Well, I sincerely doubt people in any western country were particularly fond of black people at the time. However, the country you are from is hardly important.

The point is, that the views that prompt you to call these people nazis were also held by people that dealt with the nazis.

80 years ago, most people in your country did not have a much more favourable view of black people.

The word “fascist” does not mean “person I do not like”.

This doesn’t make any sense. My person has nothing to do with this.

Leftists that support rehabilitative justice, oppose the police and prisons, turn into Hitler when someone commits a minor offence against a group they favour. How does that work?

Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

Conducting that meeting in that place at such a time seems quite inappropriate and disrespectful.

They feel like it’s wrong so it needs to be illegal.

They believe it to be immoral, so they want it to be illegal, yes. Is that not how people usually decide what should be legal and what shouldn’t?

Also, it seems disingenuous to say that

No amount of death or suffering of real live people is as important as their idea of a person.

I would say one can be opposed to abortions, and still care about other people. Clearly.

The state already regulates which practices may or may not be performed by doctors. This is hardly different.

I would say people with principled political views are in the minority, whether they are on the left or on the right. Most people just parrot what everyone else and the politicians say. People don’t like to think about these matters too deeply and vague emotions can be used(by politicians) in many ways.

In any case, which extreme positions are you referring to specifically? Or rather, which positions are extreme and integral to their programme?

I assumed you meant the competent republican will be so successful, the party will win the next election and the dems will not be able to compete. So you would rather they fail and let you win.

But now I realise that you actually implied they will rig the elections, which makes me think you are dramatising even more, since I doubt that will happen.

Maybe you are right, but I would not underestimate how quickly things can change. The did change quickly with Trump, did they not?

Why would they not support him? A sizeable portion of their base love the guy. He has a lot of power.

And why would the situation not change if a more sensible person assumed leadership of the party? Things can change rather quickly, and if his term goes badly I doubt the conservative establishment will appreciate another idiot nominee with a god complex.

The democrats nominated a barely functioning senile man that can’t string a sentence together for president twice. That does not mean that every single nominee that comes after is going to have dementia, does it?

Being more competent than Trump is hardly remarkable.

I believe you are being unfair to republicans. I understand the desire to caricature the other side, but this is unbecoming of Boddhisatva.

Would you rather not have a competent government? You are dramatising a bit I believe.

Maybe the next Republican will be more sensible.

If only these nonreligious people recognised how little they know about religion.

I might have changed my views on certain things after coming to the fediverse, and now I see that Lemmy is an echochamber. It seems like right wing and even moderate people just stayed on twitter and “truth social”, which are echochambers as well, especially the latter, clearly, and I end up arguing with everyone all the time.

Hey, do you mind telling me why I got down voted, if you have an idea why, of course?

I do not believe I said anything particularly contentious this time, and I do not believe I said anything factually wrong either.

Not to the early Christians it wasn’t. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.

That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.

Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.

Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.

Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.

They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.

Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.

Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.

The idea that early christianity was somehow “more pure” I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.

Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?

Also, it doesn’t have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.

The question of “should Christians strive for a classless society” is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the “fallen world” authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.

However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after “the base” changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.