Since the election brought this whole "moral values" issue to the forefront of American politics, liberals keep claiming that they have moral values too. This is true in one sense - liberals do think the government has critical moral responsibilities, such as to help the underpriveledged groups in society. However, I think this might miss the point of the moral values issue. The conflict seems to be about promoting given moral values among the citizens of our country, not within the government itself. When someone says they are concerned about the moral values of this country, they do not mean they are concerned about how the government makes its decisions - they mean they are concerned with the moral values of the citizens themselves, in the messages we get from our society at large. Are we told that violence is okay? Or are we told it is wrong? That's the moral values issue.
And on this account, I think liberalism has NOT taken any moral viewpoint - other than moral relativism. The liberal philosophy generally is that people decide their moral beliefs on their own - that it is not the government's job to influence them. It's okay to have an abortion if you want to. It's okay to have premarital sex if you want to. It's okay to show violent programming if you want to. It's okay to do whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. But not only is it okay - the government isn't going to judge you either, or even try to pursuade you.
It seems to me that this philosophy is failing them. I don't think it is not true that all moral values are equal, and I think most Americans know that. And many, I think, consider a decision by the government to promote no moral value system is tantamount to promoting the idea that there is no absolute moral truth. This is a problem for liberalism, and the Democrats who favor it.
Can liberalism develop a moral message, or is moral relativism too critical to the philosophy of the left?
[ November 15, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The liberal philosophy generally is that people decide their moral beliefs on their own - that it is not the government's job to influence them.
Three words: Hate Crime Legislation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It seems to me that this philosophy is failing them."
To be fair, is this philosophy -- whether or not you've correctly identified it -- indeed failing liberalism, or is it merely making liberalism less politically popular? In other words, unless political popularity is the primary goal of liberalism, might their laissez-faire attitude towards personal morality be enormously successful while at the same time not a huge vote-getter?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I couldn't feel any other way than that my moral choices are my own and do not impinge on your life. If the democratic party abandons this, then perhaps I will find no candidates to my liking.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:I don't think it is not true that all moral values are equal, and I think most Americans know that.
Wait ... try that sentence again?
It seems to me that, quite ironically, the modern liberal moral stance stems from Christian teachings against hypocrisy — the idea that it is wrong to sin, but that it is even MORE wrong to find fault in others for their sins.
This isn't to suggest that individual liberals typically derive their personal political beliefs from the Bible. But much of the time, they practically quote Christ's tirades against the Pharisees.
The problem, I think, is the fact that Christ taught a very balanced philosophy, which is part of what makes it so successful. He took a very strong stance against sin, and expected people to hold themselves to an incredibly high standard of behavior. Yet at the same time, he forbade them to use their own righteousness as a bludgeon against others.
Basically, He taught His followers to observe a double standard — absolute strictness with themselves, and compassion and tolerance for others.
Why am I bringing up Christianity in a thread about politics? Because the topic is the apparent inability of liberals to inspire the public with their moral philosophy. I think this is why. Tolerance alone, as a virtue, is empty. It offers nothing to aspire to except to rid oneself of prejudice. It offers only negative changes to your character — REMOVING wrong traits. There is no "higher tolerance" to aspire to once you choose to tolerate every person and every behavior equally (which is a pathetically easy conclusion to reach, requiring nothing beyond complete and utter apathy towards everyone else). And most importantly, if you truly come to believe that all choices are equally tolerable, and rid yourself of ALL your moral judgments, by what standard do you evaluate your own behavior? How do you know if you are doing well, when nothing you do is ever allowed to be wrong? How can you build true personal value without some ideals to help you define your best possible self?
Tolerance works far better when it is accompanied by a clear sense that there are right and wrong choices, and positive virtues to aspire to, like honesty, honor, responsibility, self-control, chastity, temperance, sacrifice, etc. Once you believe that there are actual, meaningful moral choices to make, then not only do you have a means of evaluating your own decisions, but tolerance itself becomes more of a challenge. You must learn compassion, mercy, and understanding for people that you actually believe are doing something wrong, which is much more admirable than simply tolerating everyone equally because there are no wrongs to commit.
So this problem leads to a lot of fundamental moral misunderstandings that end badly for liberals. For example, when a conservative or a moderate says, "I support our troops!" they usually mean, "I support their cause and their decision to fight, and I want them to win!" Many times, I've heard an anti-war activist step in and answer, "I support the troops, too! I'm trying to save their lives by bringing them home!"
Fundamental misunderstanding here. To a person with actual moral beliefs, there are many greater things for a person to achieve beyond merely preserving their own lives. A soldier who willingly goes to war is saying, by his actions, that he is willing to die for a cause — be it the freedom of his countrymen, the freedom of others, the overthrow of a criminal dictator, or what-have-you.
Telling that soldier that you want to "support" him by pulling him out before the job is done, saving his life, while rendering the sacrifices made by his comrades completely meaningless could actually be taken as a grave insult. What, you think he is such a coward that he wants you to "save" him from his own noble choice?
Liberals definitely have values. Peace is one. Tolerance is another. Freedom is another. Yet these values are all fundamentally negative. They are defined by the LACK of something else — the lack of war, judgment, and tyranny. And at the individual level, they are often simple or meaingless. The virtue of freedom is achieved at the government level. On the personal level, it offers no moral guide whatsoever to your daily actions.
Positive personal virtues like honor, temperance, and sacrifice, which actually demand effort and difficult choices on the part of their practitioners, are far more inspiring and life-changing, and do a far better job of rallying the troops. Yet they are notably absent from (or at best, overshadowed by) most liberal philosophies.
Asking a person to give up his leisure, his comfort, his pleasures, or his life can be difficult to do. But the people who do have high expectations will ultimately prevail ofer those who say, "Do whatever you want, I don't care." If you don't care, then neither will anyone else.
(One area what liberals DO achieve this is on the economic front — asking people who have plenty of resources to give up their money so that those with very little can have more. But very often, rather than describing this as a personal sacrifice by the rich, they describe it essentially as a punishment inflicted by the proletariat, which is far more negative and less inspiring.)
[ November 15, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
dabbler
quote:I couldn't feel any other way than that my moral choices are my own and do not impinge on your life.
What a strange point of view. Would you apply this, across-the-board, to all moral choices? Or are you thinking only of sexual mores?
[ November 15, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
for many of the legal choices I make, I feel that way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You illegal choices, though, are another thing entirely. . .
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
In a discussion with a friend, I said that I feel that laws should represent the minimum requirement for a functional society. All other things should be personal choice.
You need to be able to prove strongly that some action significantly harms society for me to agree that it should be illegal.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
(How about if your idea of supporting the troops is to make sure they at least have all the equipment they need such as body armour to carry out their mission and that when they come home they have resources to help them as much as possible?) This is my view on things- I believe that it is not enough to say you are moral. It's not enough to talk about sexual morality when you have in the past and in the present had numerous affairs or walked out on your wife or husband or whatever. You just can't say a thing about being moral so you must be silent and sit in the corner. Morality is about doing the right thing no matter how difficult it is. Sometimes it's moral to fight a war if it truly is for a good cause. It's not enough to just say it is, it has to be. You cannot tell me the sky is orange, I will not believe it. Truly moral people would look out for children. They would not let the gap between rich and poor get so wide that some people in this country end up living no better than people in third world countries. How is that right? I'm tired of people talking about how they are against abortion but when it comes to taking care of the children that are already here, they are silent on the issue. I'm tired of people talking about how immoral it is to be homosexual but when it comes to things that are truly evil and vile. Silence. I am tired of hypocrasy. Plain and simple. No more of it. Either these people who preach on morality live up to it, or they shut up. It's as bad as people who talk about how free the country is... Freedom is such an empty and stupid word that means nothing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I tell you I oppose gay marriage, do you believe that I hate you personally?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Considering being gay is a relatively unchangable characteristic of a person, I'd feel hurt.
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
quote: The problem, I think, is the fact that Christ taught a very balanced philosophy, which is part of what makes it so successful. He took a very strong stance against sin, and expected people to hold themselves to an incredibly high standard of behavior. Yet at the same time, he forbade them to use their own righteousness as a bludgeon against others.
In fact, the natural human impulse seems to be, "Sin is wrong, so hold others to a high standard," and this is why these directives are so important--to follow the philosophy is the hard choice, the choice that requires effort, the choice that runs counterintuitive to what our basic nature seems to prefer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Truly moral people would look out for children. They would not let the gap between rich and poor get so wide that some people in this country end up living no better than people in third world countries. How is that right?
Why does living withing the geographical boundaries of the United States make somebody deserve a better standard of living than somebody else living in Brazil?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm tired of people talking about how immoral it is to be homosexual but when it comes to things that are truly evil and vile. Silence.
Of course you'll hear more talk about homosexuality, since there is not a concensus view on it.
You won't find many people going around saying that genocide is just fine and that we should accept it. Everybody agrees that it's wrong. There's not a terrible lot to discuss. Hence a lot of the silence.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not deserve, but it shouldn't be that way. Kids in this country should not have a poor standard of education because of how so many people claim that the US is the best country on Earth. There shouldn't be tons of children living way below the poverty line here, if that is the case. A past example is how politicians and all manners of people talked about how free America was when so much of the population was denied rights because of something stupid like skin colour. It's hypocritical. It just, because I am an idealist, shouldn't be like that. It makes no sense at all.
Edit to Scott R- I would not think you hate me personally, but I would very rudely think you are completely wrong... Which is a terrible attitude. >.<
[ November 15, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The key difference, of course, is that there are practical disagreements over the best way to reduce the number of children living below the poverty line. Som there may not be disagreement over the moral principle involved, just the best means of implementing it practically.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interesting thread topic.
Geoff, I found your post very thought-provoking. However, I think you display some misconceptions about liberal morals. You seem to think that the primary liberal value is tolerance, and that liberals do not distinguish between right and wrong actions except in terms of tolerance. I'll go ahead and presume to speak as a liberal, though I'm not certain the term applies to me, and tell you that I certainly believe there are immoral actions, and I define these primarily as actions that harm people. I also believe in personal honor, integrity, living up to committments, and so forth. I also believe that my morals are the "right" ones. What I don't believe is that they should be enacted into legislation, unless failing to do so presents an immediate and tangible danger to society and/or my fellow citizens. Thus, murder should be illegal, but adultery should not. That certainly does not mean that I condone adultery, or that I don't think we as parents and churches should teach that it is wrong. But if a moral belief is true, I think society at large will see its value soon enough. I don't think making people be morally upright is an effective way to create public morality. I don't think creating public morality is the government's job at all. I think protecting our rights is.
(I think Xap is closer to the truth on this when he points out, in his initial post, that the debate is not on having morals versus not having them, but on whether it is the place of the government to teach and enforce them. I think Xap has this right until the middle of his second paragraph, where, like you, he starts ascribing moral beliefs to the left that it does not hold:
quote: It's okay to have an abortion if you want to. It's okay to have premarital sex if you want to. It's okay to show violent programming if you want to. It's okay to do whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.
quote: I don't think it is not true that all moral values are equal,
I submit that this is not the belief of the left, as a whole. There is such a thing as a moral relativist. (In my experience, they tend to be college students. ) But it is not necessary to be a moral relativist to believe that the government should not be legislating morality. I think Dabbler's litmus test is a good one.
I think this is an excellent point:
quote: The problem, I think, is the fact that Christ taught a very balanced philosophy, which is part of what makes it so successful. He took a very strong stance against sin, and expected people to hold themselves to an incredibly high standard of behavior. Yet at the same time, he forbade them to use their own righteousness as a bludgeon against others.
Basically, He taught His followers to observe a double standard — absolute strictness with themselves, and compassion and tolerance for others.
I think this is precisely what liberals want to do. I think you muddle your point by believing that because liberals do not want to legislate beyond the compassion and tolerance that they do not have personal morals beyond tolerance and apathy.
(The issue of rallying the troops muddies the water here. There are liberals who are pacifists, and liberals who are not. And it is possible to be opposed to this war without being a pacifist. I don't think opposing this war is about liberal apathy.)
-o-
Scott, I agree with you on hate crime legislation, but that's where I part ways with those who label themselves liberal.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
There are limits, even to a liberal's moral relativism.
Sex between consenting adults is OK.
Sex by yourself is OK.
Sex between you and a vacuum cleaner is, well, sort of weird.
Sex between non-consenting people is not OK.
Sex between adults and children is not OK.
Sex between children is not OK.
Sex between people and animals is not OK.
And, on the opposite end of the spectrum:
War to protect your way of life is OK.
Caring about how the world perceives your actions is OK.
Only caring about how the world perceives your actions, and never making up your own mind is not OK.
Writing legal papers saying it's OK to torture people and violate principle terms of the Geneva Convention is not OK.
Lying to the UN, to Congress, and to the American people in order to start a war against someone you just don't happen to like very much is not OK.
I could continue, but it's going to be nothing but snarkiness all the way down.
--Steve
[edited for clarity]
[ November 15, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, the great misstatement begins:
quote:Writing legal papers saying it's OK to torture people and violate principle terms of the Geneva Convention is not OK.
First, he didn't say it was OK. He said it might not violate the Geneva Convention.
Second, it is a lawyers JOB to look at caselaw, statutes, and treaties and then either give a judgment as to whether a particular action is in accordance with those authorities or to make the best case possible that it is.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Yes, and it's a moral person's job to say, "What, are you nuts? Piss off!"
Or is MORALITY IN GOVERNMENT not really all that important, now they they've won?
Remember: GWB himself ridiculed trial attorneys for acting immorally and only doing what will make them the most money. Exactly what Gonzales did when he wrote those papers.
You can't have it both ways, chickee.
[edited for spellnig]
[ November 15, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How much money do you suppose he got for that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bulls^%$! There is nothing wrong or immoral about knowing the extent of what the law allows and doesn't.
The law does not define morality - many things are immoral but legal. And it's often important to know where the boundary lies.
Daognee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Well, I don't know.
I do know that he got to be nominated for ATTORNEY GENERAL for it.
BTW: Here's the letter (from MSNBC/Newsweek; there may be better sites):
Gonzales makes cases for and against, and (I think--as a liberal) that his case AGAINST the Bush administration's desire to ignore the GPW is better than the case FOR, Gonzales still concludes in favor of claiming that the GPW does not apply (even though he previously states that it pretty much allows the enemy combatants to violate the Geneva convention as tyhey see fit, as well).
Remember, folks: the Republicans all laughed when Clinton asked what the definition of "is" was (actually, many Democrats laughed as well). Now the Republicans are asking what the definition of "torture" is. But I don't think it's that funny. Actually, they already asked what it was. Apparently, you can now cause a lot of pain and suffering, intentionally, and for the reason to extract information, but it's not really torture.
[edited to add 2nd link]
[ November 15, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, if you to swap idiocies of the left and right, we can do that. But you've pretty much given up your right to bitch about others doing the same thing.
As for defining "torture," it's a legal concept that requires a legal definition.
An Attorney General who can see both sides of a complex legal question is an advantage, not a detriment.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
We're pretty much typing at the samre time here (and, after this post, I've got to stop and get back to work).
Read the first memo. As I said, Gonzales actually presents both sides pretty well. In my mind, his case AGAINST the Bush administration's stance is far stronger than the case supporting them.
Ask yourself: why does he wind up supporting the Bush administrations stance, then?
You may find that his case for the Bush Admin stance is stronger--that's certainly your right, and probably a fuitless point to argue.
My stance against Gonzales has certainly weakened after actually reading the memo: he seems, for the most part, to be an intelligent and responsible person. But why does he wind up supporting the weaker stance?
I'll get back to this thread later tonight, if I can.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree, it's fruitless to argue about which side is stronger. But I will mention that the criteria used to evaluate the strength of each argument are notoriously flexible. Witness the Supreme Court's varying interpretations of statutes and the Constitution.
There's a saying that no one knows what a Supreme Court decision means until the next case in which the court deals with that issue and tells us what it actually meant.
So the question "Why did he support the weaker side?" is pretty much unanswerable, both because of serious disagreement over what "weaker" means and second because we don't know which interprative method is being used.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But you've pretty much given up your right to bitch about others doing the same thing.
No, he didn't. That's playground logic. If something is wrong, then it's wrong no matter who is pointing it out. Only in childish partisan games could you even suggest this without being laughed out of the converstaion. Yeah, the side he supports does something bad. That doesn't make it any better when the side he doesn't support does something bad too. To suggest otherwise is simple partisan hackery.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If ssywak thinks that it is legitimate for posters on this board to bring in unrelated examples of behavior exhibited by people OTHER than the one under discussion, then he has forfeited his right to claim that this same tactic is illegitimate on this board in other circumstances.
That's not partisan hackery, that's consistency.
And it's not playground logic. Playground logic is thinking it illegitimate to use people's actions in determining what they think is acceptable posting behavior.
Dagonee
[ November 15, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In fact, playground logic really is a good word for it - it's like someone saying one day that they get the swing because they called it first, and the next day claiming they get it because they got to it first.
quote:Yeah, the side he supports does something bad.
And I wasn't saying anything about his "side." I was commenting on his behavior.
Dagonee
[ November 15, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, Almost no one believes in moral relativism the way you define it. There isn't this widespread movement with the idea that everythings ok. You're not opposing reality. You're opposing a concept that has it's greatest effect limited to the confines of your own brain. Neither liberalism nor the actual state of people fits into the neat little box that you're trying to put them in.
Geoff, You know, some people consider that it's not their job to force other people to live correctly. That is, in fact, the central tenant of classical liberalism. For many people, it's not that people don't hold themselves to high standards and wish that other people followed these standards. It's that they don't think that forcing people to follow standards is either ethical or practically a good idea. Many of these people will use every means at their disposal short of compulsion to try to get people to live correctly. I'll recommend John Stuart Mill's On Liberty another time, because it is in my opinion the clearest, most concise statement of liberalism.
The Democratic party doesn't live up to these ideals in so many ways. You'll get no argument on that from me. But that doesn't mean that the ideas that they claim to follow are full of holes, just that they are as an organization.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's a followup to you Geoff, based off this comment:
quote:Tolerance alone, as a virtue, is empty. It offers nothing to aspire to except to rid oneself of prejudice.
Should the government, an apparatus that tries to regulate a nation of disparate cultures, some quirky, some recently actively and violently attacked, try to do more than this? I feel that the government should only regulate where it will ease interactions between citizens. This can mean some painful short-term effects, as seen in the Civil Rights Movement, but overall the rationale is to promote long-term tranquility among all citizens, I think. I don't think it's the governments place to morally judge people for any crime; rather, it's for the government to set laws in place that will protect citizens from unruly and/or dangerous actions from a fellow citizen. I see only difficulty and conflict in trying to imbue the government with moral force, especially when you start getting to the nitty-gritty aspects of what constitutes a particular crime. Now, I know this is a departure, particularly from the founding fathers, but I don't see this philosophy as much more than an evolution of the way our jurisprudence has been tending toward since 1789.
That said, there are surely some excesses that come along... I find hate crimes particularly egregious. I think it would be better to inform juries to take certain aspects into account when recommending a sentence, but to have manadatory sentencing for certain classes of crimes should only be required in the most backward of places, where a good old boy could get slapped on the wrist for assault or murder of someone of another race or religion, which in the past has been known to happen. Then again, I don't see how you could reasonably decide this before the trial, and if you would actually want to force juries on an individual basis to adhere to those guidelines (in fact, I'd tend to think that the government shouldn't).
-Bok
[ November 15, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Almost no one believes in moral relativism the way you define it. There isn't this widespread movement with the idea that everythings ok. You're not opposing reality. You're opposing a concept that has it's greatest effect limited to the confines of your own brain. Neither liberalism nor the actual state of people fits into the neat little box that you're trying to put them in.
Gee, it sucks when someone misstates the nature of the opposition, doesn't it?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To follow up Bok, I don't see enforcing virtue as the role of the government. I like that tolerance is empty, virtue-wise. Human governance has constantly shown itself that is incapable of being trusted with questions of virtue. And, besides that, I don't believe that compelled virtue bears much of a relationship to actual virtue. It's important to protect people against the excesses of others, but you can't make people virtuous. The best you can achieve is to make slaves that don't misbehave (unless they don't think that they'd get caught).
Virtue is the choice to do the right thing. In the important cases, it's generally more concerned with a positive thing (often above and beyond what could be reasonably expected as minimum legal conduct) than with not doing bad stuff. A society where people avoid doing the bad stuff but don't do the positive things is not a virtuous one. The development of virtue can only be encouraged, not ensured. It has constantly been shown that trying to force it, subjecting it to punishment/reward systems, warps it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And so Squick manages to say what I was trying to say, only better.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Liberals definitely have values. Peace is one. Tolerance is another. Freedom is another. Yet these values are all fundamentally negative.
You are correct. Liberals even favor the enforcement of these values by law. Hate crimes and affirmative action are an examples of legislating tolerance.
But I don't agree that these are negative. There is something different about them, though - they generally don't tell you the correct way of acting, other than to tell you not to try to correct the way others are acting. Just being peaceful, tolerant, and free does not tell us very much about how we should actually go about our lives. It leaves a lot of leeway.
quote:Tres, Almost no one believes in moral relativism the way you define it. There isn't this widespread movement with the idea that everythings ok. You're not opposing reality.
It is not the belief that everything is okay. It is the belief that it is okay for other people to hold any moral belief system they choose, as long as it doesn't directly hurt you. As in "For me X is wrong, but for you X may be right, so I won't try to make you believe what I believe."
quote:You know, some people consider that it's not their job to force other people to live correctly.
But the question is not just whether we should force people to live correctly. It is also a question of to what degree we should legally encourage them to live correctly.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hey, as long as we are legislating morality, I'd like to see some decent laws against adultery and, in fact, all sex outside of marriage, as well as no-fault divorce. And on the non-sex morality, I'd like to see a lot stiffer prison terms for "white-collar" crimes. In fact, some of those "scandals" were so egregious that there are a few people I think deserve the death penalty for it. And as long as were are legislating morality, since I believe that power corrupts, when you are popular enough to have a poll done about you, you can no longer be in charge of a religious anything. Too many people getting scammed out of their money by scumbags pretending to be Christians. And anyone doing anything in the name of God (charity, church, whatever) and gets caught doing something immoral/illegal ought to get extra time. Like hate crime laws, only I'd make the extra time for these crimes be under the heading of fraud. Like if you are a minister and get caught with a parishioner in bed, you'd get charged with adultery (my new adultery law and all) and with fraud for being a minister and not practicing what you preach. (Of course, if we brought back stonings, updated of course so that men could be stoned to death, too, that would just kill two birds with one stone. No pun intended.)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, the first amendment would pretty much not allow laws regarding most of those religious issues - the government can't legislate who calls themself Christian. And cruel and unusual punishment is also unconstitutional.
However, I've previously proposed the possibility of banning of premarital sex - which would definitely help out on a couple of issues, including abortion. However, (1) it would not be popular, (2) it would probably be impossible to enforce, and (3) some will say they have a right to have sex. But it doesn't seem all that much more unworkable than, say, banning Marijuana.
[ November 15, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I can't think of any way to ban premarital sex and make it stick without draconian measures and some sort of severe and publicly humiliating punishment to serve as a deterent. People would have to want to obey the law since it would be laughably easy to violate it. I mean, speeding is against the law and the ratio of tickets to actual speeders is very low indeed.
This would also force celibacy upon homosexuals, since they can't marry. But as long as we're enforcing morality, what the heck.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: As for defining "torture," it's a legal concept that requires a legal definition.
An Attorney General who can see both sides of a complex legal question is an advantage, not a detriment.
Dagonee
I wonder two things about you Dagonee and I mean no offense.
1) Do you work for republicans in some way? Because Ive heard these arguments (pretty much all the ones you have used in your posts in this thread) already by them.
2) How much do you hate the left? And accordingly, does this disqualfy you from speaking ill of them because of that?
Edited because spelling is good, and to say that really dont mean any offense Dag, just asking.
[ November 15, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Dagonee does not hate the left. He is a law student, and as such legal definitions are perhaps more immediate to him than they are to most of us.
While he sometimes does seem like he's being difficult for it's own sake, I think you'll find as you get to know him better that he's mostly just trying to be accurate, and is quite reasonable on most issues, even with people he doesn't see eye-to-eye with.
(My apologies if I mischaracterize you, Dagonee.)
[ November 15, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
I just wanted to add this too. Moral relativism does not maintain that everything is ok, it only claims that there is no absolute moral code. Of course there are moral values, yet they are products of society. They are tools society employs in order to function properly, and thus, holds a pragmatic function for all of us. I think this is the kind of relativism SOME people (moslty liberals) will subscribe too. I dont know if this helps at all, but maybe it does!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ElJay pretty much got it right. I won't even ask which issues I'm not quite reasonable on.
1) The last time I worked for Republicans was in college (undergrad), over 12 years ago. And I was more involved with university than national affairs. I worked on one governor's campaign during that time.
2) I try to hate no one. When I fail, it's directed at individuals, not groups, and it doesn't last long.
I'm curious as to why you would ask if I hate the left? And further, why that would disqualify me from speaking out about them if it did?
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The liberal philosophy generally is that people decide their moral beliefs on their own - that it is not the government's job to influence them.
Liberal philosophy, by definition, prizes
The Rule of law Individuality Equality Democracy Liberty
The problem with classical liberalism is that these five qualities exclude each other, when any one of them is taken as comprehesive.
__________________________________
For the record, the problem is with the Democrats is that we have been inappropriately pigeon-holed as moral relativists. Kennedy, Stevenson, and FDR are were not moral relativists, hell, anyone who has ever voted for any tax increase isn't a moral relativist. The relativist don't believe in any duty that they haven't volunteered for. They do what they want, when they want to, and if you ask me, that sounds a whole heck of a like the Bush Admin.
The party of the Civil Rights movement cannot be the party of the moral relativist.
Maybe that's because I've never been part of the, "If it feels good, do it," part of the Democratic party. Then again, Republicans have a variant of the same wing. That wing of the Republican party just dresses better and blames it on the market.
[ November 15, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The problem with any public discourse on morals is that it's all totally arbitrary.
For the purposes of government, it doesn't matter if there is an objective morality or if morality is an entirely social/individual construct. There are almost as many moral systems as there are human beings, and trying to reconcile them all in a legal system is impossible and frankly useless.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I disagree. If there is a moral absolute then the government must comply with it, because if we human beings create a government that violates the moral absolute, then we have done something wrong.
This is not to say that the government must enforce all aspects of that moral absolute, however. It is also possible, as I think most nonrelativist liberals believe, that the moral absolute is such that a government should give us liberty rather than oppressive enforcement of morality. It is like moral capitalism - the idea that the overall good is promoted best when each individual is left free to choose the best path for themselves.
[ November 15, 2004, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
But again, for the purposes of government, it's a pipe dream. Unless you're willing to inject a heavy dose of metaphysics into your government and come periously close to a theocracy, there's no absolute measuring stick a government can use.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:There are almost as many moral systems as there are human beings, and trying to reconcile them all in a legal system is impossible and frankly useless.
I don't think so. I think it's dangerous to have a politician who doesn't understand religion. And there is a difference between having faith and understanding religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of banning premarital sex and adultery, it's been tried. (In fact, come to think of it, wasn't the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery in Nigeria (?) recently reprieved?) It don't work. Fornication (in the legal sense of 'sex outside marriage') was forbidden in most of Europe for several hundred years, and I suspect also in the Puritan colonies. (Scarlet Letter, anyone?) It did not make Europe noticeably more moral, or America either; just better at hiding what was going on. Take a look at how many shotgun weddings and babies born out of wedlock there were, and think again on legislating a basic human drive.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If someone tried to legislate/enforce who I can and can't sleep with I would probably reverse my stance on gun control, as it would be obvious that my government was no longer doing an adequate job of protecting my freedoms and I would have to start protecting them myself. And yes, I would consider someone trying to arrest me for fornication to be a situation in which deadly force would be justified to protect myself, because in this hypothetical puritan world the punishment would probably be stoning, and I would probably be in danger of rape while imprisoned in the meantime.
But it would be a moot point... because as soon as that law passed it would be obvious that this country, however much I love it, was no longer the place for me and it had gone past the point where I could work for changes from within the system. Canada, New Zealand, Australia... wherever would take me first, I'd be gone.
Anyway, I know (think?) that no one is really suggesting this... but I still needed to share how utterly horrifying I find the prospect. Not because I feel the need to sleep around irresponsibily. But because it is none of your blessed business if I do.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::applauds ElJay::
Irami, I'm not quite certain that I understand your perspective, in terms of practical directions. Could you expand on what you are trying to say in your last post?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
ElJay,
quote: If someone tried to legislate/enforce who I can and can't sleep with I would probably reverse my stance on gun control,
I believe that is what gay people think right now.
KoM,
quote:On the subject of banning premarital sex and adultery, it's been tried.
Yeah, we tried that "abstinence only" thing too, but it seems to be making a comeback, even though it's been proven not to work.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And I am for civil rights for gays... all civil rights. But I will point out that after the supreme court struck down the Texas sodemy law that no states are currently trying to legislate/enforce who people are sleeping with, but instead whom they can marry. I think that was a huge step forward, that the sexual part of the relationships is itself no longer illegal... but I will not be happy about it until we have an acceptable civil union or marriage law nationwide.
In other words, not enough to make me arm myself and run for the border. Sorry, you won't get rid of me that easily.
Edit: But really, the way the country is going I need to start working out again so if it does happen I can look all Linda Hamiltonesque while I take out the morality cops and flee the country.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Icarus,
"Re" means again, or concerning, as in the word remember or the "re" in letter/email lines.
"ligere" is latin for bind or tie. The sense still lives in the word ligament.
Religion means remembering the bind or the tie, understanding that these binds are unseen. The negation still exists in the word negligent.
Different faiths see different ties, but all religions, by definition, speak to the existence of unseen bonds between people or God.
We live a society that's material and empirical. Even if I'm talking about a bond as obvious as a mother to a child, people are going to try to neglect that bond, or say it doesn't exist.
Without the existence of these bonds, a person is free to do what he/she wants, whenever he/she wants to. Clinton ignored the bonds of his marriage, and a blindspot in his character.
Without an acknowledgement of these bonds, there is no reason to trust. Acknowledging these bonds make trust possible. That's a big statement so I'm going to say. The existence of these bonds makes trust possible.
One reason people trust religious people is that religious people, even with all of the potentially suspect beliefs, have these bonds which make trust possible.
I think a lot of Christians get around this. They interpret free will as a free pass out of these bonds, instead of free will as the ability to neglect these bonds. They confuse the ability to break the rules with the ability to rewrite the rules. And when you through on top of this, all of the talk concerning redemption, it's almost like doing whatever you want whenever you want to.
One of the reasons Under God should remain in the Pledge is that it's a reminder that we are under something. We are duty bound to something not of our choosing. There are sixty reasons why that phrase should be taken out, but remembering that there is a bond that makes it improper to steal from or rape people, isn't a bad idea.
The problem with organized religion isn't religion. The problem with organized religion is it's elevation of belief or faith. What comes with that is a belief in or faith in God substitutes for being true to one another, and gives license to just do whatever one wants and let God sort it out.
I love Ephesians 5:21. Paul says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence of Christ." Being subject to one another. There is a humility there, a duty to one another. That's religion.
I hope this is clear. These are things I wish they taught in school. It's not establishing a belief system in a school, but it would be nice if kids were taught to be aware of, and on the look out for, these bonds.
I think we'd have fewer problems. I think it's too accepted for Christians to be casual because of Jesus's love, and work out the faith so that they get to keep the piety, a gun, a tidy profit, instead of, you know, feeding the sheep.
[ November 16, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm with ya, ElJay.
On a practical note enforcing a ban on pre-marital sex would be ludicrous. Either one would have to catch a couple in the act (ineffective) or what? Examine all unmarried women's hymens? What about the men?
The idea of legislating against pre-marital sex is a gross invasion of privacy and a blatant example of forcing one's own morals on other people with little, if any, regard for their rights and choices.
(I don't know if people were actually seriously suggesting it. But it would be a bad law. Bad morally and bad legally.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Examine all unmarried women's hymens? What about the men?
Men don't have hymens, dear.
Actually, Xap might be thinking in terms of a law that is not actively enforced, but whose mere presence on the books makes a statement about our official attitude on sexual morality. Kind of like how most anti-sodomy laws were.
-o-
Irami, I'm not questioning your belief that religion is a positive influence. Rather, I'm trying to get a feel for the consequence of this belief. Are you saying that morality should be encoded into law?
There seems to be this false dichotomy between legislating morality and not believing in any. I think you can be in the middle of this, and say that there are bonds, and honor, and moral and immoral things, but that it's parents', religion's, and every individual's job to teach this lesson, but not the law's job to enforce a sham of adherence to it.
I think our separation between church and state is one of the things that made America great. I think there are three very important principles that this country is founded on that are being dangerously eroded in this era of time, and people are allowing this to happen by bending to the force of demagoguery. These are separation of religion and matters of state, freedom of speech, and the ability of people to protect themselves from potential government tyrrany. And I think these are a more grave and immediate danger to us as a society than any slippage in morality you want to claim has happened in the last few decades.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Anyway, I know (think?) that no one is really suggesting this... but I still needed to share how utterly horrifying I find the prospect. Not because I feel the need to sleep around irresponsibily. But because it is none of your blessed business if I do.
But what if it is? What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?
This is the problem... We want to exercise some control over the values of our society, because those values determine the environments in which our progeny will grow up, and will determine the future of our nation. But in order to do so, individual decisions becomes our business because it is individual decisions that determine the values of our society.
When we fought racism, we had to take action against individual racist attitudes. We had to crack down on discrimination in the work force. We had to bring pro-diversity programs into schools. Why was it our business? Because we were out to fix society's values.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Are you saying that morality should be encoded into law?
I'm saying that morality is already encoded into law, and pretending that it isn't, is a lie we tell ourselves. And instead of spending so much time pretending that there is a severe break between church and state, we should spend our time figuring out why there isn't and when is it appropriate for this to be the case, among of a society of people with fundamentally diverse, comprehensive moral doctorines.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?"
It won't matter. In this hypothetical world, the ice caps would have already melted, the magnetic poles would have reversed, and the government's attempts to outlaw gun ownership would have sparked a race war which eventually inspired North Korea to fire its nuclear arsenal, leading to the extermination of all life on the planet well before your future children missed their periods.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Are you suggesting we ignore concerns about future problems, Tom?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The problem with your example is that racism caused immediate, direct, and identifiable harm to other people. The chain of causality in your future children scenario is weak at best.
But, to go with you for a moment, what if it does? It is your responsibility to raise your child according to your values and belief systems. It is not my responsibility to curtail my freedoms to make the world the place you desire for easy child-rearing.
I believe we have a greater responsibility to future generations, yes. The responsibility to pass down to them a healthy environment, a basic, functioning infrastructure, and the freedom to live as they choose. We must raise them the best we can and then respect them enough to make their own decisions.
Are they going to make the right choices every time? Probably not. Is every set of parents going to install the strong moral values that will enable them to make what I consider the right choices? Almost definately not. But your concern about your children does not give you the right to restrict my freedoms to this extent.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I think we'd have fewer problems. I think it's too accepted for Christians to be casual because of Jesus's love, and work out the faith so that they get to keep the piety, a gun, a tidy profit, instead of, you know, feeding the sheep.
Just like to go on the record of saying that nearly every Christian I know feeds the sheep in one way or another.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami meant actual, literal sheep-- he's got stock in Lambda, Lambda, Lamda, and Wooley.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Just like to go on the record of saying that nearly every Christian I know feeds the sheep in one way or another.
It's slippery. I think that there is an element of choice that snuck in there and is not at all appropriate to religion, as in, "I fed the sheep last week. I don't feel like feeding the sheep this week." Which is fine, except that there are still hungry sheep, and it's not up to what you feel like.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Are you suggesting we ignore concerns about future problems, Tom?
Given that Tom's post is in a large part about future problems, I'd say "no." I think -- and this is just a guess, here -- he's saying that there are considerably more important future problems to be worrying about.
<hyperbole>
Obviously some 52 million Americans disagree with him.
</hyperbole>
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Fixing one problem doesn't mean you need to ignore others.
I mean, Tom's a guy who's complained about "under God" being in the pledge of allegience... he should know less important future threats can still be important nonetheless. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hey Twink, rub it in why don't you?
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
quote: But what if it is? What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?
This is the problem... We want to exercise some control over the values of our society, because those values determine the environments in which our progeny will grow up, and will determine the future of our nation. But in order to do so, individual decisions becomes our business because it is individual decisions that determine the values of our society.
The parents of a child have a much, much, much stronger effect on the values of that child than 'society'. A child from a family whose parents instilled values in a child from an early age, and who practiced those values, has little to fear that society will 'corrupt' their children.
[ November 16, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not sure that that's a given Johnny Lee, but I'm not sure it needs to be. I think society has a huge and important effect on public morality. But I don't think creating laws to enforce morality will have the effect of creating morality. It's like a cause and effect thing, and people who believe we should legislate morality are, I believe, confusing the two. Laws may or may not reflect what we want our morality to be, but they cannot bring it into existence. They can, however, be used to oppress people.
EDIT to add: I do believe that society can have a corrupting influence on our children, despite parents' best efforts. (I wonder if most parents would agree with me. I think they would.) What I don't believe is that laws will fix this. Xap's example is a perfect case in point. Do I want my children to engage in premarital sex (when they are older)? No. But I don't think criminalizing the act is an effective way to prevent it, and I DO think that it can cause all sorts of other problems.
[ November 16, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Johnny, So, if you were a parent and looking for somewhere to live, you wouldn't worry about the effect that community would have on your kid? Do you think a child growing up in the rural midwest, versus an inner city ghetto, versus a rich suburban commmunity would all end up the same if they had the same parents?
Parents have a significant impact on children, but society ALSO does. If you move to Fallujah, for instance, it will have a big impact on who your child grows up to be.
[ November 16, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
quote: I'm not sure that that's a given Johnny Lee, but I'm not sure it needs to be. I think society has a huge and important effect on public morality.
I do think it is a very important point that needs to be discussed. I'm not saying it's 100%, but, in any case, there's been a lot of talk about how a society with 'loose' morals will lead to immorality as if this is an accomplished fact when no one has made these statements has even bothered to show that this is true. From my experience, this is generally *not* true. We do mostly grow up to be our mothers and fathers.
quote: But I don't think creating laws to enforce morality will have the effect of creating morality. It's like a cause and effect thing, and people who believe we should legislate morality are, I believe, confusing the two. Laws may or may not reflect what we want our morality to be, but they cannot bring it into existence. They can, however, be used to oppress people.
j
Totally agree. Morality flows from personal relationships, not the state, and certainly not from a few words on plaques or money.
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
quote: Johnny, So, if you were a parent and looking for somewhere to live, you wouldn't worry about the effect that community would have on your kid? Do you think a child growing up in the rural midwest, versus an inner city ghetto, versus a rich suburban commmunity would all end up the same if they had the same parents?
Parents have a significant impact on children, but society ALSO does. If you move to Fallujah, for instance, it will have a big impact on who your child grows up to be.
Xap, if the parents have a strong relationship with their children, then there is little to fear from general society.
What do I mean by strong relationships? I mean familial relationships that are invested with time and energy.
Can children stumble and fall away from their parents? Sure. However, I think that most children who stumble and fall will quickly right themselves if they have a close, honest relationship with their parents.
Let me also say something about 'society'. People keep on using that word when it is not clear what they mean or even whether such a thing as general society exists. Is there such a thing as general society? What makes up general society? Or is general society a collection of the various diverse families, tribes, cultures and subcultures that comprise it? Does chaos in one portion of society necessarily translate into chaos, or loose morals, in another part of society?
In my opinion, society is a collection of diverse cultures that are, to a large degree, seperate from one another. Change in one portion does not necessarily translate to change in another portion.
I do think it is beneficial for families of one belief system to live around, or at least have a community with, other families with similiar beliefs to further help insulate that community from 'chaos'.
So, to get back to your question, I think a child(edit: woops) from a 'strong' Christian family in the geographical city of Fallujah would probably be a good Christian. Further, if that family had a strong community with other Christians, they would have little to fear from whatever the rest of Fallujah believed in. That is, chaos in the general community does not translate to chaos in a specific family or community.
[ November 16, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Let me say, real quick like, that I'm speaking strictly of morals, transmission of, between cultures and general society. When you start talking about a drastic change in the physical reality of a society, such as, say, destruction of home, a constant barrage of loud noises, the lack of food and water in an area, then this is a different set of parameters. I do agree that strong families can be helped to exist by the state by the state preserving peace and physical continuity and order around a family.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Fixing one problem doesn't mean you need to ignore others.
No, but there are so many other much more pressing and important problems that will have a much more direct effect on the future of your children that it seems more than a little nonsensical to worry about the decaying moral values of society. To me, at least. *shrug*
quote:I mean, Tom's a guy who's complained about "under God" being in the pledge of allegience... he should know less important future threats can still be important nonetheless.
So he's a hypocrite. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: No, but there are so many other much more pressing and important problems that will have a much more direct effect on the future of your children that it seems more than a little nonsensical to worry about the decaying moral values of society. To me, at least. *shrug*
So we disagree.
I'm OK with that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A couple of things:
First, as I understand moral relativism, it means that an action that may not be moral in one context may be moral in a different context. The classic psychological example is called the "Heinz dilemma"
quote: In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it should cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?
Stealing is wrong, but allowing the wife to die is wronger. The law is on the druggists side, but the druggist's obstinance will cost a woman her life. So stealing is "relatively OK" because it will save the woman's life.
The Christian right is more supportive of Bush's war in Iraq (than liberals) on the grounds that "they attacked us." This is moral relativism. It's also hypocrisy, since Christianity teaches that we should "turn the other cheek" "love thy enemy" and "turn swords into plowshares." I see no evidence that the left uses moral relativism any more than the right does.
Second, I don't know where this idea that liberals are behind violent movies come from. The choice to make violent movies is a decision made by movie executives to enhance their bottom line. Is there some stereotype that movie executives are liberal? Movie stars, sure, but executives? The movie industry is big business. If there's a stereotype there, it's that big business tends to be conservative.
There may be examples of violent movies made by liberals, but they tend to be socially important movies like Schindler's list or Saving Private Ryan. And for that matter, Bruce Willis and Schwarzenegger are both conservative. I don't know about Jean Claude Van Damme and Stephen Segal, but I didn't see them lining up in support of Kerry.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, it helps with my not-worrying that I don't think the moral values of society are decaying.
I think people are just as horrible and hypocritical as they always were, it's just more out in the open now because of the reach of mass media.
But yes. Live first, everything else second.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It's slippery. I think that there is an element of choice that snuck in there and is not at all appropriate to religion, as in, "I fed the sheep last week. I don't feel like feeding the sheep this week." Which is fine, except that there are still hungry sheep, and it's not up to what you feel like.
I guess I'm not understanding. Are you saying that a portion of Christians choose to give sometimes and not others? Is that different from those who are not Christians?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Are you saying that a portion of Christians choose to give sometimes and not others? Is that different from those who are not Christians?
The non-Christians take ownership of their decision. There is a difference between saying, "I'm going to give when I want to," and saying, "God says I only have to give when I want to."
One person is an outright relativist, the other is a relativist who has somehow fooled him/herself that the Lord is cool with it.
[ November 16, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh. I guess I don't know any Christians that say that.
Edit: Except for the ones that don't pay taxes. : )
[ November 16, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Maybe it was where I grew up. In Orange County, Ca, you can't throw a stick without hitting seven of them.
[ November 16, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For me, I run across more of the "God says I'm supposed to give, but I'm not going to because it's all interpretation anyway."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll bet I'm a better aim than that. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I went to Laguna Hills High. Where are you?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Who....me? Or Porter?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For the record, it's open season for the next four years on Christians. Rove wants to mix politics with Christianity, that mixture goes both ways. Not the belief, that's not a political issue. But the decisions of the people who attribute the belief to their decisions are now up for scrutiny, by name. You want a "Christian" government. You want a government open for dissent, then there is going to be some organized religion declaiming.
[ November 16, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Second, I don't know where this idea that liberals are behind violent movies come from. The choice to make violent movies is a decision made by movie executives to enhance their bottom line. Is there some stereotype that movie executives are liberal? Movie stars, sure, but executives? The movie industry is big business. If there's a stereotype there, it's that big business tends to be conservative.
I'm going to wait and see how this one is answered. This very subject came up at work, with one of our few conservatives decrying the ruination of society by the liberal media elite. Unfortunately, because of his position in the company, I can't call him on his BS to his face.
Yet.
BTW, Grand Theft Auto: Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
South Park: Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
The Simsons? Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
I'll be back.
--Steve
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't have/watch any of the shows, but I imagine that liberals are blamed because we don't believe in banning any of them. _____
I was thinking about criminals today, though. I wonder if we could get a study of the past voting records of white collar criminals. I imagine street criminals don't make it out to the polls, and felons couldn't vote even if they wanted to.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Exactly. An ideal of free expression doesn't mean that all expression is liked by liberals. The same ideal that protects GTA protects Mormons and JWs and atheists.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, it's pretty clear the Simpson's creator is a liberal. Doesn't make the show any less funny.
I'd suspect South Park creators tend toward libertarianism.
No clue about Grand Theft Auto.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just for reference, my point was neither that future threats are inevitable and should be ignored, nor that not all future threats are of equal importance.
Rather, it was that some future threats are likelier than others.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Grand Theft Auto = Scottish creators, Adrenaline-junkie audience, Neither particularly influenced by politics
[ November 16, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I am only responding to the first thread, at the moment, don't have the time or emotional capital to read the rest right now.
quote:Since the election brought this whole "moral values" issue to the forefront of American politics, liberals keep claiming that they have moral values too.
"Liberals keep claiming they have moral values too."
Dude. Dudette. Serious now, are you? Is your brain squeezed between your butt cheeks?
Who are liberals? The 57 million Americans who voted for John Kerry? Or are Liberals the adults who didn't vote for Bush?
If people and pundits were to ask me, I'd say that I believe I am a Norse Christian Jedi who thinks a Divine Monarchy might be the only think that can save society from ALL the Nations combined ignorance and weakness.
So this makes me a Radical Upper Centerist.
I'm not a liberal.
I'm a radical upper centerist Norse Christian Jedi, who loves the people of Earth, and am bound and honored to America and my fellow Americans, as brother and sister.
Born here, raised here.
This is my land, and you kids are my people.
Liberal?
It's a dumb toohey/fox vaguery term that melts 100 million faces into one being that doesn't exist.
Are we talking about
JESUS CHRIST
and
GOD
and
THE HOLY SPIRIT
or are we talking
about moral values?
Are we talking about GOD? Or are we talking about religion? or are we talking about 6 billion people? or are we talking about politicains?
Are we talking, or are we being wise?
quote:The liberal philosophy generally is that people decide their moral beliefs on their own - that it is not the government's job to influence them. It's okay to have an abortion if you want to. It's okay to have premarital sex if you want to. It's okay to show violent programming if you want to. It's okay to do whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. But not only is it okay - the government isn't going to judge you either, or even try to pursuade you.
Bogus and angry false accusation.
Who's on trial here?
The Liberals.
Who are the Liberals?
<T>
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, I think that pretty much settles everything, then.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)