Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote: The point I take away -- not explicitly stated in the article, but informed by other experiences -- is that unlike economic views or political positions, religious beliefs are incredibly sticky; and tend to blind people to rational thinking.

This becomes problematic when, say, you're an individual in a position to deploy capital through a fund or a government contract, and you have the belief that there's a pre-ordained righteousness granted to one recipient over another; it becomes an existential threat when the belief is so widely shared by the ruling class that all individuals in similar positions must tow the line or get out.

I would imagine Burt's argument here would be something to the effect of "How is it different from Democrats awarding contracts or investment dollars to DEI-anchored initiatives or ESG moonshots?" And philosophically speaking, that would be fair.

But practically speaking, the key difference is how these belief systems operate in practice. Both involve ideological filtering, sure, but religious frameworks tend to carry an absolutism that makes them immune to challenge. When someone believes they have divine backing, there’s no room for negotiation — faith isn’t about evidence, it’s about certainty.

DEI and ESG initiatives, for all their flaws, at least try to justify themselves with data. You can argue about whether that data is cherry-picked or ideologically motivated, but the structure at least acknowledges external validation. Religion doesn’t play by those rules.

So the real problem isn’t just bias in funding — that happens everywhere. It’s that once faith-based decision-making gets entrenched, disagreement isn’t just dismissed, it’s framed as immoral or even dangerous. That’s when the system stops being a political tug-of-war and starts functioning like a theological hierarchy, where the only way to participate is to align with the dominant belief.

Happy Trees wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: The point I take away -- not explicitly stated in the article, but informed by other experiences -- is that unlike economic views or political positions, religious beliefs are incredibly sticky; and tend to blind people to rational thinking.

This becomes problematic when, say, you're an individual in a position to deploy capital through a fund or a government contract, and you have the belief that there's a pre-ordained righteousness granted to one recipient over another; it becomes an existential threat when the belief is so widely shared by the ruling class that all individuals in similar positions must tow the line or get out.

I would imagine Burt's argument here would be something to the effect of "How is it different from Democrats awarding contracts or investment dollars to DEI-anchored initiatives or ESG moonshots?" And philosophically speaking, that would be fair.

But practically speaking, the key difference is how these belief systems operate in practice. Both involve ideological filtering, sure, but religious frameworks tend to carry an absolutism that makes them immune to challenge. When someone believes they have divine backing, there’s no room for negotiation — faith isn’t about evidence, it’s about certainty.

DEI and ESG initiatives, for all their flaws, at least try to justify themselves with data. You can argue about whether that data is cherry-picked or ideologically motivated, but the structure at least acknowledges external validation. Religion doesn’t play by those rules.

So the real problem isn’t just bias in funding — that happens everywhere. It’s that once faith-based decision-making gets entrenched, disagreement isn’t just dismissed, it’s framed as immoral or even dangerous. That’s when the system stops being a political tug-of-war and starts functioning like a theological hierarchy, where the only way to participate is to align with the dominant belief.

I'm amazed because it is ultimately (finally, too little too late) the most pertinent and apt analysis of what's been going on from my point of view since he entered the picture.

I believe that Trump has always been fully aware of this angle (look at his upbringing), and that it's why he targeted the voters and supporters that he did. Because you can say literally anything and they will believe it, and you can do anything morally reprehensible and they will support you regardless. Remember that creepy clip of him speaking on Oprah that seems to have vanished?

Because when you bait and switch yourself with Jesus (look at any cult), everything becomes black and white and irrefutable, because you never question the Bible and the Bible is "truth". So to call Trump a liar is to call Jesus a liar. It happened every step of the way and people went "Why do Christians support this guy? Durrr." And now it's "Why did blacks and Hispanics vote for him in record numbers this time?".

He is manipulating them by exploiting their theological belief structure and inherent prejudices, and relishing in being a false prophet for his own personal gain, while everyone else is busy arguing about his troll distractions and failing to recognize it. It's why we have always desperately needed separation of church and state to stay intact, and it's an obvious breeding ground for doublethink.

And of course our resident red/orange dipshits wouldn't get that. We don't have the funds to de-program them now.

Dev wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: The point I take away -- not explicitly stated in the article, but informed by other experiences -- is that unlike economic views or political positions, religious beliefs are incredibly sticky; and tend to blind people to rational thinking.

This becomes problematic when, say, you're an individual in a position to deploy capital through a fund or a government contract, and you have the belief that there's a pre-ordained righteousness granted to one recipient over another; it becomes an existential threat when the belief is so widely shared by the ruling class that all individuals in similar positions must tow the line or get out.

I would imagine Burt's argument here would be something to the effect of "How is it different from Democrats awarding contracts or investment dollars to DEI-anchored initiatives or ESG moonshots?" And philosophically speaking, that would be fair.

But practically speaking, the key difference is how these belief systems operate in practice. Both involve ideological filtering, sure, but religious frameworks tend to carry an absolutism that makes them immune to challenge. When someone believes they have divine backing, there’s no room for negotiation — faith isn’t about evidence, it’s about certainty.

DEI and ESG initiatives, for all their flaws, at least try to justify themselves with data. You can argue about whether that data is cherry-picked or ideologically motivated, but the structure at least acknowledges external validation. Religion doesn’t play by those rules.

So the real problem isn’t just bias in funding — that happens everywhere. It’s that once faith-based decision-making gets entrenched, disagreement isn’t just dismissed, it’s framed as immoral or even dangerous. That’s when the system stops being a political tug-of-war and starts functioning like a theological hierarchy, where the only way to participate is to align with the dominant belief.

Good post.

BurtReynolds wrote:I have already explained to you people why he was fundamentally wrong.

BurtReynolds wrote:I will give him credit for predicting my response - that you have not entered a new Christian state of affairs, and have merely witnessed a change in faction under the Christian cultural worldview - though he has no answer to it!

Dev wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I have already explained to you people why he was fundamentally wrong.

Thanks for coming to tell us that your shitty arguments that aren't even worth acknowledging actually owned us. Its almost like you're sone misunderstood genius. Or maybe just an idiot who misunderstands himself as a genius. Pls stfu. We'll respond to your drivel when WE feel like dunking on someone.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Dev wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I have already explained to you people why he was fundamentally wrong.

Thanks for coming to tell us that your shitty arguments that aren't even worth acknowledging actually owned us. Its almost like you're sone misunderstood genius. Or maybe just an idiot who misunderstands himself as a genius. Pls stfu. We'll respond to your drivel when WE feel like dunking on someone.

Once again I am attacked for merely investigating core beliefs and assumptions!

Christianity has been around for millennia! It's strength isn't its absolutism, but its adaptability! You think you've outlasted it, when you are more enslaved to its fundamentals than ever!

Bi_3 wrote:"This is fine"

BurtReynolds wrote: Once again I am attacked for merely investigating core beliefs and assumptions!

Christianity has been around for millennia! It's strength isn't its absolutism, but its adaptability! You think you've outlasted it, when you are more enslaved to its fundamentals than ever!

Happy Trees wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: Once again I am attacked for merely investigating core beliefs and assumptions!

Christianity has been around for millennia! It's strength isn't its absolutism, but its adaptability! You think you've outlasted it, when you are more enslaved to its fundamentals than ever!

The United States has only been around for 250 years compared to its perceived contemporaries.

But that wasn't long enough to develop a culture wise enough to protect itself from gullible manipulation.

Christianity is just the tool that was used, and if you were a real Christian, that would offend rather than endear you.

You are really being attacked for "investigating" your own rectal passage with your gigantic skull.