(01-25-2019 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (01-25-2019 12:17 AM)solohawks Wrote: (01-25-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (01-25-2019 12:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: (01-24-2019 07:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: As far as your argument that many Anglos will vote for Trump due to white nationalism/supremacy views, you are correct. But its not enough to win a national election.
Here's the problem with your analysis
73% of American adults are white, but of those
3-5% of the total electorate are anglo LGBT (adults only), 80% of Anglo LGBTers vote Democrat
5% of the total electorate are straight Jews, 70% of them vote Democrat
17-20 percent of the total electorate are Anglo non-religious voters, of which about 70% vote for Democrats
So you can shave 18-21.5 percent off the GOP total, based upon Anglo subgroups.
And that's before mildly religiously affiliated (including liberal religions too) anglo voters, college educated voters, and WOMEN. Shave about another 13-15% off the Anglo total.
----
Subtract out the non-Republican subgroups from the Anglo electorate, and you have about 38-42 percent of the vote that is Anglo Trumpian. In other words, the GOP only gets about 55-58 percent of the Anglo vote. That's pretty much a match with the 2016 and 2018 electoral results (real data).
Democrats won 37% of the white vote in 2016, and they still lost the election.
However, that was in the Obama era. I never thought that Obama was prejudiced against whites/Christians. He went out of his way to make a nod to Christian values (and other religions, too), often to the dismay of many in the Democratic base.
Most of the 2020 Democratic field is blatantly prejudiced. Warren went on record as a racist by equating DNA markers with membership in a Native American socio-ethnic group. Bernie's socialism would "take the culture war up to an 11" because it requires government to impose secularism on vast sections of the economy. Harris has made it clear that Catholics should not be judges. Beto might be the biggest culture warrior of them all.
If 90% of nonwhites vote Democrat (impossible, not even the black vote was that lopsided), they still need 34% of the white vote to win 50% of the vote. And 50% of the vote isn't good enough when smaller, whiter states have more electoral votes.
The whole point of my post is that greater Cincinnati's white Catholic community, has just had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Democratic party's true feelings about us. We slightly favored Trump in 2016, but it will be pretty lopsided for Trump in 2020.
Making this worse, nationwide the white Catholic shift is concentrated in swing states. It won't affect the West Coast or the South (other than Florida).
If you're being nominated for a lifetime bench appointment, then your membership in organizations that advocate discrimination is fair game, even if it is Knights of Columbus.
No, the KOC doesn't get to advocate discrimination in political contests, then run and hide behind an altar when people treat them like the political organization they actually are. They aren't a church group, but a political group dedicated to destroying Gay families. I understand that not all members want to destroy Gay families, but the organization apparently does.
What you apparently want is not non-discrimination against Catholics, but a situation where Catholic and other religious organizations have SUPREMACY over other political actors.
Why should we treat the Knights of Columbus any different than any other political actor? Why should discriminatory advocacy be somehow more acceptable simply because they put an 'AMEN' at the end of it?
And this is what the left thinks of the Christian relgion ladies and gentleman
Yes, we think that any political actor is fair game for criticism and that discrimination is WRONG, even if you throw an "AMEN" on the end of it. Full stop.
Feel free to define your religion as nothing more than
1) Defense of Trumpism
2) Demands for Discrimination
3) Demands for taxpayer benefits
4) Demand for zero criticism.
Pure unaccountability of religious leaders and organziations usually ends very poorly for the religious group in the end.
While I would agree with you on the tax issue. The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is that it is defined by the believer, not by government, not by you, or anyone else. I give you the fictitious Seinfeld 'Festivus". George's dad was free to believe what he wished. It didn't mean that anyone else would agree with him, but it was his right.
Trump is hardly defended in any Church I know, but many churches are very concerned about the present anti church tenor coming from the democratic side of the aisle which is what Captain Bearcat is addressing. It is every group's right to defend their self interest.
Discrimination: The concept is quite different than that of Freedom of Association. The government may not discriminate. But neither shall the government tell me who I must, or who I shouldn't, associate with. That's solely my choice and for my own reasons. When I go to school, to a political rally, or to a town hall meeting I should expect to see people from all walks of life there and respect their rights. If I don't then I am being discriminatory. I don't have the right to impose my personal views on my neighbors. Nor do I have the right to threaten them, harass them, or berate them for not accepting my personal beliefs. But, neither do they have that right over me.
Tolerance when appropriately practiced has no need to retaliate!
I can accept that there are many who do not believe as I do. But they don't have a right to make me believe as they do anymore than I have that right over them.
Society however has another unwritten rule, decorum. We must always assume that children are listening and watching and make sure that public remains a domain for all in other words no worse than a PG13 rating. Therefore in public we are more restricted in our expressions. That too is a form of tolerance.
So Tom, tolerance is a two way street, as is respect of individual rights, and we all owe society a slightly tighter standard of decorum for no other reason than respect for one another.
The Church has a right to their beliefs. They have a right to set the standards for membership. What they don't have the right to do is to compel anyone to believe as they do. And as I said the tax issue should be addressed. If it was I promise you the poor, sick, orphaned, and widows of the world would be in better shape.