Blue state perspective: I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People [1]
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to...
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to...
It's only like 10% or so that are thriving and practicing core tenants of faith.
Exactly how does one ignore all that evidence because people favor the effectiveness of these orgs over the bloat of government programs?
All the things you list are wonderful, but the churches can not do it alone nor should they be expected to. I think it weird that the same people (and let's face it, it's not the same people) wouldn't vote for a more careering government.
We can all freely donate our money and time to organizations that make a difference and we also have the freedom to stop if we don’t believe they are effective anymore.
The moment a government program exists, that freedom to choose goes away and you’re stuck with whatever the result happens to be.
"Christian" has, in the US, become increasingly synonymous with "Republican" rather than "follower of Jesus Christ". It's slowly becoming just another label that does the job "Traditional Values" used to do before that one lost its stickiness: it's increasingly just a dogwhistle.
As a Christian in a red state, it makes me pretty depressed. I find it hopeful to see trends outside the US political bubble. I hope in the long term it won't be just a political descriptor or a convenient in-group label to wear, but may again be used primarily to describe a set of binding values.
[1] https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/august-web-only/ch...
If your political opponent wants the same things as you, but merely has differing values and perspectives, then reason and compromise should be able to cause some meaningful change in perspective or come up with some useful middle-ground policy.
But if your political opponent does not want the same things as you - they are, in fact, "callous" and don't care about the well-being of others - then there's no room for meaningful debate. Telling someone who disagrees with you "can you please stop being evil?" isn't going to convince them of anything. The other side simply needs to be removed from power so that you are unopposed in implementing your policies.
So I actually agree with the author: if that is what you believe about your political opponents, then debating about politics is probably a waste of your time.
Goldwater called it thirty years ago. That's exactly what happened, especially in the last few years.
It'd be one thing if there were any more free market (small "c") conservatives left to compromise with. All that remains in the GOP are the religious and Q-anon factions that genuinely believe that Democrats are Satanists and child molesters. These people expect total capitulation because they think god is on their side and that is not compromise in any sense of the word.
They're not even fit to govern with total control of three branches as shown during the first half of Trump's term, let alone compromise when they're in the opposition. The recent shitshow with the Speaker of the House election and the constant brinkmanship with the budget are just the latest symptoms of their degeneracy as a functioning political party. They can't even compromise within their own ranks because their religious fervor has turned terminal.
Both parties are fascist in different ways.
There is very little room for debate on issues like book-banning, withholding rights from the LGBTQ community (civil marriage, healthcare), or most of the other issues the GOP uses as wedge issues.
Then there are issues where compromise should be possible, and the left largely wants compromise, but the GOP refuses. Abortion and guns come to mind. The GOP is currently hellbent on banning the former outright and ensuring easy access to the latter. Most of the political left would be happy with some reasonable compromise on both (and in fact, we had what most of the nation felt was a reasonable compromise on abortion until very recently).
Despite some state-level regulation, we're near the top of the list in death-by-gun. And the political right seems largely ok with this, which is baffling. Parts of Latin America are worse, but they have massive drug crime issues and often failing economics and governments. Greenland has lots of gun suicides. The US has all of the above.
The same regulations apply to gun sales at gun shows as anywhere else.
Yes, private citizens can sell guns at gun shows without performing a background check. They can also sell guns without performing a background check in Grand Canyon National Park, on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan, or in the parking lot of the local McDonalds. "Gun shows" have nothing to do with it.
Gun dealers at gun shows likewise have to perform the same check that they perform at their normal place of business. Again, the fact that it is a gun show changes nothing.
You should try to remember who told you that the "gun show loophole" is actually a thing, and resolve to trust no further information from that source. To put it bluntly: they lied to you.
And in any gun control conversation, most people know exactly what’s meant by the term - I didn’t pick the name (and have no idea who did).
My understanding is the term came into use because it was common for unlicensed sellers to set up tables at gun shows. The law isnt about gun shows specifically, but gun shows were a common way for unlicensed sellers and buyers seeking to avoid background checks to do business.
Your understanding is wrong, by the way. If you sell more than a few guns per year (where "a few" is up to the ATF agent's discretion), the ATF is going to conclude that you are an unlicensed dealer and you will go to jail for a very long time (edit: five years in prison, $250,000 fine, or both).
Here's a documented case of the gun show loophole in practice at a gun show as recently as 2019... https://gunsandamerica.org/story/19/01/29/what-the-so-called...
This practice was closed by the Safer Communities Act in 2022. But, in the majority of states, this doesn't prevent a buyer from legally purchasing a gun from a private seller. Like I said above, it's a stupid name, especially given the changes in 2022, and I'm happy to call it "private sale legal quirk" or whatever you want. Changing the common name doesn't change the underlying law - private sales are unregulated at the federal level - and that (IMO) is silly - either the sale of guns should be regulated or it shouldn't (obviously I fall on the regulated side).
It's not that they're evil. It's more often that they're selfish.
Also, there are plenty of people "on my side" who I disagree with and I can have productive conversations because we have the same goals. I disagree with a lot of liberal principles (they're pretty god-awful and selfish people themselves, ahem Pelosi). But I think there's still enough of a range of views within the Democratic party that if you got rid of all of the Republicans, I would still disagree with like 80% of congress.
I would just also have a prayer that compromises could be made, because we're not starting negotiations from a position where 50% of congress is going to say 'no' no matter what regardless of who it hurts.
Have you seen the Tuberville thing where he claims our military is weak, but he refuses to allow any military promotions through? Republicans complain about the gov't not working, and then go work overtime to make sure nothing gets done.