A look inside the basket of deplorables

Post Reply New Topic

I know what the hell they are. And you're no better if you think what Clinton was doing to the Catholics was ok. Have her come after the Lutherans and you'd be screaming your freaking head off. The more crap I see that she's had her dirty hands in, the more I do believe she's satan. She must think she is God - to think you can change the biggest religion there is just because it isn't what you believe in - SCREW HER and the horse she rode in on! Probably a TROJAN horse!

Last edited by nurseangela on 20 Oct 2016, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, I've seen Jack Chick's cartoons, and the Lovecraft/Cthulhu parody of one of them that he sued over.

Wow.

This shows zero interest in what is true, fair or just. It attributes to Clinton words written and read by others and then works up paroxysms of righteous indignation. Talk about guilt by association!

To rant on as if the lie that has been parroted from right wing propaganda were gospel.

Please read the link you posted. It's absolutely clear that none of those emails were written by Clinton.

As I only mentioned that Catholics were also Christians, I have absolutely no idea why you're flying off the handle at me.

Even the infallible must be careful discussing catholic doctrine within earshot of nurseangela, who can't be assed to be fair.

The Lutherans I've met seemed to have a solid intellectual footing for the way they applied their sacred texts. We might have disagreed, and might have agreed not to engage in a heated discussion for practical reasons, but I never got the impression that the discussion was totally off-limits.

Thank you, and thank you for your kind words about us Lutherans in general.

A more delicate question that the issue of using the word deplorable is whether a lot of people in the media are discriminating on the basis of mental health. I don't think Trump is an acceptable president because of the things he does, and when I look for an explanation, I conclude that he does those things because of narcissism. I dislike it when people say that he shouldn't be president because he is a narcissist. It's discriminatory and unfair to prejudge him based on his mental health status; judge him on what he does.

I'm mad because you are supporting someone who is trying to break up the Catholic religion, but I guess as long as it isn't your religion then it's OK. Reminds me of the trains going by the church on their way to Auschwitz - everyone knew what was going on, but no one said or did anything.

That's a very interesting and thought provoking comment.

I think you are right about the cause of his behavior.

The rest is complicated. I think people who say "he shouldn't be President because he is a narcissist" are actually judging him on the basis of his actions, including his race-baiting, misogynist, xenophobic speeches. I think the implied argument is that those acts of speech are caused by his narcissism and that those incidents are likely predictive of future performance.

But it does sound like "all narcissists are inherently incapable of performing well as President" which is wrong.

If you look at the specific email in question, it's about the American Catholic hierarchy's opposition to Obamacare. They set up various organizations, to mobilize left-wing Catholics to change the positions of said American Catholic hierarchy. As Podesta is himself a Catholic, this seems like something he'd have a deep personal interest in. There's no discussion of anything outside the US, and frankly governments throughout history have always sought to influence their local Catholic branches.

Whether it's the HRE outright challenging the Pope for supremacy, France's hierarchy in the days of Richelieu siding with the Protestants in the Thirty Years War as opposed to the broader Catholic Church, Central American liberation theology being backed by the Sandinistas in the '80s... it's a tremendously important political bloc. Why wouldn't you try to influence it?


I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove this, unless you think the Clintons bought off the College of Cardinals. It seems to me like a special level of tinfoil-hat.


...this is really trivializing the Holocaust.

I thought so, too. I find it deplorable when people do that.

Well, I have never heard a thing about Clinton wanting to break up the Roman Catholic Church. Being critical of some of the thinking of Catholic leaders is hardly plotting to divide a church body against itself. If anything, Martin Luther was critical of the Catholic Church of his day, and his excommunication by Pope Leo X set into motion the division of Protestantism from Catholicism. Or in other words: if the breaking up of the Catholic Church begins in modern times, it would very likely grow out of the negative reaction to calls for reform.

Just look to the Episcopal/Anglican church in Texas

Am I the only one who hates both of them?

Fill us in with what's going on with them.

Okay. You can find news stories that go into detail on specific cases, but here are my impressions.

Episcopalians used to be the rich liberal religion of West Texas, although plenty of people follow it. The Episcopal church is the US branch of the Anglican church, in some sense. Each church is under the direct supervision of both a local board and a bishop. Everybody reports to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but they don't consider him infallible. When he started to support equality and specifically marriage equality, the Texas bishops generally dragged their feet but went along. This put them into conflict with the local boards of some churches. It wouldn't be enough for the local board to request a new priest, because they would get another one assigned by the same bishop. Most of the small town churches depend on the diocese to find priests, and the financial relationships between the churches and the diocese can be arcane since they were written long, long ago. The lawyers for the boards figured out that they could choose to be under the authority of any bishop, so some of them have rebranded themselves Anglican churches and placed themselves under the authority of homophobic bishops from Africa. It's a surprise move from a population with a lot of racists, but I guess they hate the gays more. It turns out that the Texas people were surprised to learn that some of their new bishops hold reprehensible attitudes toward women, as well. I find the culture clash they stepped into particularly hilarious.

The diocese also has lawyers. They accepted the boards' decisions, and then notified them that they needed to find a new home since they are no longer part of the diocese. The boards seemed to forget that diocese owns either the church building or the land on which it is built. It's been in court for years, as far as I know, but I haven't followed it and I no longer ask my parents for updates on the situation.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 22 Oct 2016, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.