An Open Question To The Left Wing

[NetGear]

How can you do it?

[doctorthinker]

for sanity. for everyones freedom (not just white upper middle class straight christians)


Liberals ended slavery and fought racism.

Liberals strictly limited child labor and demanded dignity and fairness for working people.

Liberals fought against establishment of an official state religion.

Liberals like Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin defined the logic and philosophy of our nation in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

I will concede some of the left (like the right) go too far. Gays should have rights , just no more rights than any of the rest of us, for example. Nor should there be "homosexual" missionaries sent into our schools. Maybe sexual counselors for those children who are feeling sexually confused and need to talk to someone because their parents are too conservative and would rather punish them than undrestand them. I have two friends who were abused both physically and emotionally once their parents discovered thwy were gay.

I believe you have the right to worship your god(s) how you see fit. Spend 7 days a week in church. Affects me not.

Don't pull my radio shows because you deem it "indescent". Stay away from the internet, in a feeble attempt to "protect the children" . Since when do children's rights supercede those of ADULTS. Last time I checked children have no rights until they reach 18. hmmmm?

You can easily DISCIPLINE your children and take responsiblity for THEIR ACTIONS. And their will always be some form of pornography in the world, that's a reality. If your faith is tested or your senses offended by what you hear and see. Don't look at it. Don't listen to it. That's your right, don't take my options away from me because your not satisfied with my "sinful" lifestyle. That's impeding MY RIGHTS, my life IS NOT your responsiblity and that oppresion of another is WROOOONG.

Speaking of the religious right as a whole. Not all christians, some are actually pretty hip.

Anyway, the point is that healthy debate form both sides is just that "healthy". Their should be a healthy dose of right, left, and middle viewpoints to avoid total consumption from either side.

[NetGear]

There is a distinct difference between the Left Wing and Liberalism. In fact, the Left Wing has given Liberalism a very bad name.

So, again, the question goes to the Left Wing -- how do you defend or support a Jihad bomber's intentional slaughtering of innocent peoples?

[doctorthinker]

then my mistake, on this issue i think we actually agree. :shock:

[NetGear]

:bigeek:
...but, that's actually a good thing. :)

[B. Ungaro]

Net,

Your examples are making use of the extreme. However your point is valid. Let me explain:

Religion of any grade or flavor intermingled into policies precludes DEMOCRACY or CIVILITY. It elevates one religion and denigrates all others. Thsi is why Israel practices aparthide and the USA is moving in that direction.

Good point.

[NetGear]

Yeah, I would call the Islamic Jihad extreme...

[seattlegal]

I have a theory regarding this trend: Just as we are witnessing the polarization along the left-right political axis in this country, this trend is showing the polarization along the other axis of the political compass: that of Authoritarianism-Libertarianism...

[pbrauer]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I have a theory regarding this trend: Just as we are witnessing the polarization along the left-right political axis in this country, this trend is showing the polarization along the other axis of the political compass: that of Authoritarianism-Libertarianism...

Ok, shoot. What is it?

[Don R.]

Well, on Booger's latest post I rate it a "2" for "America Bad" and a "5" for religion bad. Way to go, Booger you continue to prove my point.

[B. Ungaro]

OK, Don,

Please answer this. Is it possible for a Nation to be a DEMOCRACY if it
allows Religious Beliefs to enter into policy making?

[Don R.]

Uh, Booger first of all, the U.S.A. is not a "democracy." Any eight grade civics student knows this. The U.S.A. is a "constitutional republic." You should have learned this fact when you supposedly studied to take your citizenship test.

As far as Christianity entering into the equation, Booger we have been around that block before. The U.S.A. was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and ethics and the Founding Fathers were not primarily "deists" as you and your kind would have us believe. They were primarily Christians.

Booger still gets a 2 and a 5. Sorry Booger, you can't add them up for a 7. Those are the rules.

[NetGear]

U.S.A. is not a "democracy."

Bingo. Even I have to remind myself of that fact, on occasion. We might want to consider this when dealing with Iraq.

[rachel]

I wonder how we ended up using the word "democracy" all the time anyway...is it just that "constitutional republic" is too much of a mouthful? I've also heard the term "representational republic"...which isn't any better, of course.

Our country's government is by representation of the people. A vast majority of our people believe in God and revere the teachings of the Bible (even if we don't always do so well in following them). Therefore, for our government to exist as it is supposed to do, by representing the people, expunging every trace of God from every governmental branch and function is not only unneccessary, it makes a mockery of the idea of a government for the people, by the people.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Supreme Court decisions over the years that have changed the former into the latter need to be revisited.

[doctorthinker]

ok i can't resist...

how exactly would more religious influence, possibly dictating law, change our society/culture for the better?

[seattlegal]

how exactly would more religious influence, possibly dictating law, change our society/culture for the better?

Well, if the Secular Humanists would lighten up a bit regarding individual religious expression by the students in the schools, this might be a place to start. Individual religious expression should not be prohibited in public schools, libraries, or parks. Let the firemen put up Nativity scenes at the fire stations, if they wish. Let the Muslim girls wear their headscarfs to school, if they wish. The courts are supposed to protect our religious freedoms, so why can't people donate religious artwork, like the Ten Commandmants, for display at on court grounds as a reminder of this? Why not post the Buddhaist Four Noble Truths? It's not just about Judeo-Christian beliefs, its about all beliefs.

You might argue that some might be offended by such religious display, and that it would cause disruptions. I'm sorry, people cause disruptions. We all need to learn how to get along, and we should be free to be ourselves. However, we must show respect for one another, and behave towards one another in a civil manner. Religious expression cannot be an excuse for bad behaviour, by those expressing themselves, or by those observing. It's the bad behaviour that is wrong, not the religious expression. The current strictness of the "Separation of Church and State" amounts to cultural cowardice. How can we have healthy cultural exchange if we aren't allowed to show any of our culture in the public sector?

Let me make a small comparison here:

You can easily DISCIPLINE your children and take responsiblity for THEIR ACTIONS. And their will always be some form of pornography in the world, that's a reality. If your faith is tested or your senses offended by what you hear and see. Don't look at it. Don't listen to it. That's your right, don't take my options away from me because your not satisfied with my "sinful" lifestyle. That's impeding MY RIGHTS, my life IS NOT your responsiblity and that oppresion of another is WROOOONG.

Now, let me replace a few words to prove my point:

You can easily DISCIPLINE your children and take responsiblity for THEIR ACTIONS. And their will always be some form of religion in the world, that's a reality. If your conscious is tested or your senses offended by what you hear and see. Don't look at it. Don't listen to it. That's your right, don't take my options away from me because your not satisfied with my "faithful" lifestyle. That's impeding MY RIGHTS, my life IS NOT your responsiblity and that oppresion of another is WROOOONG.

It works both ways. We need to find a happy medium, while keeping the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments in mind. We can't let oppression become the means by which we give up our freedoms.

[doctorthinker]

I can definitely see your point, but what seems to be happening is it boiling down to perspective.

As much as i see religion being used to monkey with the law, I also see how religion is being stifled in areas it's just not necessary. Under God did stem from MCarthy-ism, I just choose to be silent when it comes to that part. If the majority wants it in-----fine----i really don't care. Crying and whining? both sides---enough already....

I am not offended by practicers of religion, public or private I applaud your right to do so. I would just like to see extremists on both sides to back off.

And leave people (each other) alone....sad really. This culture has become rampant in telling others how they should live their lives.

I wish i could do more to curtail extremism on my side as well as,religous communities put a clamp down on their side.

Personal responsiblity seems to be more and more of a limited quantity.

I hope no one who reads this mistakes maturity in discussion, with being passive.

try me.

[B. Ungaro]

Seattle,

Allow me to make the following points:

1. If you look back in history, you will find that Religious Values were being changed constantly to reflect prevailing human values. It's been happening since day one. The Ten Commandments are nothing but a reflection of human values of the time. Assigning divinity to them along with the heaven thing is probably the best sales promo ever.

2. My personal observation, reconfirmed once or twice yearly is that the children of Western Europe, free of religion, are better behaived and better educated.

[seattlegal]

Personal responsiblity seems to be more and more of a limited quantity.

That is the key. There is a trend of invoking blanket "class judgements," when personal responsibility is the real issue. Just look at Uncle Bill's (B. Ungaro) post above.

I can definitely see your point, but what seems to be happening is it boiling down to perspective.

Agreed. Collectivist perspective is blanketing Invididualist perspective. Many are using a hammer when they should be using a feather.