PaulS

So you think blacks have had no issues being represented in your democracy where they are a minority group? It's all been hunky dory and equally fair for all? You don't think the odds are ever against them in any way? I think it's a little naive to think that black people have complete and utter equal opportunity in democracy when they are only 14% of the electorate. How many statues have the Florida Marker Program erected? Statues have ever only been put in place to honor the individual or honor their ideals and what they stood for. They were never installed as balanced, historical markers telling all sides of a story. The Florida Historical Marker Program is a much, much better approach where marker's are used to tell a story, and not just one side of the story. Efforts from the likes of the Florida Program are used to balance the story. I don't see any cancel culture oriented people wanting to change history or change the past, they just want it acknowledged that hero worship of racist figures should not continue unchallenged. Such statues should be removed and replaced with a marker that accurately tells the story. That would actually provide better context of the time period without it appearing as a form of status. Proper historical markers properly explain history and don't just display a statue honoring one side of the story. Here's a 'historical marker' of Robert Lee in Virginia. Can you seriously say this is just a simple historical marker that explains history and not an idol of hero worship to somebody who the majority of whites in that area praised for his anti-black ideals?

Well actually the majority spoke last Presidential election, but your electoral system doesn't allow for democracy to be that simple.

Personally, I think you would probably benefit from understanding the science of evolution, but it's your choice.

I don't think we can know accurately what Paul actually thought about women being involved in the Church. It seems to me that there appears to be some passages indicating Paul supported the involvement of women, and other passages indicating his desire to control how women may be involved or how they should behave in Church. This brief article points to some of those. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427 Jesus seemed to welcome women's involvement and participation, but we now better understand that Paul was treading a different path to Jesus, so who knows for sure where his thoughts lay on that matter.

My bookie isn't making huge changes but the odds seem to be drifting out for Trump. Joseph, I wonder if you wait longer if the payout for Trump will get even better for you! Of course, Trump needs to win to make it a great payout though. But I'm not saying he won't get there. I think it's up in the air at the moment. Hillary remains unchanged at $51 if you still favor your strategy, Burl.

I think you miss the point. The criticism of Pascal Wager's is that if you choose to apply it to the Christian God, then it begs the questions why don't you apply the same rationale to any other God? Essentially you are saying, better to believe in Allah than take a risk Allah doesn't exist. Better to believe in Zeus, Odin or Krishna, just in case they do exist. There are something like 3000 gods in the human experience to choose from. Christians don't believe in 2,999 of them - Atheists just deny one more God than traditional Christians.

That is called Pascal's Wager and if you actually consider what you say, you will see there are a lot of problems with such a statement (i.e. if you're a Christian trying to prove a point): https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/06/the-flaws-of-pascals-wager/

Welcome 4BeanMix, I tread a similar path in that I was born protestant, was a committed Christian until 18, then found myself out in the world as a Police Officer (no longer serving) which changed how I saw the world and Christianity. So for me too, in the past 34yrs I haven't been to Church save for the odd wedding or funeral also. I found progressive Christianity (largely through this site) about 10 years ago and whilst I am not what is traditionally understood as a practicing Christian per se, I do consider myself a progressive Christian and I feel that finding PC has allowed me to revisit and better understand Christianity, in a much better context. I hope you enjoy participating here and that the site provides you with interest. Cheers Paul

Like I said, conspiracy theories seem to abound in the US and there is no shortage of individuals pushing a false narrative to suit their argument. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-soros-hate-groups/fact-check-george-soros-did-not-say-he-would-fund-black-hate-groups-idUSKBN23C2OQ

Conspiracy theories and distraction seem to abound in the US. I would suggest trying to stick with the issue. But each to their own.

I think for the umpteenth time now - I'm not and have never referred to the violence and destruction as a legit way forward. Violence and destruction doesn't even enter the definition of cancel culture. I have several times now tried to keep the thread focused on the issue rather than let it be distracted by those who are breaking the law and committing violence. Can we maybe finally park that element. Violent vandals do not own the discussion, but they are a distraction to it. The average representation of blacks in the US community is 13.4%. Hard to imagine them winning any majority vote alone. These statues and memorials were never placed just as historical markers, they were only ever placed to honor those they represent and what they stood for. The community at the time were racist, so who cares that they thought white supremacy was appropriate. It's not. Yes, there are peaceful ways of changing it - like New Orleans did. But again, sigh, those who are committing violence don't own the discussion. Please, look past them at the issue. No, again, I don't support violence, although I must say, we do pick and choose about when we see breaking the law and committing acts of destruction as noble and when we don't. It's usually looking back that a final view is formed - history is written by the victors.

Says the white man telling others what all black people think about white Democrats. 😂 Which black community are you referring to Burl? The one in Oregon or the one in Alabama? The Black Power black community or the black community that instead argues for fairer representation. My point being, there is no singular ‘black community’ and I think that the fact that you can point and say ‘they’ when referring to the numerous people of African American heritage may be part of the reason you don’t understand what many black people are trying to say about these tributes to white supremacy.

I think I have to agree with Thormas here Burl. You do seem to be trying a tad too hard to tar the Democratic Party with an anti-black brush. You really believe the Democratic Party fought civil rights tooth and nail into the 60’s? Except maybe for that one time the Democratic President named JFK actually created and introduced the Civil Rights Act - the most-far reaching act of legislation supporting racial equality in American history. Yep, sounds like those Democrats really had it in for African Americans. 😂

I’m practicing 20 minutes a day meditation through the app ‘1 Giant Mind’ and finding it amazingly beneficial.

Hi Tarquin, Welcome to the forum, and sadly, commiserations on the loss of your father. I hope you reading and participating here meets whatever need you may have. Cheers, Paul PS - I live in Australia so a bit far for a catch-up, but if you’re ever over this way...:)

Firstly I would point out that ‘cancel culture’ is a colloquialism, it’s not a defined rule set. We humans like to put things in boxes, and from some sides now we see that anybody who questions whether it is perhaps time to review how we do some things, can easily be dismissed by others because their thoughts are derided as ‘cancel culture’. We can use words as weapons or we can use them to try and better understand the other. My hope is that people discuss this issue more rather than dig in and take sides. Secondly, we are simply not talking only about ‘history’ here. There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure. Statues are displayed to ‘honour’ those represented. When you honour people who promoted, and even fought to retain the right to enslave a certain group of people, then there is more to it than just history. If it was just history, capture it in books or move memorials to museums with an explanation of all sides of the discussion. You ask about the lyrics - well in my mind they are an inspiration, not a dogma, about considering what harm we may be doing to others in our lives and to consider how we can cause less harm (no harm would be preferable). Would it cause you harm to remove statues honouring those who fought to keep blacks enslaved? You really couldn’t get your history any other way? And in the process, you wouldn’t feel that if removing statues helps in any way to further heal race relations, as is being asked for by many, that you may be contributing something positive to the conversation? Of course defining harm is an opinion. Surely you understand that’s why so many hold different views about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in life. We all hold different views but our challenge is to get along in the best way possible. Could removing statues and naming rights of those who wanted to harm black people be a step forward for our countries - I think so.

Great point! You seemed to agree it was sad. But anyway... We are now agreeing about context, largely. I was simply saying that the saying itself (i.e. the Golden Rule - Matthew 7:12) does not provide a lot of context to go on, much as Harper's verse alone may be sad to Burl because he thinks it only says one thing. The Golden Rule simply does not stipulate that it is about actively doing to the other, but rather that is the context with which we interpret it because of so much more attributed to Jesus (not necessarily in that chapter). The context which we apply to the individual sayings is what gives them meaning or inspire us. I'm not arguing that one saying is better than the other (although you and Burl seem to be). I'm simply saying that for me Harper's verse is just as meaningful as the Golden Rule. Harper's verse speaks to me because of the context I understand it to be in. The Golden Rule too speaks to me because of the context I understand it within. But it is us that applies the contexts - neither saying stipulates those things.

No stress. Sometimes I go days at a time without checking in, so I hardly expect others to respond or contribute immediately.

Sounds sound to me! Nice! Perhaps you have just summed up the Law and the Prophets!

I think you're still missing my point. If you don't apply any context to Harper's verse then indeed one could hold the narrow view that it’s a bit sad because it says that the rock bottom humanist ethos is sufficient. The context that I apply, doesn't say that to me (and possibly others). The context you apply to the Golden Rule makes it say what it says to you. All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion.

My point is that the Golden Rule rule itself is one sentence (Matthew 7:12) which doesn't say any of the things you are saying. You draw those conclusion (not all of them necessarily incorrectly) because of other material. So similarly for me, I don't hang my hat on this single verse from Harper to provide me 'the' interpretation - it's an inspiration, not a command, just like the Golden Rule. Taking Ben's words in mind, if thinking all those things about the Golden Rule offer you inspiration, then you're alright with me as long as you aren't causing any harm. Peace & goodwill.

You've nailed it, Elen! Precisely. And I'm glad you can appreciate it and even have a smile to boot - a bonus!

I'm not promoting drug use, just saying that's what the song is about. Probably like many Christians with the bible, I'm cherry picking words from the song and applying my own meaning and purpose to them irrespective if that's what the author intended. Ha! Yeah, a bit much.

Gee, its a tough crowd that want so much out of a verse. I guess the question goes to you Thormas then - how does the Golden Rule (please stick to the sentence that is the Golden Rule) express more than the human ethos of treating others how you want to be treated? Or don't - it just seems you were excited about Ben Harper's words not matching the Golden Rule too, but I'm not sure how you or Burl could read so much more into the Golden Rule, as it stands, than Harper's words.

I think your stretching a bit in your negativity toward the verses, but if that's what floats your boat. I don't see how the golden rule expresses anything more about the human ethos - do unto others (as a human) as you would like them to do unto you (as a human). Can you demonstrate how the sentence of the Golden Rule demonstrates anything more than the human ethos of treating each other how we would like to be treated?