FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The New Republican Party --- (or) Why I'm no longer a Libertarian

   
Author Topic: The New Republican Party --- (or) Why I'm no longer a Libertarian
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
The Republican party is broken. Not that I used to care, but I've always considered myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But I was a child in the era of Reagan, I even fancied myself a little like Alex P. Keaton. And I always figured that the party carried the "moral high ground". But they don't anymore, do they? Party members are flocking away, in search of something new, a change, a bolder vision. Why?

The Two Major Failures of the Republican Party
1. Gay Rights: Notice that I didn't say "Gay Marriage". Marriage is a non-issue---not that it isn't important, but it's the wrong fight. The GLBT community wants equal rights ... and the word "marriage". The right wing wants the status quo ... and the word "marriage". The Republicans lose the moral high-ground, because the left has the argument that their civil rights are being violated. The courts won't even hold up the protection of civil contracts if they cross into the rights guaranteed by marriage.

But shouldn't the courts uphold the same rights for everyone? Marriage shouldn't exclusively have these rights --- it's a legal contract. If a marriage is sacred, it should be administered by the church. Keep the legal legislations seperate, and grant them to anyone --- whether gay, straight, polygamous, or monogamous. We're talking about the seperation of church and state here, the protection of basic civil liberties. Maintain the word marriage within your institutions of faith, but divorce it from the judicial system. Fight over the name, keep fighting if that's what you believe. But grant the rights first and regain the moral high ground.

2. Corporate Oversight: "Reagan-omics" worked, the "trickle-down" worked. In the eighties, people could barely afford a stereo and a 25" television in the suburbs. My, how that's changed. Companies grew, and their power grew beyond imagination. But we didn't see some of the far-reaching effects. We allowed monopolies, we allowed corporations to trade in unethical spheres. There was no government oversight. I don't mean regulation or control, I mean oversight. We don't need to control the market, that would kill growth, but without basic ground rules of ethics --- to protect the people outside of the machine --- corporations won't act ethically. They wield so much power, unethical actions on their part could destroy society.

We don't need a "knee jerk" reaction to the economic crisis. In business, when a "process" is out of control, you don't change it --- you examine it. We need to understand the system we've created, we need to know it implicity, and we need to develop a better set of ground rules. Rash spending and changes to the "way things work" will have too many unforeseen consequences. People will get hurt. Overspending will hurt us. Rash restrictions of the credit card companies (as pushed by Obama) will just close up the companies more, affecting the credit that the consumers have still managed to hold on to. But the system is too complicated to make sense of. If we complicate a system, it makes it easier to exploit loopholes. Simplify, understand, THEN regulate.

We need a bold new direction in this country.
- We need to push for the national initiative. The citizenry needs to be able to overturn unfair laws when their "representation" won't listen. It should be a rigourous process, and tempered by the Constitution, but what was "impractical" for our forefather is practical today.

- We need to revise our legal system. We should not be able to enforce a legal code that cannot be understood by the citizenry. We have a tendency to "overcomplicate" things, so that lawyers are the only ones that can understand the legal system --- an "it's their job, isn't it?" mentality. But the system isn't fair unless the people can understand and participate in their own government. They shouldn't be held to a standard that they don't understand. We should have rigourous structure to corporate code, that should maintain the rights of individuals, but civil law should be just that ... civil.

- We need to update our Bill of Rights and Constitution. We think too much of our founding documents as "holy writ". Truth is, things were left vague for posterity. We need to take a look at our world in the 21st century and do what we can to protect the rights of the individual, the small business, and the corporation. We need to carefully examine concepts like "torture" and the "greater good" and put hard limits on what the government can and can't do. No one should have power, if they no longer answer to the people. The people are the lifeblood of government.

- And we need to dismantle much of our government infrastructure --- or change the oversight of it. We have created so many goverment groups rashly, and it's easy to do. Utah had a mine collapse, and they quickly created a mine oversight group. The group does little, and it doesn't have the power to effect change. But no one will ever get rid of it, will they? Who will vote to end the mine oversight board? So we add to the bulk of our government overhead, doling out money every year to countless institutions that bring no value to our society. I maintain that we can likely cut over 50% of our overhead without affecting value or services. Sure, people will be out of jobs, but they shouldn't have jobs JUST TO HAVE JOBS. They need to contribute to society, to create something of value. In my military service, I worked with a lot of government employees. So many people want to work for the government --- just because they'll never be fired. They can drain society without giving anything further, because the oversight isn't there. We need to understand the process, we need to fix the process.

- We need to let the free market live ... again. So much of our company is monopolized or government controlled. Couldn't the FDA operate better as a private entity? Couldn't our intelligence firms? I don't purport to know, but we're not even asking the question.

I was a libertarian until today. I believed that the government was wrong to prosecute "victimless crimes". But there are victims in every crime. Drug use isn't victimless --- it destroys people, it destroys families. Prostitution isn't victimless. Our society maintains group control no because it's particularly effective, but because purist ideals should influence our thinking, not control it. We can't have a perfect socialism, a perfect libertarianism. But we can create a government with the foresight to understand itself and protect its citizenry from its own wrongdoing. Let's protect our citizenry first, and then let's regain rule of the people. Then WE can decide the answers together, on a local AND on a national level.

The Republican party is partially right. If people can just remember what it is we're fighting for.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
I am hoping that the Republicans implode and hemorrhage. I am hoping that it becomes a small regional movement with little hope of gaining a national presence in its immediate future. That will be good for the party so that only those who stand for its principals (rather than search out for popularity and become just another political brand) are left standing. True Conservatives are saying they want a Republican Party and not just another party.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
I'd probably say that my views are rather liberal Republican --- perhaps even radical Republican. I also consider myself a conservative. But the system's broken, and we need to fix it. The GOP doesn't live its ideals any longer. But with the two party system, it's probably easier to fix the party than to create a third --- no matter how much sense the third party makes.

I only wish that someone could make the party leaders see reason. We need a real group of conservatives fighting these free-spending liberals. We don't need a bunch of hate-mongering elitist garbage.

Americans (not just the Republican party) really need to regain our moral / ethical high ground. But civil liberties and our own fiscal problems need to stand center stage. And if we ask the RIGHT questions, there really shouldn't be an argument. We need to "put right what once went wrong", to borrow a phrase.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
Herblay,

I don't know if I am speaking with you or not with how you are talking. Guess part of the problem is that Republicans right now are trying to answer the question "what IS a conservative?" I am a conservative Republican in ALL things social and fiscal.

I disagree with your first paragraph in your first post, but I and many conservatives can agree with your second. Its just that the The GLBT community doesn't want the government out of the marriage business, but the very opposite. Honestly, if you took a poll among conservatives against gay marriage I bet you a significant number would agree that the best option is no recognition of marriage by the government - period.

Your number two(without the specifics outlined below the main), although it sounds great on paper, doesn't sound very different from liberal Democrats. They would say that there is already no regulation, just oversight. I just can't help think what you say here is doublespeak.

There is much to agree on what you say, but social conservatism is very important. You basically say it yourself in the final line,"We can't have a perfect socialism, a perfect libertarianism. But we can create a government with the foresight to understand itself and protect its citizenry from its own wrongdoing. Let's protect our citizenry first, and then let's regain rule of the people. Then WE can decide the answers together, on a local AND on a national level." That is the Conservative motto in a nutshell.

God, Family, Country.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional ---

Marriage: In the end, I feel that the only option IS to take government out of marriage. The legal system should delineate contracts of partnership, rights and responsibilites, to citizens equally regardless of status (or number) of participants. A marriage should be a ceremony sanctified by a religious group. The fact that they would usually happen together is irrelevant.
- What are you disagreeing with in my "first paragraph of (my) first post"? About the courts not upholding civil contracts outside of marriage? About the Republicans "losing the moral high ground"?

With regard to "number two" --- the verbage often gets in the way. Almost everyone would argue that we DO have oversight. I don't believe that to be the case. The majority of people in government DO NOT understand the processes involved in corporate law and the stock market. It's de-regulated to the point where there IS no oversight. "Naked Short Selling" in the stock market is illegal almost universally --- except here. It creates unnatural trends that aren't representative of real corporate worth. Making it illegal could be considered "regulation", but my point is that it is closer akin to oversight --- it's an unethical practice, a "cheat", that should have never been allowed to begin with. But since the process is so convoluted, ethics goes out the door so that Wall Street Whiz Kids can make money off the backs of the American public.

I guess I could have elucidated some of my points more clearly....

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
What I am disagreeing with in your first paragraph of first post is that Republicans have lost any moral high-ground. Rights aren't a "Moral" position, they are a legal position. The only reason anyone uses "Rights" as an argument is because it sounds good with no real definition. Its hard to have a "moral high-ground" when, like myself, you don't define the rights of the GLBT community as anything other than immoral.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
The rights referred to would be the following:
- Custody (children)
- Property rights (inheritance)
- Medical / POA Directives
- Visitation (Hospitals, Prisons, Custodial).

These rights are not protected by holy writ, they are protected by a binding legal document between two people. Courts constantly rule in favor of marriage rights but against any civil contracts that would purport the same rights.

Anyone should have the right to the same civil protections. The courts are upholding a religous (read moral) institution, rather than the legal establishment that exists in parallel.

To grant true civil rights to everyone would be to allow parallel legal agreements to be made regardless of religious attribution.

If someone feels that ANY group is immoral --- whether they're LGBT, another color, or another gender --- they're entitled to that opinion. They're even entitled to pursue legislation. They're entitled to preach, to teach, to hate however they see fit. But in the eyes of the law, the law and civil protections need to be applied equally --- regardless of the "holy bonds" of marriage.

I fought for my country in this war, whether I believed in it or not. It didn't matter what MY opinions or beliefs are, nor yours. I fought to preserve everyone's rights to their own opinions, and so that everyone can enjoy the same civil protections. That's the point --- blind justice first, mob rule second.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional --- I apologize if I came off "preachy". I'm not trying to demean you or anyone. I try to be impartial and non-biased by my own opinions, but people are only interested in something if they're passionate about it.

I so believe that you can only maintain the "moral high-ground" if your actions are beyond reproach ... morally and ethically.

Take torture as an example. Sure, we may get the information we need --- but at what cost? If we're going to be the "good guys", we can't behave like the terrorists that we fight. Otherwise we lose everything that we hold dear --- everything that we're fighting FOR.

I do believe that those are rights, that the fair treatment of all is important. And I think that we have lost everything that made our country special if we fail to see that.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rights aren't a "Moral" position, they are a legal position.
This is not how Republicans commonly frame homosexual issues at all. Strictly legal and secular arguments against expansion of gay rights are tissue-thin at best. The closest to a substantive argument against them has been about 'activist judges', and even then it wasn't the so-called activist judges themselves that were the real lever-it was what they were activist about.

quote:
Honestly, if you took a poll among conservatives against gay marriage I bet you a significant number would agree that the best option is no recognition of marriage by the government - period.

This has not been my experience at all. Most social conservatives I've talked about the matter with are for whatever course is most likely to ensure homosexuals aren't permitted to marry-whatever the term used for marriage is.

They don't want government out of the marriage business, they just don't want the government getting further into the marriage business, not at all the same thing.

How else can you possibly explain states with constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriage, the - until recently - pattern of all levels of legislative government, over and over again, taking steps to perpetuate the restriction of marriage to its current definition?

quote:
God, Family, Country.
That's a distinctly unAmerican order of priorities for participation in American politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Catseye1979
Member
Member # 5560

 - posted      Profile for Catseye1979   Email Catseye1979         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
God, Family, Country.
That's a distinctly unAmerican order of priorities for participation in American politics. [/QB]
That would depend on the person's opinion of what's "American".
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Reagan-omics" worked, the "trickle-down" worked. In the eighties, people could barely afford a stereo and a 25" television in the suburbs. My, how that's changed.
When you are claiming some thing as controversial as that "trickle-down" worked, you are best not to over state your case so glaringly. I grew up in the middle class suburbs in the 70's, and every family had a television and a stereo, most of them had several. Even those well below the median income had TVs and stereos. Mine was the only family I knew (including some very poor familes) that had only 1 black and white TV set and that wasn't because we couldn't afford it; my parents wanted to discourage us from wasting more time watching the TV.

The idea that middle class suburbanites couldn't afford stereos and TVs in the 80s is a laughable. Even people living in inner city ghettos in the 80s had TVs and stereos.

If you look at the data, you will see that the biggest difference in the middle class between the 70s or 80s and today is that the amount of consumer debt is much greater today. I don't think people having huge consumer debts is evidence that trickle down worked.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That would depend on the person's opinion of what's "American".
Well, of course. And it doesn't at all follow from what Occasional claimed to be agreeing with, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, your not going to drag me into a debate about homosexuality, law, and marriage. That is one argument I refuse to engage. I know what I believe, I know why I believe it, and I know what I am going to do about that belief. To get someone to agree about my beliefs on the subject is pointless.

Also, I am very confused about your criticism of my motto, "God, Family, Country" as unAmerican. True, it doesn't hold the United States as the first priority, but I'm not sure of what you meant by it not American in the context of what I was agreeing with. Can you expand on that because its hard to take such criticism seriously when I have no idea what you mean.

[ May 17, 2009, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Republican party is broken.
Hear, hear!

1. Gay Rights. I agree completely. If the government won't even tell you what they mean by the word marriage, they shouldn't be enforcing an arbitrary definition. Figue out what it is before you starting telling people they can or can't have it.

I agree with Rakeesh that that's not what most people want. I think most people want the government imposing their particular definition on everyone. I just think it's a terrible plan and real statesmen would step up and do what's best for the country instead of appeasing the loudest group they agree with.

2. Corporate Oversight. I don't know much about Reagan, but I agree that we're severly lacking in oversight. We've known we were since at least the Enron, WorldCom, et al collapses. CEOs for the most part are not there to build a glorious legacy to leave to others. They're there to squeeze as much personal profit out of the business as they can and move on before anyone notices. We've had other threads with articles on Boards who still don't know what their CEOs make or would be entitled to if they were fired. No one's paying attention, and they haven't been for decades. Panicking and putting everything under government control now isn't the answer.

There are things the Republican Party could be fighting for instead of just against. We just need someone with some clout to remember that.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional,

quote:
Rakeesh, your not going to drag me into a debate about homosexuality, law, and marriage. That is one argument I refuse to engage. I know what I believe, I know why I believe it, and I know what I am going to do about that belief. To get someone to agree about my beliefs on the subject is pointless.
Pointless indeed. If you have no arguments that would sway or even impress people who don't already agree with you, it would indeed be pointless to pose those arguments. I'm not challenging your beliefs, I'm challenging the idea that your beliefs aren't an expression of your interpretation of Christianity being some sort of state religion.

quote:
True, it doesn't hold the United States as the first priority, but I'm not sure of what you meant by it not American in the context of what I was agreeing with.
You suggested the 'Conservative motto (in a nutshell)' was 'God, Family, Country'. Not only do I disagree that's actually the conservative motto (though it might be a form of the social/religious conservative motto), I think it's unAmerican for a simple reason.

We're a secular nation. Obviously you disagree, but it's the truth. Placing God first - your interpretation of God, that is, which relegates personal choices and freedoms to a secondary status of importance - is thus unAmerican.

Of course if you believed that God didn't want Christians to make laws on the basis of 'God says so', your adoption of that motto wouldn't necessarily be unAmerican in my view-but you don't.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Umm, one little bit of confusion.

You say in #2 that we need, "Oversight, not regulation and control."

Then later in "Government Infrastructure" you point out as your glaring problem of too much government, a department of Utah Mine Safety. What you describe is an agency with Oversight, but no power for regulation and control.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Couldn't our intelligence firms?
Mmm, private intelligence firms. This will never go wrong.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
"We're a secular nation. Obviously you disagree, but it's the truth." Its YOUR truth, but not the truth of a large number of millions of AMERICANS. For me there is only one kind of AMERICAN, and that is someone who lives in this nation and believes in its form of government: i.e. how laws are made. Everything else is up for debate. It can even change to become less and not more free and still be called AMERICAN. History has taught that almost from the start. If we really knew what "American" meant, there wouldn't be a redefinition time and again every year, every decade, and even every day.

In fact, I remember a thread on this very subject here at Hatrack a while ago.

To add, seperation of Church and State is not actually in the founding documents of the United States of America. That is simply a convenient notion put forth as one interpretation. Another, and I believe valid, interpretation is Openess to All Religious Expressions. No law can be made to interfer with religion unless there is a socially harmful criminal component. This idea of the U.S. as a "secular" nation has, in my estimation, made it far less worthy of supporting it.

I know the argument, if you care more about God than you do Freedom, why don't you move to Sadi Arabia or Israel? Well, I'm not Muslim or Jewish for One Huge Whopper of a reason. For instance, find me a country run by Mormons who make laws respecting Mormonism and a chance to make a living and I might move there. Of course, there are theological problems with doing that as well for those who know the religion. I have chosen to live in a state that comes the closest to that ideal.

It is better to stay and fight for my vision of AMERICA, just like you and most other people do, than leave to places less capable of change. Most importantly I call the U.S. my birthplace and my home. You don't leave unless you have no choice.

[ May 18, 2009, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
No, Occasional, the united states is a secular nation. This does not change dependent upon what you think it is. It is dependent upon what characteristics define what is called a "secular nation."

Now, I know that you utterly despise and bemoan America's secularism, and wish that the U.S. were an out-and-out authoritarian theocracy, but don't go kidding yourself about whether or not dissenting opinion keeps it from actually being a secular nation.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Its YOUR truth, but not the truth of a large number of millions of AMERICANS.
Numbers don't change reality. If it were trillions instead of millions, if the number were so high it took scientific notation to quantify it without scrolling down the page, it still wouldn't matter.

Millions of Americans also still believe, for example, that there were concrete proven links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That's just for a current-events example of millions being provably wrong.

The form of our government is more than just how our laws are made. We aren't just the rules written on the inside of the box. You touch on it when you say that everything else is up for debate. That's part of what makes America American.

I'm not talking about what it can be called. When Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, we were still called Americans. When Jackson said, "Get lost," to the United States Supreme court, we were still called Americans. That doesn't change the fact that both actions were deeply, fundamentally unAmerican.

To paraphrase a popular quote among social conservatives, "I may not know what 'American' is, but I know 'unAmerican' when I see it."

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional,

quote:
To add, seperation of Church and State is not actually in the founding documents of the United States of America. That is simply a convenient notion put forth as one interpretation. Another, and I believe valid, interpretation is Openess to All Religious Expressions. No law can be made to interfer with religion unless there is a socially harmful criminal component. This idea of the U.S. as a "secular" nation has, in my estimation, made it far less worthy of supporting it.
Separation of Church and State not being in the US Constitution has nothing to do with whether or not we're a secular nation. Its absence neither confirms nor denies that we are.

Though the separation is in fact obviously implicit. Or maybe you can tell us how Church and State might be legally and practically entwined in America without "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

quote:
I know the argument, if you care more about God than you do Freedom, why don't you move to Sadi Arabia or Israel? Well, I'm not Muslim or Jewish for One Huge Whopper of a reason. For instance, find me a country run by Mormons who make laws respecting Mormonism and a chance to make a living and I might move there. Of course, there are theological problems with doing that as well for those who know the religion. I have chosen to live in a state that comes the closest to that ideal.
That's a fascinating argument. I don't think anyone here has made it. If they have, I'll tell `em straight up: that's a stupid argument to make.

quote:
It is better to stay and fight for my vision of AMERICA, just like you and most other people do, than leave to places less capable of change. Most importantly I call the U.S. my birthplace and my home. You don't leave unless you have no choice.
Good for you. In fact I agree: better to stay and try to change than leave in disgust or despair of ever changing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
"That's a fascinating argument. I don't think anyone here has made it."

TomD has told me that once or twice, and I remember someone saying that at least once besides him.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
... you were the one who said "Man, I sure wish I could live in a country like Saudi Arabia" but you couldn't because the dictators weren't mormon, so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Specifically, I said that in response to your assertion that your ideal form of government was a theocracy. And I pointed out that there isn't a theocracy in the history of the known world that hasn't sucked, but you were welcome to move to one of 'em if you really thought they were better.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with living in a Theocracy is determining who's Theocracy to live in. War, inquisitions, torture, conversion or death, are all part and parcel to Theocratic rule. Sects, heresy, slight disagreements with dogma are death sentences. Major differences in religion are grounds for full scale war.

I know, your Theocracy would be different.

Yet the biggest destroyer of any theocracy has never been the unbelieving secularists. Its always been the new Theocracy on the block.

The whole concept of Separating Church and State was to stop the abuses of the churches in power over those out of power.

We have become a Secular state because, frankly, living in theocracies was too often He$#.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dante
Member
Member # 1106

 - posted      Profile for Dante           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For me there is only one kind of AMERICAN, and that is someone who lives in this nation and believes in its form of government: i.e. how laws are made.
Well, I live in this nation, but I don't believe in its form of government. Do I at least qualify as lower-case American? [Razz]
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
"The problem with living in a Theocracy is determining who's Theocracy to live in."

Not really. You live in a Catholic theocracy if your Catholic, a Protestant if you are Protestant, a Muslim if you are Muslim, a Jewish if you are Jewish. Then you have the question of rules. Just like any society, including democracy, know and follow the rules and there is no problem. It has only "sucked" to those who didn't believe in the government's basic beliefs and laws.

Dante, can you elaborate? If what you say is plainly true, then you are unAmerican for sure. At best you are a legal citizen.

I believe like many Americans in an open theocratic-democracy where the rules of law are based on religious precepts. Dogma is a separate issue that has no place in determining law. However, I guess according to many here Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc are not Americans since this is a "secular nation" as so many here have said. The only TRUE Americans are Atheists who admit they have a hard time getting elected in this so-called secular nation.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


Not really. You live in a Catholic theocracy if your Catholic, a Protestant if you are Protestant, a Muslim if you are Muslim, a Jewish if you are Jewish. Then you have the question of rules. Just like any society, including democracy, know and follow the rules and there is no problem. It has only "sucked" to those who didn't believe in the government's basic beliefs and laws.

Because, of course, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, everyone...they're all monolithic groups whose rights and responsibilities can be governed by one particular group just by virtue of their religion.

As to whether or not they sucked...yeah, I'm sure Saudi Arabia's government doesn't suck to the people who run it. Or at least not all of them. Nothing sucks if you're willing to submit and subscribe to it. Occasional, that's about the silliest argument in favor of theocracy (not that there are many) I've ever heard: theocratic dictatorship doesn't suck if you believe in theocratic dictatorship.

quote:

I believe like many Americans in an open theocratic-democracy where the rules of law are based on religious precepts. Dogma is a separate issue that has no place in determining law.

How on Earth would you seperate dogma from religious precepts? And which religious precepts get served, exactly? All of `em? Talk about a recipe for disaster.

quote:
However, I guess according to many here Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc are not Americans since this is a "secular nation" as so many here have said.
Occasional, no one here has said or even suggested this. Your insinuation that anyone has is a lie. You ought to stop lying. Aside from being wrong and very transparent in this case, it's not doing your argument any favors.

quote:
The only TRUE Americans are Atheists who admit they have a hard time getting elected in this so-called secular nation.
This is yet another thing that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the United States is a secular nation. It has a great deal to do with whether or not the majority of its voters are theists, though.

Or do you think that a majority of citizens being religious makes us a religious nation?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Occ, just a hint. Secular does not equal Atheist.

Secular means that you can believe what you wish to believe, not what the government wishes you to believe.

Secular allows for democratic Faith, where you are allowed to vote for the faith you believe to be the truest by walking to the church, synagogue, temple, or Druid circle of your choice.

Sure, some faiths are clan/descent based, like Judaism. Still, you can join a reform temple or a conservative temple, or somewhere in between based on what your heart tells you.

Not on the stipulations of the theocracy that "You will be at the Temple on 5th and Main or face imprisonment."

If it wasn't for this Secular view, the LDS church would have grown as much as it has over the past 50 years. We would be in our own divinely orthodox city-states, and murder all the heretic missionaries from all those theocracies who are different than ours.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
Not really. You live in a Catholic theocracy if your Catholic, a Protestant if you are Protestant, a Muslim if you are Muslim, a Jewish if you are Jewish. Then you have the question of rules. Just like any society, including democracy, know and follow the rules and there is no problem. It has only "sucked" to those who didn't believe in the government's basic beliefs and laws.

Bull. I know scads of catholics, protestants, jews, and at least a couple muslims who live in no such thing even resembling a theocracy and don't have their lives dictated by overarching moral commands from a rigid moral authority.


quote:
I believe like many Americans in an open theocratic-democracy where the rules of law are based on religious precepts.
Yeah, well, you're doing worse than that. You're claiming that American isn't a secular nation because of what you believe. It's the same as when people like you insist that American law was founded on Christianity; it's grossly mistaken.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp, Occasional was responding to a statement regarding a hypothetical theist trying to choose between hypothetical theocracies. He wasn't making a statement of fact.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
He is making some statements of fact anyway, such as "However, I guess according to many here Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc are not Americans since this is a "secular nation" as so many here have said. The only TRUE Americans are Atheists who admit they have a hard time getting elected in this so-called secular nation"

yes, this wording suggests the need for some kind of retort.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, yes, there he was making a statement of fact, and one that is plainly wrong.

But if he's saying "a Catholic who's looking for a theocracy to live in is very likely to choose a Catholic theocracy" that just doesn't seem very outrageous.

Certainly not as outrageous as the words he's trying to put into the mouths of "many here".

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
He's also making an equivalency argument between democracy and theocracy, saying that eh they're the same pretty much you just gotta follow the rules and all is swimmingly a.o.k.

That's the part to object to. No, they are not the same, and his plan necessarily imposes a "If you aren't our religion, get out" mentality.

Yet, all these people I know. This isn't 'their theocracy' and yet they seem to like a secular democracy just fine, even if it's not 'for them.' ...

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Ahh, I see what you're saying now.

Forgive my interruption.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
HOW DARE YOU INTERRUPT MY RANTS WITH AN ATTEMPT TO PROMOTE CLARITY AND UNDERSTANDING
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
RAWR FINE BE THAT WAY

rawr

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional,

I thought a bit about this thread overnight, and had a bit of a revelation. When I hear Theocracy, I assume a government of religious leaders, very hierarchical and rigid.

You may be thinking of a different form of Theocracy, one that combines Faith and Democracy. Basically, the people vote on which Theocracy to run their city/state/government. So in a city of 53% Lutherans, they government would run under strict laws as the Lutheran's faith defines it. Then, in another 4,6,10 years, if the Lutherans have lost their majority, and say the Shiite Muslims reach 44%, while the rest of the city is split up in other sects, faiths, or churches, then we will serve under a Muslim theocracy.

While this seems to be an attempt to put the virtues of Faith into the politics of Democracy, I am afraid it will put the vices of Democracy into the structures of Faith.

As an example, would some be willing to dilute their faith in order to remain or gain the political power to enforce the rest of their doctrines? Birth Control is a sin according to strict Catholic faith, but if the church demands restrictions on prophylactics then they lose popularity, and can lose control before they have stopped Abortion. Some would push for ignoring the Birth Control stuff, and gain or continue in power.

Not a great solution.

Still, it would make for one heck of a world to write about.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2