Trump Targeting Trans People

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This should surprise no one:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7bd9z/trump-anti-trans

He has to try to outdo Ron DeSantis.

Agree not surprised at all.

[filghy2]

I would debate that Republicans couldn't survive without the hardcore Christian Conservatives....

It's those religious tenants again

I assume you mean to say you would argue the point, not debate it.

[Luke Warm]

I would debate that Republicans couldn't survive without the hardcore Christian Conservatives....
Which is interesting because the Black Church is a large voting block of Democrats....

Of course the Republicans can ‘survive’ but they cannot win national elections without a big turnout of Christian Conservatives on Election Day. I don’t have the stats handy (you can Google) but what I saw was approximately 30% of Republicans self-identify with the Christian Conservative movement. Since national elections are so close (Trump barely won in 2016, Biden barely won in 2020) if the Republicans don’t get massive support from Christian Conservatives, they will almost certainly lose (never say never, the Dems can always stumble). On top of that, another approximate 20% of Republicans do not identify as Christian Conservatives but are ‘sympathetic’ to those viewpoints (bring back school prayer, “too many gays now” etc). Without these voters, it’s unlikely that Republicans can win a presidential election again, unless they modify some of their core viewpoints.

You are correct about black church-going people being a key to Democratic success. Apparently the #1 most dependable Democratic voting block is middle aged black women (who I assume many -if not most- ) are church-going. Black ladies vote Democrat at the highest percentage of any voting block (in the 90% range) and they are the most reliable voters to consistently show up on Election Day. Without them, Democrats probably cannot win a national election. They are a cornerstone of the party. They are a huge reason that Hillary was the Democratic nominee in 2016 and Biden was the candidate in 2020 (instead of Bernie).

One important difference between these two groups… nobody is frightened or threatened by middle aged black ladies. They are not trying to make fundamental changes to democracy, ban books, overturn elections, criminalize women who have had abortions, or limit our personal freedoms (which is what non-MAGA voters fear about the Christian right).

[Luke Warm]

(continued)… Independent voters are hugely important in winning presidential races. Many independents have been shocked by Trump and will vote against anything MAGA going forward. But independents don’t feel threatened by “the candidates that middle-aged back ladies want” that same way. These black voters are crucial to Democrats, but their viewpoints don’t inspire fear among independent voters.

[filghy2]

Of course the Republicans can ‘survive’ but they cannot win national elections without a big turnout of Christian Conservatives on Election Day. I don’t have the stats handy (you can Google) but what I saw was approximately 30% of Republicans self-identify with the Christian Conservative movement. Since national elections are so close (Trump barely won in 2016, Biden barely won in 2020) if the Republicans don’t get massive support from Christian Conservatives, they will almost certainly lose (never say never, the Dems can always stumble). On top of that, another approximate 20% of Republicans do not identify as Christian Conservatives but are ‘sympathetic’ to those viewpoints (bring back school prayer, “too many gays now” etc). Without these voters, it’s unlikely that Republicans can win a presidential election again, unless they modify some of their core viewpoints.

The problem is that going all out to appeal to these voters - eg through hardline anti-abortion laws - probably loses them more support in the centre. The question is where else would these Christian right voters go if the Republican Party moved back toward the centre - still conservative-leaning but without the more extreme elements?

The party seems to be stuck in a trap because of internal dynamics. It's almost impossible to win Republican primaries without appealing to the MAGA crowd, but that puts off the independents they need to win elections.

[Luke Warm]

Speaking as a Democrat, it’s a delicious problem that I would love to watch play out. MAGA’s war on “RINOs” (who are really just Reagan republicans) is tearing the party apart.

[yodajazz]

The meaning of the passage is ambiguous. Presumably, Jesus (or Matthew) addressed the question of eunuchs because there were many in those days. Probably trans people weren't sufficiently numerous to be considered worth mentioning.

We should bear in mind that Jesus was answering a question about the permissibility of divorce, not about sexuality. If he intended to make a statement about sexuality and God's laws I assume he would have done so more directly, as he did regarding divorce:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This makes it ironic that Christian fundamentalists should be so keen on Trump. As I said, they focus on the biblical passages that suit their purposes and ignore those that don't.

We should also bear in mind that Jesus was a pragmatist in many ways (eg render under Caesar what is Caesar's). Someone trying to attract adherents to a new religion would obviously want to avoid criticising too many aspects of traditional social practices. It's not surprising that Jesus and his publicists chose to be somewhat ambiguous on some issues that they perhaps they did not see as first order concerns.

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. But the key to understanding the words of Jesus here; is the phrase of him saying "some are born this way". According what I once read, there was an idiom in use at the time, that 'natural born eunuchs was a euphemism for gay people at that time. Consider how many words have been used to call 'gay people' in English. To contrast this, I once read an interpretation by a priest, who said that 'born that way' refers to those born with genital birth defects. However, that would be relatively rare compared to the amount of gay people in a general society. People who consider themselves religious, such as me, are told to meditate on the Word, and see what rings true. And this idea rings true to me. Incidentally I presented my understanding to a person who is religious,and she said that 'Jesus was wrong', or that my meaning contradicted other Bible passages. That is actually okay for me, because Jesus started of the passage, by saying "Not everyone could understand this..." So I have come understand that some people's biological makeup makes them unable to understand or emphasize with gays, transgenders, etc. I note, that in this passage Jesus does not condemn those, who cannot understand it. He said that those who do understand, should just accept it. So in my view, that is the definitive statement, of how we should approach the issue today.

Others might say. 'what about the other Bible passages, which seem to condemn gay practices, and the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to what I read, there are other written about those cities in other antiquity writings which describe their 'sin" as being inhospitable to strangers. There was a specific story in writings of that period, about a woman who, who fed strangers, and because of this; she was tied up outside the city walls and was eaten by animals. So in this understanding, the real 'sin' of the city' was being inhospitable to strangers. Hospitality would have been essential to travelers at that time. I note that in the Biblical version, the outside crowd was not asking, for the strangers, to just 'hang out' at the local wine cafe, etc. There was an important aspect of the visitors participation being involuntary. And that should be considered, a very important aspect of the story. Remember that Lot apparently offered his daughters to the crowd. Anyway, consider these ideas. Thanks.

[yodajazz]

...
The consequence of all this, is that while Jesus is primarily, or solely concerned to maintain marriage as the foundation of society, in which people live 'the good life', it leaves open all sorts of questions to which there is no definitive answer, ...

An important aspect of the entire passage, that I first posted was that those Pharisees, at the beginning questioning Jesus about marriage were often considered to be covertly hostile to Jesus. So their actual purpose may have been to try and get him to say something blasphemous. So note that Jesus seem to go out of his way, to not contradict previous Hebrew Scriptures. And at the latter part of the passage (verses 10-12) It appears that he was alone with his Disciples, where he could speak more freely.

[Stavros]

An important aspect of the entire passage, that I first posted was that those Pharisees, at the beginning questioning Jesus about marriage were often considered to be covertly hostile to Jesus. So their actual purpose may have been to try and get him to say something blasphemous. So note that Jesus seem to go out of his way, to not contradict previous Hebrew Scriptures. And at the latter part of the passage (verses 10-12) It appears that he was alone with his Disciples, where he could speak more freely.

Interesting though your posts are, what they expose, are the multiple meanings that have been and are derived from translations of the Books of the Bible.

You may be aware that there is a conflict in some scholarship over the translation of the word that once was 'slave' which some now think ought to be 'servant' while in addition there are various definitions of what a slave is depending on which book of the Old Testament you find it in.

Again, should the 6th Commandment be 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', or 'Thou Shalt not Murder'? The difference is important, and not just in jurisprudence. But again, the issues around killing/murder and its consequences in the Old Testament merely refer one to the multiple definitions and in effect, are excuses for bad behaviour.

Because it seems to me that when you get so many variations of the same thing, it amounts to one generation finding excuses for behaviour that appear to be condemned by an earlier one.

The most compelling case here is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth was a pacifist who would never have endorsed any kind of violence against the person, indeed, that the Crucifixion was meant to be the last example of one man killing another. Not everyone agrees to this, but I can't find any appeals to violence by Jesus in the Gospels.

Yet the Catholic Church through Augustine and then Aquinas provided excuses for waging war which have led to the development of 'Just War' theory, but which is just an excuse for one man to kill another with no regard to what Jesus wanted. And thus, historically, Christianity has been one of the main engines of mass slaughter in human history with a tally in excess of 100 million, every death a violation of the gospels according to Jesus of Nazareth.

One could also point to the absurdity of taking the account of creation in Genesis as the only way of understanding what happened, as there are at least 8 accounts of creation in the Old Testament, and the most eloquent, in Job, makes no mention of seven days,and so on.

From this one can conclude that discussing Eunuchs and sexuality in the Bible is an academic exercise and not much more. We do not know the context in which any statement was made, and can only generalize on the basis of what we think we know of the Bronze Age, and what we know -and want- today.

Martin Luther King had a neat way of dealing with these issues: collapse them into one-
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”

But if a person does not believe in Jesus I guess that creates a dilemma, for they can dismiss everything Jesus said. Or is believed to have said.

[filghy2]

Interpretation of the Bible is essentially a metaphysical question: there is no objective way to determine what is right. The real question is why should this be influencing policy in a secular republic over 2000 years later.