You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
Some, if not most, of the founding fathers were dead-set against the fundamentalism that the current right-wing want to equate with a Christian basis for the country. Jefferson had a bible where he had carefully snipped out the parts he thought were bullshit. The societal compromise was that you can have as crazy beliefs as you want, as long as you don't use them to bludgeon the rest of the population.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 4, 2024 - 4:28pm
kurtster wrote:
. . . So as usual itâs the messenger that is the problem.
No, it is the message.
Levin begins with an isolated clip of one person asserting that Christian nationalism is not the same as Christianity (well, it isnât) and uses that as a launching pad to condemn the media (of course) and those with a âradical left agendaâ of being ignorant of American history, most especially the founding of the country and the underpinning of natural rights.. (He also implies that most of us are in need of a lesson in this history â from him). He then goes over the impact upon our Founders of philosophers like John Locke, Aristotle, and Cicero, concluding that America was âfounded on Judeo-Christian principles.â He then leaps into a tirade that those speaking of things like âwhite privilegeâ and trying to tell us that this is all wrong are part of a ârevolutionâ that is âabout destroying America.â Reading at length from his own book (!), he asserts that science is a tool and cannot supersede morality and spirituality, which come from a higher authority than man. From there, he makes sweeping statements about the âradical leftâ that he maintains is the âideology of tyrants and totalitarianismâ and has as its agenda to âtrash and smear Christianity.â
Ok, then.
As SFW already has pointed out, Levin errs by essentially ignoring the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America may have been founded based on Judeo- Christian principles, but the Founders recognized the importance of freedom of religion, and the need to prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts. His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
I've watched the Natural Law part twice (before and after your latest comment). I'm not sure I follow. What do you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts.
His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
I've watched the Natural Law part twice (before and after your latest comment).
I'm not sure I follow. What do you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
I did not want anyone who might watch it to be predisposed by my thoughts.
His primary point that I got was about Natural Law. Where it comes from and how it was arrived at and what it means as it relates to the Founding of this country and going forward from the beginning to the present. I had to watch it twice to get that. He covers a lot of ground. After the first time and digesting it I was able to get a little deeper into it.
If you were to give it another go, start at the 7 minute mark. I went and looked again and this is where he starts to make the point on Natural Law. A very strong and well stated case, imho. You might even come to a different conclusion.
I could have gone straight to the Fox site but I have gotten so much static over that so i tried to find it on youtube where people wouldn't object as much.
guess I was wrong.
Like I said, if you can get past the messenger there is a worthwhile message. I guess that I was right about people not being able to get past the messenger.
Oh well.
here's the official Fox page which is now up, with full controls. try the closed captioning if you can't stand listening to him. Or just never mind and move along. I thought that there was a worthwhile message that was worth risking the objections to Levine. So as usual its the messenger that is the problem.
.
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
Can't fast forward either. Highly controlling so what's that tell you?
I could have gone straight to the Fox site but I have gotten so much static over that so i tried to find it on youtube where people wouldn't object as much.
guess I was wrong.
Like I said, if you can get past the messenger there is a worthwhile message. I guess that I was right about people not being able to get past the messenger.
Oh well.
here's the official Fox page which is now up, with full controls. try the closed captioning if you can't stand listening to him. Or just never mind and move along. I thought that there was a worthwhile message that was worth risking the objections to Levine. So as usual its the messenger that is the problem. .
On further review (and a Chrome restart), you're right. I wonder why they don't want it embedded though.
I didn't watch it but I did scroll towards the end to see if he gets to shouting. Got pretty loud.
That vid is on some goober's Youtube page - not Levin's. Said goober apparently is trying to keep eyeballs on his vid page, to build engagement, no doubt. Looking at his FoxNews vids, seems they're all copyright infringers ... so yah, goober it is.
Fast forwards fine for me. Also plays at multiple x normal speed. But I won't watch it ... every time I tune into whatever Levin is yammering about, he ends up shouting. And that's pretty much a channel-changer for me.
On further review (and a Chrome restart), you're right. I wonder why they don't want it embedded though.
I didn't watch it but I did scroll towards the end to see if he gets to shouting. Got pretty loud.
Can't fast forward either. Highly controlling so what's that tell you?
Fast forwards fine for me. Also plays at multiple x normal speed. But I won't watch it ... every time I tune into whatever Levin is yammering about, he ends up shouting. And that's pretty much a channel-changer for me.
I was wondering how or where I would place this video. I guess this is as good a place as any ...
I caught this walking by and ended up watching the first 17 minutes of the show. I didn't see anything after that point and have nothing to say about it. But if it is possible to get past the messenger and listen to the message all the way through before jumping to any premature conclusions this may end up being germane to the debate we are attempting to have.
. I cannot get this to embed for some reason.
Here's the youtube link.
Gone. I'll look for it later.
try this one. The show starts at 1 minute into it.
This, more or less, is my point. I do not necessarily disagree with other points you have made. Wokeism is an umbrella term and disparate issues are swept under it.The implementation of DEI policies is a legitimate issue, for the reasons you have set forth. Is that wokeism? What else falls under that rubric? CRT? The âwar on Christmas?â What else? And as we talk about what issues fall under that term, letâs also talk about how â and if âthese issues logically are related, and whether they should be considered to be part of an agenda.
You make some great points.
DEI awareness is legitimate, but it is reverse discrimination against white candidates. When metrics are created to measure increases in discrete populations, it by design requires reductions in others.
CRT is abused by both sides. It's a real issue that has oppressed blacks for centuries, but it's not meant to harm or blame the white population.
Kurt talks a LOT about virtue signaling, and what upsets many is that the signals have become policy... and opposing the policy brings with it the potential for grave danger... so most stay silent. An example: thanking the indigenous tribes for the land everything in America, Australia, and theoretically the entire planet happens upon. It's pure performance, and is another example that reinforces the negativity that the Right has against "woke".
As for the "Happy Holidays" issue... who cares? Obviously, Kurt does, but as the majority of America leaves organized religion, is it really harmful to cover more bases than just Christmas? Awareness beyond your own beliefs and traditions isn't a bad thing. Again...someone receiving that message needs to have the awareness and accept the person wasn't attempting to convert them, marginalize them, or minimize their traditions. Common sense, and an assumption of innocence.
The MAGA movement has a ton of insanity, but their "woke" focus hits home for a lot of people as based in fact and policy.
And as we talk about what issues fall under that term, let’s also talk about how — and if —these issues logically are related, and whether they should be considered to be part of an agenda.
I guess that you missed this.
kurtster wrote:
I guess if this resultant behaviour of the public is intended then one must ask who are the ones doing the steering and why. Or is society just evolving this way on its own ? Me, I'm with the former.
It's past my bedtime. I'll check back in this afternoon and see what awaits.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 3, 2024 - 6:05am
rgio wrote:
. . .
It's a gift to Trump, who rallies all of those who don't quite understand or like the "new norms" with a single word.
. . .
This, more or less, is my point. I do not necessarily disagree with other points you have made. Wokeism is an umbrella term and disparate issues are swept under it.The implementation of DEI policies is a legitimate issue, for the reasons you have set forth. Is that wokeism? What else falls under that rubric? CRT? The âwar on Christmas?â What else? And as we talk about what issues fall under that term, letâs also talk about how â and if âthese issues logically are related, and whether they should be considered to be part of an agenda.
Why do you keep disregarding everything in my post except the reference to wokeism? The context is in the first three sentences.
I think there is a fair amount of agreement as you continue to spar over language.
Kurt's point is valid. The inequities that existed decades ago were addressed by political correctness, which has spun into the Republican's leveraging "woke" as some sort of criminal activity. It's overused and ignores that there are still millions of systemically disadvantaged people, but the abuses Kurt addresses are real. For all of the common sense that the left suggests is missing from the MAGA supports, the refusal by many to accept innocent errors and historical norms is self-defeating and wrong. It's a gift to Trump, who rallies all of those who don't quite understand or like the "new norms" with a single word.
If someone wants to be referred to as "they", fine. If someone innocently makes a mistake, the "potentially offended"needs to appreciate the scale of the change they're expecting, and not use every "offense" as a means to punish others. Leadership needs to be reasonable, and accept that every instance of someone being "marginalized" or "oppressed" isn't the fault of the accused. It feels like the historically oppressed are NEVER challenged on their current claims of oppression, and that's a problem. The feelings and concerns of those historically advantaged (see middle and upper-class white people as a generalization) appear to be irrelevant. The pendulum needed to swing, but it's gone too far to the other side now. It's beginning to swing back to rational, but it's got a long way to go.
Sure...Kurt maneuvers around answers and exacerbates the excessive use of the term, but it's the left who's provided the ammunition.
Then why did you bring it up ? I'm confused at what your point was.
The reason I brought it up was as an example of how issues are aggregated to fall under an overriding agenda. This is what I wrote in my initial post: Unfortunately, talking through issues, much less debating them, is mostly equivalent to a lost art. Too often, a position on an issue is considered a puzzle piece, seen as part of an all-encompassing agenda. The necessity of constructing — and maintaining — these monoliths undermines not only reasoned discussion on issues, but democracy itself. We now see presidential candidates campaigning against “wokeism.” I don’t even know what that means, but it draws applause and stirs emotions. None of this bodes well.
And I thought that I addressed what "wokeism" is in my first response.
Since you don't know what something means that makes it imaginary and unreal ?
Is "wokeism" to you an example of something not real then ? An example of something made up purely to stir people up into becoming emotional and to stop thinking ?
FWIW, here is what I would call an example of "wokeism" in action. I was going to include it in a response to Beaker's comment about how to find common ground. That got waylaid by last weekend and a browser update that deleted a response under construction.
Are you already aware of this incident or is this something new to you ?
