A Disturbing Email

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 106
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
There are a wide range of topics for disagreement. Clear infringement on basically every human right, slavery, is one end of that range. I've never heard any MAGA people supporting slavery.

Many of the primary areas of political disagreement are much more nuanced and both sides (yep, I said it) have valid concerns IF people take the time to try to listen to what is being said. Their concerns are sometimes based in lies that they've been convinced are true but, in their mind, they often believe they are doing what's right for the country.
Click to expand...
Willful ignorance is no excuse. I check the so called facts that the reactionaries ( not right to call them conservatives) on the right present.
 
ZenMode said:
There are a wide range of topics for disagreement. Clear infringement on basically every human right, slavery, is one end of that range. I've never heard any MAGA people supporting slavery.

Many of the primary areas of political disagreement are much more nuanced and both sides (yep, I said it) have valid concerns IF people take the time to try to listen to what is being said. Their concerns are sometimes based in lies that they've been convinced are true but, in their mind, they often believe they are doing what's right for the country.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you've figured out my general intellectual approach to these types of issues, but I will spell it out in more detail.

1. First, establish some basic principles on which we can agree. When I am speaking to someone who is making a categorical denial -- or who is at least using that language -- often the first step is to establish that the categorial denial is wrong, and that there are clearly some situations that fall outside the principle.

Thus we have now agreed that your initial statement about people losing friendships over politics was incomplete. That's fine. We can't always be complete about everything in advance, and sometimes the instinct to be complete creates long posts and people don't like that. So I'm not slamming on you. We're just in agreement now that there exist at least some political issues over which termination of friendship is valid and indeed morally required to avoid complicity.

2. Slavery is a clear example of that, which is why I bring it up. Using non-controversial examples is a good way of talking about the underlying theory and basic contours of discussion. Obviously slavery is orders of magnitude more oppressive, violent and evil than anything we are seeing today. That's good! Likewise, I don't detect much enthusiasm for opening death camps like in Nazi Germany. That's good! I would argue that being friends with anyone holding either of those noxious positions is itself evil.

3. So now our task becomes a bit simpler. We can ask, is what we are seeing now essentially like slavery, or so categorically different that it's more or less irrelevant. And again, there are obvious, non-controversial examples on the other side. Some people like to use "economic development" zones in efforts to stimulate struggling economies. Others note that those programs generally don't work, in part because they are designed more as vehicles for graft and/or tax handouts to rich people for doing what they were going to do already. I don't think anyone thinks of this disagreement as akin to slavery. So good!

4. And thus we have to ask whether MAGA behavior, and the things that MAGA supports, are more like economic development zones or more like slavery or fascism. I would say it's more like the latter. The economic development zones type of policy never appealed to MAGA, not really. That's why MAGA emerged. Nobody wanted what Mitt Romney was selling. What really gets MAGA going are the culture war issues, and those invariably involve some form of government oppression. Again, not nearly as bad as slavery! But still bad.

5. So my tentative -- very tentative -- conclusion is that it is perfectly valid to weaken or eliminate friendships based on some form of political disagreement. For slavery, you cannot be friends with a slaveholder without being complicit, and shunning/exiling/cancelling the slaveowner is a moral imperative. For MAGA, I would not say that it is a moral imperative to oppose it, except in the more extreme manifestations. But it is certainly valid, acceptable and unsurprising that one would might do so -- if for no other reason than MAGA rants are extremely unpleasant and frustrating.

Where, if anywhere in this list of points, do you disagree?
 
Thanks to all for your feedback as well as your thoughtful and insightful posts. I have read and pondered each one. I am still considering my path forward. How does this happen to a person who was Summa Cum Laude and a law school graduate? Did I unintentionally contribute to this madness?

So much to think about ....
 
UNCMSinLS said:
Thanks to all for your feedback as well as your thoughtful and insightful posts. I have read and pondered each one. I am still considering my path forward. How does this happen to a person who was Summa Cum Laude and a law school graduate? Did I unintentionally contribute to this madness?

So much to think about ....
Click to expand...
Sort of amazing with someone of his background but sounds like he's bought into the literal truth of the Bible. That's not something you did and he's about the only one who can change that. As best as I can tell, it's easier to grow out of when you're younger (about 13 for me) and hard when you move toward 40+.
 
superrific said:
Would be an odd stance for a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Maybe not as odd as you're thinking.

catholicoutlook.org

Catholic Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is not confined to Islamic religions. In fact, fundamentalist movements are to be found in all societies and religions, including Catholic Christianity. Fundamentalism is a...
catholicoutlook.org catholicoutlook.org

Fundamentalists have become especially powerful and vociferous within the Catholic communities in recent decades. Their fundamentalist reactions are the result of the impact of two massive cultural upheavals colliding. First, there is the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The credibility of every value and institution, including the churches, were questioned. This had profound social, economic and political consequences that continue to this day. Second, there is impact from the immense cultural changes generated by the much-needed reforms of Vatican II.

Catholic fundamentalism is an often aggressive reaction to the anxiety-creating turmoil of these two cultural and religious upheavals. It is an ill-defined but powerful movement in the Church to restore uncritically pre-Vatican II structures and attitudes.
 
superrific said:
Perhaps you've figured out my general intellectual approach to these types of issues, but I will spell it out in more detail.

1. First, establish some basic principles on which we can agree. When I am speaking to someone who is making a categorical denial -- or who is at least using that language -- often the first step is to establish that the categorial denial is wrong, and that there are clearly some situations that fall outside the principle.

Thus we have now agreed that your initial statement about people losing friendships over politics was incomplete. That's fine. We can't always be complete about everything in advance, and sometimes the instinct to be complete creates long posts and people don't like that. So I'm not slamming on you. We're just in agreement now that there exist at least some political issues over which termination of friendship is valid and indeed morally required to avoid complicity.

2. Slavery is a clear example of that, which is why I bring it up. Using non-controversial examples is a good way of talking about the underlying theory and basic contours of discussion. Obviously slavery is orders of magnitude more oppressive, violent and evil than anything we are seeing today. That's good! Likewise, I don't detect much enthusiasm for opening death camps like in Nazi Germany. That's good! I would argue that being friends with anyone holding either of those noxious positions is itself evil.

3. So now our task becomes a bit simpler. We can ask, is what we are seeing now essentially like slavery, or so categorically different that it's more or less irrelevant. And again, there are obvious, non-controversial examples on the other side. Some people like to use "economic development" zones in efforts to stimulate struggling economies. Others note that those programs generally don't work, in part because they are designed more as vehicles for graft and/or tax handouts to rich people for doing what they were going to do already. I don't think anyone thinks of this disagreement as akin to slavery. So good!

4. And thus we have to ask whether MAGA behavior, and the things that MAGA supports, are more like economic development zones or more like slavery or fascism. I would say it's more like the latter. The economic development zones type of policy never appealed to MAGA, not really. That's why MAGA emerged. Nobody wanted what Mitt Romney was selling. What really gets MAGA going are the culture war issues, and those invariably involve some form of government oppression. Again, not nearly as bad as slavery! But still bad.

5. So my tentative -- very tentative -- conclusion is that it is perfectly valid to weaken or eliminate friendships based on some form of political disagreement. For slavery, you cannot be friends with a slaveholder without being complicit, and shunning/exiling/cancelling the slaveowner is a moral imperative. For MAGA, I would not say that it is a moral imperative to oppose it, except in the more extreme manifestations. But it is certainly valid, acceptable and unsurprising that one would might do so -- if for no other reason than MAGA rants are extremely unpleasant and frustrating.

Where, if anywhere in this list of points, do you disagree?
Click to expand...
It's difficult to discuss what political positions are friendship-ending without being specific. So, there are two ways to approach this: 1) go through topics one-by-one, which I fear would result in 30 pages of back and forth or 2) discuss those which you personally think of as being slavery-adjacent. Not saying they are as horrific as slavery, but in the same general category.

Edit: To clarify, I'm assuming that both sides are being civil while discussing political views. In other words, the friendship is ending solely due to political views, not threats, disrespect, etc.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
It's difficult to discuss what political positions are friendship-ending without being specific. So, there are two ways to approach this: 1) go through topics one-by-one, which I fear would result in 30 pages of back and forth or 2) discuss those which you personally think of as being slavery-adjacent. Not saying they are as horrific as slavery, but in the same general category.

Edit: To clarify, I'm assuming that both sides are being civil while discussing political views. In other words, the friendship is ending solely due to political views, not threats, disrespect, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, now we agree that neither one of us really knows what is going on there. So, maybe the best thing to do is not to judge people without knowing the situation. Maybe instead of saying that people shouldn't let politics come between their friendships, you could say that it is sad that it happens this way. Or wish people the best as they try to navigate their circumstances. Or maybe say nothing at all.

I'm not going to discuss this any further, especially not on this thread. My point has been made. It is in fact acceptable and even required in some cases to end friendships over things you characterize as politics. We don't have to try to be the arbiters of what is and isn't acceptable.

The OP asked for some thoughts and perhaps advice. He didn't ask for a freewheeling condemnation of people trying to navigate our political hell the best they can. He didn't ask for the thread to be derailed into silly musings. I think we've done enough already.
 
Don't know that politics enters into this statement:

All this being said, there has been so much damage done that I agree with you - I am apprehensive as well. While I believe that the mainstream media has built a caricature image of Donald Trump, he is not a savior. The Deep State is extremely entrenched in this country, and one man cannot root it out. This country is now far from God and Jesus Christ, who is our real Savior. I think Satan's influence is unprecedented--and that we are in a worse situation than before the Flood. The massive debt that this country has run up (and built in both Democratic and Republican administrations - and Trump does not seem to be too bothered by it) I think will have disastrous consequences. (Just think of all the hashing and rehashing topics I have just raised.)

If your world view has that the current state of the earth has more Satanic influence in it than before the Flood, and you are actively dismissing centuries of slavery or the extermination of the Jews, or the Chinese cultural revolution, or World Wars as having less satanic influence (given that you believe Satan is actively working in the world) then you and I, friends or not, are living foundationally different realities. I would be unclear on what shared experience or morals or beliefs our friendship resides.
 
lawtig02 said:
Maybe not as odd as you're thinking.

catholicoutlook.org

Catholic Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is not confined to Islamic religions. In fact, fundamentalist movements are to be found in all societies and religions, including Catholic Christianity. Fundamentalism is a...
catholicoutlook.org catholicoutlook.org

Fundamentalists have become especially powerful and vociferous within the Catholic communities in recent decades. Their fundamentalist reactions are the result of the impact of two massive cultural upheavals colliding. First, there is the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The credibility of every value and institution, including the churches, were questioned. This had profound social, economic and political consequences that continue to this day. Second, there is impact from the immense cultural changes generated by the much-needed reforms of Vatican II.

Catholic fundamentalism is an often aggressive reaction to the anxiety-creating turmoil of these two cultural and religious upheavals. It is an ill-defined but powerful movement in the Church to restore uncritically pre-Vatican II structures and attitudes.
Click to expand...
OK, but it is it literalism? I mean, it's really, really hard to treat the Bible as literally a divine revelation of truth that means exactly what it says, while also maintaining that the Pope has the authority to conclusively determine the meaning of the Bible and the lessons it teaches us.

Are there any creationist Catholics, for instance? Many popes, I think, have said that creationism is not a required belief for Catholics. I think the official position is that people can decide for themselves, but it's anti-biblical to look to the Pope to make that determination. So Catholic literalism just seems completely bonkers and obviously self-contradictory. Which I guess doesn't stop people in other contexts.

I don't know. The whole idea seems like lunacy. I mean, I loathe literalism, but at least Calvinists have a consistent theology.
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
Don't know that politics enters into this statement:

All this being said, there has been so much damage done that I agree with you - I am apprehensive as well. While I believe that the mainstream media has built a caricature image of Donald Trump, he is not a savior. The Deep State is extremely entrenched in this country, and one man cannot root it out. This country is now far from God and Jesus Christ, who is our real Savior. I think Satan's influence is unprecedented--and that we are in a worse situation than before the Flood. The massive debt that this country has run up (and built in both Democratic and Republican administrations - and Trump does not seem to be too bothered by it) I think will have disastrous consequences. (Just think of all the hashing and rehashing topics I have just raised.)

If your world view has that the current state of the earth has more Satanic influence in it than before the Flood, and you are actively dismissing centuries of slavery or the extermination of the Jews, or the Chinese cultural revolution, or World Wars as having less satanic influence (given that you believe Satan is actively working in the world) then you and I, friends or not, are living foundationally different realities. I would be unclear on what shared experience or morals or beliefs our friendship resides.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, although it's also possible that the claim in red was meant as hyperbole. Remember MAGAs love to talk in absolutes. Trump is the best president ever, or at least since Lincoln. Tariffs are magic and will solve all of our problems. There is more evil in the world than every before.

If it were me, my first response would have been to highlight that sentence and just simply ask, "really? More than in the days of slavery? More than WWII and the Holocaust?" And is fiscal irresponsibility, assuming for the moment that it is, really a matter of Satanic influence? I don't think Satan is an accountant."
 
Do we know the age of "Claire"?
Actions that could be viewed as enticing an underage kid away from home could result in some unwanted repercussions..
What about the Mom? Where's her head at on this?
What is the OP's existing relationship with the kid like?
Too many questions for me.....
 
Calvinism is self consistent and not Biblically consistent. The book of James pretty thoroughly debunks by faith alone. It's worth noting that the only major book of the Bible he didn't write a commentary on is Revelation.

Foolish to begin with to listen to a lawyer about religion. They can't stop looking for loopholes.
 
finesse said:
Calvinism is self consistent and not Biblically consistent. The book of James pretty thoroughly debunks by faith alone. It's worth noting that the only major book of the Bible he didn't write a commentary on is Revelation.

Foolish to begin with to listen to a lawyer about religion. They can't stop looking for loopholes.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about me or the OP's friend?

I probably should have said post-Calvinist, but anyway, I'm not endorsing anything. I just think literalist Catholicism is just lunacy. Maybe it will seem less crazy if I were to read more about it, which is not high on my priority list.
 
superrific said:
Are you talking about me or the OP's friend?

I probably should have said post-Calvinist, but anyway, I'm not endorsing anything. I just think literalist Catholicism is just lunacy. Maybe it will seem less crazy if I were to read more about it, which is not high on my priority list.
Click to expand...
No. Calvin was a lawyer

Education
Calvin was trained as a humanist lawyer, studying at the University of Paris and the University of Orléans. He received his Doctor of Law degree in 1532.
 
Centerpiece said:
But face it, you sort of started it with your email to him. He simply told you where he stands. Believe him at his word. He admitted that you won’t see eye to eye, and he did give warning: “rant coming”.
Click to expand...
This is correct - you did crack the door open with your response, and he in turn kicked the door down with how he responded back to you. Just be a friend - let him know that you're there for him and go from there and leave politics out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top