Any church will do, really.
When theocrats push religious based legislation, they justify it by pointing out how many people go to church, with the implication that everyone who goes to church agrees with them. Since most of the people who go to church don’t bother to step up and say that they don’t, it works.
So getting butts in the pews helps advance their agenda, even if they aren’t in their pews.
It depends on which corners of the internet you are on. Just today I saw a conversation on Facebook where some people mentioned that they weren’t aware of who was behind it.
Ah, yes I see — self-proclaimed and surfing the shift of the Overton Window so they can always claim “at least we’re not as bad as…” no matter how bad.
May will be? They are terrible people. I’d call them fascists.
I say we stop pussyfooting around the culture shock troops and call them out as fascists loud and clear. These people are an existential threat to our democracy.
…it’s pretty high up there on the spectrum for me, personally.
Bah*.11. Religion and government are intertwined.* Not in Nazi Germany. And others, but they right in that Putin is a fascist, which is kinda ironic.
Not on the ad, no. Mind you if there are links to NAMBLA or ways to donate there, it’s fine. Would the same ad be troublesome if it was from Boys Town or something?
Yep. Without too much exaggeration she could be blamed for calling Christians worse than Nazis.
And no Dem can be elected without the Christian vote.(well, maybe very local politics)
I would tell them to attack Nambla , not the message in the ad. We need to make a thing perfectly clear- that ad is not entirely funded by bad people. Yes, Hobby Lobby is very problematic, (and they are no where bad as NABLA) but that is not the only source.
And this is important. The right wing Conservative churches also are hating that ad. In other words, it can be said that AOC is allying herself with them.
Again, if the Dems lose the Christian vote, they are politically dead. They will go down like the Whig party.
It is not the Right/Red voters we are worried about . It is the moderate Christian voters.
Not so. We will see it in GOP ads for sometime. Just like I see “defund the police” as a scare tactic.
They are?
Hobby Lobby is not “fascist” I dont care for them, but they, and the GOP are not fascist. The Proud Boys are.
No they are not.
No, what we know is that some of the funding comes from RW sources.
Exactly this.
When a fascist organization is doing a recruiting drive it’s important to call that what it is.
And they don’t get a pass because they’re being sneaky about it. It’s more important to call things out when they are putting so much effort into hiding what they’re up to.
Yes. Obviously.
That’s a different issue, though. Whether or not AOC is right in thinking that the sponsors of the ad hold fascist positions is another topic that we can debate, depending on exactly how we choose to define “fascist”.
But the issue under discussion in this thread is (mostly) whether AOC was calling the ad itself fascist. Which it seems pretty clear that she wasn’t, no matter what definition of “fascism” we use.
Lol took less than a day
By “without too much exaggeration” you mean “by a tortured misreading of her words”, right?
Nonsense. Right-wing Christians complaining that the “He Gets Us” campaign is a bunch of “woke tricksters” who are “pandering to liberals” are not in any way “allied” with left-liberals like AOC complaining that it’s a smokescreen for fascist attitudes.
There are plenty of things (other examples that spring to mind are Chinese sweatshop-labor merchandise and Liz Cheney) that right-wingers and left-liberals can dislike for very different reasons, without being in any kind of “alliance”.
It seems possible, but it is by no means “clear”.
So, you can’t criticize those behind the ad if the ad is wholesome?
If someone said that it is making pedophilia look benign, would you have the same objection?
No, and that’s the point, who puts the ad out is important context.
No, she can’t. Only by twisting her words into something other than what she has said could someone say that.
The words that she used specifically state that the ad itself was benign. How do manage to twist it to mean the opposite of what she actually said?
Which is what she did.
I’m not sure what point you think you are making here. No, Hobby Lobby is not the only funder of the Servant Foundation. The Servant Foundation is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. They are what is problematic.
It could be said, but it would be extremely foolish to say so. If she criticizes it because it is funded by a hate group, and they hate it because it has a message of love, how are they allies?
Lotsa twisted motivational reasoning to get to that conclusion.
If AOC criticizing an ad put out by a hate group loses the Christian vote, the Christian vote was looking for an excuse to ally with hate groups. If you really think that they are so fickle and quick to turn to hate, then I think you underestimate Christians.
You could be right, though, maybe Christians really are as hateful as you are making them out to be.
Sure, GOP ads will say all kinds of things, and moderates know that they are liars. It is when self proclaimed “centrists” keep going on about it that it does real harm. Even the GOP has mostly gotten tired of harping on the chant of some protestors years ago. The only ones really still going on about it are those “centrists” that must find fault with the left to balance the horrors they see on the right.
You are the only one that thinks that this is about Hobby Lobby. Why do you think that?
Who, other than the Servant’s Foundation do you think is funding it?
It’s clear to anyone who is not motivated to twist her words.
Oh really? You might be interested in the fact that:
Fascists use the popular appetite for religion and co-opt it to their own ends. This is a historically documented fact that’s been known for decades about it, and crossing your arms like a simpleton and saying “bah” is insufficient to dismiss it.
And frankly, if you have only this one weak criticism of the 12-point list of fascism, then I accept your concession that the other 11 points are valid, and I’m glad you understand it’s not as simple as “are they Nazis.”
Of course you can. But you shouldnt criticize the ad itself. Anyway, do you know everyone who funded it?
The GOP said “defund the police” means getting rid of them. And in fact some on the far left said that is exactly what twas meant.
Something tells me Jesus would not spend millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads to make fascism look benign , Where does that mention one of the many groups that helped fund that ad.
That is not true. And Christian are by no means hateful. Some are. Some atheists are. Some Jews are.
Because that is what many are saying.
Sure one small group. The Nazis did not make any religion a state religion.
In a nutshell, that’s American politics. You can get away with saying even the most outrageous garbage, and while the rest of the country might think you’re a joke if your constituents are happy you can get elected. (Not that AOC is saying the most outrageous garbage.)
And she didn’t. She said it was benign.
Yes, the Servant’s Foundation, as stated in the article you cited in your OP.
You are still going on about that?
The part where she talks about spending millions of dollars on Superbowl ads.
And once again, why do you keep saying it was multiple groups? It was one group, a group labeled as an anti-LBGT hate group.
Many are saying? Really, that’s your go to? Anyone in this thread? AOC? One person in this thread mentioned that the Hobby Lobby CEO announced that he had donated to it, is that what you mean by “many” people are saying it’s about Hobby Lobby?
Sure, there are issues about the Hobby Lobby owner bragging about donating to a hate group, but that’s tangential to the point here.
You are the only one in this thread saying that.
Did you even read the article that you cited in your OP?
Yet another example of why some Christians are worse than Nazis!
The group spent the dollars. Others provided some funds. You employer provides funds, you spend the funds.
From a cite shared “While donors who support “He Gets Us” can choose to remain anonymous, Hobby Lobby co-founder David Green claims to be a big contributor to the campaign’s multi-million-dollar coffers.” Hobby Lobby is one of the funders.