10A

And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates.

Not necessarily. Churches have struggled to retain members for various reasons. A Christian may feel disaffected of his local denominational institution, while maintaining absolute loyalty to God. The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it's a Venn diagram.

A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?

I suppose it depends on how you define "Christian", but the standard definition is equivalent to "one who has been saved", so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.

I don’t believe I am seeking out negativity. I think I am seeing things as accurately as I can within my limited power.

When a demon suggests a negative thought to you, do you turn to God? Or do you reject God and allow the demon's suggestion to fester in your mind? Do you believe the demon when he claims there is no God? Do you find contentment of "seeing things as accurately as you can" when you spend time focusing on negativity?

Critical thinking is a good thing, not a bad one. It is what allows us to see what is wrong so we can make it better. You can’t learn from your mistakes if you think you have none.

I never claimed we have no mistakes. We are all sinners. That's why we need to repent and be saved.

That has nothing to do with being critical. See Proverbs 2, which I almost want to quote in full here, but I'll leave it at a link.

therefore an 8th amendment violation

Technically the truth. But the Bill of Rights is only intended to protect Americans. It is my contention that anyone who hates America is evidently not American.

Deportation of U.S. citizens is in no way compassionate.

Correct. But someone who hates America is not a valid citizen.

The reason you can’t legally yell “fire” is because it causes a direct and present danger because of the potential of a stampede. Hating america for what it currently is and wishing it to be better is nowhere near the same.

A hatred for America is no less of a clear and present danger. A person who hates America is deep into a terrorist mindset.

Wanting one's country to be "better" is universally agreeable. But when it comes from a perspective of hatred, there's no way to trust the subjective meaning of "better".

America's essential culture and values were cemented in 1776. The only way we can make it better is to undo all ways in which we've strayed from our essential culture and values.

And that would make them a target for criminals

The word "criminal" means someone who breaks the law, for example illegal immigrants. If the government were to decline to protect an individual's rights, then it would not be a criminal act to forcefully deport said individual, say by means of a catapult.

“Looking everywhere” is not a form of evidence.

You sound like a blind fool attempting to refute the notion that anything could possibly be seen. You are surrounded by abundant evidence, but you don't recognize it as such because you haven't yet accepted Christ.

Under your definition of what’s moral, sure that may be true, but I don’t think you hold a reasonable view of what is moral.

I am no arbiter of morality. I look to God for His guidance. No one who rejects God could possibly know His law. It would be hubris to suppose otherwise.

Unpause, part 1 of 2:

I paused before, so here's the remainder of my reply:

I don’t think so. The american flag represents the countries history as well, and there are many dark sections of history to this country. You don’t have to be that far from the center to recognize that.

You have to be actively seeking out negativity, because it's nearly impossible to find unless you go looking for it.

The personality type of leftists (admittedly I'm painting with a very broad brush here) is the type of person who feels comfortable when they're criticizing things. I think it makes them feel smart, or better than whatever (or whoever) they're criticizing, or maybe the motivation varies from person to person, but whatever the reason, leftists typically seem to find comfort in criticism.

One of the most visible manifestations of this preference is the rise of CRT, which is like a cancer spreading to all of our institutions. CRT is a part of Critical Theory, the broad set of philosophical works lauded by leftists for attempting to "deconstruct" western civilization. To a normal conservative American, the very fact that Critical Theory (CRT included) has the word "critical" in its name indicates that it's an evil way of thinking, seeking out negative thoughts instead of praising God. The fact that the theory lives up to its disturbing name, and actually uses criticism as its core methodology, only goes to show that this is one of those cases in which it's valid to judge a book by its cover.

To normal conservative Americans, we know America is blessed because our Lord is God. Our history is chock full of divine providence. When you criticize America, you criticize God. Criticism is an evil way of thinking. That's not to say we're perfect, at all, because we're all sinners. But as we each repent for our individual sins, seek continued favor from God, and work to do God's will on earth as it's done in heaven, we know that our fate is in God's hands, so we choose faith and love where leftist criticizers choose discontent, anger, and hatred.

You are suggesting the death penalty for people’s beliefs. That is antithetical to the principles of our nation.

I certainly wasn't suggesting lethal injection. I was looking back to our nation's early practices. Someone might get tarred and feathered if he deserved it, while someone else might be drawn and quartered. We burned witches at the stake. These are the principles of our nation, and our early history that gained us favor with God. So it's certainly not antithetical to the principles of our nation at all. But it is antithetical to God's will for us to practice forgiveness, which is why I instead call for compassionate deportation.

Once you permit the government to punish people for their beliefs, you open the flood gates to a tyrannical government.

I do agree with you on this, believe it or not. I enjoy this discussion because I enjoy the free interplay of beliefs. I wouldn't want you silenced.

But at the same time, I believe there's a limit to how far it extends. Just as you can't legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater (remember crowded theaters?), I see the toxic hatred for America as being principally unwelcome.

And I'm not really advocating for the government to do anything, other than say "if somebody hates America then we decline to offer that person any police protection for their natural rights."

There is simply no evidence for [us each having a natural relationship with God]. And forcing children to partake in religion is a form of forcing religion. There isn’t any way I can explain it other than that, as this is an issue so straightforward as ‘square goes in square hole’.

There's an abundance of evidence for it, everywhere I look. Our Creator put us here for a purpose. To ignore that fact is evil. We are responsible for raising children to become moral, and that's impossible without a firm reliance on Christ. Again, you're either with God or you're with Satan. To raise a child without emphasizing God's role in everything we do and think is to raise that child as an unknowing agent of the Beast.

Unpause, part 2 of 2:

[A list of twenty-two, count 'em twenty two quotes meant to demonstrate that it's objectively false to claim that "we’re a Christian country at heart, and we always have been, founded on Christian values"]

Did they teach you to keep a file of such quotes in your atheist training seminars? If your goal was to overwhelm me, congrats, you succeeded. This conversation is already so long and unwieldy that there's no way I'm going to address each of these. Suffice it to say that you're wrong about this, and a suitable reply would be book length. And I'm not talking about a small or medium-sized book.

I will just briefly address the first one to mention that it's from an international treaty with a Muslim nation to protect American lives. We told them what they wanted to hear, to get them to agree. So goes international treaties. They're rhetoric devised to achieve political goals, and they mean nothing beyond that. Yes, we assured Muslims that our government is not founded on Christianity, and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.

Each of these quotes you offered either has a similarly simple rebuttal, or is actually correct without implying what you think it implies. Some of them are taken out of important context. I'll leave it at that.

I find it dystopian and creepy because it’s the same sort of thing that North Korea does, China does, and Nazi Germany did. Forcing people to swear loyalty to the state is a gross misuse of the power of the government.

Listen, we agree that North Korea, China, and Nazi Germany are all bad countries, and we wouldn't want to imitate them. So let's at least take a moment to appreciate our agreement.

As for the alleged similarity of our Pledge, it's only superficially similar in that citizens are naturally loyal to their countries, right or wrong. Yes, the Bellamy Salute looked a whole lot like our enemies' patriotic gestures, but even though that similarity was superficial, we changed it.

The elephant in the room is that the US is at heart nothing whatsoever like any other country, including the ethnostates of North Korea, China, and Nazi Germany. We're so dissimilar from other countries that it's wrong to compare us in almost any way at all. No other country in the world was founded in an act of revolution formed as an appeal to heaven.

[Replying to "I have to wonder if you know your neighbors very well. Honest question: do you?"] That depends upon what you mean by “neighbors”, and “know”. Sorry, that’s just a very broad question. Can you elaborate?

As for what I mean by "neighbor", I refer you to Luke 10:29-37:

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

As for "know", it's a broad spectrum ranging from "stranger" to "wife". I'm asking how well you know them, and it could be anywhere along that spectrum.

None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.

Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.

The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:

"In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs."

Once again, we seem to be talking past each other. That 33% does not apply to what I meant.

I'll try to explain more clearly.

• A drug abuser is someone who does not understand that their body is meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
• The attendance of religious services is not a condition of salvation.
• To be saved, one must accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and repent.
• Once saved, and born again, one's behavior exhibits noticeable changes.
• One such change resulting from salvation is usually a desire to attend religious services.
• Another such change resulting from salvation is the view of one's body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, not to be polluted with drugs.
• Another such change resulting from salvation is the ability to pray to Jesus that we may be shielded from temptation, so if one is tempted to sin with drug abuse, that temptation may be overcome through prayer.

So if you're right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don't we see trends that support that?

Thank you for your charts and your deductions. I appreciate your effort to communicate those ideas.

The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation. 100% of those saved are able to successfully pray to be shielded from temptation to sin, and are thereby able to overcome their drug addictions. Anyone who claims a religious affiliation but is unable to kick their nasty drug habit has clearly not yet been saved. This is how we can deduce 100% as a priori knowledge.

I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that.

Thank you for admitting bias! I wish that was commonplace. I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.

However it isn't a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance.

I'll read it if you find it, but I don't think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.

Reply to "just my opinion", Part 1 of 2:

I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.

I thought the Capitalism vs Socialism subreddit was pretty great, though I didn't spend a ton of time there, and I was mostly a lurker. But on several occasions I was impressed by the level of discourse there.

Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.

if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies

Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural. In practice, though, there's not many of them. Usually they're owned by a municipality, such as water supply for urban folks who lack their own wells, and waste processing for the same folks who lack septic tanks. Physical constraints make competition difficult in these markets.

Most large corporations are groups that grow vastly larger than their natural size due to government assistance and encouragement.

A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses. Consider our founding culture in the Eighteenth Century; the big multinational companies were the Dutch East India Trading Co and the East India Co, both of which were state-chartered monopolies. By contrast, the nascent US flourished with only tiny businesses and family farms. That is our natural business culture, to which we should strive to return.

Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).

Apples and oranges.

• A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
• A company offers products and services for sale in a marketplace, which people are free to buy if they want, or not to buy if they don't want. A company may employ people in a voluntary arrangement where employees sell their labor to the company for a fair price, and are free to seek employment elsewhere for a better price if they so choose.

When you picture a company, think of a man with a fruit cart selling fresh fruit at a farmer's market — that's the quintessential company. His family are back home picking fruit on the family farm, while he heads to market to compete against the other vendors. Customers are free to compare which fruit vendor offers the freshest fruit, and buy a little, or a lot, or none at all.

The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor, who offers you a fresh apricot for 7¢, to a blood-thirsty dictator who proclaims "everyone must placate those afflicted with gender dysphoria, on penalty of death" is a strain of the imagination. A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.

You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.

True, but so? You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.

And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery.

It's fundamentally different. The lottery is pure chance, while building a business is a measure of one's intelligence and drive to succeed.

I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.

It's hardly a fantasy. It's the American way. And it's hardly "la la land". Have you never started your own business?

you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive.

What do you mean by "abusive"? Big bad boss man said you need to show up on time, or else you'll get fired? No jobs are abusive. They're voluntary agreements for the sale of one's labor. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?

It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.

Reply to "just my opinion", Part 2 of 2:

I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life.

My proverbial fresh fruit vendor mentions to me that he's struggling to keep up with demand, so I tell him I can help him sell his fruit, and I'll do it for a 15% commission. He bargains me down to 10%, and we have an agreement. He tells me which hours he's open and I tell him I sell his fruit 24/7. After a few months, he tells me I should wear a more professional looking shirt, and I reply that his sales are up 30% MoM with me running sales, but if he really wants to control my wardrobe I'll go sell for the competing fruit stand over there. How's exactly am I being controlled? I'm not; I'm in control of my own labor, selling it at an agreeable rate.

You also mentioned that corporations control politicians. To the degree that's true, it's only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so. If we could stick to the 10th Amendment and return the government to its proper 18th Century size, there'd be nothing for lobbyists to do. The federal government should be responsible for almost nothing. It should be tiny. That's the root of the problem you blame on corporations. Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.

We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.

I'm not sure what the "world freedom index" is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:

The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. Big-government policies have eroded limits on government, public spending continues to rise, and the regulatory burden on business has increased. Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of “free” will require significant changes to reduce the size and scope of government.

Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.

When I say "secularism", I'm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.

Which is to say, we can really talk past each other sometimes.

The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

What a libertine and hedonistic notion of freedom. It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.

Our culture's founding document is built upon a theological proposition:

[…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, […]

Our entire culture is built upon that, a theological proposition.

And if you read all of the old American documents, almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don't even recognize if you're an atheist. Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation. God is our purpose for being, our purpose for living, and our purpose for freedom. That would not have been a contentious assertion in the past.

I had to create a kbin account because lemmy.world was struggling so much to keep track of this mess of a thread.

Welcome to kbin! I considered creating a lemmy.world account, but thought I'd give it a day or two to see if it finally sync'd.

Note kbin has a bug: as soon as this conversation spills over to a second page, the notifications to page 2 and beyond will be broken links. You'll have to search for the text in the notification to find the relevant reply. It's a known bug.

This thread is quite a mess here too. I considered creating a new magazine just to break this conversation out into a series of new conversations, but that seems excessive. I'm not sure of the best solution.

A literal "drug infested hell-hole" as you call it is significantly safer of a place to live. If that isn't a poignant example of what a terrible state the U.S. is in then I don't know what is.

It only seems terrible if you measure according to un-American values. Our American perspective is well captured by the famous Ben Franklin quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Our culture has always been a bit dangerous because we're a free people. We carry firearms to defend ourselves, and we use them as needed. Yes, that results in deaths, and we agree that deaths are undesirable, but as an American I hold liberty as being 100x more important than safety.

My girlfriend and I are both leftists, bisexual, and I am an atheist.

Earlier in our conversation I thought you were a Christian, because of what you said about idolatry. But I find it completely believable that you're an atheist, because as we dug into the topic, you exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what idolatry is all about.

You are not "bisexual" if you're a man with a girlfriend, unless you cheat on her. You may experience evil temptations to sin, but indeed we all do. The nature of our temptations varies according to our weaknesses, but we're all tempted. If you turn to Christ, you'll be able to pray to be shielded from your temptations, and prayer works.

I intend to be living safely elsewhere if/when the death penalty starts getting handed out for such non-crimes.

I find this beyond ridiculous. I completely support your moving to a place where you'd fit in better, and you'd be happier, as we've already established — but the US is so left of center that there's no way anything like this could happen here. Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?

You've moved the goal posts to criminal perspective.

Not really. I was making a point that it's not a matter of silencing an alternative viewpoint when that viewpoint is essentially pro-criminal.

You do not have evidence for [the idea that people who hate America and Americans are apt to commit violence].

True, but that only reflects the fact that I don't make a habit of compiling evidence to support my points in future discussions. But I don't see how you could disagree with this. People who love express love towards those who they love; people who hate express hatred towards those who they hate.

Across the world is is also a symbol of [a list of bad stuff]. That history is what people think about when they see the flag.

I'm sure that's true of some people. Like anything, it is what you make of it. But you need to cherry-pick your list of bad things from a vast sea of lovable good things. I'm not trying to pretend that we're perfect, but why would you want to focus on the tiny number of negative things instead of giving glory to God and focusing on all His copious blessings? Don't you find it unbearably depressing to maintain such an irrationally negative disposition?

You are authoritarian and you don't even realize it. All of your details are irrelevant. Get off your high horse, and recognize that this is a marketplace of ideas, where all of our ideas are equally valid. Stop trying to silence people. It will end badly for all of us.

I didn’t get the first part, nor the other thread if you replied to it. It seems we are hitting the limit of kbin/lemmy at the moment with the bugs it currently has.

Do these work?

• Part 1 of 2
• Other thread

I'll pause there for now.

Like so many other people in this thread, you are conflating the principle of free speech with the US First Amendment. Do they not teach this stuff in Civics Class anymore? The First Amendment is predicated on free speech. Free speech is fundamental to western civilization. The first Amendment is only applicable to government, whereas the principle of free speech is applicable to everyone in western civilization. We must all uphold free speech for all people, lest western civilization collapses.

In a free society, we have the downvote button for content we personally dislike. You're free to criticize their beliefs, and you're free to try to change their minds. But as soon as you try to silence anyone, you become an enemy of free society. We must all work to uphold western civilization, while realizing that it most certainly will always provide a platform for people (including ourselves) to explore all manner of ideas freely.

I hit the 5000 character limit! I thought that had been abolished, since we've both been writing some seriously long replies. I'll split my reply in two.

Part 1 of 2:

Probably the Netherlands.

Here's what comes to mind when I hear about the Netherlands:

• I like what little I know of the Dutch language, and I'd like to become fluent someday. It's a nice language.
• They've suffered a massive influx of Moroccan immigrants since the 1970s, and those immigrants commit crimes at five times the rate of native Dutch. Source, see table 1.7 on page 17. (Sound familiar?)
• As if that wasn't bad enough, their liberal drug policies turned the place into a drug infested hell-hole. Indeed quite a few US States have been imitating their idiotic legalization of marijuana, and I'm blessed not to live in any of them, but when I drive through them I see the visible impacts: litter, graffiti, and the stench of marijuana everywhere. And I avoid urban areas, so I can't even imagine how much worse it must be in the cities. I guess you got your wish on that one.

That being said, I'm not trying to bash a country you like, and I'm sure you may be happy there even if I wouldn't be. I was only offering my perspective as a point of contrast.

and we don’t want to be persecuted for being who we are

If you don't mind my asking, who are you (broadly speaking)? Do you just mean that you favor leftist political perspectives?

There is one charity like that which comes to mind to me. It’s called the Rainbow Railroad, and it’s for LGBTQ+ people who are trying to escape persecution, who want to move to a place where they will be safe.

Wow, that's remarkably close to my idea. Thank you! I'd rather help them turn to Christ and straighten out their act, instead of paying to help them to move away, but I'm impressed how similar it is to my idea.

It’s ultimately a disagreement, a huge one sure, but a disagreement. And it’s not domestic terrorism because that involves violence.

You could reduce every criminal perspective to a disagreement with well-adjusted society. Someone who hates a country simply doesn't belong in that country, whether it's the US or anywhere else.

Such a person may not have committed any violence yet, but if they hate Americans and the American principles we stand for, then it's only a matter of time before they do commit violence.

I honestly find it unfathomable that anyone could associate anything negative with the American flag of all things. I mean, across the world it's a symbol of freedom, but especially here at home, everywhere you look you see American flags because we all love our country.

We can have criticisms, sure — like any conservative, I don't much like Biden, for example — but it's not a flag of the White House or Congress; it's the flag of We the People.