April 3, 2019

"I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president’s actions and believe that they’re the actions of somebody who believes in God."

"I just don’t understand how you can be as worshipful of your own self as he is and be prepared to humble yourself before God. I’ve never seen him humble himself before anyone. And the exaltation of yourself, especially a self that’s about wealth and power, could not be more at odds with at least my understanding of the teachings of the Christian faith."

Said Buttigieg, giving us an interesting look at his idea of reluctance.

I'm not reluctant to ask: Is Buttigieg's commentary humble or arrogant? Does it seem like something that would be said by somebody who believes in God? And would you like to rate everything any politician does or says according to how closely it accords with a belief in God or your understanding of whatever religion the politician professes?

I'll suggest a scale from 1 to 5:

1 — That's the sort of thing that you'd probably only do/say if you believed in God/the religion you profess.

2 — That's something that might arise from a belief in God/religion or from ethics or good motivations of a non-religious sort.

3 — That's something that you could do/say without obvious conflict with a belief in God/religion.

4 — If you claim to believe in God or follow the Christian religion (or whatever other religion), then you ought to know that you are doing something hypocritical and wrong.

5— If you claim to believe in God or follow the Christian religion (or whatever other religion), but you do this, you're just lying to us and perhaps also to yourself.

342 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342
Pianoman said...

"Do you think we can infer Jesus meant, "Those of you who are without sin are free to condemn others for their sins"?"

Nope. That's not what it means. It means, "Don't judge others unless you are prepared to be judged yourself."

It's a variation of the Golden Rule -- Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.

We judge people all the time. If we didn't do that, our society would collapse.

I think it's fine that you judge Trump like you do. But be prepared to be judged yourself. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. What would make you a hypocrite is if you judged Trump, and then refused to have your character judged.

I don't think your statement is hypocritical at all.

Wa St Blogger said...

I'll own my hypocrisy and say, unquestionably, no.

So, you've gotten a sneak peak at the Book of Life?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Matthew 7:1

Ken B said...

4

Drago said...

Inga: "I would like to see someone interview Trump on his promiscuity and sexual proclivities, as it seems to be a main feature of his attraction for Republicans"

LOL

I hope all democrat strategists are at least this dumb.

bleh said...

Trump's getting the libs to believe in God?

Anonymous said...

Achilles: It is really odd watching Christians try to ban sin with the government.

What's so odd about it? Is this Libertarian Jesus's gloss on "render unto Caesar" or something?

Or is this (more likely) the old "you can't legislate morality" wheeze? But of course you can. Law is all about "legislating morality". Beyond that it's just an argument about whose concept of "sin" is going to prevail, and which kinds of wrong-doing are going to be considered to fall under the purview of state power. Everybody's in on the game, and it's no more odd for Christians to have an opinion on the proper scope of government than any other citizens. All kinds of jokers out there trying to ban sin; these days I doubt Christians even make the majors when it comes to legislative holy-rollin'.

As for me, I think "gay marriage" is essentially ridiculous, the sort of thing that societies which have reached their silly stage, and become very confused about the purpose of their institutions, start coughing up. (I guess that makes me a member of "Team Hate", regardless of my having arrived at that conclusion in a state of complete indifference to what Jeebus or anybody else in the Bible had to say or not say on the subject.)

I always enjoy the Amateur Theology Hour that the subject tends to kick off, though - all that Jesus-splainin' by secular types to actual believing Christians is droll stuff...

Michael K said...

I se the leftist panty sniffers are out today.

Inga wants all the juicy details of someone else's sex life.

Well, when you don't have one of your own....

mockturtle said...

Jesus was saying in most every sermon: "You all deserve to go to hell but I offer myself as a way out.

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

Blogger Michael K said...
“I se the leftist panty sniffers are out today.

Inga wants all the juicy details of someone else's sex life.

Well, when you don't have one of your own....”

Hahaha, tell us about your geriatric studliness Michael! It’s only fair that if rightists want the details of Buttigeig’s sex life we should be free to ask about Trump’s.
—————————————-

Blogger Oso Negro said...
I would like to see someone interview "Mayor Pete" on his practice of homosexuality, as it seems to be a main feature of his attraction for Democrats.

Mayor Pete -
"At what age did you first have sex with another man?"
"Did you save your anus for marriage? or have pre-marital sex?"
"Are you a top or a bottom?"
"When did you suck your first dick?"
"What do you think about the issue of hebephilia in the gay community?"
"Have you ever visited a bath house?"
"Have you ever been treated for an STD?"

His answers could be inspirational.

4/3/19, 2:34 PM

Jeff said...

First of all, there is someone else using the name Jeff on here and I wish he wouldn't do that. I've been commenting here as Jeff for many years. Some of you may remember my pro-immigration posts from several years ago, and my posts arguing that Romney would have won if he had been able to keep most of the Hispanic votes won by Bush the Younger.

But second, I want to respond to this, from AlbertAnonymous:
Love you anyway, Jeff. In a nutshell.

It's a strange kind of love that says "If you have any kind of sex other than the kind a bunch of homosexual child rapists and their enablers approve of, you are objectively disordered." I am not a homosexual, but I don't think men having sex with other men is particularly immoral, nor is birth control or premarital sex. The vast majority of people in Western countries, at least, agree, including the vast majority of Catholics.

So you can take your attempts to make people feel guilty for giving and receiving pleasure with the ones they love and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

narciso said...

And this is why western civilization is going down the rabbit hole because they dont believe in anything and are being replaced by those who do fervently.

Greg Q said...

Blogger Achilles said...

It is hard to sum up conservative stupidity on gay marriage any better than this.

You want government to define marriage based on results of democracy.

Then you get mad when the government defines it differently than you want it defined because democracy didn't go your way.

1: No, I want government to define marriage based on "benefit to society." Real marriages are rewarded by society because heterosexual marriage benefits society, mainly by making married men more productive and functional. If there's any legitimate evidence that two men who "marry" each other become better citizens, feel free to provide it.

2: Democracy went my way. Every State but MN that put SSM to a public vote voted against SSM. NY and MN are the only two States where SSM came in through law, rather than judicial diktat. And in neither State did the people who voted for the change run on doing so.

So no, SSM does not have the slightest shred of democratic legitimacy. And since it doesn't provide for society the benefits that real, heterosexual, marriages provide for society, it has no moral legitimacy, either


"The republican party finally has to recognize that there are things more important than banning gay people and pushing morality on others.

One of the biggest blocks of Trumps support are the evangelicals. There has been a sea change in the protestant community and the importance of morality in government.

Policies matter most now.

This post has been a rear guard action. It is time to put a stake through the heart of the government morality crusade."


Policies matter. Why yes, they do!

You know, like not letting gov't force people to participate in SSMs

No more legislated morality? Great!

So we can dump every single anti-discrimination law, yes?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"could not be more at odds with at least my understanding of the teachings of the Christian faith"

Humble. Buttigieg is not offering his commentary as exclusive to other understanding of the teachings of the Christian faith.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

So Mayor Peewee calls himself a Christian? What's his take on the democrat party attacks on Chick-fil-A? Has he spoken up to defend his fellow Christians, or has he been silent and tacitly supporting his co-religionists of the democrat party uber alles?

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pianoman said...

An example of judging while not being hypocritical:

I've played the piano for several weddings. However, I won't play for a SSM, because I don't want to participate in such a ceremony.

It's not hypocritical of me to judge SSM in this manner. This is my personal opinion.

But if I came out publicly and condemned a fellow musician for refusing to play for a SSM, *that* would make me a hypocrite.

Jesus never said, "Everyone is a hypocrite". What he did was point out hypocrisy among the Jewish religious leaders, and encouraged his followers to not be hypocrites in their own lives.

Amadeus 48 said...

Wow. That is one weird comment but Buttigieg. I didn't watch the clip because my religion teaches me not to watch media clips where dubious characters are commenting on the religious faith of others, but how did this topic come up?

Anyway, the Buttster gets way too close to filling one of the roles in this parable:

"11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

Well, one of these guys sounds like the Buttster, who really is saying, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are other men are, even as this publican."

The hotelier--oh, sorry--the publican could be anyone who says in private prayer, "God, be merciful to me a sinner."

Does Trump pray? And what does he pray? I don't know. You don't know. And Buttigieg surely doesn't know.

Spare me from self-righteous prigs like Buttigieg. I have enough self-righteousness for everyone. Buttigieg should get on his knees (sorry), and pray, "God, be merciful to me a sinner."

Sheridan said...

Pastor Pete is preaching to his flock. "I'm one of you but I understand them. Fear them not for they are as the passing of a foul wind. Their leader is taking them down the path to ruin. It has been revealed to me that he is Aaron re-made and he has set about refashioning the wicked Golden Calf. He and his followers will be cast down by the Lord and we, the true children of Moses will inherit the earth."

Maybe a little over the top but Pastor Pete is covering all his bases, it appears. If he claims divine insight, who will contradict him? If he can create even a smidgen of doubt in the minds of the religious right well, they might not vote for Trump, Pence notwithstanding. Just peel enough votes away and there goes Wisconsin. He's carving-out his own territory from those Dems who also support his key issues (GND, destroy Electoral College, free healthcare for all, etc.)but who are maybe unappealing to socially conservative and religious Dems. I mean, if Trump is Aaron then Hillary and her ilk are Elisheba.

Howard said...

All you wingers sure get panties in a twist over a milquetoast peter puffer. Your letting your secret desires known. NTTAWWT

TrespassersW said...

Achilles said...
It is fine to think something is immoral.

It becomes hate when you want to justify the use of the government as a weapon against said activity because it is immoral.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, on the other hand, you're completely fine with using the government as a weapon to say "Bake the cake!"

Sebastian said...

"Spare me from self-righteous prigs"

Whatever else he is, Trump ain't that. Considering what else is on offer in America politics, where just about any prog is such a prig, I like it.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

You must worship the church of teh gay, the mob of teh gay, and kiss teh gay's ring.

Robert Cook said...

"Trump's getting the libs to believe in God?"

One can discuss religious myths in the spirit of philosophical inquiry.

I Callahan said...

I appreciate the tenacity of the hate. Just be honest people. Stop using christianity to justify it.

I miss the old conservative Achilles. This new emotional liberal version just doesn't cut it for me.

That said - can you define "hate" for me, please? The hate is for the sin itself; not the sinner. Christianity 101 has a little saying about that.

You can believe that homosexuality is not something to aspire to, and not hate the people who practice in it. And I'm sick of the chickenshit "hate" cop out, because that's all it is.

Robert Cook said...

"I always enjoy the Amateur Theology Hour that the subject tends to kick off, though - all that Jesus-splainin' by secular types to actual believing Christians is droll stuff...."

What makes you think "believing Christians," as a group, have any better understanding of the the doctrines they claim as theirs than non-believers? Many self-proclaimed Christians are scarcely familiar with the key text of their faith, the Bible.

Personal investment in one's beliefs can also distort understanding, while dispassionate consideration of a doctrine one does not believe can allow for clearer reading of meaning.

Robert Cook said...

"The 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' statement was directed at the scribes and pharisees, not his disciples."

I stand corrected, but do you think he would not have given his disciples the same admonishment? That it is included in the New Testament gives it meaning as a lesson for those who would follow Christ, and it is certainly an admonishment preachers have given to their congregations.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

Indeed. So fill us in on Collyridianism if you will

Paul Snively said...

cf. Jimmy Carter, who may still win the "Worst U.S. President in History" award, in spite of Barak Obama.

It's never been the "Religious Right" who have worried me, because that's always just been code for "pro-life and in favor of established American norms of religious freedom, which curb left-wing social engineering via politics." It's always been the religious left who have actually imposed authoritarianism via politics, from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter. Heck, there are entire books about the "Progressive Movement's" roots in a particular strain of post-2nd-Great-Awakening American Protestantism.

gadfly said...

Trump's famous "Two Corinthians" remark at Liberty University during the presidential primary says all we need to know about Trump's investment in Christianity. So I will go with Mayor Pete's assessment.

And my firm belief that Christianity is a crutch for votes for this our lying President is the icing on the cake. Perhaps an assessment of his Ten Commandments violations might be in order, but what we don't know as yet is how many people that he has killed.

Seeing Red said...

A red diaper baby brings up God?

Why?

mockturtle said...

What makes you think "believing Christians," as a group, have any better understanding of the the doctrines they claim as theirs than non-believers?

The Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, ‘When he, the Spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13)

Robert Cook said...

"Jesus was saying in most every sermon: 'You all deserve to go to hell but I offer myself as a way out.'

Sounds like a dangerous cult leader to me, a Jim Jones of his day.

"15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

I think J.C. just diagnosed Donald Trump as...a diseased tree!

mockturtle said...

Trump's famous "Two Corinthians" remark at Liberty University during the presidential primary says all we need to know about Trump's investment in Christianity. So I will go with Mayor Pete's assessment.

Last Sunday I listened to a recording of a sermon by the late, great Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He actually used the term 'Two Corinthians'. Maybe it's a Welsh thing. ;-)

mockturtle said...

Of the many people I know [including many Christians] who voted for Trump, not one of them identified him as a Christian. IMO, Christianity and politics don't mix. We elected a President, not a pastor.

effinayright said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maillard Reactionary said...

Fernandinstein @ 1:04 PM: That's a really cute lamb, Fernandinstein. Does she have any sisters?

effinayright said...

Robert Cook said...
"It's interesting that you interpret this scripture in such a horrible manner."

Horrible? Not at all. Simply a recognition of reality.

Do you think we can infer Jesus meant, "Those of you who are without sin are free to condemn others for their sins"? No, as he knew we are all sinners and therefore, any of us who renders a judgement about others is a hypocrite. He was saying no one is in a position to judge others.
*********************

Funny innit, how the whole idea of law is based on judging others....I guess all judges and jurors are now, and always have been, hypocrites.

Here's a free question for you, Cookie: if I have never murdered someone, can I not judge as a murderer a person who has? How am I a hypocrite for judging others for sins and offenses I have not myself committed?

Please pass the bong.


Face it, Cook: deep down, you're shallow.

Bill Peschel said...

I will answer this question as soon as someone comes up with a reason for why this matters one bit.

If someone professes to be a Christian, then it would be fruitful to judges their actions according to it. Otherwise, what's the point?

There is a great whiff of hypocrisy among those who judge their president by standards they themselves do not believe in.

The Vault Dweller said...

Buttgieg messed up here. Attacking someone for not being a good enough Christian is something that the right has pretty much abandoned. This is reminiscent of the interchange the Pope had with Trump earlier. And the Pope ended up backing down. He should have trusted his initial instinct and not commented on Trump's religion or lack of religion. Part of the appeal of Buttgieg is that he seems to separate the current leftist trend of identity politics from normal left-wing policy ideas. Going after Trump and his belief in God falls right back into that trap.

n.n said...

Trump's getting the libs to believe in God?

Reverse psychology. Next, they will stop conflating logical domains, stop indulging in color judgments, acknowledge human evolution from conception, and lose their Pro-Choice religion never. Liberalism is a divergent ideology. He'll have to offer them some secular incentives.

The value of the Judeo-Christian line of faith and religion, is that God advises a separation of logical domains, normalizes duck dynasties (the prime directive), and their moral philosophy is reconcilable with dignity, value, and worth in a secular plane.

n.n said...

not being a good enough Christian is something that the right has pretty much abandoned

The libertarian right, yes. The conservative center, no. Although, Americans have become more discerning of God and People's jurisdictions.

n.n said...

The Holy Spirit.

Thus faith, or the faith logical domain, where trust -- we can't do it alone -- is integral to its character and understanding.

Hari said...

6) He's pandering to the left wing media that he is one of them.

mockturtle said...

Cookie opines: Sounds like a dangerous cult leader to me, a Jim Jones of his day.

Jesus said: I am the gate. If anyone enters through Me, he will be saved. John 10:9 Yes, Christianity was considered at the time to be a cult. But, no, Jesus is the real deal. :-)

n.n said...

It is hard to sum up conservative stupidity on gay marriage any better than this.

Don't be politically congruent ("="). Civil unions for all consenting adults. Hmm, where is the threshold of evolutionary fitness and social comity.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"One can discuss religious myths in the spirit of philosophical inquiry."

A beautifully self-invalidating statement.

Maillard Reactionary said...

This was a pretty good thread for a while. It seemed to get a bit shaky by mid-afternoon. But still, there was lots of good stuff in it to ponder.

All real religions are attempts to answer the question, "How shall we live?". This is the most important question of all, because by all appearances, we only get one life, and it seems to many of us very much to the point that we get it right, or close to right.

No user manual, no do-overs.

It's still open after all this time.

People who would put politics into this same league of importance are very foolish, I think.

elkh1 said...

I’ve never seen him humble himself before anyone.

Because "anyone" is not God.

Unknown said...

> Maybe a little over the top but Pastor Pete is covering all his bases, it appears
>> It's always been the religious left who have actually imposed authoritarianism via politics, from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter.

Peter is signalling he will use the tools of the religious left to justify his party's socialist desires.

Its a different sales pitch than AOC or Warren. Those two are atheists, since we all now free to read minds of people we've never met.

Unknown said...

> All real religions are attempts to answer the question, "How shall we live?". This is the most important question of all, because by all appearances, we only get one life, and it seems to many of us very much to the point that we get it right, or close to right.

Does Climate Change have a temple?

narciso said...

jesus had exceedingly sharp standards, as he elaborated on the commandments,

M Jordan said...

For a guy reluctant to peer into someone’s heart and determine if Jesus was there or not, he sure does this sort of thing a lot. Like in his book about Mike Pence.

Buttigieg is done, his sanctimony his undoing.

M Jordan said...

By the way, the essence of Christianity is admitt8ng you’re a sinner and accepting the Jesus lifesaver. To point out the sins of a person as a test of Christian faith shows no understanding of the New Testament.

Gahrie said...

Does Climate Change have a temple?

Staff lounge at the east Anglia CRU.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Buttigieg is done, his sanctimony his undoing.”

Says a rightist who never would’ve voted for him anyway. He is far from done with Democrats and liberals, he’s just started.

Fen said...

'He advised his disciples not to condemn anyone, given their own personal failings.'

"Not exactly. What he said was (paraphrasing): 'Don't judge others unless you're willing to be judged yourself.'

"In other words: Don't be a hypocrite."

Same thing. Because everyone is a hypocrite.


No, those are not the same things.

1) if you scrutinize others for sin, be prepared for others to return such scrutiny.

2) do not scrutinize others if you don't want to be scrutinized yourself.

Those are two different meanings, not the same. The second one is responsible for a culture of enabling - nobody wants to call out sin because they "deserve" to have a spotlight on their own lives. So everyone keeps their head down while Evil metastasizes.

I doubt that Jesus meant that good men should do nothing and allow the triumph of evil.

He's one of my ancestors, BTW (Edmund Burke, not Jesus). It's strange, I want to change to "men" to "people" to avoid leaving women out of this. But it destroys the line. Are we going to have the literary equivalent of statues being yanked down over feminism?

"That's One small step for humans, one giant leap for humankind" just doesn't roll off the tongue.

The Godfather said...

"This is the most important question of all, because by all appearances, we only get one life", But what if we don't get only one life, and the life to come may be heavenly or hellish?

Seeing Red said...

I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith.

I was recently reading Pride and Prejudice again, and this is very George Wickham.

Slimey whether it’s 1811 or 2019.

charis said...

#4 or #5
"I'm reluctant to comment on another person's faith..." is only pretend humility, since it is followed by "but..."

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

For a guy reluctant to peer into someone’s heart and determine if Jesus was there or not, he sure does this sort of thing a lot. Like in his book about Mike Pence.

I'm reminded of a Jew Dem during the 2016 primaries complaining that Trump was somehow guilty of anti-semitism because he accepted a prayer shawl from an African-American pastor of some new hybrid Jewish-Christian faith (yes, very Ingash).

She claimed it was blasphemy because jewish prayer shawls are sacred.

My response was "how sacred can they be if you are using them as a prop to bash Trump?"

I can judge because I've already been damnned - God is not thrilled with ButtBoy.

Seeing Red said...

Until we open Bill Clinton’s impeachment files, It’s time to MOVE ON.

walter said...

Well..Pete's viewing platform doesn't place him closer than the general public.
But no, he hasn't, for instance, appeared on a show and referred to his bowling skills as Special Olympics level.

Fen said...

Inga: Considering Trump panders to evangelicals and pretends he’s a practicing Christian to get votes, what Buttigeig said is right on the mark. It’s time to open your Trumpist eyes because there are going to be people like Buttigeig who will point out the truth and people who aren’t blinded by Trump Cultism will recognize it as truth. Good for him, keep it up Buttigeig!

Okay, I'm beginning to think we should keep Inga. Never have I seen so much arrogant ignorance and irony packaged in so few words. One day, with a bit more discipline, she's going to encapsulate it all down into a one liner.

Achilles said...

Roy Jacobsen said...
Achilles said...
It is fine to think something is immoral.

It becomes hate when you want to justify the use of the government as a weapon against said activity because it is immoral.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, on the other hand, you're completely fine with using the government as a weapon to say "Bake the cake!"

You go out on that limb because you have poor reading comprehension skills.

You want the government to have the power to enforce your view of morality.

Then you get upset when government enforces someone else’s view of morality.

My view is government should not be used to push morality. It should enforce contracts, defend individual liberty, due process, free association and the other 1st principals.

Big church. Small government.

You people have everything backwards.

Fen said...

Unknown: Those two are atheists, since we all now free to read minds of people we've never met.

Ken B said...

Best comment :"anyone" is not God.

Achilles said...

You know, like not letting gov't force people to participate in SSMs

No more legislated morality? Great!

So we can dump every single anti-discrimination law, yes?



I appreciate the influx of new blood on the forum. But you all are clearly not good at this.

As soon as you rely on power to get your way, you make yourself vulnerable to a greater power.

Go get involved with a church that thinks gay people are inherently immoral and get people involved.

If you use the government to get your way you can’t complain when someone else does the same thing to you.

And most anti discrimination laws are designed to protect individual liberty. So yeah stupid straw man is stupid.

Seeing Red said...

Inga: Considering Trump panders to evangelicals and pretends he’s a practicing Christian to get votes, what Buttigeig said is right on the mark. It’s time to open your Trumpist eyes because there are going to be people like Buttigeig who will point out the truth and people who aren’t blinded by Trump Cultism will recognize it as truth. Good for him, keep it up Buttigeig!


Lololololol


Open up BillyBoy’s impeachment files.

There’s always hope that who’s the pervey trial Friend of Bill? Epstein? Can shed some more light on the former rapist-in-chief.

Michael K said...

He is far from done with Democrats and liberals, he’s just started.

Ever heard of "The Longest Suicide Note in History?" Tony Benn was a KGB asset,.

Read about it. Labour went for that 100%. It was just those stupid voters. Landslide.

rcocean said...

Mayor Pete dropped out 50 points in my estimation. First, the fake "Reluctance". Two, the passing judgment on a fellow Christian. Three, the ridiculous mind-reading of both God and Trump. Fourth, the hypocrisy - Mayor Pete seems to much more Prideful than Trump.

rcocean said...

Trump is no different than other pols. He's just more honest and forthright. Unlike "Mayor Pete", he doesn't pretend to be "an 'umble man" and he stabs people in the front, not in the back. Nor does Trump carry around an extra-size Bible for photo-ops. In fact, I don't remember Trump making a big deal of his faith, at anytime.

However, he seems to care about the American people. Does "Mayor Pete"?

BTW, I missed all the Democrats telling Bush-II and Romney what good Christians they are. Maybe "Mayor Pete" can dig out a quote.

rcocean said...

Off Topic: Someone up-thread implied Mayor Pete came from a religious background because his parents were professors at Notre Dame. His father - in fact - was a Marxist. And his mother didn't have a religious bone in her body. You don't have to be a Christian to teach at Notre Dame University.

rcocean said...

Richard Cook is athiest, but everyone arguing with him like he's a sincere Christian. Alinsky must be laughing in his grave somewhere.

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

I thought benn was just a fellow traveler, and Michael foot was the asset.

narciso said...

But his sentiments were clear:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11305971/Tony-Benn-a-KGB-spy-No-he-was-far-too-dangerous-for-us.html

He may have been the inspiration for the fourth protocol.

JAORE said...

"Oh but not the the juicy details."

Keep the government out of our bedrooms! But I guess that's so yesterday since Trump created the mass psychosis on the left.

chickelit said...

No one wants to hear about Christian faith from a member of a protected class and from one whose cohort tends to loathe Christianity. "Mayor Pete" stumbled here.

JAORE said...

"So you can take your attempts to make people feel guilty for giving and receiving pleasure with the ones they love and stick them where the sun doesn't shine."

Wow. There are two VERY different ways to read this. One (may be) unintentionally hilarious.

ColoradoJim said...

I would suggest that most Christians that voted for Trump did not vote for him on the basis of his faith but rather for his policies which would include protecting the rights of Christians. I am reminded that it was a pagan ruler by the name of Cyrus that allowed the exiled Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. Should they have said, “Sorry, we won’t accept your offer because you are not a Jew”? There seems to be a misunderstanding that by voting for a person you must have that person agree with you in every area hence the attempts to drive off support for that person by casting aspersions on real or imagined flaws.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Oh but not the the juicy details."

“Keep the government out of our bedrooms! But I guess that's so yesterday since Trump created the mass psychosis on the left.”

Who said anything about the government? Oso Negro spoke about an interview by the Press about Buttigieg’s sex life. To be fair, I spoke of the Press interviewing Trump about his sex life (when younger). No one spoke of any government involvement. Relax.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“I would suggest that most Christians that voted for Trump did not vote for him on the basis of his faith but rather for his policies which would include protecting the rights of Christians. I am reminded that it was a pagan ruler by the name of Cyrus that allowed the exiled Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. Should they have said, “Sorry, we won’t accept your offer because you are not a Jew”? There seems to be a misunderstanding that by voting for a person you must have that person agree with you in every area hence the attempts to drive off support for that person by casting aspersions on real or imagined flaws.”

“He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.”
Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack.

Drago said...

Inga: "To be fair, I spoke of the Press interviewing Trump about his sex life (when younger).
No one spoke of any government involvement. Relax."

You don't have to speak about it. Hillary and the DNC already paid a foreign agent to solicit sexual innuendo lies from Putin cronies literally in the Kremlin as a means to launder a series of BS assertions compiled by Nellie Ohr and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and then had that sexual innuendo weaponized into a spy operation against a domestic political opponent.

All the while Hillary/Bill received $145 Million for their Slush Fund "Charity" and $500k directly from russian energy oligarchs after Hillary and Mueller signed off on US uranium ore transfers to russian controlled companies at the very same time russian oligarchs were pumping money ($35 sweet sweet million) into a company where John Podesta sat on the board.

So, no. Team Dem/Left/LLR has already done all the digging into every sexual rumor against Trump that there ever was...so the peons don't have to talk about it.

But, yeah, no "govt involvement".....except for the CIA/NSA/DOJ/DOJ-NSD/DNI/FBI, etc.

chickelit said...

@drago: Ouch! It's gonna be hard for Inga to counter your 7:37.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“@drago: Ouch! It's gonna be hard for Inga to counter your 7:37.”

Hahaha,
All I hear from Drago is...but Hillary!

Yawn.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

You people need to update your talking points. The ones you have are all worn out. All they rate now is a yawn.

Be more like Buttigieg, fresh, new and interesting.

Michael K said...

OK. Foot was an agent but Benn was an asset. He was too extreme even for the KGB.

Teds Kennedy was alo an asset although they did not agree to work on Reagan's election.

I wonder how much the 1965 immigration law changes were a KGB op.

narciso said...

Remembering Tony benn reminds me of a very British coup a novel and series, written by Chris Mullen a labour mp, it was published around the time Steele was at oxford.

narciso said...

Like Ted Kennedy he volunteered, Forsyth was with mi 6 at the time so he was privy to some of these maneuverings

etbass said...

Moderation seems to have reverted to the pre-ultra moderation mode. And the repartee seems back in the thread.

mockturtle said...

Achilles suggests: Go get involved with a church that thinks gay people are inherently immoral and get people involved.

Achilles, we are ALL inherently sinful. That's the whole effing point!

Drago said...

Inga: "All I hear from Drago is...but Hillary!"

Inga is still denying Hillary and the DNC funded the entire FusionGPS/Steele/NellieOhr hoax dossier!

LOL

Something the Hillary camp and the DNC admitted to in late 2017 after lying about if for a year.

So, if you are keeping score, Inga is still denying what the entirety of the left admitted 18 months ago.

The "good news"?

Inga is ONLY 18 months behind on what is already publicly known and admitted to.

That's pretty good considering she has denied commies killed 100 million in the previous century.

Drago said...

Can you imagine how Inga will react when she catches up with the year old known facts about Nellie Ohr working for FusionGPS while having access to the FISA 702 database!!

LOL

Of course, Inga wont catch up with that until sometime in 2021 I would guess so we have a bit of a wait ahead of us.

Lets all be patient while the slow gal tries her best to catch up.

Anonymous said...

Basic Inga isn't evangelical, but she sure is a fundamentalist.

Drago said...

Inga is STILL taking it on faith that the hoax dossier is real.

tsk tsk tsk

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Inga is still denying Hillary and the DNC funded the entire FusionGPS/Steele/NellieOhr hoax dossier!”

But Hillary!

Waaaaaaa!

Drago said...

Giovan Pietro Bellori: "Basic Inga isn't evangelical, but she sure is a fundamentalist."

Just think about what you'd have to believe to be a part of a party that is enacting and trying to enact infanticide bills across the nation.

Of course, Inga deals with this reality by denying its happening. Literally. She denies it's even occurring. Very similar to how she denied the clear out and proud anti-semitism of the Womens March leaders.

I guess that's one way to go thru life......all the while believing strongly in Magic Unicorn Batteries.

Talk about Fundamentalist Faith in The New Lefty Church Of The Green New Deal and Infanticide.

Drago said...

You know, come to think of it, I don't think Inga even believes Putin's energy oligarch pals pumped $145 Million into the Clinton slush fund.

In Inga's defense she will almost certainly "know" that by 2029.

Drago said...

Inga: "But Hillary! Waaaaaaa!"

But babies being killed after birth! Waaaaaa!

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Drago whines...
“But Inga, but Inga, but Inga! Waaaaaaa!”


Yawn.

Drago said...

Inga, like LLR Chuck, is part of the Dead Enders who even now believe, as a matter of faith, that Mueller will still arrive like an avenging Angel and deliver the retribution that the lunatic lefties and LLR's dream feverishly for.

wildswan said...

I graduated from high school in the year 2000. I am ready to be President of the United States. In addition, I realize that most Christians do not understand Christianity but I do. Christianity means being a Democrat. Read my CNN interview for a fuller exposition of the views of Christ and of how they coincide with my own and with my own practices but not with those of Donald Trump. Yet humble I am and humble I will ever be.

Drago said...

BTW, speaking about truth telling to the lefty/LLR dead-enders like Inga, if you get a chance, watch this video of honest far-left wing Jimmy Dore and Michael Tracey who have been excommunicated from the Church of the Democrats for daring to notice that the only lunatics and liars still believe in the hoax collusion story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ZQYNScqh8

A fascinating discussion.

rcocean said...

Everyone skips the Drago-Inga show. Good that its 8 PM and no one cares.

Drago said...

rcocean: "Everyone skips the Drago-Inga show. Good that its 8 PM and no one cares."

There is panic amongst the shows Producers!!! Can a reduction in ad revenues be far behind?

Drago said...

BTW, if you get a chance, pull up Prime Ministers Questions from earlier today.

Unbelievable.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Well. Fully off the rails now.

I have to admit, it's vibrant.

Browndog said...

Kind of a fan of snark, sarcasm and ridicule.

It's a 'polite' way of saying fuck-off, without the nasty after-taste.

Hence, Drago.

Worth the price of admission.

narciso said...


The parliament is officially a dumpster fire:



https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/03/beto-orourke-wife-company/

mockturtle said...

Uh-huh! Interesting, narciso. Wonder if the MSM will pick it up.

Howard said...

Blogger Oso Negro said...

I would like to see someone interview "Mayor Pete" on his practice of homosexuality, as it seems to be a main feature of his attraction for Democrats.

Mayor Pete -
"At what age did you first have sex with another man?"
"Did you save your anus for marriage? or have pre-marital sex?"
"Are you a top or a bottom?"
"When did you suck your first dick?"
"What do you think about the issue of hebephilia in the gay community?"
"Have you ever visited a bath house?"
"Have you ever been treated for an STD?"

His answers could be inspirational.


Oso just used a hole bottle of Wesson oil and a drawer full of sox

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Inga...Allie Oop said...
Drago whines...
“But Inga, but Inga, but Inga! Waaaaaaa!”

Oh, come now, Inga. Everyone knows you bask in the attention you get here. It makes you feel important. (Apparently those oh-so-loving children don't quite do the trick for you.)

Sure, the attention you get here is mainly negative. You are rightly and accurately called an idiot and moral nullity every day. But hey, I guess in your book any sort of attention is better than nothing.

I suspect that in real life nobody listens to you at all.

docweasel said...

I think he's kind of using Uriah Heap's version of "humble".

Greg Q said...

Blogger Achilles said...
As soon as you rely on power to get your way, you make yourself vulnerable to a greater power.
If you use the government to get your way you can’t complain when someone else does the same thing to you.

So, since gays have used power to get their way, it's perfectly ok for the rest of us to "use our power" against them?


And most anti discrimination laws are designed to protect individual liberty. So yeah stupid straw man is stupid.

Bullshit. All anti-discrimination laws are designed to take away individual liberty, of individuals you don't like.

I don't want to hire you / rent a house to you / rent my venue to you / cater your event / etc, and you want to force me to do so, using the power of the State.

It's still "individual liberty", even when you don't like the individual, or how they're using their liberty.

I have an individual liberty right not to make a cake for your wedding. You do not have a right to force me to do so.

Seeing Red said...

Be more like Buttigieg, fresh, new and interesting.

He’s only new to those who haven’t heard that spiel before. Or true believers. Or useful idiots. But what can one expect from a red diaper baby?

Greg Q said...

BTW Achilles, I note that you've dropped the entirely illegitimate claim that SSM has democratic legitimacy, and you're not even trying to pretend that SSMs provide society the same benefits that real marriages do

So, all you're left with is "this is what I think is right, and I will use the power of government to force it on all of you."

SGT Ted said...

It bears repeating:

Democrats commenting on other peoples sincerity of faith is utter bullshit.

Phil 314 said...

Well that's good that Trump isn't a Christian because I hear those Christians hate gays.

Why right in Mr. Buttigiegs home state there was a pizza parlor that wouldn't cater a gay wedding

And that would be a pretty gay wedding to serve pizza to its guests.

Phil 314 said...

Moderation off! Huh?

Joan said...

Someone way up thread said, Everything the Catholic Church has done has been humans twisting the words of Jesus.

Considering that Catholics are the reason you even know the words of Jesus, or that Jesus even existed, you might want to reconsider that sentiment. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, which kicked off in the 16th century, Christians were Catholic.

Getting back on topic, this classic Pharisee move by Mayor B. reveals he doesn't believe what he's talking about. I think that makes my vote is somewhere between 4 and 5.

stlcdr said...

So, this thread became a big game of non-Christians playing the age-old-big game of ‘gotcha!’ With the Bible, Jesus and Christian teachings.

This is another demonstation of their lack of wokeness, and need to feel superior to others, as well as use it as reason to deride and even oppress others.

Moneyrunner said...

Glenn Reynolds points out: "Actually, aside from smarmy political hypocrisy, Buttigieg here is engaging in one of the most common heresies, the belief that Christianity is based on being nice."

Christianity from the inside teaches that salvation is by faith, not acts. Non-Christians can't seem to get their heads around that, assuming that you can spot the "saved" Christain by observing them in life. Christians hope that faith in Jesus as their savior will make people better persons, but that's not always the case. Christ died on the cross to atone for people's sins, not their good works. Keep in mind that, on the cross, Jesus told one of the criminals that were crucified with him that: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." This criminal was saved by faith, as are we all who put our faith in Jesus, no matter how black our crimes.

iowan2 said...

Says a rightist who never would’ve voted for him anyway. He is far from done with Democrats and liberals, he’s just started.

Says the leftist that smears President Trump dozens of times a day, who will never vote for President Trump, no matter his policies improve her life daily

James Sarver said...

"Mayor Pete" may be the most dangerous of the Dem candidates. He can project as reasonable even when touting some pretty crazy ideas.

Imagine the witty repartee as you ride in the tumbrel to your doom. That friendly face will be the last thing you see as you are tossed in the wood chipper.

iowan2 said...

Mayor Pete is a perfect leftist. Creditialed, like few are. Using those credentials to spout off about something he is incapable of grasping is the simplest level.
Christianity. On this topic he couldn't win a debate with my 9 year old granddaughter.

Biotrekker said...

If you are truly reluctant to comment on someone else's faith, then don't. I'd have had way more respect for the guy, if he had approached the question this way. But, he proved he's JAP just another politician.

TrespassersW said...

Achilles said...
My view is government should not be used to push morality. It should enforce contracts, defend individual liberty, due process, free association and the other 1st principals.

That you think that view is NOT a moral one speaks volumes.

And allowing someone to say "No, I'm not going to bake that cake" IS defending individual liberty.

Jack Klompus said...

"This is another demonstation of their lack of wokeness, and need to feel superior to others, as well as use it as reason to deride and even oppress others."

Throw in some not-so-subtle references to your NYC residency, act like you're down with the "communities of color", and play the anti-authority/pro-dissident act and you're on top of the heap. We call it the Cookie Formula.

The Dude Abides said...

Person from the political party of baby killers pronounces on other person's Christianity.
It is to laugh.

Robert Cook said...

" would suggest that most Christians that voted for Trump did not vote for him on the basis of his faith but rather for his policies which would include protecting the rights of Christians."

What "rights of Christians" are not being protected (or are being violated) now? In fact, what rights do Christians have that are separate from the rights of all of us?

Martin said...

His "reluctance to comment on another person's faith" was a good start. And would have been a good place to finish. It would have been elevating, and made a good contrast with the Tweeter-in-Chief.

But he proved himself just another a-hole politician, instead.

Joe said...

I find it interesting that Buttigieg, and several commenters here, assume that to believe in God means you must believe in him in a Christian sense. It is not possible to believe in God and even believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a pretty good ethos, but not be a Christian?

Skippy Tisdale said...

And the exaltation of yourself, especially a self that’s about wealth and power, could not be more at odds with at least my understanding of the teachings of the Christian faith."

Said the candidate who is one of the men who left the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"Do they? The Old Testament aside, did Jesus ever speak on the subject of homosexuality?"

Paul did in his letter to the Romans.

Geneo said...

Number 5 fits this guy.

Rusty said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
" would suggest that most Christians that voted for Trump did not vote for him on the basis of his faith but rather for his policies which would include protecting the rights of Christians."

What "rights of Christians" are not being protected (or are being violated) now? In fact, what rights do Christians have that are separate from the rights of all of us?
Apparently they can be forced to perform tasks that their religion finds distasteful.

Bilwick said...

Achilles makes the valid point, "As soon as you rely on power to get your way, you make yourself vulnerable to a greater power."

Or as the old saying goes, a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is a government powerful enough to take everything you have. Even someone as stupid as Inga will one day realize that when her ox gets gored.


"The State can only do things for you to the extent that it can do things to you."--Albert Jay Nock (probably an inexact paraphrase.

Greg Q said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
" would suggest that most Christians that voted for Trump did not vote for him on the basis of his faith but rather for his policies which would include protecting the rights of Christians."

What "rights of Christians" are not being protected (or are being violated) now? In fact, what rights do Christians have that are separate from the rights of all of us?


The right to live their life according to their religious beliefs, not yours.

That means the right not to subsidize other people's abortions. The right not to participate in an SSM. The right not to endorse immoral behavior.

The right not to have to pretend like they believe the insane pronouncements of the Left.

Greg Q said...

Bilwick said...
Achilles makes the valid point, "As soon as you rely on power to get your way, you make yourself vulnerable to a greater power."


Yes, but saying "we're going to keep on treating marriage the same way we've treated it for the entire history of the human race" is not "rely[ing] on power to get your way".

Saying "we're going to completely redefine marriage for the ostensible benefit of 3% of the population, but actually we're doing it because we want to engage in a political assault on the half of the country that disagrees with us" (see Masterpiece Cakeshop, Arlene's Flowers, etc. No one sane wants their wedding catered by someone who doesn't want to be there. The ONLY reason for those lawsuits is to assault "wrongthinkers"), OTOH, IS "rely[ing] on power to get your way".

So Achilles problem is that, as usual with the Left, they are the ones doing the think they're pretending to criticize.

Speaking of Achilles, I'll sum up our discussion:
1: SSM does not provide for society the benefits that real marriages do, which is why heterosexual marriage should be reward by the State, and SSM should not.

2: "anti-discrimination" laws are all assaults on individual liberty. You can support one or the other, but not both

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 342 of 342   Newer› Newest»