Religious conservatives vs. Secularists

[Upchurch]

As always, I vote for the lesser of two evils. I felt very dirty voting for Bush in these last two elections, but come on, Al Gore and John Kerry?! I thought maybe the Democrats had learned their lesson, but then they put Howard "Blaaaaargh!!!" Dean in charge.

Help me out here, Dems!! If you want the Republicans out of office, give me somebody I can vote for.

Funny, I feel exactly the same way except that I consider Bush the greater of two evils and want the Republicans to give me someone I can vote for. (Would that be three evils over the two elections?)

Actually, in an ideal world, I think my first choice is to have a Republican Congress and Democratic President. My second is to just not have one party controlling everything.

 

[Gestahl]

To be fair, the liberals aren't always on the side of freedom. Their support for gun control and their advocating of more gun control is something they support that would work to give the government more power and take away freedom from the general public. Gun control makes a mockery of liberalism and I think it would be in their interests to abandon it altogether. Let such anti-personal freedom policies fester on the conservative side where they have a natural home.

Indeed. My post painted with broad brushes indeed, but a broad painting was what was requested.

The Democratic (note: not Liberal) Party would also want to reduce economic freedom with a more socialist economy, but if you take the position that your economic situation is largely provided for by the nation and the economic structure around you, it starts to make sense. I am not decided on this point. I think pragmatically that the US is not of the mindset yet to be socially conscious and altruistic enough to make that happen... and even then the government controlling it may not be a good thing. Control of money = control of your ability = control of you.

I think the Democratic party would do well to back off of the socialism a bit in terms of active societal wealth redistribution, but still retain the ideas of corporate regulation (finding a passive way to do this would be ideal) and progressive taxation (passive wealth redistribution).

The pragmatic reduction in gun ownership is a myth: guns are not the cause of the problems that guns are used to solve by small-minded people. The gun control they advocated had near zero effect. Hopefully they will notice that.

/Both libertarians, are we?

 

[Gestahl]

I've seen too many examples of the ACLU standing up for the rights of criminals at the expense of innocent people to believe that the ACLU can be trusted with MY individual freedom. No time to look up links at the moment. I'll be back.

The way any government gets rights stripped away from people is starting with the people everyone seems to dislikes, including criminals. I could post the "First they came for the <blank>" poem, but that would be trite. Add to the fact that since the ACLU proceeds in court cases, by definition these people have not been found guilty yet (or if they have, it is being appealed), and are therefore not criminals (yet). Defending the rights of those you disagree with is the quintessential evidence of non-hypocrisy.

Read up on their court cases they took up involving the KKK. Everyone deserves the same civil liberties. *Everyone*.

A little quote I came up with a while ago... it might have been in my sig:

"Your level of commitment to your ideals is defined by your application of them to those whom you would not wish them upon."

Racist? Bigots? There was only one time I heard of a cross burning in my home town. The neighbors of the black family (yes, white folks) guarded their house every night with their shotguns and rifles until the offender was caught. He was sent to jail for a couple of years and never had the guts to return to our community.

Good for them. Unfortunately, the loud-mouthed people get the most airtime. There is still much tacit racism about... like the idea that the relative economic disparity between races is due to them being "lazy", that "tribal tendencies" are to blame for black gangs (as if the yakuza, triads, and mob didn't/don't exist), and that rap music is evidence of cultural inferiority and intellectual vacuousness. Just because you don't act on racism doesn't mean you aren't racist.

Don't tell me these things don't exist, I heard them growing up in Alabama from otherwise intelligent and kind people, people that would still act as in your story.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But you just, you.......ugh, never mind.

This is the religion forum.

It's exactly this sort of nit-picking elitist, imperialistic snobbery that we fought against in the first place.

Ah yes. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the Limeys are a bunch of nit-picking elitist imperialist snobs... and tea is too expensive... and we demand the right to mis-spell aluminium if we want to." --- Declaration of Independence, first draft.

And that gives the Democrats an excuse to behave the same way now?

No, my point was that knee-jerk oppositional behaviour on their part wasn't what caused people go off them, since you can only behave like that when you're in opposition, not when you're in government. You've drawn your timeline the wrong way round.

I see that you're still ducking the all-important beer issue.

 

[Bruce]

This is the religion forum. Ah yes. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the Limeys are a bunch of nit-picking elitist imperialist snobs... and tea is too expensive... and we demand the right to mis-spell aluminium if we want to."

...and men dressing up as women isn't comedy, dammit!!

I see that you're still ducking the all-important beer issue.

This is one thing we can agree on. Spare us your rhetoric and send us your beer! We'll water it down and sell it for three times the cost.

 

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Bruce in his OP
The melodrama is nauseating.

Originally posted by Bruce exactly 4 posts later.
True, but the liberals also have an agenda, which is to oppose anything the conservatives say or suggest, no matter how reasonable it may be.

I have only read the first few posts in this thread and came across these seemingly conflicting statements. If the "melodrama" is nauseating, Bruce, why are you a major actor in the play?

But maybe I will have to amend this post when I read further....

Well, I've read more and I'll add another post, but I wanted to add more to this. You say liberals "oppose anything the conservatives say or suggest, no matter how reasonable it may be." Really?

What percent of Dems supported Bush in the original Afghanistan war resolution? 100%

What percent of supplemental authorizations since then have the Dems supported? 100%

How many judicial nominees have the Dems accepted? Over 95%, which leaves about 10-15 nominees. How many Clinton nominees did Hatch bottle up in committee and never let come to an "up or down vote" EVEN IN COMMITTEE? Over 80.

IOW, Bruce, we might be able to engage in a fruitful discussion here, but when you express disgust with the melodrama and then play the lead role as the protagonist, it is hard to imagine where to go. If you'll back off from the erroneous, one-sided assertions, maybe when can meaningfully engage.

 

[Bruce]

But maybe I will have to amend this post when I read further....

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.....You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up and belive...whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill.....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Take the blue pill, Sez. Take the blue pill now!!

 

[SezMe]

Not true at all. I don't follow politics in Europe very closely, but in the US, it's the liberals that are the screamers and whiners.

I think both sides ratchet up the "woe is me" rhetoric at every opportunity. But I'll give you what I think is the most egregious, damaging whine of the last few years. When anyone tried to express doubt about the Iraq war, the response from the White House/neocons was to whine about the lack of patriotism. Detractors were said by Cheney to be abetting the enemy. Rummy said we all should be "careful" about what we say.

In short, opposition to the Iraq war was postioned as unpatriotic while, in fact, opposition and free speech are two of the defining characteristics of our country.

]Originally posted by Bruce
Jerry Falwell? Does anyone actually listen to Jerry Falwell, or Michael Moore for that matter?

Nobody in your circle of friends may listen to Falwell, but somebody must. He has a HUGE following, amasses major political warchests of money and is all over the TV. So the simple answer to your question is, "Yes, millions of people listen to Falwell." You ignore that fact to your own peril. Without the religious trappings and money grubbing, the same applies for Moore.

]Originally posted by Bruce
The only people that I know that went to see Fahrenheit 9/11, went becaue they wanted to see what all the fuss what about and came back saying it was a piece of ◊◊◊◊

Millions of people were impressed by the film, but I don't want to get into a F 911 debate. I would just point out that if all of your friends had the same view of the film as you says a lot more about the width of your circle of friends than it does about the film itself.

]Originally posted by Bruce
Does anyone actually listen to the news anymore for that matter? People around here are so sick of the sensationalistic garbage spewed by the press that they've stopped reading the newspapers and watching the news.

Well, I think TV viewership and paper readership are in fact down. But I would dispute that this is due to "the sensationalistic garbage" being proffered. In fact, I would argue the opposite. The Jackson trial, the Peterson trial, the OJ trial, the "bride who ran away", etc., etc., etc. are all over the print and TV media BECAUSE people are interested in such "sensationalistic garbage."

Try this Bruce. Think of the people who you respect because they are well informed and try to follow local, national and international affairs. How many do NOT read the paper?

 

[SezMe]

Sorry, had to post my previous reply before losing all my typing. Consider this a continuation....

I've seen too many examples of the ACLU standing up for the rights of criminals at the expense of innocent people to believe that the ACLU can be trusted with MY individual freedom.

There are two problems with this viewpoint. The first is that it sets up a false dichotomy: criminal rights vs innocent people. Standing up for criminal rights as defined by our system of jurisprudence does necessarily NOT come at the expense of innocent people. Can you find example where this has happened? Sure. But you probably know about them because they are singular, sensational or otherwise noteworthy. But this is the classic confirmation bias. What you read about in the paper or (more especially) see on the TV does not represent the usual course of human affairs. When it happens, it is wrong. But you should be wary of building a political case on the odd exception.

And when YOU are the accused "criminal" who happens to be innocent of wrongdoing, you'll be damn happy that the ACLU exists. Sure, it may never happen to you in person, but it has happened enough that you might want to consider that the having the ACLU around is, in principle a pretty good idea.

 

[SezMe]

[BTake the blue pill, Sez. Take the blue pill now!! [/B]

But isn't the blue pill the one that gives me a har...? Very sadly, I don't seem to have a need for one right now.

 

[Dr Adequate]

...and men dressing up as women isn't comedy, dammit!!

OK then, let's discuss the relative merits of Shakespeare and Mrs Doubtfire. Or will you just save time by admitting that my country's better than your country? Go on, take it like a man.

 

[Z]

OK then, let's discuss the relative merits of Shakespeare and Mrs Doubtfire. Or will you just save time by admitting that my country's better than your country? Go on, take it like a man.

Nationalism rears its ugly head yet again.

My world is better than your country. There, beat that!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nationalism rears its ugly head yet again.

My world is better than your country. There, beat that!

Very well.

Planetary chauvinism rears its ugly head yet again.

My universe is better than your world.

 

[EdipisReks]

tut, tut, Herr Professor Doktor Adequete. my multiverse is better than your universe.

 

[clarsct]

OK then, let's discuss the relative merits of Shakespeare and Mrs Doubtfire. Or will you just save time by admitting that my country's better than your country? Go on, take it like a man.

Cherry picking again? Let's compare to Thomas Paine. Or Walt Whitman, or Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Besides all the GOOD beer over there is Irish! Unless, of course, you don't discount the microbrews. The microbrews here are as good as you can get anywhere...


*sigh* Beer aside...

I normally vote Democrat, unless I feel they're awfully off base. I voted against Bush. Twice. I considered it the evil of two lessers. Ideally, I would vote for a government that was as ineffectual as possible. I see government as the unique disease of mankind, and politicians as social outcasts who should be allowed the smallest quorum possible with which to vent their asocial tendencies. I would vote for a government that had one house that made laws with a 2/3 majority, and another that repealed laws with a 1/3 minority. Think about it. If 2/3 of the people think it's a good idea, it may be worth trying, but if 1/3 of the people hate the idea, how good can it be? Basic law enforcement is a good thing, but victimless crimes bother me. If I'm going 65 in a 55, well, who cares? Why should it be mandatory for me to wear a seat belt? Now, if I HIT someone going over the speed limit, well then, I deserve the ticket, and probably a large one. After all, if I caused the accident, shouldn't I be held responsible?

Just some random thoughts.

Mrs Doubtfire? What is it with Brits and guys in drag?...

 

[Kiless]

Never challenge a Literature teacher....

OK then, let's discuss the relative merits of Shakespeare and Mrs Doubtfire. Or will you just save time by admitting that my country's better than your country? Go on, take it like a man.

Ahem.

The novel that inspired Mrs Doubtfire... written by a BRIT.

Nah!

 

[Bruce]

My fantasy is better than your reality.

 

[TragicMonkey]

My fantasy is better than your reality.

Especially if your fantasy involves an entire Olympic gymnastics team and a hot tub.

Religious and secular people should work together to make that fantasy a reality! For me.

 

[Just thinking]

... If I'm going 65 in a 55, well, who cares? Why should it be mandatory for me to wear a seat belt? Now, if I HIT someone going over the speed limit, well then, I deserve the ticket, and probably a large one. After all, if I caused the accident, shouldn't I be held responsible? ...

Just because you brought it up ... speeding tickets are not issued for safety reasons (road conditions), to prevent accidents or for some form of justice -- "they're issued to generate revenue". And that quote is from a judge I had the opportunity to be frank with (in private). Come on -- think about it ... when was the last time you were on a road where you saw the posted speed limit as being reasonable (as in not too low)?

 

[Bikewer]

It would be my opinion as one in law enforcement that speed limits must be a compromise.

While speed limits on many roadways may seem artificially low when conditions are ideal, we should remember that conditions are not always ideal, and that drivers vary greatly in competence.
To some degree, speed limits have to be skewed to the lowest common denominator.

I've stopped numbers of drivers who were driving "at the speed limit" in extreme conditions, such as ice-covered roads, or fog so thick that visibility was considerably less than any possible stopping distance.

Sadly, it is true that many small municipalities survive on revenues generated by traffic fines, leading to the institution of "speed traps" and other abominations. A local department was caught manipulating a school-crossing traffic signal to catch drivers.