I don't want to go too far off course in this thread with the abortion issue, but you can find some thoughts of mine on the subject in this old thread.
My main guiding principle toward the proper role of government comes from the simple principle that the proper function of government is to protect individual liberty to the maximum extent that allows all people to enjoy the same degree of liberty. Following the old saying "Your right to swing your fist ends a my nose", the government's role would be to have laws to discourage you from reaching my nose with your fist, and to step in and penalize you under those laws if you do.
You can derive a great deal of sensible common values from the above starting point. Under such a system an individual can enjoy great personal religious freedom, for instance. The only thing that isn't satisfying about this view of freedom for some believers is that these believers aren't content to merely run their own lives according to their own religious principles -- some won't be satisfied unless some or all of their religious precepts are enforced on everyone else as well.
You get freedom to worship as you choose. You don't get freedom from having to hear someone else express contrary religious views. You get the freedom to teach your children your own beliefs, but you don't get to obligate everyone else to follow those beliefs just because you want your children surrounded by an exemplary world where everyone does exactly as your religion commands or gets punished.
A "maximum liberty" basis for law, however, doesn't get you anywhere with the abortion issue, because the whole question boils down to who gets consideration as an individual whose liberty should be honored and protected.
[B]Be afriad shetline! The Christians are coming to get you!
Hell, Christians would be fine. The problem is this country hardly has any left. What's in this country masquerading as a Christian are some people seriously in need of some mental help.
Do a search and replace on this thread for "Christian" and replace it with "Jew" and then see how insane this idea is.
Mr. Goldstein is probably correct in stating that there is much to really worry about from the American Christian Right, but there are some differences between the old crackpot favorite of Jewish conspiracy theories and the worries some of us have about certain brands of Christianity.
One big thing is that if you want find strange and worrisome things said by right-wing Christians, you don't have to make the stuff up. Just tune in programs like the 700 Club, check out many easy-to-find web sites, or simply talk to a conveniently located born-again relative or message board denizen.
What concerns me about many such Christians comes directly from what they as responsible adults choose to espouse -- it's not like I have an unreasoned fear of something like an ethnic background which a person has no control over, or fear based on things that other people make up about these Christians who fit into what could be called a "Dominionist" point of view.
Right wing Christianity is called "right wing" because it's not just about religion, it's about politics. Do you think that just because someone ties their politics to their religion that this somehow puts criticism of their philosopy and political agenda out of bounds?
But you wouldn't mind such low standards be applied to people in Egypt?
And if it's about comfort, secular Egyptians can manage roughly the same lifestyle as yours, but not as overtly so.
I apply the same standards to all myself, which is why I find your ?fundamentalists? to be quite on the soft side, and mostly ineffectual.
I'm applying the same standards to everyone too, and I'd much prefer it if everyone in the world had as much and more freedom than Americans do. Even if secular Egyptian can essentialy "get away with" something more like my own lifestyle by being low-key and having to hide how they feel except from trusted friends and relatives -- I hardly consider that good enough. It's a tragedy for the Egyptian people, and getting to that kind of point would be a tragedy for Americans or anyone else -- regardless of how relatively "soft" or "hard" the some particular brand of fundamentalism responsible for curtailed freedoms might be compared to the worst imaginable cases.
Quote:
For your fears to materialise you'd need much more than that: an active resolve to advance a clerical state.
Some of my fears don't require that much of an established political aparatus. An American President can cause a lot of trouble all by himself or with just a few close aids.
Hell, Christians would be fine. The problem is this country hardly has any left. What's in this country masquerading as a Christian are some people seriously in need of some mental help.
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Or that you're just an idiot masquerading as a sane human being?
Stop with the name calling and address the issues.
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Or that you're just an idiot masquerading as a sane human being?
Stop with the name calling and address the issues.
You are absurdly touchy and missing the point entirely. He is NOT calling Christians 'mental cases' but is calling people who are hell-bent on power in the guise of 'Christainity" mental cases . . . as they are, and since their particular take on said religion (which is fine in-itself) demands unnatural forms of repression and denial of healthy human urges and desires and sublimates those repressed inclinations into thier lust for power and control via politics: they are not merely 'nut case whackos' but 'mental cases turned borderline socio-paths' taking thier repressed healthy inclinations and inwardly torturing them then expressing them outwardly as power hunger and, yes IMO, masked hatred and resentment!!
. . . but it isn't about Christ at all . . . only in name . . . but as we all know just you can't turn cows into dogs just by calling them dogs . . . .
You are absurdly touchy and missing the point entirely. He is NOT calling Christians 'mental cases' but is calling people who are hell-bent on power in the guise of 'Christainity" mental cases . . .
And while I've seen a lot of hot air and handwringing in this thread (and some good posts by Shetline and Immanuel G.) I have as yet seen no evidence presented as to who these "right-wing Christians-in-name-only" are and how they supposedly plan to take political power.
The only names that are being thrown out are Robertson, Falwell and Graham. While these guys have made some unpopular statements and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no evidence of a conspiracy. They have always worked through democratic and legislative channels.
Scott's right. This thread is reminding me more and more of the old Jewish Conspiracy idea that persons of Jewish descent (always un-named) were conspiring to take over the Government/Financial system/Hollywood - depending on which day of the week it was.
I guess it's more PC these days to pick on Evangelicals.
The only names that are being thrown out are Robertson, Falwell and Graham. While these guys have made some unpopular statements and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no evidence of a conspiracy. They have always worked through democratic and legislative channels.
First of all, before going on with what I'm about to say, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning about finding "The Despoiling of America" a bit paranoid and over the top.
I have, however, seen in person what you might call a "little conspiracy" in real life, in a nearby town several years back, a type of incident which I recall from news reports around that time was not unique to my area.
Google is an amazing -- I was able to dig up a link to a press release about this incident, where a few members of the Merrimack, NH school board caught the town by surprise when they tried to pass some anti-gay school policies.
How did these people get on the school board? They ran as "stealth candidates". They didn't advertise at all what their agenda was, they simply took advantage of voter apathy on local issues and quietly slipped into the school board with the help of a dedicated minority of voters who were in on the plan.
The townspeople themselves were of course to blame, in part, for their own apathy. At the same time, it's also dishonest to hide what your agenda is to take advantage of a situation like this. Even if these people did work "through democratic and legislative channels", they did so in what I'd call a conspiratorial way, and they had a national organization, the Christian Coalition, supporting their efforts.
Funny, I remember several years ago in Ontario an urban school board suddenly implemented a curriculum which was gay-affirming (and even discussed the authoritanism and wife and child beatings which were said to be rampant in heterosexual relationships.)
At the time, there way an outcry that mirrored your last reply, but "stealth" candidates from the city's gay community were blamed. If you switched the group name, the arguments were word for word from your post.
The system can be hijacked temporarily by any side, but I believe that as long as everybody involved stays committed to democratic and legislated framework, we're fine.
i will have to find the Harper's article about the guy who was in the Christian group that holds that Pancake Breakfast . . . I mentioned the article above and in another thread . . . they are a real group, they are rich and powerful and their ideas are scary and unChristian, as far as I understand them. . . . although they obviously don't think so.
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Coming from you it would sound pretty absurd considering you're not even American and you don't live in the US either.
Re: the Christian right...when Bush came out saying he would seek a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, most analysts, from the left and the right called it courting the christian right. Google is your friend. There's a lot of far right religious "fans" in the Bush admin. From speech writers such as Michael Gerson(been known to throw in evangelical christian song lyrics in speeches every once in a while)to Ashcroft.
Quote:
The system can be hijacked temporarily by any side, but I believe that as long as everybody involved stays committed to democratic and legislated framework, we're fine.
Heh, that's the problem. The "Democratic and legislative" frameworks can be "stretched" too much and infringe on others' beliefs.
Mr. Goldstein is probably correct in stating that there is much to really worry about from the American Christian Right,?
Actually what I stated is that there isn't much to worry from the U.S. current administration being right-wing with Christian leanings.
Quote:
?but there are some differences between the old crackpot favorite of Jewish conspiracy theories and the worries some of us have about certain brands of Christianity.
That doesn't make such worries warranted, given the lack of tangible action in that direction by the administration. It all seems to me like the resentment other segments of the U.S. public had for the previous adminsitration which they also suspected of working to alter the domestic status-quo, which was not the case either.
The U.S.A. is politically geared toward keeping that status quo, which is greatly contributing to the relative higher stability of its regime, but also to the slower pace of its political changes, one way or another.
Quote:
One big thing is that if you want find strange and worrisome things said by right-wing Christians, you don't have to make the stuff up. Just tune in programs like the 700 Club, check out many easy-to-find web sites, or simply talk to a conveniently located born-again relative or message board denizen.
I have found things strange (but oh so familiar, see the above various crackpot conspiracy theories, etc.) worrisome to me, said by people who believe themsleves to be enlightened and liberal, on mainstream print and broadcast media, from ignorant pedestrian slander to full-blown blood-libel worthy of the Okhrana; including on this very message board. However, aware that a few cossaks do not a pogrom make, I am not crying wolf .
Quote:
I'm applying the same standards to everyone too, and I'd much prefer it if everyone in the world had as much and more freedom than Americans do.
So you can see that even the most extreme of your country's ?fundamentalists? are quite tame in comparison for what passes (and is being praised) for being ?moderate? elsewhere. They are tame precisley because the mainly secular, modern, democratic, stable society in which the exist is able to neutralise their virulence, not only in the scope of their aspirations, but in their actual ability to further them, as well.
Quote:
Some of my fears don't require that much of an established political aparatus.
Apparatus like some ?Christian States of America??
Quote:
An American President can cause a lot of trouble all by himself or with just a few close aids.
The record of the the present presidential term can be seen, said president and his aides have not attempted to challenge the status-quo. And had they tried, they would have found it to be an improbable uphill battle given the fact of the political construction of the U.S.A. favouring stability over abrupt change.
The only trouble they caused in that respect has mostly been some unpleasant noise.
This said, being a modern society is no overriding antidote against extemism. Nevertheless, for the latter to become virulent it needs its target society to be unstable enough, and the rule of law weak enough, so the public can be tempted and overriden.
Good point sergovius on the pre-millenial, self-fullfilling prophecy thing.
As a post-millenial type that gave me pause. Shetline---PM the blueprints for your bunker!
In reality though, I think that (generalizing) even as hard-core calvinistic as the colonies were, the constitution that that mood produced was the pinnacle of freedom for the world.
This isn't a coincidence, the rules Chistians play by, or should, don't exactly provide for the institution of a secret police.
The problem I have with Bush is that he's attaching his ideology with Christianity, much the same way Reagan connected Free Market Economy with Democracy.
What Bush likes to sign into law has nothing to do with Christianity. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. Fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with Christianity. But he likes to align himself with Christians, and ultimately what people believe is Christianity will change. People now actually equate Free Market Economies with Freedom and the United States and Democracy. It's a fallacy perpetuated by poor ideology and mass marketing.
I don't like to see the same thing happen with religion. It's dangerous and the people that support it are disturbed.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
let's see how okay this photo of a legal act is
I don't want to go too far off course in this thread with the abortion issue, but you can find some thoughts of mine on the subject in this old thread.
My main guiding principle toward the proper role of government comes from the simple principle that the proper function of government is to protect individual liberty to the maximum extent that allows all people to enjoy the same degree of liberty. Following the old saying "Your right to swing your fist ends a my nose", the government's role would be to have laws to discourage you from reaching my nose with your fist, and to step in and penalize you under those laws if you do.
You can derive a great deal of sensible common values from the above starting point. Under such a system an individual can enjoy great personal religious freedom, for instance. The only thing that isn't satisfying about this view of freedom for some believers is that these believers aren't content to merely run their own lives according to their own religious principles -- some won't be satisfied unless some or all of their religious precepts are enforced on everyone else as well.
You get freedom to worship as you choose. You don't get freedom from having to hear someone else express contrary religious views. You get the freedom to teach your children your own beliefs, but you don't get to obligate everyone else to follow those beliefs just because you want your children surrounded by an exemplary world where everyone does exactly as your religion commands or gets punished.
A "maximum liberty" basis for law, however, doesn't get you anywhere with the abortion issue, because the whole question boils down to who gets consideration as an individual whose liberty should be honored and protected.
Is Bush a Christian? ha!..what a joke.. Sounds more like an "anti-Christian" to me.
Not the anti-Christ[ian] ?
Originally posted by dmz
[B]Be afriad shetline! The Christians are coming to get you!
Hell, Christians would be fine. The problem is this country hardly has any left. What's in this country masquerading as a Christian are some people seriously in need of some mental help.
Originally posted by Scott
Do a search and replace on this thread for "Christian" and replace it with "Jew" and then see how insane this idea is.
Well it certainly wouldn't make sense anymore.
Originally posted by Scott
Do a search and replace on this thread for "Christian" and replace it with "Jew" and then see how insane this idea is.
Mr. Goldstein is probably correct in stating that there is much to really worry about from the American Christian Right, but there are some differences between the old crackpot favorite of Jewish conspiracy theories and the worries some of us have about certain brands of Christianity.
One big thing is that if you want find strange and worrisome things said by right-wing Christians, you don't have to make the stuff up. Just tune in programs like the 700 Club, check out many easy-to-find web sites, or simply talk to a conveniently located born-again relative or message board denizen.
What concerns me about many such Christians comes directly from what they as responsible adults choose to espouse -- it's not like I have an unreasoned fear of something like an ethnic background which a person has no control over, or fear based on things that other people make up about these Christians who fit into what could be called a "Dominionist" point of view.
Right wing Christianity is called "right wing" because it's not just about religion, it's about politics. Do you think that just because someone ties their politics to their religion that this somehow puts criticism of their philosopy and political agenda out of bounds?
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
But you wouldn't mind such low standards be applied to people in Egypt?
And if it's about comfort, secular Egyptians can manage roughly the same lifestyle as yours, but not as overtly so.
I apply the same standards to all myself, which is why I find your ?fundamentalists? to be quite on the soft side, and mostly ineffectual.
I'm applying the same standards to everyone too, and I'd much prefer it if everyone in the world had as much and more freedom than Americans do. Even if secular Egyptian can essentialy "get away with" something more like my own lifestyle by being low-key and having to hide how they feel except from trusted friends and relatives -- I hardly consider that good enough. It's a tragedy for the Egyptian people, and getting to that kind of point would be a tragedy for Americans or anyone else -- regardless of how relatively "soft" or "hard" the some particular brand of fundamentalism responsible for curtailed freedoms might be compared to the worst imaginable cases.
For your fears to materialise you'd need much more than that: an active resolve to advance a clerical state.
Some of my fears don't require that much of an established political aparatus. An American President can cause a lot of trouble all by himself or with just a few close aids.
Originally posted by bunge
Hell, Christians would be fine. The problem is this country hardly has any left. What's in this country masquerading as a Christian are some people seriously in need of some mental help.
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Or that you're just an idiot masquerading as a sane human being?
Stop with the name calling and address the issues.
Originally posted by Frank777
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Or that you're just an idiot masquerading as a sane human being?
Stop with the name calling and address the issues.
You are absurdly touchy and missing the point entirely. He is NOT calling Christians 'mental cases' but is calling people who are hell-bent on power in the guise of 'Christainity" mental cases . . . as they are, and since their particular take on said religion (which is fine in-itself) demands unnatural forms of repression and denial of healthy human urges and desires and sublimates those repressed inclinations into thier lust for power and control via politics: they are not merely 'nut case whackos' but 'mental cases turned borderline socio-paths' taking thier repressed healthy inclinations and inwardly torturing them then expressing them outwardly as power hunger and, yes IMO, masked hatred and resentment!!
. . . but it isn't about Christ at all . . . only in name . . . but as we all know just you can't turn cows into dogs just by calling them dogs . . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
You are absurdly touchy and missing the point entirely. He is NOT calling Christians 'mental cases' but is calling people who are hell-bent on power in the guise of 'Christainity" mental cases . . .
And while I've seen a lot of hot air and handwringing in this thread (and some good posts by Shetline and Immanuel G.) I have as yet seen no evidence presented as to who these "right-wing Christians-in-name-only" are and how they supposedly plan to take political power.
The only names that are being thrown out are Robertson, Falwell and Graham. While these guys have made some unpopular statements and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no evidence of a conspiracy. They have always worked through democratic and legislative channels.
Scott's right. This thread is reminding me more and more of the old Jewish Conspiracy idea that persons of Jewish descent (always un-named) were conspiring to take over the Government/Financial system/Hollywood - depending on which day of the week it was.
I guess it's more PC these days to pick on Evangelicals.
Originally posted by dmz
Also, there will be more oral sex in High School Chem lab---and that's final.
Excellent.
Originally posted by Frank777
The only names that are being thrown out are Robertson, Falwell and Graham. While these guys have made some unpopular statements and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no evidence of a conspiracy. They have always worked through democratic and legislative channels.
First of all, before going on with what I'm about to say, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning about finding "The Despoiling of America" a bit paranoid and over the top.
I have, however, seen in person what you might call a "little conspiracy" in real life, in a nearby town several years back, a type of incident which I recall from news reports around that time was not unique to my area.
Google is an amazing -- I was able to dig up a link to a press release about this incident, where a few members of the Merrimack, NH school board caught the town by surprise when they tried to pass some anti-gay school policies.
How did these people get on the school board? They ran as "stealth candidates". They didn't advertise at all what their agenda was, they simply took advantage of voter apathy on local issues and quietly slipped into the school board with the help of a dedicated minority of voters who were in on the plan.
The townspeople themselves were of course to blame, in part, for their own apathy. At the same time, it's also dishonest to hide what your agenda is to take advantage of a situation like this. Even if these people did work "through democratic and legislative channels", they did so in what I'd call a conspiratorial way, and they had a national organization, the Christian Coalition, supporting their efforts.
At the time, there way an outcry that mirrored your last reply, but "stealth" candidates from the city's gay community were blamed. If you switched the group name, the arguments were word for word from your post.
The system can be hijacked temporarily by any side, but I believe that as long as everybody involved stays committed to democratic and legislated framework, we're fine.
but right now I must sleepy-gleepy
Originally posted by Frank777
How does it sound when I say you'd be a mental case for voting Democratic?
Coming from you it would sound pretty absurd considering you're not even American and you don't live in the US either.
Re: the Christian right...when Bush came out saying he would seek a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, most analysts, from the left and the right called it courting the christian right. Google is your friend. There's a lot of far right religious "fans" in the Bush admin. From speech writers such as Michael Gerson(been known to throw in evangelical christian song lyrics in speeches every once in a while)to Ashcroft.
The system can be hijacked temporarily by any side, but I believe that as long as everybody involved stays committed to democratic and legislated framework, we're fine.
Heh, that's the problem. The "Democratic and legislative" frameworks can be "stretched" too much and infringe on others' beliefs.
Originally posted by shetline
Mr. Goldstein is probably correct in stating that there is much to really worry about from the American Christian Right,?
Actually what I stated is that there isn't much to worry from the U.S. current administration being right-wing with Christian leanings.
?but there are some differences between the old crackpot favorite of Jewish conspiracy theories and the worries some of us have about certain brands of Christianity.
That doesn't make such worries warranted, given the lack of tangible action in that direction by the administration. It all seems to me like the resentment other segments of the U.S. public had for the previous adminsitration which they also suspected of working to alter the domestic status-quo, which was not the case either.
The U.S.A. is politically geared toward keeping that status quo, which is greatly contributing to the relative higher stability of its regime, but also to the slower pace of its political changes, one way or another.
One big thing is that if you want find strange and worrisome things said by right-wing Christians, you don't have to make the stuff up. Just tune in programs like the 700 Club, check out many easy-to-find web sites, or simply talk to a conveniently located born-again relative or message board denizen.
I have found things strange (but oh so familiar, see the above various crackpot conspiracy theories, etc.) worrisome to me, said by people who believe themsleves to be enlightened and liberal, on mainstream print and broadcast media, from ignorant pedestrian slander to full-blown blood-libel worthy of the Okhrana; including on this very message board. However, aware that a few cossaks do not a pogrom make, I am not crying wolf .
I'm applying the same standards to everyone too, and I'd much prefer it if everyone in the world had as much and more freedom than Americans do.
So you can see that even the most extreme of your country's ?fundamentalists? are quite tame in comparison for what passes (and is being praised) for being ?moderate? elsewhere. They are tame precisley because the mainly secular, modern, democratic, stable society in which the exist is able to neutralise their virulence, not only in the scope of their aspirations, but in their actual ability to further them, as well.
Some of my fears don't require that much of an established political aparatus.
Apparatus like some ?Christian States of America??
An American President can cause a lot of trouble all by himself or with just a few close aids.
The record of the the present presidential term can be seen, said president and his aides have not attempted to challenge the status-quo. And had they tried, they would have found it to be an improbable uphill battle given the fact of the political construction of the U.S.A. favouring stability over abrupt change.
The only trouble they caused in that respect has mostly been some unpleasant noise.
As a post-millenial type that gave me pause. Shetline---PM the blueprints for your bunker!
In reality though, I think that (generalizing) even as hard-core calvinistic as the colonies were, the constitution that that mood produced was the pinnacle of freedom for the world.
This isn't a coincidence, the rules Chistians play by, or should, don't exactly provide for the institution of a secret police.
What Bush likes to sign into law has nothing to do with Christianity. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. Fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with Christianity. But he likes to align himself with Christians, and ultimately what people believe is Christianity will change. People now actually equate Free Market Economies with Freedom and the United States and Democracy. It's a fallacy perpetuated by poor ideology and mass marketing.
I don't like to see the same thing happen with religion. It's dangerous and the people that support it are disturbed.