Wingnutties out of control!

[Whack9]

In de Toqueville's book, Democracy in America, written when the United States was a fledgling Republic, the author mentions one of the values that benefits both religious institutions and government is the separation of church and state. It's explained this is one of the strengths of the United States. He explains that keeping both separate, religion maintains it's sanctity and dignity by not tying itself to political ebbs and flows. Coupling religion with a political movement causes people to identify if with said movement. If and when that political movement falls from the graces of the general populace, the religion falls with it. The converse is true as well.

Oddly enough, forcing religious beliefs onto the populace tends to have the opposite effect.

How so?

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

[Vrede too]

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

Ah. In Latin America it gets convoluted. The Catholic Church has long been associated with the ruling class. However, beginning in the 1970s elements within it pushed for social justice, even going so far as to develop a 'Liberation Theology'. At times, these two sectors confronted each other. It all made navigating the complexities difficult for this norte americano. Mostly, recent revolutions have not meant overthrowing the Church, but it has changed.

Eventually, social justice won, culminating in the current Pope and last one, but with the more radical Marxist components mostly stripped away.

Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism has made major inroads, filling the vacuums created by conflicts within Catholicism. I have a Latinx Pentecostal church across from my back deck.

So, will revolution here mean dispensing with our oppressive fundies? When can we start?

[Whack9]

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

Ah. In Latin America it gets convoluted. The Catholic Church has long been associated with the ruling class. However, beginning in the 1970s elements within it pushed for social justice, even going so far as to develop a 'Liberation Theology'. At times, these two sectors confronted each other. It all made navigating the complexities difficult for this norte americano. Mostly, recent revolutions have not meant overthrowing the Church, but it has changed.

Eventually, social justice won, culminating in the current Pope and last one, but with the more radical Marxist components mostly stripped away.

Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism has made major inroads, filling the vacuums created by conflicts within Catholicism. I have a Latinx Pentecostal church across from my back deck.

So, will revolution here mean dispensing with out oppressive fundies? When can we start?

Yeah despite my athiesm, I think religion can sometimes offer a good counterbalance to oppressive political regimes. I remember reading a good take by Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man. It's been a while, but he explains it can basically act as a different frame of reference outside of existing systems of thought and power. Something along those lines. That sorta sounds similar to what you explained about the church's role in Latin America. In an authoritarian regime where the only truth is what the state dispenses, religious institutions (well, the ones that aren't completely coopted into the state apparatus) provide an alternative power structure/community.

[Vrede too]

This is what the MAGAts are now?

Fire his ass.

He wasn't called out on it by his co-hosts.

The MAGAts double standards are mind blowing.

‘Fox & Friends’ Host Brian Kilmeade Apologizes for Saying Homeless Should Be Euthanized: ‘Extremely Callous’ | Video
Brian Kilmeade originally said "involuntary lethal injection" is a solution to crimes perpetrated by the unhoused: "Just kill 'em"

Brian Kilmeade's disgusting remarks don't keep him off 'Fox & Friends' | Opinion

On "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday, Sept. 10, Brian Kilmeade, one of the hosts, said that one way to deal with mentally ill homeless people who wouldn't accept services was "involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill ‘em.”

This isn't one of those instances where, should you want to try to defend his comments, you can claim Kilmeade was taken out of context. He said it. Period. It's right there, easily accessed.

As GoCubsGo showed us.

And his co-hosts, Lawrence Jones and Ainsley Earhardt, simply moved along with the show, as if casually suggesting that murder was a viable option for struggling people was an acceptable solution.

As I posted.

On Sunday, Sept. 14, Kilmeade apologized.

Why did it take so long for Brian Kilmeade to apologize?

Good question.

... At least he acknowledged that he said it, and that he was wrong to say it. But the apology raises a lot of questions. Why wasn't this more of a big deal over the last few days, for instance? That's easy: The murder of Charlie Kirk and the continuing fallout from it is consuming media, still. This gave Kilmeade the cover he needed to avoid serious heat for making such horrible statements.

Another question: Why does Kilmeade still have a job?

Good question. Advocating murder, which is 100% what Kilmeade did, would seem to be something you couldn't come back from. Maybe it won't be. Maybe Fox News will fire him. Maybe not.

Good luck with that.

... Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah said on Monday, Sept. 15, that she had been fired by the paper for "unacceptable" social media posts after Kirk's death. The White House and MAGA acolytes are reportedly on the lookout to punish anyone who posts anything negative about Kirk online or celebrates his murder, an ironic turn for the supposed free-speech crowd.

MAGA = Hypocrisy, always.

... The bigger question is, how did we get to an environment in which Kilmeade would even think what he said was OK? It's horrible that the thought would even occur to him. It's unacceptable that he said it on a popular TV show....

Trump adds to the hateful and divisive rhetoric

Yet every time Donald Trump gets in front of a microphone, including on Kilmeade's show, he goes out of his way to blame the "radical left" for everything. There is never any acknowledgement of violence committed against Democrats.

Nor that it's far more common, as we've all pointed out.

Let's be clear: Trump is guilty of using all the hateful rhetoric he accuses the "radical left" of, and then some. The hypocrisy is stunning, and so relentless that it becomes expected. It's incredibly irresponsible and it's dangerous.

And it's not just Trump. Kari Lake, at a memorial for Kirk, said that we are in a battle between good and evil. You think I'm kidding? Here's just one thing she said (to quote more would be to amplify hate speech and ignorance): "I'm not going to say our side is perfect, but damn it, this is coming from the other side!"

Disgraceful.

Of course Kilmeade was comfortable saying what he said. He and his network go out of their way to put the best face on whatever Trump is up to. Honestly, would you be surprised if Trump offered Kilmeade a job in his administration?

You either want to tamp down hateful rhetoric or you don't. You either think human beings have value or you don't. You either believe in free speech or you don't. And you either believe your words, which you have every right to use, have consequences or they don't.

Or at least they should.