Bernie Sanders' Religion is Collectivism

I honestly can't imagine a worse 'religion' than Collectivism.

It is the opposite of what I believe in...ugh.

a reply to: NthOther

He believes in god. He accepts all religions. He loves the Pope. He's educated in Christianity. He quotes the Bible. He quotes the golden rule. He's says he's spiritual. His religion isn't "statist-collectivism (socialism)". What more do you want? So he didn't say it on the show, why is it only important he says on that show when he's already answered your question?

It's because you ignore all of the above and continue to attack Sanders makes me believe you were only interested in a hit piece and not actual fact finding.

a reply to: Swills

Perhaps some contrast can put the character issue into perspective:

JFK's Speech on His Religion

He went so far as to write and deliver a short speech that directly addressed the matter. Granted, Sanders could not have done this on Jimmy Kimmel Live, nor has he secured his party's nomination.

Still. When the spotlight is on, he's just another weasel politician. When everyone is watching, he goes with what he thinks is the safe answer. Even when talking about God.

Compare and contrast. Who's the leader?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL, I didn't mention Star Trek -- nice leap though. The image was from the movie Serenity.

If we continue to force this idea that we can bury ourselves into ourselves and do everything on our own, neglecting our community and those around us -- we're going to crash and burn. (I really think there are a lot of people who do want the world to burn though, so maybe that's why we've seen a rise in existentialism).

Even in aboriginal tribes that survive off the land in small tribal units, people cooperate and resources are shared, private ownership isn't a "thing". So if we want to look to those "living off the land" as some kind of rugged, freedom-loving example...we're not going to find it there. There is no "mine" and "yours". If you went to Hawaii before Captain Cook arrived, those native peoples wouldn't have a clue what "mine" and "yours" is. Incidentally his is what ultimately got Captain Cook killed.

We like this idea of "freedom", yet no one really seems to be able to place their finger on what it means. Does it mean the freedom to participate in the general will of one's community, or to gratify your own ego?

In the Western world with the rise of Christianity, an agenda-driven paradigm of "freedom/law" was very important for the aristocracy to establish. In order for the church to convey this idea that man can fall and be redeemed, the idea of human freedom had to take hold. One cannot feel guilt unless they have a perceived sense of "freedom". You can't be or feel guilty unless you are "free", as only those people are considered to be responsible for their actions. And so going back as far as organized religion is concerned, all of our systems of government have borrowed and built upon the opposing freedom/law model.

And the brilliant part of this -- is that the freedom/law control structure itself embeds you into it and makes you believe that it is some kind of natural system, arisen from human nature itself.

And to build on top of that, we now have some form of mutant capitalistic-existentialist, greed-based moral hierarchy that is leading to all kinds of anti-communal behavior, increased rates of poverty, human suffering and crime. I don't think this current social paradigm is by accident -- it divides us. So we're already feeling guilty out of this false "freedom" we've been sold on as a control icon, divided and arguing among ourselves.

What we are seeing right now is 7 billion people rabidly climbing over one another, kicking each others teeth in to reach the top of the pile. What this is building up to is some kind of ultra nationalistic fascism. Right now we can stand back and look around and see the roots of this already taking hold.

If we keep going on this tear, in our fight against communism we've dialed up the capitalism and injected it with steroids. Capitalism is a pretty anti-human philosophy. Capitalism's axiom is "free trade!" -- which means nothing less than me barging into your country to sell the most useless crap, without you being able to tell me no. We've been taught that capitalism and democracy aren't at odds, that they go hand-in-hand. This isn't true, in fact the two are very much at odds.

The ideal of democracy is that each of us has some kind of innate wealth that must be respected, yet capitalism says that those who die with the most crap are the winners, and it's our job to amass as much as possible and force as much crap on others. These two social constructs can't be fit together like puzzle pieces or be neatly reconciled.

So the obvious take-away here is that we're being fed nice-sounding ideals and values that are having the exact opposite effect on humanity than what they claim. This freedom/capitalism/individualist model is pushing us to the brink of social collapse. This system it is pushing a non-sustainable hierarchy of values upon an exponentially growing world population. If we don't start taking a hard look at what humanity as whole -- the individual won't have anything left to be selfish about.

a reply to: NthOther

Sanders is a weasel politician because he doesn't tell Jimmy he believes in god because you think he's worried about upsetting one crowd over another? This is your proof? I'm not impressed. There are plenty examples of weasel politicians, please provide real evidence he's a weasel. Or are you just resorting to name calling?

originally posted by: Swills

Sanders is a weasel politician because he doesn't tell Jimmy he believes in god because you think he's worried about upsetting one crowd over another? This is your proof? I'm not impressed. There are plenty examples of weasel politicians, please provide real evidence he's a weasel. Or are you just resorting to name calling?

I didn't think weaselness was quantifiable. Evidence of weaselness?

Not answering a simple, yet very important question? Kimmel jumped at the opportunity to ask the question Sanders walked right into.

You don't think it's rude to disrespect your host by giving him non-answers?

Character matters. Even the little things.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Sorry, Joss Whedon, then. Regardless, it stands. No matter how big and scary personal responsibility seems, many before you have embraced it and made it work. We, man to man, individual to individual, CANNOT allow this mambypamby bullsnip movement towards convincing people "It Takes a Village" was a users guide to life. It wasn't... Just because some can't survive on their own doesn't mean the rest should back up. Its natural selection in perfect harmonious action: you thrive, you survive... You fail, you die. Sorry, but that is absolutely the natural order of life, itself.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Funny thing, that... I never read Ayn Rand prior to a few years ago. Yet I've been a social Darwinist since high school.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are you then advocating some kind of mutant fascism? Both survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are key components in fascist philosophy.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't believe those concepts are mutually inclusive.

Free market capitalism is the antithesis of fascism. The problem, as with so damn many American issues, is that liberal progressives and libetal Republican are always futzing with things. Once the slippery slope is slid down, it is tough to stop. Take TARP for example... it was approved by both Dems and GOP, why?
For the GOP, it gave them a chance to help big corporations and their stakeholders.
For the Dems it did the same, but it also gave them a great excuse for more welfare: "oh we have to take care of the people, too."
Both fascists, both controlling whoremongers, neither even remotely libertarian or free market. I'd have allowed those companies to die if they were incapable of surviving on their own... By definition, a lack of government CANNOT be fascist.

a reply to: NthOther

Disrespect the host? I actually LoL'd at that. How about you stop trying to slam Sanders and admit he's nothing like you describe him to be. Are you continuing down this narrow road because you can't admit Sanders believes in god or is your only goal here to smear him?

As far as I can tell, your only argument for Sanders being a weasel, an atheist, is because he didn't just say yes on a tv show. Well, at this point, the nicest way I can say it is, agree to completely disagree.

Nth you claim that if he believes in God when asked he'd strongly scream it from the rooftops.

Who in the world are you to define belief based on acting in a single specific way? Some are more humble and meek in their belief. In fact every single religious person I've met who walked the walk rather than just talked the talk, demonstrated their beliefs with actions more so than proselytizing God every two seconds.

I personally find it suspect whenever anyone is quick to scream yes to that question without further clarifying, or expressing not only yes, but in what way. As I said earlier answering yes to that question means nothing as it could mean anything from a Jihadi terrorist, a complete lie, to damn near a saint. Yes means nothing, certainly not humility.

You say belief and surrendering yourself to a higher power is humility, but I don't see those that do so as very humble, how is believing something so strongly you're unwilling to admit the possibility you might be wrong a humble thing to do? It's not humble, it's submissive at best and fanatic at worst. It shows an unwillingness to adapt and change based on new information, it shows a willingness to act with a basis of faith, with no thought to the actual circumstances or evidence.

At this point one is not a leader, they aren't making decisions, nor are they taking into consideration the circumstances of events or people involved, they are stubbornly following a play by play, one which, in the end they follow based on their interpretation, which comes from their character. A bigoted asshole will look at the bible and find fanatical reasons to hate, while someone looking for a better way to become a better person will find the peace and love of Jesus.

It really speaks to nothing about humility to answer yes to that question, nor to say no. I will argue to this day and forever, that the only belief which can claim to be truly humble by it's definition is agnosticism rather than atheism or theism, cause both atheists and theist claim as you seem to want them to, proudly and arrogantly that they KNOW the truth period above and beyond anyone else, while the agnostic the only humble person in the bunch claims with humility, "You know what, I don't know." Only the agnostic has the humility to admit the possibility that they do not possess superior knowledge to the ultimate truths of reality.

You want humility, then have enough humility to accept that, all humans are ultimately babes in the woods, you included, and as such all should be open to learning and accept the possibility of being mistaken. Cause anyone who stubbornly stands by any belief blind to reason and proofs to the contrary is anything but humble.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well you can't have fascism without social Darwinism:

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.

infoplease

One of the common denominators of fascism is a strong belief in social Darwinism. In any case, social Darwinism is a flawed concept, as it tries to apply biological principles from Charles Darwin to form a social philosophy -- and as such is full of logical fallacies. It's great though for justifying colonialism, manifest destiny, and out of control capitalism.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6
So the obvious take-away here is that we're being fed nice-sounding ideals and values that are having the exact opposite effect on humanity than what they claim. This freedom/capitalism/individualist model is pushing us to the brink of social collapse. This system it is pushing a non-sustainable hierarchy of values upon an exponentially growing world population. If we don't start taking a hard look at what humanity as whole -- the individual won't have anything left to be selfish about.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: windword

Do you think that was an easy "Yes" or "No" question?

Yes, I do.

Well, it's not.

Christians think that they own the word "god", so when it's referred to all kinds of dogma and rhetoric go off in their head.

Intellectual Jews have a different view of "god" than Christians. Why should Bernie get into the difference between his view of "god" and the Christians "Jesus" god? What purpose does that serve in a political climate?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'd say him being spiritual means there's a pretty good chance he believes in God.

People who believe in God will say so without hesitation.

When your Jesus supposedly walk the earth and preached charity and urged people to give to the widows, the sick and the poor, the Romans were asking people if they believed in their gods. It was a crime not to you know.

So, if your Jesus was in a similar interview, and he said something like, "God help us should the pharisees yadda yadda yadda," and the interviewer threw the gotcha question, "Do you believe in "GOD" (Caesar, son of Zeus)? What would Jesus have said?

He just throws the word around in figures of speech as if it doesn't mean anything.

You really don't understand Jewish intellectuals. LOL

Hey wait a minute... I think there's a Jewish rule about that kinda thing... something about vain speech when dealing with the Almighty? I'm sure I don't know the Torah as well as Bernie does, though.

I'm sure he could say the exact same thing about your Jesus being put above YHVH. Blasphemy!

By the way no one is placing their faith in a higher power. They're placing faith in the belief that there is a higher power and that their interpretation of that higher power is the correct one. Both of these things come from the individual, whether there is a higher power out there or not. This is nothing more than taking in outside stimuli such as the bible and one's preacher, as well as internal musings and philosophies and creating one's own person reality lens through which to view reality based on how one interprets these things. Ultimately the only thing one has faith in is themselves and their own perceptions. That's it, there is no faith in God, just oneself.

Therefor believing in God isn't even submitting to a higher power, it's submitting to one's individual version of a higher power based upon the individuals character and how they choose to interpret the evidence.

Therefor belief in God or not is irrelevant and character is everything, as whether you believe in God or not, it's your character that determines who you are and what you will do with your belief or lack thereof.

Bernie is our only hope at changing this sociopathic system...but alas I fear the fix is in and Madame Hillary shall be coronated as our Emperor. (she will no doubt soon, tell the world that she has always been a man trapped in a woman body). Anthony Weiner will conveniently commit suicide, Hillary will divorce Bill and marry the recently widowed Huma. AND "In conclusion, there is no conclusion things will just continue to get weird
"- RAW

originally posted by: burdman30ott6America needs someone to take it by the throat, and throw her directly towards the wolves with enough spears for every American hand and a real simple instruction "Fight for it!"

"You know what? Life is hard. Deal with it.

That is as far from a cooperative society as I can imagine.

I've seen some minor welfare abuse, like buying candy on food stamps, by people too crazy to function anyway. It seems to stem from commercialism. It's like their only vision is The American Way as presented in corporate media. They're victims of propaganda.

The problem with humanists is that they tend to get depressed and bitter from lack of support and overwhelming opposition. They start out wanting to unite people, and they wind up having resentment for these same people.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I honestly can't imagine a worse 'religion' than Collectivism.

It is the opposite of what I believe in...ugh.

Capitalism teaches us to leverage our strengths against others’ weaknesses, rather than to use our strengths to compensate for each other’s weaknesses. This creates selfish individuals who will take advantage of others for a profit. Selfishness reinforces selfishness, as those who realize they have been taken advantage of retreat further into themselves.

I was a computer graphics artist and animator in the eighties. I got to meet many rich people. They are so constructed from the outside, the interior is hollow. I couldn't stand living in Disneyland, and I didn't like to "snow ski", so I got out.

I then always chose the adventure and the argument for humanity. I've continued to run into the high and mighty. They're horrified shortly into our conversations. I realize it will take a 2 state solution. I also realize that the most money wins the fascination of the masses. My state would be very small.

EDIT: I hope it's obvious I'm being metaphorical about skiing. I really do like sliding down a snow covered mountain.