Next you’ll be saying the godless communists aren’t really after all of our precious bodily fluids.
4 Likes
Fair enough. I think my problem is with the infographic more than with reality.
I am inordinately proud of the annoyingness of my uncling, but I’d identify as ‘anarcho syndicalist, probably drunk’.
8 Likes
Do you think black president was a necessary goal though?
What about female president? LGBT president?
Isn’t the point about society shifting so that people aren’t ruled out automatically by a majority because of who they are?
3 Likes
I think for some Atheism has become an identity of sorts, and they’d want their view represented as much as anyone else. The bellicose religious politicians probably encourages that…
To be fair, by Islamic law President Obama is a non-practicing Muslim.
Both by having a Muslim father and later daily expressing the acceptance of Alla and his prophet while attending school in Indonesia.
A lapsed muslim is unlike a lapsed Christian who faith-in and faithless-out stops being one by the true Scottsman rules. I am not sure why calling him a Muslim who sometimes attends a church is such a terrible thing, like saying Marx or Einstein were Jewish. How is it differet than, HORRORS, saying he is part French, or a liberal? What is with the closet mentality, Faux news already is yelling it at the top of their lungs, damage done, own the narrative
Evangelical beliefs drive Evangelical behavior, especially in positions of authority. I suppose if you’d prefer to live in a theocracy, by all means, prefer the Evangelical for political office. These are not comparable preferences.
2 Likes
To be fair, that is specifically saying he doesn’t practice the religion. If that were a proper religious identifier, then pretty much everyone could be called Mormons through proxy baptisms…
Well that’s part of the conversation - that the American political spectrum has, for a very long time, made being not just a Christian, but the right kind of Christian, a not on paper but in fact, requirement for the office.
That would be the reason it was used to try and smear Obama, as Romney’s being a Mormon was used against him. Humans are tribal (in practice) and it’s easy to point at the other guy and note his lack of stars upon his belly so to speak.
We haven’t yet evolved to the same level as the sneetches - although this recent chart proves we are making progress 
1 Like
Interesting info about Islamic belief, but it has nothing to do with what the American right means when they suspect Obama is a “secret Muslim.”
3 Likes
I read the title as “Liberals whining” and got all huffy.
I think asking/including so few specific questions was part of the design, and is most of my problem with it.
Isn’t the point about society shifting so that people aren’t ruled out automatically by a majority because of who they are?
Is this the questions thread? 
Realistically though, it only chooses a few, purportedly ‘liberal’ measures, while being fairly liberal about what ‘liberal’ means. The designer and I probably disagree on that word.
Surely the graphic shows changing attitudes on a number of social matters over time. But to define ‘more pluralist’ as ‘liberal’ is a different definition than the one I am accustomed to. I know plenty of conservatives who believe in pluralism.
“Americans who are OK with it has gone up from 75% to 80% in the last few decades.”
No, it hasn’t.
These surveys are incredibly sensitive to to wording and timing, but the underlying attitudes have barely budged in 40 years. Indeed, the divisiveness of this issue predates Roe vs Wade.
The original Oath of Apollo, incorrectly known as the “Hippocratic Oath” contains the injunction
I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.
The Greeks were having the same darn debate at the dawn of Western Civilization 2500 years ago.
What we Pro-Choicers often (understandably) overlook, given that we are locked in generational combat with the Misogynists and Patriarchal Jerks using “Pro-Life” as political cover for the persecution of vulnerable women, is that the Pro-Life argument itself is a beautiful.
It’s the same discussion we are having, and should be having, about “end of life” issues: What is a human life, and who decides?
During my four decades defending Choice, I’ve made quite of few Pro-Life friends. It’s easy once you can see that Anti-Choice, like the horrible laws currently being promulgated in Texas by bunch of privileged white men, isn’t the same thing as Pro-Life.
I will fight to my final breath for a woman’s right to be sovereign over her own body. That’s fundamental. But I also never have, and never will, try to talk anyone out of a sincere Pro-Life position. That’s a choice, too, and why this debate will hopefully always be with us.
I will never understand splitting as a debate technique. Theocracy you say. Okay.
What about people who are mostly socially and fiscally liberal, but are pro-gun (and really dislike Wayne LaPierre making us look like fucking idiots) and really don’t get the big deal about abortion doing?
I’d like to win something.
1 Like
I think technically you are winning on all fronts then. To celebrate - on Saturday night go outside and look up 
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
