You Really Don't Need To Sharpen Occam's Old Razor To See The Simplest Explaination Of Sinema

APPARENTLY, THOUGH I HAVEN'T FOUND OUT where it is, someone has been whining about my questioning whether or not Krysten Sinema's treachery,  self-serving hypocrisy and, as some speculate, nest feathering is not something that makes a lot more sense in someone who is an atheist-materialist true believer in scientism than the identical behavior in someone who professes their belief in Christianity.   Anyone who can point me to where the whine is, I'd like to link to it.

That kind of treachery in atheists on the alleged left, where Sinema first appeared in American politics as a Green party fixture, is a long standing phenomenon such as from those who started out as true believing commies, actual members of Communist parties, sometimes holding positions of relative power in those pathetic counter-productive futilities (which are not any different than the Greens in actual effect) but who ended up as everything from ex-Trot neo-cons to extremely rabid John Birch, and even neo-Nazi friendly Republicans.   Most of the first generation neo-cons have that as a feature in their biographies, there were others Max Eastman was one,  Whittaker Chambers one of the most famous.   The number of turn-coat commies is impressive for something that is such total flop of never a very large size.  And all of those commies could be expected to have been atheist-materialists and largely a fan of "science" though sometimes "science" in Marxism was more of an ideology in service to their overarching ideology than it was actual science.  

Since the religion of professed Christians is used when they do terrible things EVEN THOUGH THOSE THINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, PAUL, JAMES, ETC.  not to mention The Law and the prophets,  is something I would not at all be surprised if the CFI-honored atheist Sinema would likely have either brought up or noddingly agreed to when one of her fellow atheists did it, I don't see why the amorality she exhibits now, something that is not in contradiction or violation of anything in atheism, materialism or scientism,  is unfair in attempting to explain why she's betraying the people who thought she was a woman of her word when she pretended to be a progressive Democrat in order to get elected. 

The behavior of the professed Catholic Manchin is impossible to square with the radically egalitarian social justice teachings of even the most conservative Catholic popes of the last century and a half.  Not to mention the far more radical economic justice teachings of the best of recent Popes.  But he's hardly alone in that, there is no one in the Republican caucus of the Senate who professes Christianity whose actions are at all compatible with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, . . . Moses, even back to the initial act that led to the covenant between Abraham and God, his hospitality to the stranger.  But the majority of the incumbent U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops couldn't square their actions with that, either.   They act a lot more like I may have predicted Sinema to act, if I'd had reason to believe she was not a person of good will and of her word,  than someone who takes Catholic social teaching seriously. 

See, I have no problem with calling out Christians who do evil stuff which can't be squared with the Gospel, why should I have more of a problem when what Sinema does is far easier to explain?   There was a time it wouldn't have occurred to me to bring that up, as recently as the first year or two when I started blogging.  I'm sadder but perhaps wiser on that count, now.  People like her are why.