Rationalizing faith.

[Angry Floof]

Hell, the conservatives replaced religion with the dollar decades ago. They just haven't announced it on Fox.

The love of money replaced love or faith in God long ago. You can't actually love something that you can't detect.

A dollar in the hand, it seems, is worth a thousand gods imagined in the mind.

And backed by a mindless flock of obedience machines, the worshiped authority figures very quickly become blessed with wealth and power.

 

[steve_bank]

It is called the 'sucess gospel' peradled by some of mega church figures.

God wants you to be rich and has a plan, find out how by making a donation for my CD. The telephone lines are open.

Remeber Tony Robins? A secular 'success gospel' seller. If you could afford his retainer you could call 24/7 for an emotional boost. Or you could settle for his audio tapes.

Greed goes back to the beginning of our history. In modern society greed is open to everyone regardless of race, sex, or sexual orietaion. WE call that enlightened.

 

[steve_bank]

Hell, the conservatives replaced religion with the dollar decades ago. They just haven't announced it on Fox.

The love of money replaced love or faith in God long ago. You can't actually love something that you can't detect.

A dollar in the hand, it seems, is worth a thousand gods imagined in the mind.

And backed by a mindless flock of obedience machines, the worshiped authority figures very quickly become blessed with wealth and power.

A state cop I as talking to said 'You do not understand, individualy people are smart. Collectively people are sheep.". Then he proceeded to give me personal examples.

Here in Seattle the BLM degraded into a leaderless mob mindless wandering around chanting slogans and causing damage.

The mistake is in thinking that you are above it all. As the Christians say, we are all sinners. Recognizing that can lead to tolerance.

Nurse your inner sheep.

 

[steve_bank]

C"culture is constantly morphing", an obvious rat ionization of our current ills?

We destroyed the idea odf the traditional family and encuragd women to have the same opportunistic as men. Now we have problems with daycare and single parent families and parents who both have to work.

Venezuela morphed by by nationalizing foreign business, dismantling the middle and business class, and spending large scale on unsustainable social programs. They morphed into a failed state.

The secular rationalizes abuse and bad conduct as any religious do.

Dismissing consequences of change is rationalization. Illegal immigration for example. Progressives chant illegals are good for the country. The mantra and rat ionization is we are built on immigrants which is true, then say therfore anyone can e=walk in.

Secular is not really different than religious, only the form changes. Singling out religion is as much selective and situational morality as Christianity.

Some atheists are just as bad as theists presuming a moral high ground. Anti religin can be a personal and group 'tribal' identity as is theism.

 

[Angry Floof]

C"culture is constantly morphing", an obvious rat ionization of our current ills?

No, it's a response to your fear of change and assumption that your "traditions" are unchanging and/or should not change. Other shit is gonna supersede the shit you grew up with. Demonizing everything else doesn't change the fact that your shit's gonna change, like it or not.

We destroyed the idea odf the traditional family

Bullshit. Families are everywhere just like always. You're just lamenting the challenging of abusive father figures making decisions for everyone and expecting everyone to conform to their needs and ideas for how everyone should live, a toxic paradigm that should be discouraged and destroyed.

and encuragd women to have the same opportunistic as men.

So what?

Now we have problems with daycare and single parent families

No more problems than with other families.

and parents who both have to work.

That's an economic problem. Either they are poor or they are running the usual capitalistic rat race. There's no reason women should stay home in poverty or some stupid idea that only men should toil to keep up with the Joneses while under the influence of capitalistic marketing manipulation.

Venezuela morphed by by nationalizing foreign business, dismantling the middle and business class, and spending large scale on unsustainable social programs. They morphed into a failed state.

I want to hear about the failed states in Europe and Australia/NZ. Are you saying those countries are failing? If so, in what ways? It's astounding how many democratic socialist countries you have to trip over to find one that fits the right wing fear mongering narrative.

And by the way, those countries are no more democratic socialist than the U.S. We're just behind on what programs are actually needed and actually serve the citizens of our country. We're pioneers in social programs such as free education and welfare, and things like emergency services, roads, etc. We're already a democratic socialist country. You're just upset about the idea of helping people outside of your stunted white in-group.

The secular rationalizes abuse and bad conduct as any religious do.

No, it doesn't. Secular just means not religious.

In the case of child abuse, for example, you will see it almost anywhere where there are children, but there's more of it in churches than in public schools for a reason. ACCOUNTABILITY. Secular schools are not places where everyone is indoctrinated to worship authority figures without question. Schools have all kinds of policies in place to protect children and hold adults accountable. When a case of abuse happens in a secular school, you don't see the entire school ganging up to demonize the victims and protect the abuser. There is no fear of going to hell and having your primal instincts hijacked in the form of fear of being kicked out of your safe community group if you don't conform.

By claiming otherwise, you are perpetuating yet another heinous religious lie that only serves to protect religious abusers.

Dismissing consequences of change is rationalization.

No one's dismissing consequences. You just pulled that out of your ass in desperation because your fear of change has been triggered. Whatever consequences may come of any change will not be addressed realistically or humanely as long as people think like you do, demonizing whatever doesn't remain unchanged from your 1940s world view and making up fake problems or distorting real ones.

Illegal immigration for example. Progressives chant illegals are good for the country. The mantra and rat ionization is we are built on immigrants which is true, then say therfore anyone can e=walk in.

This is not true. You are misrepresenting progressive views of immigration.

If you can't realistically describe a problem, you will never, ever, ever be able to solve it.

Secular is not really different than religious, only the form changes.

Completely false and you know it. I guess desperately clinging to such a belief makes it easier to avoid self reflection and honest examination of your own entrenched dogma.

Singling out religion is as much selective and situational morality as Christianity.

Religion can be examined and questioned and analyzed and researched as to how beliefs affect human beings, not to mention observed in day to day life. Not everyone is animal brain tribalistic and only criticizing what is not their tribe and blindly protecting what is. If I held such a tribalistic view of the world, I'd still be a Christian.

There is good reason to rigorously examine religious belief and one of the best reasons is that the religious themselves can't or won't.

Some atheists are just as bad as theists presuming a moral high ground.

Maybe they do. Go talk to them. Meanwhile, I think it's better to have a conscience and be willing to undergo a moral struggle than to just believe you have the moral high ground because your religion has indoctrinated you to believe in your own moral superiority due to simply being part of the religious tribe.

Anti religin can be a personal and group 'tribal' identity as is theism.

Atheism is not a religion, but I'm curious about exactly what kind of behaviors or beliefs among atheists would lead you to make this accusation. I wonder if you can do that without revealing that "religious" is not exactly a compliment.

Anyway, how would you recognize anything other than a tribal identity? Would you be able to tell if a whole bunch of independent actors were to come to the same or similar conclusion about your religion? And then when some of them congregate in certain ways like internet communities and social media groups, would you recognize that no religion or tribal identity brought them together but their own independent world views, which is the opposite of how people typically become religious? People don't typically become religious by thinking about it or choosing religion, but by indoctrination and osmosis in their families and communities. If they are not in a particularly abusive group, or even if they are, they will rationalize what doesn't make sense or doesn't seem humane. Then one day they'll hear criticisms of the only world view they know and they will likely defend it with after the fact justifications, which is not honest examination. Would you recognize when someone is not assessing religious beliefs through that lens of defensive tribalism?

 

[steve_bank]

Okay AF, after lengthy post after lengthy post, what exactly is your point?

Christianity is the root cause of our problems? Which woukld be turningb thebtables on those Chritians who see us atheists as the souce of all that is bad.

Religion is bad, but everything else culturally is just fine?

A journey with no end battling those damn evil theists. Sounds like a great journey. Keeps you occupied abd gives you meaning and identity. You can hob nob with fellow anti theists.


And if don't mind sharing, what is the meaning of life?

 

[Angry Floof]

Okay AF, after lengthy post after lengthy post, what exactly is your point?

Which one? I've made many points. The main one I guess would be that Christianity is a poisonous ideology for all the reasons I have clearly stated numerous times. If you reply to this comment, do not yet again misrepresent my statements on this. If you don't know them by now, then re-read the thread.

Christianity is the root cause of our problems?

Not all of them, but very few of our problems will ever be addressed realistically and humanely as long as the Christian world view is ingrained in our society. Again, you should be well versed on all the reasons for this whether you agree or not. If you're still confused as to the elements of Christian belief and social framework that are not conducive to a peaceful tribe of seven billion, I invite you to re-read the thread.

Which woukld be turningb thebtables on those Chritians who see us atheists as the souce of all that is bad.

Not sure if I'm parsing that sentence correctly, but if Christians think atheists are the source of all that is bad, and they do, pretty much, then they are wrong and you should not let them get away with such lies. Educate them, hold them accountable and demand intellectual honesty and humane principles.

Religion is bad, but everything else culturally is just fine?

*sigh* None of this is ever going to fit neatly into a simple black and white framework. Reality and human beings and human societies cannot fit neatly into a simple black and white framework. Perhaps the framework should change instead of demanding that everyone's views be rent and tortured to fit it.

A journey with no end battling those damn evil theists.

It's a battle against inhumane, stunted, backward beliefs. You are not your beliefs. Beliefs are not people with feelings that can be hurt or offended. Not everyone identifies with their beliefs to the point where they can't speak on the topic consciously.

Sounds like a great journey. Keeps you occupied abd gives you meaning and identity.

I'm talking on this topic because I am a part of this community and you started a thread on the topic. If you need to distort that into something you can easily ridicule, go ahead. Thanks for the demonstration of classic right wing religious responses when challenged.

You can hob nob with fellow anti theists.

And if don't mind sharing, what is the meaning of life?

How would I know? I'm not a religious fanatic swallowing the "answers" given by religion. Unlike you, I don't mind not having all the answers to life, the universe, and everything. But it's very telling that you would accuse me of pretending to know things I don't given that this is exactly what the religious do in lieu of being able to question.

I don't mind not knowing and I have no problem admitting that I don't know the meaning of life. I only know what it means to me and that changes as I move through life and experiences. "I don't know" is a perspective that the religious are trained to consider as evil or "doubt" and a mortal sin to engage in. Given the deeply ingrained Christian prohibition of questioning, it's probably kind of a jolt to hear us say that out loud, publicly, as if we're totally unashamed of our own honesty. That's gotta be a bit jarring.

I do know, however, that a social framework where authority is worshiped and questions are punished is not conducive to the peace and well being of any group of human beings, small groups or a tribe of seven billion. I do know, also, that basic human needs and animal brain responses are easy to manipulate and in fact inhumane manipulation of primal fears is how authoritarian ideologies spread and persist.

There are many other aspects of human behavior and ideology that give rise to authoritarianism, and I have mentioned quite a few of them in this thread, and those seeds exist in Christianity as pillars of the faith. They're not fringe ideas that only marginal sects engage in. They're fundamental to all denominations of mainstream Christianity and to a lot of lesser known sects as well. Not all, but some. Again, see Quakers as an example of a group that actually had the honesty, intelligence, and courage to purge their faith of the cancerous elements that give rise to authoritarianism and abuse and didn't allow the dominant strain to strip them of their Christianity because of it. They were called heretics and persecuted by mainstream believers but they survived.

But you will keep distorting and evading and distracting from any discussion of this topic, and that's ok because these conversations are read by others and are virtually immortal in the digital world forever as very few things posted on the internet are ever completely gone even when purposely deleted. I only wish more believers were exposed to these conversations as you have put forth a good portion of the tired old narratives and unexamined arguments that non-questioning believers think make sense until someone they're not supposed to listen to puts it in perspective for them. So thanks for starting this thread and keeping me engaged.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was going to respond earlier about Steve's sexist remarks that giving women the same opportunities as men is a problem. As a matter of fact, my own evangelical Christian mother was a working mother during the 50s and 60s. I was very proud of her for that, and as soon as I received my nursing degree, which was when my son was 5, I couldn't wait to start working. I wanted my son to have a childhood like I had experienced, one that allowed him to be independent and not have an over protective mother like so many do these days. I'm not judging what other women do. That's a personal decision and what works for one family may not work for others. I celebrate the progress that has been made for women in my lifetime. I assure you that religion had very little to do with it, unless you include a small number of very liberal Christians and Jews.

Steve also made the claim that the traditional family died. The fact is that about 70% of children still grow up in two parent homes. Thanks to more lenient divorce laws that started in the late 70s, I was able to end an unhappy marriage and find a wonderful mate and step father for my son. If I had to raise him myself, he would be better off than being around a sullen, self centered religious fanatic father.

And, some cultures have close relationships with their extended families, so even if a woman has no dependable partner, her family will help provide male role models and other types of support. I personally know some Black families like that. So, there are different ways of raising children with or without religion.

And, while my view of religion is a bit different from that of AF, I totally agree with her that religion isn't necessary to maintain a decent society.

You keep asking what can replace religion. That's an easy one. All of the most secular, democratic countries have much larger social safety nets compared to the US. Those countries are far less religious and their citizens are much happier than those in the US, if one is to believe the research done on this issue. Yes, taxes are higher for everyone, but they are also more progressive than what we have here. The bottom line is that the people are more secure and the wealthiest still have more than enough money to live a very expensive materialistic life style if they choose. Still, I don't expect religion to ever go away. My hope is that it will simply become more progressive.

 

[Angry Floof]

I was going to respond earlier about Steve's sexist remarks that giving women the same opportunities as men is a problem. As a matter of fact, my own evangelical Christian mother was a working mother during the 50s and 60s. I was very proud of her for that, and as soon as I received my nursing degree, which was when my son was 5, I couldn't wait to start working. I wanted my son to have a childhood like I had experienced, one that allowed him to be independent and not have an over protective mother like so many do these days. I'm not judging what other women do. That's a personal decision and what works for one family may not work for others. I celebrate the progress that has been made for women in my lifetime. I assure you that religion had very little to do with it, unless you include a small number of very liberal Christians and Jews.

Steve also made the claim that the traditional family died. The fact is that about 70% of children still grow up in two parent homes. Thanks to more lenient divorce laws that started in the late 70s, I was able to end an unhappy marriage and find a wonderful mate and step father for my son. If I had to raise him myself, he would be better off than being around a sullen, self centered religious fanatic father.

And, some cultures have close relationships with their extended families, so even if a woman has no dependable partner, her family will help provide male role models and other types of support. I personally know some Black families like that. So, there are different ways of raising children with or without religion.

And, while my view of religion is a bit different from that of AF, I totally agree with her that religion isn't necessary to maintain a decent society.

You keep asking what can replace religion. That's an easy one. All of the most secular, democratic countries have much larger social safety nets compared to the US. Those countries are far less religious and their citizens are much happier than those in the US, if one is to believe the research done on this issue. Yes, taxes are higher for everyone, but they are also more progressive than what we have here.

Thumbs up.

The bottom line is that the people are more secure and the wealthiest still have more than enough money to live a very expensive materialistic life style if they choose.

A society where everyone's well being is secured benefits everyone, including the insanely wealthy.

Even the most selfish among us benefit from caring about whether everyone is thriving, aka egoistic altruism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ

Still, I don't expect religion to ever go away. My hope is that it will simply become more progressive.

And more based in reality and with respect and awareness of nature.

 

[steve_bank]

verybody's well being scured?

Russian and Chines comunism failed miserably. China evolved, but is no workers paradise.

Cuba drags everybody down to a low level, making everybody equally unhappy and lacking.


There are die hard communists and extreme socialists who rationalize away observation and experience and maintain forced equality will work. They have 'faith' in something demonstrated not feasible on a larger scale.

The Sanders approach, everything is free therefore everybody is equal.

 

[Angry Floof]

verybody's well being scured?

Russian and Chines comunism failed miserably. China evolved, but is no workers paradise.

Cuba drags everybody down to a low level, making everybody equally unhappy and lacking.


There are die hard communists and extreme socialists who rationalize away observation and experience and maintain forced equality will work. They have 'faith' in something demonstrated not feasible on a larger scale.

The Sanders approach, everything is free therefore everybody is equal.

We're not communists. Stop swallowing right wing garbage.

Democratic socialism is, again, something the U.S. already does, only we think it can be and should be expanded.

Your comment about Sanders makes no sense at all.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Today's Republican base, if they were fair, would have to equate the Eisenhower Highway System with rank socialism.
There are no 'pure' economies, anyway. There are mixed economies.
The most successful economic model may turn out to be China's (if the definition of success includes things like meteoric growth as seen in the 1980-2021 span, and the fact that China may be the world's biggest economy by mid-century.) State-sponsored capitalist/socialist gumbo. The Parker Brothers' Monopoly guy with the top hat and moustache will have a name like Xiang Po.

 

[DBT]

Labels, giving no comprehensive descriptions of the ingredients, may be misleading. Especially in politics.

 

[steve_bank]

Everybody's well being secured?

Russian and Chines comunism failed miserably. China evolved, but is no workers paradise.

Cuba drags everybody down to a low level, making everybody equally unhappy and lacking.


There are die hard communists and extreme socialists who rationalize away observation and experience and maintain forced equality will work. They have 'faith' in something demonstrated not feasible on a larger scale.

The Sanders approach, everything is free therefore everybody is equal.

We're not communists. Stop swallowing right wing garbage.

Democratic socialism is, again, something the U.S. already does, only we think it can be and should be expanded.

Your comment about Sanders makes no sense at all.

Bernie called himself democratic socialist to avoid being labeled a 'commie'. Semantics. The tem socialism is useless, it has no real common definition. The question i what changes need to occur to avoid 'pitchforks in the streets'.

Soial programs and safety nets do not make socialism. Socialsim involves far more direct govt involvement in business. In France it is very hard to reduce work force to maintain profit. Th French econonomy has always been in a state of near crisis.

In the Thatcher era European socialist staets divested of govt owned major business, because it was not working.

To say we have a socialist state already is one of many rationalizations by the left.

Getting back to he op, did you really buy into Bernies crafted campaign political facade? Did you have 'faith' Bernie would lead us to the promised land?

Nothing is 'free'. Whatever it is somebody has to work to provide it and be compensated. Sanders is the flip side to the extreme conservatives. His extreme approach has patently failed. There is no free education. Primaty education is funded by taxes.

Not that our system doesn't need some controls, the extreme progressive approach have been a demonstrated failure.

Russian and Chines collectivism to mandate equality failed. China pragmatically became a somewhat capitalist system. They have a wealthy class and a middle class, and a lower class. Up through the 90s international athletes were only allowed to keep a small portion of earnings and were prohibited from using personal trainers. The idea being the state provided training as say a tennis player so th estate owns your earnings.

That idea is what conservatives are fearful of. Govt direct appropriation of wealth. Venezuela and Cuba as examples as well.

 

[Angry Floof]

Blah blah fucking blah. Socialism refers to the idea that a society should take care of everyone within it. You take care of all within your family. You take care of all within your community or church. It's not some kind of foreign idea nor is it empty or vague.

When your society becomes bigger than your hunter gatherer brain can recognize on the individual level but you have the new brain capacity to recognize that the bigger society is indeed your society, then you have to use new brain ideas to handle it all. The idea of everyone pitching in to take care of everyone is fundamental to being human. The group doesn't have to be small. And we have excellent creative problem solving skills to help with all of it. The only thing that really stands in the way is right wing/religious dogma something something judge everybody outside of our ingroup bullshit.

As someone else said, I don't know who, "We're trying to have a society here." If you don't know how that works, maybe stop letting stunted right wing morons explain it to you.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Russian and Chines collectivism to mandate equality failed. China pragmatically became a somewhat capitalist system. They have a wealthy class and a middle class, and a lower class. Up through the 90s international athletes were only allowed to keep a small portion of earnings and were prohibited from using personal trainers. The idea being the state provided training as say a tennis player so th estate owns your earnings.
.

Actually what China adapted would be more closely related to mercantilism than capitalism. It is close to the English system during their empire building era where certain people were given contracts and protection by the government to build wealth amassing 'companies' (essentially government created monopolies) which also increased the wealth of the nation. It created some immensely wealthy people that were associated with or invested in the 'companies' but not so much for the average person in the population. The average person ended up in the sweat shops.

 

[southernhybrid]

verybody's well being scured?

Russian and Chines comunism failed miserably. China evolved, but is no workers paradise.

Cuba drags everybody down to a low level, making everybody equally unhappy and lacking.


There are die hard communists and extreme socialists who rationalize away observation and experience and maintain forced equality will work. They have 'faith' in something demonstrated not feasible on a larger scale.

The Sanders approach, everything is free therefore everybody is equal.

I am not taking about communism, which should be obvious since I mentioned the happiest nations. I doubt that anyone here, certainly not me, is suggesting that the country should control the means of production. I agree that communism has never worked out well and never will.

I was referring to well regulated capitalism with a well financed social support system, along with progressive taxation. I never mentioned Sanders. In fact, I voted for Biden in the primaries and I'm pleased with his progressive agenda, although it will be hard to get most of it done, partly due to the far right Christians who seem to object to the very basic teachings of their Jesus in the Gospels. You know that stuff I'm talking about, like giving to the poor and making the claim that went something like.... it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven that it is for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. I guess today's conservative Christians are more concerned with which gun would Jesus carry and which stocks would he trade.

I'm simply noting that countries like Sweden, Denmark, and most of the other Northern European countries do more for their people than we do. They are far less religious, but their citizens tend to be happier and more secure. Of course nothing is perfect and some people will always fall through the cracks, but a decent safety net that helps provide the basics to all is something that makes religion no longer necessary. Of course, people are still free to believe whatever they want when it comes to the supernatural. Don't equate communist China, which btw, seems more like a capitalist, autocratic country these days, with a democratic country that puts the needs of its own citizens first.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everybody's well being secured?

Russian and Chines comunism failed miserably. China evolved, but is no workers paradise.

Cuba drags everybody down to a low level, making everybody equally unhappy and lacking.


There are die hard communists and extreme socialists who rationalize away observation and experience and maintain forced equality will work. They have 'faith' in something demonstrated not feasible on a larger scale.

The Sanders approach, everything is free therefore everybody is equal.

We're not communists. Stop swallowing right wing garbage.

Democratic socialism is, again, something the U.S. already does, only we think it can be and should be expanded.

Your comment about Sanders makes no sense at all.

Bernie called himself democratic socialist to avoid being labeled a 'commie'. Semantics. The tem socialism is useless, it has no real common definition. The question i what changes need to occur to avoid 'pitchforks in the streets'.

Soial programs and safety nets do not make socialism. Socialsim involves far more direct govt involvement in business. In France it is very hard to reduce work force to maintain profit. Th French econonomy has always been in a state of near crisis.

In the Thatcher era European socialist staets divested of govt owned major business, because it was not working.

To say we have a socialist state already is one of many rationalizations by the left.

Getting back to he op, did you really buy into Bernies crafted campaign political facade? Did you have 'faith' Bernie would lead us to the promised land?

Nothing is 'free'. Whatever it is somebody has to work to provide it and be compensated. Sanders is the flip side to the extreme conservatives. His extreme approach has patently failed. There is no free education. Primaty education is funded by taxes.

Not that our system doesn't need some controls, the extreme progressive approach have been a demonstrated failure.

Russian and Chines collectivism to mandate equality failed. China pragmatically became a somewhat capitalist system. They have a wealthy class and a middle class, and a lower class. Up through the 90s international athletes were only allowed to keep a small portion of earnings and were prohibited from using personal trainers. The idea being the state provided training as say a tennis player so th estate owns your earnings.

That idea is what conservatives are fearful of. Govt direct appropriation of wealth. Venezuela and Cuba as examples as well.

I think you are a hyperbolist, a person who always talks in extremes, certainly an idealist. You like some trees but you hate the forest.

 

[steve_bank]

Bernie called himself democratic socialist to avoid being labeled a 'commie'. Semantics. The tem socialism is useless, it has no real common definition. The question i what changes need to occur to avoid 'pitchforks in the streets'.

Soial programs and safety nets do not make socialism. Socialsim involves far more direct govt involvement in business. In France it is very hard to reduce work force to maintain profit. Th French econonomy has always been in a state of near crisis.

In the Thatcher era European socialist staets divested of govt owned major business, because it was not working.

To say we have a socialist state already is one of many rationalizations by the left.

Getting back to he op, did you really buy into Bernies crafted campaign political facade? Did you have 'faith' Bernie would lead us to the promised land?

Nothing is 'free'. Whatever it is somebody has to work to provide it and be compensated. Sanders is the flip side to the extreme conservatives. His extreme approach has patently failed. There is no free education. Primaty education is funded by taxes.

Not that our system doesn't need some controls, the extreme progressive approach have been a demonstrated failure.

Russian and Chines collectivism to mandate equality failed. China pragmatically became a somewhat capitalist system. They have a wealthy class and a middle class, and a lower class. Up through the 90s international athletes were only allowed to keep a small portion of earnings and were prohibited from using personal trainers. The idea being the state provided training as say a tennis player so th estate owns your earnings.

That idea is what conservatives are fearful of. Govt direct appropriation of wealth. Venezuela and Cuba as examples as well.

I think you are a hyperbolist, a person who always talks in extremes, certainly an idealist. You like some trees but you hate the forest.

I have been called a thing or two, but never hyperbolist.

Al politicians craft an image. Everything they say is crafted for a target demographics. Our politics has becpme personality cults, religious like.

Obama, Trump, and yes even Sanders were personality culys.

People derive hope in the face of serious national problems form tier political icon.

There was video in the bews of a grade school teacher having kids in school singing praises to Obama in front f a picture.n
It is not hyperbole.

Progressives glomed on to Sanders. When he lost he pouted and did not give full support to Clinton untilll it was too late.

Some are more subtle than oters and some are more ethical than others, but all major politicians pander to a demographic to get elected. As the pundits say presidents always play to extremes in the campaign, they have to for getting elected. Then they rule from the center.

Poitictics and region share common traits in terms of tribal identity and focus on a leader. Th Furer Principle. Conservatives piss themselves around Trump.

Politics right now is far more toxic and dangerous than religion.

 

[DBT]

A desire for meaning in life may lead to someone seizing upon anything, politics, religion, sports.... that is appealing and provides answers or comfort.