I bet very very few X'tians and their followers failed to watch this show. They cannot possibly stomach what I see as an accurate depiction of a Religious state.

Current actual Religious states today prove that, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... they states of misery bidding their time.

For those unfamiliar with the Handmaids Tale, it's about a breakdown of the US Gov't into regions and one is particularly knee deep in the fate of the Church is - State Rule.

It's as if the old/new testaments of Bible were playing out before your very eyes in 2018. Women are the property of Men and they shall please their husbands as well 'be fruitful and multiply by raping women held in bondage to increase the population. The most recent episode depicts a despicable scene of rape of handmaid, which made wonder...how many of the faithful would be watching this and dismissing the real possibility of the direction a religious state might take. If you are reading this and want to discredit the premise, please do... but have courage to at least watch some it before frothing at mouth in anger.

BN747

while it's a fictitious piece of work, it's still troubling because there is that mindset out there, otherwise this show wouldn't be as popular as it is. It's believable because we have all had similiar situation where people blindly obey rather than suffer the consequences. If there is anything to learn from this show, that under the wrong hands things can go from bad to worse.

I'm thinking of Donald Trump immigration policy of taking children away from their mothers and fathers. While Trump is not religious, he sure knows how to manipulate the religious
but only up to a point. Then they turn on him. Same with Jeff Sessions, he can pretend to hid behind his bible, but his own religion tired of who he really is
and said they had enough and don't want him associated with their religion.

Paul Ryan's religious turned against him as well. So some religious institutions are still out there fighting the good flight.

There is a saying, you can fool people some of the time, but not all of the time. I think that Trump, Session are now being schooled by the religious, and it's about time.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

while it's a fictitious piece of work, it's still troubling because there is that mindset out there, otherwise this show wouldn't be as popular as it is. It's believable because we have all had similiar situation where people blindly obey rather than suffer the consequences. If there is anything to learn from this show, that under the wrong hands things can go from bad to worse.

I'm thinking of Donald Trump immigration policy of taking children away from their mothers and fathers. While Trump is not religious, he sure knows how to manipulate the religious
but only up to a point. Then they turn on him. Same with Jeff Sessions, he can pretend to hid behind his bible, but his own religion tired of who he really is
and said they had enough and don't want him associated with their religion.

Paul Ryan's religious turned against him as well. So some religious institutions are still out there fighting the good flight.

There is a saying, you can fool people some of the time, but not all of the time. I think that Trump, Session are now being schooled by the religious, and it's about time.

1984 was a fictitious piece of work too. But here we are.

Handmaid's Tale is the religious right's wet dream.

Led by the Pussy-grabber in Chief


May the Lord open!

Blessed be the fruit!

Out of all the ways to keep a population ignorant and obedient, religion has always been an effective tool thoughout history.

Education and general increased awareness of scientific facts and of the basic workings of the World around us is rendering the task a bit harder, bit they sure keep trying.

Francoflier wrote:

Out of all the ways to keep a population ignorant and obedient, religion has always been an effective tool thoughout history.

Education and general increased awareness of scientific facts and of the basic workings of the World around us is rendering the task a bit harder, bit they sure keep trying.

Good lecture material: R.A.Heinlein: "If this goes on" collected in "Revolt in 2100" ( 1953 )
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94

Please keep the thread on topic. I don't think the OP wants unrelated discussions to take over. If you'd like to discuss something else, you're free to create your own thread.

✈️ atcsundevil

unrelated discussion? how so? Have you read the book in question? or watched the show? A lot of people are comparing Handmaiden Tale to Trump's America. It's making people think, which is a good thing,

the booking is about America under a religious dictatorship suppressing women's basic rights while our constitution is alive and kicking, it's been chipped away at, and telling people to stay on subject, has me confused. do you want us to only talk about the show? and not how their are similarities to what are going on in reality when it comes to the religious right?

atcsundevil wrote:

Please keep the thread on topic. I don't think the OP wants unrelated discussions to take over. If you'd like to discuss something else, you're free to create your own thread.

✈️ atcsundevil

Actually, from what I read, it seems to me the OP was making a statement, now asking a question or asking for a discussion...But anyways.


Great show, well worth the small cost of a Hulu membership to see it.

scbriml wrote:

Handmaid's Tale is the religious right's wet dream.

Led by the Pussy-grabber in Chief


May the Lord open!

Blessed be the fruit!

That is fantastic !

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. There are unquestionably some religious states that engage in horrific acts.

The United States is not a religious state. Thanks to our Constitution we are very far from it.

Is the book a good warning? I suppose so, but IMHO looking at existing religious theocracies is much more productive.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The United States is not a religious state. Thanks to our Constitution we are very far from it.

The Constitution is only worth following if I'm being persecuted. If I'm doing the persecution, it's worth the piece of paper it's written on.

While the US is far from the religious dystopia depicted on the series, the fact that we're speculating whether any elected official would go out of their way to make it a reality is what makes it a dangerous thing. Get enough people of the same mindset to power and Constitution is gone (ever heard of amendments or constitutional conventions?).

I'd say the odds of this ever happening are very slim, but not zero. It wasn't too long ago that we said Trump had 0 chance of being elected and look what we got.

What we need is an amendment that says, once and for all, that religion has no role in government. The 1st Amendment merely restricts Congress from establishing A religion; it makes no mention about how other parts of the government can act on or be influenced by religion.

einsteinboricua wrote:

While the US is far from the religious dystopia depicted on the series, the fact that we're speculating whether any elected official would go out of their way to make it a reality is what makes it a dangerous thing.

Unfounded paranoia does not make something dangerous.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Get enough people of the same mindset to power and Constitution is gone (ever heard of amendments or constitutional conventions?).

I trust that you understand just how difficult it is to change the Constitution. This country is significantly LESS religious than at any time in its history - and NOW is the time that you think that religious zealots are going to co-opt the Constitution? That argument lacks any rational basis whatsoever. It's hysteria and nothing more.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd say the odds of this ever happening are very slim, but not zero.

The odds of an alien landing in my front yard and burning my house down are also not zero.

einsteinboricua wrote:

It wasn't too long ago that we said Trump had 0 chance of being elected and look what we got.

No credible source ever said that. If you have to make facts up in order to support your argument, perhaps you ought to revisit your argument.

einsteinboricua wrote:

What we need is an amendment that says, once and for all, that religion has no role in government. The 1st Amendment merely restricts Congress from establishing A religion; it makes no mention about how other parts of the government can act on or be influenced by religion.

Many decades of jurisprudence have said otherwise.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The United States is not a religious state. Thanks to our Constitution we are very far from it.

So, the US doesn´t have special laws that only apply to the faithful?

There are no laws precluding prosecution of religious parents if they get their children killed over their religious nonsense?
Jury´s of "peers" don´t tend to be more lenient with the faithful as long they claim a Christian religious conviction to justify their actions?
No school books in any state where government paid teachers teach kids that Abraham was a real person, Noahs flood happened and that the constitution is the new covenant coming from Moses?

Your constitution only protects you as far as the supreme court Judges are willing to protect it, and they are appointed by politics, not on merit alone. It won´t protect anyone from anything if a large enough chunk of citizens believes it is based on the 10 Commandments and came from god.

Is the book a good warning? I suppose so, but IMHO looking at existing religious theocracies is much more productive.

Looking at real existing theocracies is only helpful if you accept that all or most religions can lead to exactly that. Many people will just decide that problem is purely Muslim, while we know it isn´t. Christian mobs running around hanging gays usually just doesn´t make the news in Christian countries, Christian genocide is conveniently forgotten, or reduced to tribal issues.

Showing the Christian version of it, solidly founded on bible quotes, makes for the warning that looking at Muslim theocracies can not provide.

Can we please keep in mind that the Attorney General of the United States quoted the Bible to rip children from their parents and bakers quoted the Bible as the "legal" reason why they can not bake cakes for gays?

tommy1808 wrote:

Looking at real existing theocracies is only helpful if you accept that all or most religions can lead to exactly that. Many people will just decide that problem is purely Muslim, while we know it isn´t. Christian mobs running around hanging gays usually just doesn´t make the news in Christian countries, Christian genocide is conveniently forgotten, or reduced to tribal issues.

Showing the Christian version of it, solidly founded on bible quotes, makes for the warning that looking at Muslim theocracies can not provide.

You are farcical

Which Christian majority country looks anything remotely like Muslim majority countries?

Delusional.

Freakysh wrote:

Which Christian majority country looks anything remotely like Muslim majority countries?

Since I didn´t claim that, i need to give the complement about being

Delusional.

right back at you.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

So, the US doesn´t have special laws that only apply to the faithful?

I'm not aware of any. If you are, feel free to point them out.

tommy1808 wrote:

There are no laws precluding prosecution of religious parents if they get their children killed over their religious nonsense?

No, there aren't any such laws. Parents get prosecuted all of the time. Here is just one example.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... 43963.html

tommy1808 wrote:

Jury´s of "peers" don´t tend to be more lenient with the faithful as long they claim a Christian religious conviction to justify their actions?

I've never seen credible evidence of that. If you have some in support of your claim, now would be the time to produce it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Your constitution only protects you as far as the supreme court Judges are willing to protect it, and they are appointed by politics, not on merit alone. It won´t protect anyone from anything if a large enough chunk of citizens believes it is based on the 10 Commandments and came from god.

This final straw man argument you have proffered is a good opportunity to point out that you failed to address my argument. My argument is that it is not logical to believe that we are at our greatest risk of becoming a religious theocracy when religious participation in our country is at an all-time low. For over two hundred years we have had judges that believed deeply in God. And our Constitution still held up just fine. So why don't you address my actual argument? How does it stand to reason that the risk of becoming a religious theocracy is greater now than when our country was MUCH more religious?

tommy1808 wrote:

Looking at real existing theocracies is only helpful if you accept that all or most religions can lead to exactly that.

Can you explain this proposition, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

tommy1808 wrote:

Many people will just decide that problem is purely Muslim, while we know it isn´t.

I have yet to hear anyone say that the problem is purely Muslim. An objective look at the globe, however, shows that the problem is disproportionally Muslim.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

No, there aren't any such laws. Parents get prosecuted all of the time. Here is just one example.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... 43963.html

Yes, there are...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... lect-laws/
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/20 ... r-charges/

tommy1808 wrote:

Jury´s of "peers" don´t tend to be more lenient with the faithful as long they claim a Christian religious conviction to justify their actions?

I've never seen credible evidence of that. If you have some in support of your claim, now would be the time to produce it.

Elizabeth Ashley King, left to die with bone cancer, so effectively tortured to death, has been told to shut ob when screaming in agony to not disturb other patients, since she didn´t get any pain medication.

These Manson level animals got reckless endangerment, 3 years unsupervised parole.....
When i head about that the first time i tried finding any non religious people that got away for something like this with no jail-time, virtually no nothing. And that was a state that didn´t even exemption laws on the book, Arizona.

My argument is that it is not logical to believe that we are at our greatest risk of becoming a religious theocracy when religious participation in our country is at an all-time low.

i would rather think it is no or never, Christian Taliban can see the writing on the wall too...

For over two hundred years we have had judges that believed deeply in God. And our Constitution still held up just fine.

Amish kids may disagree. You got on the slippery slope towards theocracy when your supreme court decided that the Amish have a right to deprive kids of Education to preserve their heritage.

So why don't you address my actual argument? How does it stand to reason that the risk of becoming a religious theocracy is greater now than when our country was MUCH more religious?

Because the process in ongoing and there is no sign of reversing the trend.

tommy1808 wrote:

Looking at real existing theocracies is only helpful if you accept that all or most religions can lead to exactly that.

Can you explain this proposition, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.[/quote]

"I don´t live in a Muslim country, so theocracies are not threat to my life". As long someone is thinking that, looking at Muslim theocracies will not help at all, if you accept that any Religion can go down the same path, you may learn something from those.

I have yet to hear anyone say that the problem is purely Muslim.

Come to non-av more often. If our mods where not taking care of this threat not getting derailed, you would still read it here.

An objective look at the globe, however, shows that the problem is disproportionally Muslim.

an objective look at the globe, however, shows that the problem is disproportionally present in majority Muslim countries. But i would assume that is what you wanted to say.

best regards
Thomas

I will look into the links you provided. Thanks for offering them.

That being said, you have yet to address the core argument. Again, how is it that you believe that a religious theocracy is more likely now than ever given the fact that our country is the least religious ever?

Hint: Cherry picking isolated instances is not persuasive unless you can show that these isolated instances are occurring at a greater frequency.

Okay, I had a chance to look at the articles you linked to regarding child neglect. I, frankly, don't see how they support your position.

While I do not agree with these laws, none of the laws involve the government dictating what a parent must do, nor do they dictate any particular religious belief that a parent must have in order to claim protection under the law.

The government saying, "if you practice your religion of choice we are not going to get in the way," is not equivalent to the government imposing religion upon its citizens. Far from it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Amish kids may disagree. You got on the slippery slope towards theocracy when your supreme court decided that the Amish have a right to deprive kids of Education to preserve their heritage.

Again, this does not support your argument. Whether or not I agree with this decision, it is NOT an example of the government mandating that families teach their kids in a certain way. Quite the opposite. The decision gave families more liberty and freedom than they had prior to the decision. I get that it feels "squishy," but if you actually look at the decision you simply cannot cite it as evidence that the government is mandating anything.

Frankly, the decision is compelling evidence that the courts are able to set aside their personal religious beliefs since none of the justices were Amish.

I'm willing to give your proposition some serious consideration, but you've yet to produce any credible evidence in support of it. "Feelz" is not going to win me over to your side.

Freakysh wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Looking at real existing theocracies is only helpful if you accept that all or most religions can lead to exactly that. Many people will just decide that problem is purely Muslim, while we know it isn´t. Christian mobs running around hanging gays usually just doesn´t make the news in Christian countries, Christian genocide is conveniently forgotten, or reduced to tribal issues.

Showing the Christian version of it, solidly founded on bible quotes, makes for the warning that looking at Muslim theocracies can not provide.

You are farcical

Which Christian majority country looks anything remotely like Muslim majority countries?

Delusional.

I think some in sub-Saharan Africa look similar, so does Philippines to Malaysia and Indonesia barring the women who wear head covering. Azerbaijan is another and the Central Asian Republics, Bosnia, Albania in Europe and Tatarstan in Russia.

artofzen wrote:

I think some in sub-Saharan Africa look similar, so does Philippines to Malaysia and Indonesia barring the women who wear head covering. Azerbaijan is another and the Central Asian Republics, Bosnia, Albania in Europe and Tatarstan in Russia.

Maybe I am confused. Malaysia, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Albania, and Tatarstan are predominately Muslim.

Most are between 50-60%, Central Asia,87-95% Indonesia, Azerbaijan 87-95%.

An average of 50-60% minorities being predominant in four U.S states labels them as majority minority states they don't use the term predominantly minority.

....and so it begins..

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/vacati ... last-name/

...official on a tiny scale, but it’s how trends start.

I wonder if the Imm Official saw that exact same episode or did he/she unknowingly just act on their own authority.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

....and so it begins..

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/vacati ... last-name/

...official on a tiny scale, but it’s how trends start.

I wonder if the Imm Official saw that exact same episode or did he/she unknowingly just act on their own authority.

BN747

Beside this ludicrous example, CBP does understand different cultures do thing differently, right? How does CBP deal with the nuclear Icelandic family of father, mother, son and daughter, where (if using traditional Icelandic naming conventions) all four will have different surnames?

scbriml wrote:

BN747 wrote:

....and so it begins..

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/vacati ... last-name/

...official on a tiny scale, but it’s how trends start.

I wonder if the Imm Official saw that exact same episode or did he/she unknowingly just act on their own authority.

BN747

Beside this ludicrous example, CBP does understand different cultures do thing differently, right? How does CBP deal with the nuclear Icelandic family of father, mother, son and daughter, where (if using traditional Icelandic naming conventions) all four will have different surnames?

I’m unclear on what you’re asking... you’re saying that the example is ‘ludicrous’ then saying the CBP knows their stuff...then asking ‘how well do they know their jobs’?


Which is it?

BN747

scbriml wrote:

BN747 wrote:

....and so it begins..

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/vacati ... last-name/

...official on a tiny scale, but it’s how trends start.

I wonder if the Imm Official saw that exact same episode or did he/she unknowingly just act on their own authority.

BN747

Beside this ludicrous example, CBP does understand different cultures do thing differently, right? How does CBP deal with the nuclear Icelandic family of father, mother, son and daughter, where (if using traditional Icelandic naming conventions) all four will have different surnames?

I’m unclear on what you’re asking... you’re saying that the example is ‘ludicrous’ then saying the CBP knows their stuff...then asking ‘how well do they know their jobs’?


Which is it?

BN747

BN747 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

BN747 wrote:

....and so it begins..

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/vacati ... last-name/

...official on a tiny scale, but it’s how trends start.

I wonder if the Imm Official saw that exact same episode or did he/she unknowingly just act on their own authority.

BN747

Beside this ludicrous example, CBP does understand different cultures do thing differently, right? How does CBP deal with the nuclear Icelandic family of father, mother, son and daughter, where (if using traditional Icelandic naming conventions) all four will have different surnames?

I’m unclear on what you’re asking... you’re saying that the example is ‘ludicrous’ then saying the CBP knows their stuff...then asking ‘how well do they know their jobs’?


Which is it?

BN747

Scbriml is I think speaking rhetorically. Putting question marks at the end of his sentences show he is asking (incredulously, is how I read it) how CBP can possibly do their jobs if this is any example since throughout the world, surnames often may not match within a family.

And on the topic, I think I really need more information. The woman should press for the release of the audio recordings.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

BN747 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Beside this ludicrous example, CBP does understand different cultures do thing differently, right? How does CBP deal with the nuclear Icelandic family of father, mother, son and daughter, where (if using traditional Icelandic naming conventions) all four will have different surnames?

I’m unclear on what you’re asking... you’re saying that the example is ‘ludicrous’ then saying the CBP knows their stuff...then asking ‘how well do they know their jobs’?


Which is it?

BN747

Scbriml is I think speaking rhetorically. Putting question marks at the end of his sentences show he is asking (incredulously, is how I read it) how CBP can possibly do their jobs if this is any example since throughout the world, surnames often may not match within a family.

And on the topic, I think I really need more information. The woman should press for the release of the audio recordings.

Tugg

I see... thanks

Freakysh wrote:

Which Christian majority country looks anything remotely like Muslim majority countries?

Not for lack of trying by the "enlightened" though.

i.e. not something I'd attribute on Christian superiority.
More like western societies having pushed back on religion.
( well mostly. we have at least one case of strong regression. )