I digress- I agree with the bulk of your response. He was for the lowest of low. Even the Book of Mormon talks about the people who clung to the rod being laughed at by the elite in the great and spacious building.

However, Jesus is also against worldliness as much as he is against corruption. For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom save it be saved through Him. He might be objectively a "socialist" to you because of his world, but also remember the sins of pride, the sins of profanity, the sins of promiscuity. Jesus is willing to save anybody, but they must come unto Him. Modern socialism, unfortunately, has values which would not line up with his Plan.

Where did you come up with the idea that the great and spacious building’s residents are society’s elite? It’s pretty universally understood that they’re everybody who seeks after worldly things above all else.

The people who occupy that already massive building were dressed in exceedingly fine clothing (1 Nephi 8:26-27). I understand them to be motivated by worldly means, but that detail indicates that those worldly people were in a comfortable position. Several examples in the Bible come to mind about the rich not being willing to compromise (in the context of this "socialist" tangent), such as the money tables, the widow giving all she had, the noble who refused to follow Christ, and many more. The same chapter also mentions people "lost in the darkness" (1 Nephi 8:32), which could also be applied to people who saught worldly things above all else. There were also people who initially clung to the rod but felt their way towards the building, which could also indicate those who while not maybe "rich", have become "comfortable" or acclimated to their new lives and joined in the scorning of the Saints.

[Bombadil]

[...] It should work the same on an institutional scale, but unfortunately- it doesn't because of individual bigotry and bias.

...and when such biases are so common as to be overwhelming, one has to start wondering whether that bigotry exists despite Christianity, or because of it.

I do get your point about denouncing somebody on the path to sin, which is why I've given up on the idea of a truly tolerant society. It's not possible for a society to both accept gay people and also accept Christians who insist on denouncing gay people, so it is necessary for society as a whole to decide which one is going to be let suppressed.

I happen to lean on the side of it's better to suppress Christianity.

I've no issues with Christianity given it sticks to the original point of being entirely personal, it has no place in judging people, that is for Jesus to do as I understand it, and certainly not pushing for laws against people. The rest is your personal decision as to how you conduct your life.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

[...] It should work the same on an institutional scale, but unfortunately- it doesn't because of individual bigotry and bias.

...and when such biases are so common as to be overwhelming, one has to start wondering whether that bigotry exists despite Christianity, or because of it.

I do get your point about denouncing somebody on the path to sin, which is why I've given up on the idea of a truly tolerant society. Because rights and freedoms inherently infringe upon each other, it's not possible for a society to tolerate everything - a certain amount of denunciations are necessary to make a society function. It is not, for example, possible for a society to both accept gay people and also accept Christians who insist on denouncing gay people, so it is necessary for society as a whole to decide which one is going to be let suppressed.

I happen to lean on the side of it's better to suppress Christianity.

Why decide in the first place? Pushing aside the fact that the example presented is relatively black and white, no society will ever be truly tolerant. If you magically end Christianity, you must magically end Islam, then you must magically end all organized religion, then you must end all the martyrs who rise up in oppositon, then you must magically end all unorganized religion, cults, sects, political parties, social organizations, businesses, clubs, associations, until all that's left are people who share your same ideology- all in the name of "tolerance", despite the fact that "you" just ended millions of peoples' faiths, systems, jobs, organizations, or passions out of intolerance.

That brings us back full circle to essentially Nazism.

[HISPIDA]

...and when such biases are so common as to be overwhelming, one has to start wondering whether that bigotry exists despite Christianity, or because of it.

I do get your point about denouncing somebody on the path to sin, which is why I've given up on the idea of a truly tolerant society. It's not possible for a society to both accept gay people and also accept Christians who insist on denouncing gay people, so it is necessary for society as a whole to decide which one is going to be let suppressed.

I happen to lean on the side of it's better to suppress Christianity.

I've no issues with Christianity given it sticks to the original point of being entirely personal, it has no place in judging people, that is for Jesus to do as I understand it, and certainly not pushing for laws against people. The rest is your personal decision as to how you conduct your life.

Not for Jesus, but the Father.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

I've no issues with Christianity given it sticks to the original point of being entirely personal, it has no place in judging people, that is for Jesus to do as I understand it, and certainly not pushing for laws against people. The rest is your personal decision as to how you conduct your life.

Not for Jesus, but the Father.

Jesus is our advocate, but said advocacy can only go so far- depending on what you believe. Some religions' interpretations of that advocacy are more lenient than others. Think the LDS Plan of Salvation (where almost everybody gets to have at least some degree of paradise) versus the fire and brimstone preached by some evangelical churches.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Why decide in the first place?

Because their desires are inherently incompatible. Christian conservatives dream of a society where it is not possible for LGBT people to fully participate in social, cultural, and economic life. LGBT activists dream of a society where it is absolutely possible for LGBT people to fully participate in social, cultural, and economic life. Basic sense dictates that it's not possible for both of these interests to get what they want.

Pushing aside the fact that the example presented is relatively black and white, no society will ever be truly tolerant. If you magically end Christianity, you must magically end Islam, then you must magically end all organized religion, then you must end all the martyrs who rise up in oppositon, then you must magically end all unorganized religion, cults, sects, political parties, social organizations, businesses, clubs, associations, until all that's left are people who share your same ideology- all in the name of "tolerance", despite the fact that "you" just ended millions of peoples' faiths, systems, jobs, organizations, or passions out of intolerance.

Well, yes. I do dream of a society that has put an end to the folly of organised religion and spiritual faith. What's wrong with that?

The difference between my stance and the caricature of me that you've built up there lies in the means to which I am willing to resort to in order to achieve it, which is in itself a fairly important component of an ideological position. You probably want to see an end to cigarette abuse, but it would be a blatant strawman if I constructed you as some kind of tyrant that will put tobacco farmers into death camps.

[Bombadil]

I've no issues with Christianity given it sticks to the original point of being entirely personal, it has no place in judging people, that is for Jesus to do as I understand it, and certainly not pushing for laws against people. The rest is your personal decision as to how you conduct your life.

Not for Jesus, but the Father.

Yeah, Jesus.. another guy who's known basically for having a famous father, I expect to see him on Celebrity Love Island at some point..

[Ethel mermania]

Not for Jesus, but the Father.

Yeah, Jesus.. another guy who's known basically for having a famous father, I expect to see him on Celebrity Love Island at some point..

Have a little sympathy, its got to be tough to constantly be overshadowed by dad.

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

Why decide in the first place?

Because their desires are inherently incompatible. Christian conservatives dream of a society where it is not possible for LGBT people to fully participate in social, cultural, and economic life. LGBT activists dream of a society where it is absolutely possible for LGBT people to fully participate in social, cultural, and economic life. Basic sense dictates that it's not possible for both of these interests to get what they want.

Pushing aside the fact that the example presented is relatively black and white, no society will ever be truly tolerant. If you magically end Christianity, you must magically end Islam, then you must magically end all organized religion, then you must end all the martyrs who rise up in oppositon, then you must magically end all unorganized religion, cults, sects, political parties, social organizations, businesses, clubs, associations, until all that's left are people who share your same ideology- all in the name of "tolerance", despite the fact that "you" just ended millions of peoples' faiths, systems, jobs, organizations, or passions out of intolerance.

Well, yes. I do dream of a society that has put an end to the folly of organised religion and spiritual faith. What's wrong with that?

The difference between my stance and the caricature of me that you've built up there lies in the means to which I am willing to resort to in order to achieve it, which is in itself a fairly important component of an ideological position. You probably want to see an end to cigarette abuse, but it would be a blatant strawman if I constructed you as some kind of tyrant that will put tobacco farmers into death camps.

Here we are, where the worst of Christian Conservatives can denounce all they want but LGBT people still exist and live their lives in freedom with more people realizing homosexuality isn't a choice each day.

Maybe it's the way I phrased it, but I wasn't trying to build a strawman or caricature. My apologies. I was moreso referring to the fact of "if you get rid of the 'folly' of organized religion , then more people will fill in that gap from other organizations or even unorganized individuals until you've got nothing left. It's just not constructive or kind to just sit and think "I'd love to live in a world without [group X]." because it's the same rhetoric the most abhorrent of tyrants use to try to normalize the eradication of people they don't like- typically racial minorities.