The Family

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nobody is going to argue that there are not many things very wrong with the US system of government. But far-right religious groups are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What is being argued is that there is an operating democracy in the US such that it be attacked and undermined. I'm arguing there is no democracy - merely any number of power groups jostling for their piece of the pie. Right wing Christianity is but one of a number.

I'm not sure what solution you propose, such that it matters what right wing Christianity does. We have a survival of the fittest gig going on there and there are untold numbers of power players controlling things such as to render RWC and The Family mere drops in the ocean.

Why an athiest would object to survival of the fittest politics is beyond me. Isn't this how the world operates? Or are we to suppose the processes of evolution have somehow halted? If far right Christianity happens to be fit at this time then so be it until such time as it is unfit.

I wish you well in hoping that when it is unfit and goes the way of the dodo, that its fit replacement is to your liking. I suspect it will be much the same: wanting power and prepared to do what it takes to get and hold onto it.

smacl wrote: »

Being an atheist is no more nor less than not believing in a god or gods, it says nothing about one's political leanings.

In the context of this forum and the views oft expressed I am supposing adherence to ToE (survival of the fittest being central to same).

I understand that one can operate in a bubble and forget that that is the mode that has (supposedly) brought us thus far. I was just reminding folk of the constraints by which they operate.

I would have thought that caring about those less fortunate than oneself was however a basic aspiration of Christianity. Whatever about the sorry state of American democracy, the state of American right wing Christianity seems considerably worse. Seeking personal wealth while eliminating healthcare for all and a minimum working wage (your stated position) is the polar opposite of what most people in this part of the world would consider Christian.

I don't recall my stating my stated position. Indeed you sound like Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson ( concluding he is saying things he clearly hasn't said).

There is no sorry state of American democracy. There is no American democracy .. is my position.

As far as any nutter view goes (such as right wing Christianity), its merely a piece in a larger pie which has long destroyed democracy. Its only if you ignore the myriad of democracy-suppressing elements there that you might consider one particular one democracy-damaging.

American democracy is lost lost lost. That's why such blatant democracy 'damaging' elements can exist.

smacl wrote: »

If we look at the definition of democracy we see notions such as "government by the people" and "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". While your point could be argued in the former it doesn't really hold up for the latter.

For all its flaws, America is still very much a democracy where its elected representatives come and go based on a popular vote. While I'd tend to agree there is not shortage of corruption in the Trump administration, Trump is a popular politician among many Americans. Similarly other politicians on the rise such as Ocasio Cortez are in place very much at the behest of the people voting her in through democratic process.

True in letter but not in spirit. Lets suppose, for the sake of illustration, that the overarching reality is that politics in the US is owned by big money/influence/power.

Anyone can stand for election. But big money/power/influence ensures that:

a) those aligned to the interests of big money/power/influence are the ones to get the positive media coverage, the campaign money, the expert advisors and handlers necessary to mount a campaign.

IOW big power/money/influence works to propagate itself and protect itself against intruders.

b) in the event a non big m/p/i candidate does a Leicester City, manages against all odds to win the Premiership and get elected to congress, they will be undermined, attacked and nobbled at every turn. Being a small fish in a big pond of m/p/i their influence is small and temporary.

Does the fact that there are periodic elections mean that a democracy exists?

Clearly not in this case.

The question then is whether big power/money/influence owns politics (we're not talking about the relative trifle of individual corruption). Not whether there are periodic elections.

-

I note the reference to Ocasio-Cortez. Held up as some sort of fresh n' new .. when we've only just emerged from the hollow reality of the suave, thoughtful, witty bail-out-Obama's 'Yes We Can".

From Counterpunch (who are neither red or blue)

"And the ruling elite are not unaware of all this either. Both major parties have the same identical goals. Both protect their privilege and both strategise ways or campaigns to capitalize on the discontent they see around them. (Enter Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And not to beat this drum again, but the woman is a cretin. The examples are countless. But she remains telegenic and so desperate are people, liberals, to find a new standard bearer, that her gaffes are simply ignored.). The marketing of new candidates meant to suggest “change” is less effective than it was for Obama in his initial run. But it still works"

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So-called "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution, and calls your understanding of the latter into serious question.

The latter, if true, is as operational today as it ever was. What is fit survives.

I make no claim as to what is fit: it need not be what appears fit to us (e.g. the wealthy and powerful).

But whatever is fit will survive. That could be altruism, that could be selfishism (e.g. concentration of wealth). It could be both at different periods of time. Only time will tell.

You can get your knickers in a twist about rights and fair play .. but only within a bubble inside the larger reality of the fit survive

If you don't hold to that then it is you who doesn't appear to understand ToE.

Perhaps you believe the process of evolution has stopped? When and how did this occur?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Complete and utter balderdash. Evolotion is about genetic change. You do not understand it.

So, what brought about society other that the combination of genetic shuffling and survival of the fit? What is this mysterious other root element that produced what we have today?