This should surprise no one:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7bd9z/trump-anti-trans
He has to try to outdo Ron DeSantis.
Printable View
This should surprise no one:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7bd9z/trump-anti-trans
He has to try to outdo Ron DeSantis.
I think that what surprises intelligent people, is the lack of intelligence in the remarks made by Trump and De Santis on Trans issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
In Trump's case, there is no surprise because he is, quite simply, ignorant. In the other case, De Santis has a degree in history from Yale, and a law degree from Harvard, so one assumes he has the ability to critically assess an argument be it in history or politics or law and so on.
So I suspect in both of these men, Trans issues have no intrinsic interest or value but are weapons being used in a wider campaign to 'de-Liberal' America, in the case of De Santis, perhaps a leaning toward the Roman Catholic ideology he inherited from his Italian lineage which I don't doubt 'informs' the foundations of his 'value system' -just as long as those awkward Christian values, like Forgiveness and Love are set aside as if they were irrelevant. No Christian Governor would ever allow anyone to be executed in their State.
A similar recourse to either/or distorts the debate on Trans issues in the UK, but at root there is a conflict with Democracy and Rights, notably in the US because of the importance Rights have in the Constitution. But are rights merely tokens that citizens use when they participate in politics, or are they a form of power in themselves, as Hobbes argued way back in the 17th century, at a time when the absolute power of the Monarch was being challenged by Parliament, and when even within the ranks of the (pseudo-) Revolutionary supporters of Oliver Cromwell, the idea of 'one man one vote' proposed in the Putney Debates by Rainesborough, led to his suspicious and early death.
For if Democracy has a crucial meaning, it is that every citizen is equal. That means a Black American is equal in terms of the Rights and Power that they have, to an Asian American, a Latino or Latina American, a White American, and so on. And that their history carries equal weight and value, and that to elevate one above the other is to divide the population and infer that equality is a mirage not a reality. The extravagant means used by Republicans to attack the rights of Women -in particular, Pregnant Women- is so blatant, so astonishing in its disregard for elementary values, I am surprised De Santis has not (yet) been the subject of a sustained assault by those who think Democracy is an inherent component of American politics that cannot be traded away for power when the outcome of an election doesn't satisfy the losers.
On this basis, Trump, De Santis and the Republicans, with their endorsement of violence are now the most serious internal threat to the survival of the USA as a democracy. Perhaps De Santis having studied and taught history has learned that if power is diffused throughout society, it ceases to be effective, that power concentrated in one man, one party offers the victors the spoils of their war, and permanent authority. Just as Stalin said 'its not the votes that count, but who counts the votes',
I suspect De Santis no longer believes in the USA as its founders did in 1776, but wants to create a new Union, of one party apparatchiks dictating the truth to a compliant society of men, which to most Americans, sounds like hell on Earth.
They just need as many scapegoats as they can find, and they also know they can divide and conquer opposition by shotgunning wedge issues.
Trump and DeSantis are both aligned with the Christian Conservative movement which believes the US should be a theocracy. Trump isn’t a true believer but he’s supported by this movement because he’s seen as a vehicle to advance their goals. And Trump wants and needs their votes. Mike Pence as Trump’s VP was no coincidence. Pence attained the highest position of anyone in their movement. They’re not just dead-set against abortion (at any stage) and against trans people… they also want to end marriage equality (gay marriage), contraception, pornography, on and on. Think “Opus Dei”, Anita Bryant and so on. They are like the American version of the Taliban. They picked trans issues to focus on, because a lot of average folks are confused and afraid of trans issues, even on the left. So even though trans people are a tiny fringe of the population, attacking trans peoples’ rights is considered a political winner on the Christian right. They will try to milk anti-trans sentiment for every vote possible. They aren’t just trying to “protect kids from trans people” - they literally want trans people to disappear from the face of the earth. They are eliminationists.
You are exactly right. It's part of the fascist playbook, to focus negative mind energies. Then move onto larger targets. Growing up I read extensively on the rise of Nazi Germany. Specifically, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. So yes, once one agrees that certain people should be eliminated, then the leadership has ultimate control over that population. But, guess who weighed in on the opposing side? Jesus! (Actually it was both sides). If you are interested I'll go into specific detail.
Fascism has been notoriously hard to define, but the central element seems to be the idea that authentic national culture is being undermined by degenerate elements that must be purged. The alleged existential threat from this source then justifies ignoring democratic principles and laws, and ultimately resort to violence. This sort of thinking is clearly prevalent in today's Republican Party, where the authentic national culture is defined to be white male-dominated, Christian and heterosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Trump is ignorant of history and philosophy, but he has an intuitive feel for how to appeal to these concerns. He seems to have moved away from his earlier flirtations with economic populism to focus on cultural grievances. Many in the party have soured on him because they don't think he's electable, but if he looks like winning the nomination they will fall into line again. As long as Trump goes along with their tax cuts and deregulation agenda they will deal with the devil.
I'm not sure what you mean about Jesus being on both sides, but the problem with the Bible is that it's schizophrenic due to having multiple authors. There's lots of good stuff about tolerance and equality in the New Testament, but also lots of intolerant stuff in the Old Testament. People can choose to focus on the passages that justify their priors.
Regarding Jesus, the lesson comes from Matthew19. The Pharisees, questioned him about marriage. But the implication was theywere trying to trip him, to say something blasphemous. At verse 4 he says:"...he which made them at the beginning made them male andfemale," Many have used this verse to criticize gays,trans, etc. However at verse 10, it says
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But hesaid unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it isgiven.
12 Forthere are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and thereare some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, whichhave made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is ableto receive it, let him receive it.
Of course, religious scholars can debate about any scripture. But I amcurious what your response might be to this passage. Than I will give further detail about my own understanding.
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.
I would debate that Republicans couldn't survive without the hardcore Christian Conservatives....Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
Which is interesting because the Black Church is a large voting block of Democrats....
Hispanic Catholic Church is tough to ascertain because some are Democrats and some are Republicans....
But what is a Eunuch, and why did they exist in such different societies as Biblical Jerusalem, China, and the early Islamic (and presumably pre-Islamic) Arabia, to cite just three?
A Eunuch could be a) a male whose penis and testicles have been removed; b) a male whose testicles have been removed; or c) a male with penis and testicles that appear to be non-functional in the sexual meaning of the term.
One could also point to the Castrati that were hired as singers by the Roman Catholic church, just as Eunuchs were singers in early Islamic Arabia, and one assumes before Muhammad, but also played a role in the mediation of relations between men and women were not married or blood relatives, indeed it was only when the Saudi Wahab sect took control of Mecca and Medina that the Eunuchs who guarded Muhammad's tomb were banned. Whether or not Eunuchs also played a sexual role as 'male prostitutes' or 'trans' because of their effeminate appearance is disputed, though one notes Everett Rowson's paper on early Medina, and Unni Wikan's controversial articles on the Xanith of Oman in the 20th century.
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, unless one turns to an American evangelist such as in this link, determined to make it clear that Masturbation is sinful behaviour and that when a man succeeds in resisting it, he gets closer to God.
What Does God Think About Masturbation? (purelifeministries.org)
I am surprised His Holiness Greg Abbott, and the not-so-holy Pope of Florida have not legislated to make it illegal either to masturbate, or to ejaculate, given that a man's sperm is intended for procreation not pleasure.
Agree not surprised at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
It's those religious tenants again :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
I assume you mean to say you would argue the point, not debate it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
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).
(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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
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.
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.
Pramila Jayapal makes a reasonable statement in opposition to a House policy which it is believed will not pass the Senate and so not be implemented in law.
House Republicans pass bill banning transgender girls from participating in women’s sports (yahoo.com)
The MAGA Party's bill banning Transgender Girls in Women's Sports is disgusting,despicable and transphobic. And their bill will be dead on arrival in the US Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros