LeftyLen
Active Member
Depending on the state, leftism is taught in schools, a myriad of examples i could post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oklahoma schools in revolt over Bible mandate
- Thread starter anna.
- Start date
How about the option of teaching
neither leftism nor Bibleism, eh.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
I would wager they wouldn't be real examples
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Will they be teaching that the bible dictates that anyone who is a non-believer is to be butchered? Would the teachers be required to enforce this in the classroom?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
I can think of a few, but it has been taught since the age of reason overcame dogma in the 18th century with the Age of Enlightenment, there are a few places that are trying to go back like Iran and Afghanistan but in this country at best there are a few places that are just a little slower.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. Just that it would be yoalls turn to go name calling and projecting yoalls own thoughts that the poster never said.
Liberalism, like conservatism, results from a state of mind. Liberalism is characterized by a sense of justice, empathy, and security.
Conservatism results from the opposite - some sense of feeling threatened, whether that is of having to compete and thus preferring to keep some people down, or fear of physical harm leading to stockpiling weapons, or relative or absolute sociopathy.
I'm proud to say that I identify with that first category, and that I have little regard for others in the latter.
This is a spectrum. Some in the middle with some liberal values identify as conservatives. I'm thinking of people like Cheney and Kinzinger, and the Lincoln Project conservatives, who I call moderates. These people are conservative, but they still support America's liberal founding principles such as democracy, the rule of law, and church-state separation. But they are outnumbered today by the rabid conservatives and have little influence in the Republican party.
What's Trump's appeal to his base? That he's a strongman, a bully, and hates people who don't look like him. Trump and Biden are a bit like the OT god and the NT god. If you want the guy who angrily smites, you're an angry or fearful conservative. If you like the kinder, gentler deity who talks about love and forgiveness, then you are more liberal in your religious orientation. If you apply that attitude to people, you are more liberal socially as well.
My philosophy remains liberal, but my mood fluctuates between more societally connected and generous and more hostile and isolated. My mood can become less liberal just from leaving the house and interacting with other people. I become more like conservatives in my mood and actions until the mood passes. I don't tip as well, and I don't cooperate with other drivers who want to turn or merge ahead of me and need my cooperation except when it's a safety issue. In other words, it becomes all about me until I recover. I become a conservative in my mood (angry) and actions (selfish) for a time.
But back to school: The academic curriculum for free people is called a liberal education. Conservatives often object to what people are hearing in schools as you have done here. They'd like to limit it except when they want to expand it with creationism or now, posting the Ten Commandments (LA) and proselytizing from the Bible (OK).
There's a reason they so strongly object to DEI. Diversity, equity and inclusion are all anathema to them. They want the diversity limited to white male Christians and fear equity and inclusion.
Some of the diversity that angers them is the social acceptance of LGBTQ+ by the left. Why? They have been taught to despise and oppress such people.
Some of the equity they resent is affirmative action. Why? They're afraid of having to compete with these people on a level playing field.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Thank you for warning us and restraining yourself. It is much appreciated.
The very establishment of the human rights you enjoy was an essentially liberal (leftist) idea. The very idea that you have rights over which government has no say was a liberal rejection of the absolute powers over individuals enjoyed by kings and emperors, lords -- and clergy!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, you mean like intelligence over ignorance, honesty over corruption, and caring for those in need versus being self-centered?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes! That is being "woke'. We cannot have that.
Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus
Christian devotees of former President Donald Trump are denouncing Bible verses attributed to Jesus as "weak," according to an evangelical leader.
www.newsweek.com
To even think of calling someone like Liz Cheney a "moderate" just shows how far the Overton window has shifted to a horrifying degree.
Or can you explain what Liz Cheney has done or said that makes you classify her as a "moderate", other than the fact that she did not support an insurrection against the U.S.?
Last edited:
Nothing to my knowledge apart from her part on the J6 committee. That alone makes her (and Kinzinger) to the left of almost all Republicans since the rise of MAGA.
And I agree with you about the Overton window. As the Republicans have moved further in the extreme reactionary direction - one might say that they have moved so far right on the right wing that they are no longer on the eagle - people like Cheney, whose congressional record I know nothing about apart from her J6 committee participation but have read I would like little about, are relatively moderate. Do you disagree?
And yes, the Republicans are now horrifying.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It is a spectrum, but the endpoints are not liberal and conservative. In fact, conservative is a midpoint. The democrats are, with few exceptions, conservatives. The other endpoint of the spectrum is regressive. That is where the GOP is today. They are not content with maintaining the status quo, they want to go back, they just don't all agree on how far.
“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”
― Douglas AdamsI suggest facts and reason. There's your balance. No dogma taught. No compromizing on that. If parents want their kids to believe that Jesus actually was killed as a sacrifice for sins, then that's what they can do. The government has no right to do that to children whose parents have different religious beliefs, or none at all.
You must be a leftist. Since you haven't defined what thei label means I have ne reason to assume it is what is meant traditionally by the word, that it means communists. I have no clue what it means to you except that it is whomever has a different set of values and beliefs that you have. You seem to think your position is perfect, and anything else is wrong. That doesn;t work well in a diverse society.
I don't think we disagree on reality, just what words we use to describe it. I use a liberal to conservative scale and mean the words to include all possibilities.
I understand liberal and conservative historically in terms of those who wanted to conserve wealth, power and privilege for an elite class and those who intended to liberate it from them and distribute it among the common people, forming a middle class. That's been done, but America's conservatives are trying their hardest to concentrate those three again and once again create a peasantry to serve them.
With that in mind, moderate refers to toward the center and extreme toward the poles.
At the center would be what I call (unqualified) moderates or centrists.
Just to the left of them are moderate liberals. Here I include the typical Democratic presidential candidates of the last 30+ years (Bill C, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary C, and Biden). These types are more sympathetic to corporatists and more likely to go to war than people to their left, who include what are called progressives to socialists like Bernie and AOC.
To their left go the militant liberals (Angela Davis, Black Panthers, Weathermen).
As we move right of center, we encounter the moderate conservatives. Whether somebody like Cheney deserves this label is relative. As I understand, she is as far rightwing as one can be and still be loyal to the Constitution, which I jokingly described as being on the right wing of the eagle, perhaps the wing tip. Perhaps that is where we put Cheney.
And to the right of them are the fascistic types such as the Nazis and MAGA. I describe MAGA, which seems to be most vocal, elected Republicans (congressional and state level), as anti-American (there may be some more moderate but silent ones among them, but it is rare to hear them object to fascism or criticize their colleagues).
MAGA are domestic enemies just like the Christian theocrats, who, like MAGA, disregard the Constitution, the difference being that the conservative Christian hate church-state separation and egalitarianism (they're bigots), and MAGA hates democracy, egalitarianism (also bigots), and the rule of law. All of these are so right wing that they're off the bird and attacking it, too.
Incidentally, I don't consider brutal, authoritarian regimes of any type liberal even if they call themselves Communists like Stalin. It's ridiculous to me to call Hitler a conservative because he is called fascist and Stalin a liberal because he is called a Communist. Both wanted to concentrate power and were indifferent to human rights and took lives at will. Liberals object. Humanists object.
Recall that I compared these to psychological states earlier on this thread. The authoritarian fascists and authoritarian Communists have the same conservative psychology:
"Liberalism, like conservatism, results from a state of mind. Liberalism is characterized by a sense of justice, empathy, and security. Conservatism results from the opposite - some sense of feeling threatened, whether that is of having to compete and thus preferring to keep some people down, or fear of physical harm leading to stockpiling weapons, or relative or absolute sociopathy."
This formulation is a reasonable framework in my estimation and is useful to me in eliminating the chaos and ambiguity in this area.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yes, there are too many words in the political scene which aren't defined the same by different parties. E.g. I usually avoid the label "liberal" as it means something very different in Europe and the US. (Our (neo-)liberals are more on the right side of the spectrum.
When it comes to the spectrum, we were talking about, one end should be named "progressive".
Left, middle and right are often used synonymous with progressive, conservative and regressive, though they mean slightly different things.
I wouldn't see most democrats on the left (or the liberal side) of the political compass. (Bernie and AOC being outliers.)
From a European view of things, politicians in the US are either on the right or on the crazy right (off the eagle).
LeftyLen
Active Member
The Bible as LITERATURE is a centril
I do not know who is taught to 'oppress' the alpa-bet army, that they exist, always have is not my problem nor is it nor should be the government's problem. only fringe fundies are nerve-wracked over them. I just say ones sexuality is a private, not public matter. As to the second amendment, it is clear., also like sex its not the governments business. 'Selfishness' is not a government issue, i recall 'selfishness' was a real concern , a government concern in Marxist states. creation should be in schools, in humanities class but never science class as its not science. The Bible as a pillar of western culture should be taught as literature in class, but not as dogma.. Equality yes, equity no, its a cultural marxist rehash. 'Affirmative action' was social experimentation, not a forever cure all.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that the numerous passages dedicated to the killing of non-believers is NOT literature?
Who taught you that is was OK to call minorities names?
LeftyLen
Active Member
One, that's a non sequitur, two, what someone does with what or who in their bedroom does not qualify them as a 'minority.'