How Do You Define Yourself?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I have no problem with athiests - nor did I intend to imply that all athiests are liberal. BUT - when these particular athiests crawl under the ACLU’s skirt, then I think the liberal name tag applies.[/quote]

Then I am truly confused because I have been called “liberal” on this site and I would never try to force any kid to do or not do anything. Religion is the base of many people’s views and value systems. I don’t know anything about the mayor or the judge, but I do know that they had to have some support from someone before they just made a decision like this off the fly. Your posts simply made it sound like it is a “liberal agenda” to get rid of God in the education system. I doubt you would be able to find that to truly be the case.

Who are the people you are talking about? How do you know their political views beyond these decisions? Your post didn’t prove anything. It simply stated that a judge and a mayor are liberal. What judge and mayor?

62

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Then I am truly confused because I have been called “liberal” on this site and I would never try to force any kid to do or not do anything. Religion is the base of many people’s views and value systems. I don’t know anything about the mayor or the judge, but I do know that they had to have some support from someone before they just made a decision like this off the fly. Your posts simply made it sound like it is a “liberal agenda” to get rid of God in the education system. I doubt you would be able to find that to truly be the case.[/quote]

I’m not saying that there is a liberal agenda to do this. The ones who go to court and sue to have religion removed from society - student led bible studies, city sponsored nativity scenes, swearing an oathe on the bible - all of the things that are just a tradition in this country - those folks are liberal. Are you prepared to tell me that the ACLU is non-partisan?

My point is that there are those that accuse the right of taking away their rights because they are conservative. They are wrong, because when you look at who is taking rights away from people -it is invariably a liberal that is doing it, whether it be the ACLU suing in court, a Mayor, or activist judges.

The Mayor of San Fransisco, CA. If you think he’s not a screeming bleeding heart - I have a couple of acres of ocean front property I’d like you to take a look at. The Mass. judges that legislated gay marraiges legal. Not by the will of the people, but by themselves.

I’ll offer the challenge a second time - Show me where a conservative has inposed his/her will on the public in the same manner as liberals have done.

63

Bandgeek, you make my point, are you a charter member of the “yes, things are black and white” society?

64

I am a conservative. What I want to conserve are traditional Western liberal institutions.

I am not much of a fan of libertarianism, oddly.

I favor a strong but limited government.

I believe in low taxes. I believe in regulation - but only regulation that is designed to promote efficiency, make market information more transparent, improve competition, or create markets. Any regulation with an agenda beyond that is unacceptable.

I believe in free-market economics, but I do not worship the concept as a near theology that can solve nearly every problem mankind faces.

In terms of foreign policy, I support vigorously acting in our national interest and protecting our national honor.

I believe in the concept of ordered liberty - absolutes are usually bad ideas, and that includes concepts of absolute liberty and freedom. I’d no more support a regime allowing license than I would one supporting a police state.

I believe that morality is not situational at its base level - postmodern nihilism and those that blather about relativism notwithstanding. I believe that one culture can in fact be superior to another.

I believe in a more robust sense of conservation - I don’t like the title ‘environmentalism’, but it’ll do. I think there is more to society than “gettin’ and spendin’”, and it begins with reaffirming a piety for nature and balancing our lives so that our natural resources aren’t compromised. Some say that is a ‘liberal’ attitude - I say there is nothing more conservative than conserving the Divine gift of our precious natural resources. There’s nothing prudent - the conservative watchword - about recklessly squandering nature - and no true conservative should think so either.

I believe in orginal intent with regards to the Constitution, and any new rights should be manufactured rightfully in a legislature, not the coffee house musings of a judge.

I don’t believe a society should redistribute income in a levelling attempt, but I do believe it is incumbent on any civilized and strong society to protect its weakest members. I also believe we have a duty to help those who cannot help themselves - note, the operative phrase is ‘cannot’. Every dollar given to someone that ‘won’t’ help themselves is a dollar out of the pocket who ‘can’t’ help themselves.

Hmmmmm. That’s about it.

I am a Republican, but it’s not unusual for me to vote Democrat. But since the Democrats have been co-opted by the Left wing that wants to turn the party into an Americanized version of Europe’s Social Democrats, it’s highly unlikely my vote could got to a Democrat in anything higher than a mayor’s race.

65

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
vroom wrote:
…pure anarchy couldn’t be organized…

Isn’t “organized anarchy” a self-contradictory phrase?
[/quote]

And that’s why Canadians claim they have a better educational system than their southern neighbors. Because they do. :slight_smile:

Actually modern anarchists believe in a highly organized collaborative system. By definition, anarchy is simply a system without a central government, and the system they believe in does not have a central government nor a pyramid-style hierarchy or power (and chain of command), so they decided to call it modern anarchy because of that.

So, in a nutshell, anarchy does not mean lack of organization (on the contrary!), just lack of centralized government.

I Googled a bit and found this link that has some reading material if you want:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

(and no, I do not believe anarchy is a good system, because I’m too cynical and find it utopian, but one of my best friends is a modern anarchist and he’s a pretty well adjusted person. Well, sort of. :-))

66

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’ll offer the challenge a second time - Show me where a conservative has inposed his/her will on the public in the same manner as liberals have done.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but don’t you just for a moment think that FORCING people - some of which are NOT Christian - to swear with their hands on a Bible and kids - some of which might not believe in God - say that they trust God is not imposing a view?

I’ll try to spell it out a different way for you, in case you are still in denial.

  1. I’m an atheist.

  2. Don’t you expect me to have a problem:

a) Saying “in God we Trust” as I am pledging my allegiance to this great country?

b) Saying “… so help me God” with my hand on a Bible as I’m swearing to say the truth?

If I didn’t have a problem, wouldn’t that make me, in fact, a blatant liar and hypocrite? Am I wrong in feeling that it betrays my country and myself to be forced to say something I do not believe in the middle of something I do? That it cheapens the rest of what I’m saying?

Is it wrong that I feel that requiring this of people is basically a backdoor, coward way of saying that if you are not a Christian a) you do not belong in this country and b) you must be a liar?

So, again, who is imposing what on who?

(as an aside, I’ll reiterate I do believe it’s equally asinine to ask Christians not to show their faith by having displays of Nativity scenes wherever they please. Or say “Happy Christmas” whenever they please. They should be able to. That’s our right for free speech right there. But that does NOT make you right at pointing your finger solely at the “liberals”, a lot of which, by the way, are Christians too.)

67

[quote]vroom wrote:
Bandgeek, you make my point…[/quote]

How? By asking a question? The following is the dictionary definition of anarchy: “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.” Based on what I have seen, those who seek to attain this utopian society appear to go about achieving it by creating destruction and mayhem via their violent infringement on the rights of property owners, businesses and individuals with whom they disagree. If that isn’t case of forcing your will on everyone else I don’t know WHAT is. Should they achieve their goals, they would BE the de facto government. I will, however, follow the other gentleman’s link for educational purposes.

You know, if you didn’t consistently come off as such a textbook member of the “smarmy, condescending pseudo-intellectual’s” society I might be interested in having a discussion with you.

68

Okay dictionary boy.

Maybe I’ll try to limit my conversations to farts, burps and grunts from now on…

Alternately, if perhaps you say something conversational, it’s possible an actual conversation could happen.

If you do check out the FAQ, check out the part that deals with trying to agree on a definition for anarchy. It’s actually kind of funny.

69

[quote]hspder wrote:
I’m sorry, but don’t you just for a moment think that FORCING people - some of which are NOT Christian - to swear with their hands on a Bible and kids - some of which might not believe in God - say that they trust God is not imposing a view?

I’ll try to spell it out a different way for you, in case you are still in denial.

  1. I’m an atheist.

  2. Don’t you expect me to have a problem:

a) Saying “in God we Trust” as I am pledging my allegiance to this great country?

b) Saying “… so help me God” with my hand on a Bible as I’m swearing to say the truth?

If I didn’t have a problem, wouldn’t that make me, in fact, a blatant liar and hypocrite? Am I wrong in feeling that it betrays my country and myself to be forced to say something I do not believe in the middle of something I do? That it cheapens the rest of what I’m saying?

Is it wrong that I feel that requiring this of people is basically a backdoor, coward way of saying that if you are not a Christian a) you do not belong in this country and b) you must be a liar?

So, again, who is imposing what on who?

(as an aside, I’ll reiterate I do believe it’s equally asinine to ask Christians not to show their faith by having displays of Nativity scenes wherever they please. Or say “Happy Christmas” whenever they please. They should be able to. That’s our right for free speech right there. But that does NOT make you right at pointing your finger solely at the “liberals”, a lot of which, by the way, are Christians too.)
[/quote]

Show me where there is a conservative ‘forcing’ you to do these things. Show me where a conservative has sued - in federal court - to force you to do these things.

Why is it that folks like you feel compelled to blame conservatives - more specifically religious conservatives - for imposing on you things that have been done in this country for years, if not centuries?

Show me something that a CONSERVATIVE has imposed on you. Your example was week as those issues share very broad bipartisan support(for lack of a better term).

geez…

70

Rainjack,

This is an interesting one. I’d think this one is an example of force, because those that don’t believe are forced to contribute via taxation.

I think that many things are done because they are traditions, but some of them are being challenged. Some of them might have an inherent unfairness which is forced upon others.

Look out, the lord of gray is descending! I warned you. Anyway, what is force but imposing your viewpoint on another? If this has been done for generations and turns into a tradition, does it still not constitute force, even if we are so used to it that we barely even notice?

Anyway, not trying to get all condescending and smarmy, but trying to ask a question. I think both sides are guilty of forcing their views on others, though it isn’t always easy to see how they might think so.

Also, the atheist point of view with respect to pledging allegiance or swearing an oath was pretty interesting as well. However, instead of the black and white course of removing these and stopping everyone from saying them, howabout offering a choice.

Do you want to say the traditional pledge or the modernized pledge? How would you like to give oath? Conservatives can practice their traditions while modernists can do otherwise…

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
This is an interesting one. I’d think this one is an example of force, because those that don’t believe are forced to contribute via taxation.

I think that many things are done because they are traditions, but some of them are being challenged. Some of them might have an inherent unfairness which is forced upon others.

Look out, the lord of gray is descending! [/quote]

Without disturbing His Grayness - I’m not arguing for the continuation of tradition. I’m not arguing against it either.

My point is very very simple. There are those on this thread - deano, if I’m not mistaken - who said it was the doings of the conservatives that have forced these traditions on the poor, defensless athiest. It is not the doings of unscrupulous, power hungry right-wing religous zealots that have forced these traditions on an unsuspecting public. It is tradition - supported by the vast majority of all Americans.

How is it that conservatives are forcing anything on anyone?
No one making the charges seems capable of answering this simple question - yet they have no problem making a bullshit baseless charge.

72

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Show me where there is a conservative ‘forcing’ you to do these things.
[/quote]

Huh? Are you insane? Really, are you? Try going to court in Texas and try explaining to them you don’t what to them to say the “so help me God” part. Nor put your hand on the Bible. Try it. Then tell me what happened.

Then, try to convince a kid not to say the “in God we trust” part in the PofA at school. Try it. Then tell me what happened to him.

Oh please. You keep missing my point and making it at the same time! It’s incredible!

Read up some, and then come back and answer my question: who added the “in God we trust” part to the PofA and who added the “so help me God” part to the swearing-in.

I want dates, names and political affiliations.

When you answer that, we can continue this conversation.

73

[quote]hspder wrote:
Huh? Are you insane? Really, are you? Try going to court in Texas and try explaining to them you don’t what to them to say the “so help me God” part. Nor put your hand on the Bible. Try it. Then tell me what happened. [/quote]

Once again - how is that a conservative plot to impose anything on you? It’s tradition, supported by both conservatives and liberals. Honestly, with just a tad of common sense, my point is not that hard to comprehend.

Or what? He’ll be put in jail? I grew up with Jehova’s Witnesses - they never said the pledge, never participated in the ‘state mandated’ christmas parties, never sang the SSB. No one in black coats hauled them off. They didn’t spend any time in the Texas re-orientation camps. In fact they graduated highschool the same night I did. Your accusation is pure bullshit.

Sorry pal, you’ve got this sentence in the wrong freakin post if you think you’ve made anything even remotely resembling a point.

[quote]Read up some, and then come back and answer my question: who added the “in God we trust” part to the PofA and who added the “so help me God” part to the swearing-in.

When you answer that, we can continue this conversation.
[/quote]

The aforementioned phrases were adopted by congress - that means they had to vote on it. You do understand the principle behind voting, right? By it’s very nature, it precludes any one person - namely evil conservatives in this case - from imposing their will on the public.

I have not the time nor the desire to do your research for you. I’m sure the answers are there if you’ll pull your head out of your ass long enough to look it up.

Now that’s how you make a back-handed comment, deano.

74

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The aforementioned phrases were adopted by congress - that means they had to vote on it. You do understand the principle behind voting, right? By it’s very nature, it precludes any one person - namely evil conservatives in this case - from imposing their will on the public.
[/quote]

Where did I say that evil conservatives where the only ones imposing anything? Tell me, please, maybe I developed amnesia. You asked:

You did not specify that they had to be alone doing it. So I answered your challenge by giving you what you asked for: examples were conservatives participated in an imposition on a group of people, even if it’s a very small minority.

Is your reply “yeah, but liberals supported those views too”? Fine. Does that make absolutely any difference to me? No, because I really don’t care about the political affiliation of whoever is imposing any view on me - it’s the imposing I don’t like.

Now, are you implying that if 99% of congress approves of something and makes into law, that is not imposing it on the other 1%? Are you saying that if the majority imposes a decision on a minority, it’s not realy imposing and the minority should just shut up?

If your answer is yes, I guess next thing I know you’ll start saying that slavery was OK, because the majority of people in this country supported it for a while, and, after all, those black dudes where just a small minority.

The fact that something is supported by a majority does not make it right or non-imposing. And while many of these impositions are OK because they are do benefit everyone, or at least the majority of people, without necessarily hurting anyone, I have yet to understand how trying to impose your belief system on other people benefits ANYONE, including yourself - while it does hurt some people.

Can’t you recognize a rethorical question when you see one? I know the answer, I just thought that if you read it from a History book you’d open your mind for a moment, and understand the mindset that allowed these things to have been approved when they were.

Guess I was wrong… But your unwillingness to do 5 minutes of research does explain a lot…

It actually reminds me why some people are conservative: because change is a lot of work, and just saying “we do it because it’s tradition” is so much easier than cracking a book and understanding why we do it…

75

hpspdr,
When was the last time you were thrown in jail for not saying “Under God” in the pledge, or for not saying anything for that matter? It is not mandatory that you say something, and it is not punishable by law if you don’t.
You should try the free agent/moral imperative style of existance that I wrote about earlier.

76

[quote]hspder wrote:

Where did I say that evil conservatives where the only ones imposing anything? Tell me, please, maybe I developed amnesia. You asked:
[/quote]

If you will read the part of the thread where deansunomo attacks conservatives for imposing their beliefs on everyone…oh that’s right your to busy asking rhetorical questions to actually know what the hell is going on. Here - I’ll copy and paste part of it here so you won’t have to look for it.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I personally can’t believe why anyone would define themselves as a conservative, spending their lives trying to think of things to tell others not to do.

Please, please tell me one the thing that ‘conservatives’ are spending their lives telling you not to do. Abortion? Hardly a conservative-only position. Gay marraige? - same thing. Drugs? - ditto.

If we bother you so much - why don’t you ignore us? I really can’t remember spending a single moment of my life telling you not to do anything - except maybe triceps kickbacks.

If truth be told - it’s the left in this country that want to take things from us, and tell us not to do things. Socialism is the new heartbeat of the left.

Show me where a conservative has inposed his/her will on the public in the same manner as liberals have done. [/quote]

This was the start of the argument. This was the charge, and this was my reply. Whatever it is that you want to meld the debate into is a tangent to this ORIGINAL accusation that I have been defending pretty much all day.

[quote]Now, are you implying that if 99% of congress approves of something and makes into law, that is not imposing it on the other 1%? Are you saying that if the majority imposes a decision on a minority, it’s not realy imposing and the minority should just shut up?

If your answer is yes, I guess next thing I know you’ll start saying that slavery was OK, because the majority of people in this country supported it for a while, and, after all, those black dudes where just a small minority. [/quote]

If the majority rules - then by your example, yes the 1% are going to feel imposed on. Are you suggesting that the 1% rule the other 99% If not, then what is your point? Slavery was voted out by a majority - to bring that up is just silly. Why not dredge up women’s suffrage? Oh yeah - that was voted on by a majority. Are you even beginning to see the fallacy of your examples, yet?

Majority has nothing to do with the conservatives imposing their will on everyone - which is waht deano charged.

Look - re-read my posts on this thread. All of them - not just my banter with you. If you can’t see that my point is miles away from what you are saying it is here, then you need help. You’re pulling crap out of left field that I never espoused. Read what I wrote.

77

and p.s. since you like history, you are such a diligent study and you brought up the topic of slavery, what were the political and economic orientations of the two sides of our civil war?
What party was Lincoln?
These aren’t rhetorical.

78

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Look - re-read my posts on this thread. All of them - not just my banter with you. If you can’t see that my point is miles away from what you are saying it is here, then you need help. You’re pulling crap out of left field that I never espoused. Read what I wrote.
[/quote]

I know perfectly what your point is - that a) conservatives are not about imposing their views on others and b) liberals are the ones imposing their views.

Since my previous explanations didn’t seem to be understood by you, I’ll explain what my problem with that view is in a 3-step, simpler way. I’ll even take it sentence by sentence so you can spell out for me what you feel is untrue:

  1. US conservatives, on their basis, are all about tradition, tradional values, and morals - keeping things as they are. By definition, conservatism is:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

We agree at least on that, no?

  1. A lot of established traditions in this country ARE imposing the beliefs of a majority on a minority.

In the case of the PofA, it is over 100 years old, but only in 1954 it was ammended to include “Under God”, under Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon’s watch and just at the tail-end of McCarthyism (my personal favorite witch hunt of all time!). The intent of the congress at the time, which was dominated by conservatives, was specifically to make it clear to everybody that any true American had to believe in God because any atheist had to be a Red.

On the other hand, the “so help me God” is there because, in fact, when the swear-in was designed people believed that only faith would prevent you from lying. Again, read it up if you don’t believe me.

I know neither are compulsory - making them compulsory would actually violate the US constitution. But conservatives do defend them, and they DO try to impose them every way they can, even if they are not brave enough to amend the constitution to make such impositions legally binding.

But trust me, give it a try and see the kind of looks and reactions you’ll get when you go to court and ask to swear or a US history book instead of the Bible…

While you’re at it, go around and ask what they think of Jehovah’s witnesses. Better yet, pretend you’re one and see people’s reactions… and convince me people are not judging you for that. Yes, conservatives will be judgemental even of other conservatives as long as they have different beliefs…

  1. So basically conservatives do not effectively impose their views because the constitution does not let them - not because they wouldn’t if they could. And Intent is a big thing… especially when you have an Ultra-Conservative President and a Conservative-dominated Congress and Senate.

It’s, essentially, a passive-agressive stance of intent on imposing without actually having the legalities to back you.

By the way, irrespective of the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, by definition he was NOT a conservative.

What happened in the meantime? In the 50’s the Republicans, in the middle of the above-mentioned witchhunt, labeled themselves the Conservative Party and labeled the Democrats as the crazy dangerous leftists that would sell us all to the Reds. Before then things were very different…

Actually, right about until - guess when, the late 50’s! - most minorities voted Republican. That changed when those minorties started realizing that the big abrupt change that was needed would never come from… conservatives.

79

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
and p.s. since you like history, you are such a diligent study and you brought up the topic of slavery, what were the political and economic orientations of the two sides of our civil war?
What party was Lincoln?
These aren’t rhetorical.
[/quote]

I’ve touched that in the above post, but let me elaborate.

Lincoln was a Republican, but he subscribed to liberal views, both politically and economically. He wanted an abrupt change. He didn’t even go to Church (even though he believed in God), something apparently was seen as really unusual at the time.

Want an example of his views? He once said:

"
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
"

The “South” - the Confederates - was, on record and in practice, conservative and economically proteccionist.

The leaders of the Confederates were also very vocal about their Christianity, contrary to Lincoln (who rarely mentioned God in his speeches). The Confederates seemed to use His name at every opportunity. As an example, one of the most often-quoted speeches of Jackson is this one:

“And Thou knowest O Lord, that when Thou didst decide that the Confederacy should not succeed, Thou hadst first to remove Thy servant, Stonewall Jackson.”

By the way, to see how things evolved to today, look at this map and see if it looks slightly similar to something you’ve seen lately:

80

Hypothetical.

I am a business owner.

Are not Equal Employment laws that prevent me from discriminating in my hiring of minorities imposing on my freedom?

After all, maybe I think Blacks are inferior and poor workers, maybe I think women should be in the home, maybe I think Catholics are all going to Hell and I don’t want them in my place of work - which I own.

But based on federal law, I couldn’t fire any one of those classes of people based on my beliefs, which could actually be rooted in something as fundamental as my religious beliefs.

For those crying about ‘imposing’ beliefs on you, you willling to reverse the Civil Rights Act and employment discrimination laws on the same basis?