posted
Stop unmaking, or I swear I'll bring fluff into this thread so fast and so thick, you'll be coughing dandelion seeds until the inaugural ceremony.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I would hesitate if I were you to suggest that it is somehow wrong of me to call other people wrong.
So next time a Christian steps up and says "Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being," you won't protest that statement? YOu won't accuse me of "forcing my values down other people's throats?" Because if it's okay for you to tell people they're wrong on this forum, it's okay for me to as well, right?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
On more consideration, the argument isn't worth having. There's a big world out there that keeps on spinning around. It's better to be involved in it than to be throwing fuel onto a pointless fire.
posted
Bad example, Belle. Tom has said "Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being," many times on this forum.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, at the risk of offending half the country I think the right is wrong on a lot of levels. Especially when they imply that homosexuality is a threat to American society. Poverty is a worse threat. Economically the country will not look very good when most Americans have to take low paying jobs at Walmart or McDonalds to support themselves barely. This is something I serious see happen. Why? Because I'm living it right now. I don't even want to think of what a disaster that will be when the gap between the rich and the poor becomes a canyon. Something has got to be done to stop that!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So next time a Christian steps up and says 'Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being,' you won't protest that statement?"
*blink* Belle, you may want to use another hypothetical example. Because that particular one isn't going to produce the answer you'd expect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not my point, dkw. He is always critical of a Christian who tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values.
I want him to understand that he is doing the same thing. He isn't calling it "faith" but he's stating he deserves the right to call other people wrong without being called on the carpet for it. Therefore - so do I.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom I'm not saying you disagree with the statement - I'm saying you disagree with people who use their system of faith and values to call other wrong, regardless of the issue. I know the stances on abortion around here, I jsut threw that one out because it's such a hotbed issue it gets brought up a lot.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He is always critical of a Christian who tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values."
No, no, see, I'm not. I am occasionally critical of Christians who seek to legislate based solely on their faith and values, but I am to my recollection never critical of a Christian who merely tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values.
Ask Christy; I respect that aspect of democracy immensely. I once spent twenty minutes arguing with a shopkeeper over whether or not America was truly a christian country, and whether it should be.
posted
That's not the way I remember it, but I don't feel like pulling up old threads to drag out an argument I don't want to have anyway, because I'm in no mood to feel negative today.
So, I'll concede that you haven't done that, specifically.
I will however, copy this thread, so I can have this handy if I should ever need it.
quote:But I would hesitate if I were you to suggest that it is somehow wrong of me to call other people wrong.
posted
Belle, I am very glad that there was such a marked increase in voter turnout, regardless of how the vote went from my perspective. That is an unmitigatedly Good Thing.
The way this vote went does affect my personal life, and it does so in such a way that I fear I will be chewing my hands off at the wrist if I stay here. Not because my evangelical Christian friends are evil, but because I can't function productively.
I'm starting to figure out what this means to me as the day goes on. Remember, I'm not just an American -- I am part of an American/Canadian marriage. My other half is not tied to the US, except through me, and is in fact strongly tied to another place with other values. He put aside his comfort to be with me for the last few years, but it has been a very distressing time for him. There is no likely change for him anytime soon, not in this context. Frankly, were I not married to a Canadian, the idea of leaving would not have even occurred to me. I'm pretty sure that I would have considered it cowardly, unpraiseworthy, wrong-hearted as well as wrong-headed. If I care about people here, my fellow citizens, shouldn't I buckle under and fight what I see as the good fight? Not abandon them?
The trick is that I never get away from this. For me, there is no surrounding myself with like-minded people, getting our minds off our woes over a beer and a crack of the pool cue. When I am at work, I deal with the (still not officially acknowledged in any meaningful way) health care crisis. When I get home, I face the questions and concerns (real, heartfelt, troubled) of a man -- my husband, my other half -- who lives in a country he cannot in good conscience support, who is miserable in much of his work just like me, and who asks me hard questions.
That isn't a complaint, by the way. I married a critical thinker, a cosmopolitan, and a Canadian, all rolled into one. I wouldn't ask him to be different, I wouldn't want him to be different. But it does mean that the cognitive dissonance I have with my country doesn't leave me for more than a few hours at a time (usually, when I am with Tom and Christy and Sophie . We usually don't talk politics.) But it's there when I go to work each day, there when I go to sleep at night, always there.
Life isn't the same for me as it was before I married. It isn't the same for him, either, and we are a partnership. It's like a cross-faith marriage -- you have to find some tenable middle ground. Were this last election not my visions of the Perfect Storm (Bush re-elected, tightened Republican control on Congress, SCOTUS seats coming up for grabs), I could see making a bid for the tenability of a waiting period. However, it did happen. I don't begrudge it, but I have to face the reality of it for my daily life.
I'll still be reading up on baseball, though. And go, Hoos! (As long as we beat the Hokies ... ) I don't hate, despise, or castigate those who voted for Bush. I don't question the right of those who have faith different from mine to cast their votes and direct the country -- I regret the outcome, but I don't attribute that to evil on the part of those who determined it.
I just have to figure out how to get to a place where I am happy and content enough on a daily basis that I can do good work in the world, rather than gnaw at my hands in unremitting anxiety and distress. Being that half of me is Candian, the solution is kind of obvious.
I've been coming to that decision for a long time, though. Not that much has changed for me since yesterday -- the election just confirmed what I was suspecting about the trends in this country, anyway, and thus confirmed for me the realities of the options I have.
quote:****wonders if Sara would move to Vancouver or Victoria and would be just a few hours drive from me****
I love Victoria! It's more likely Ottawa for us, given our respective work situations. But I will keep you posted.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, no problem, Belle. To be honest, this is not the first time over the last seven years that someone has announced that they're copying a thread in hopes of catching me in hypocrisy or inconsistency. To date, however, no one has actually used quotes from any of the threads they said they were copying for that purpose, so I am forced to conclude -- since the thought that I am neither hypocritical nor inconsistent is unthinkable to me -- that they are merely unobservant and/or lack dedication.
-----
Sara: We're going to have to get at least one D&D campaign in before you go, y'know.
posted
Oh, things take time. We went ahead and started the process to lift the conditionality on his permanent residence status. We have to do this in order for him to continue working under the current grant, as that runs out in July or so. We need a good six months plus buffer to find work up there, especially given that I have to wind through the morass of credentialling and licensure in another country.
We were hoping, actually, to get an affadavit from you & Christy that we are indeed happily married, living together, and not just doing this for a green card for him. (Now there's an irony.) It wouldn't have anything to do with specifiying our long-term plans -- just a testification that our marriage is a real one, not a sham.
Oddly, Glorily is pushing for Dave to apply for US citizenship. Dave's eyes went a little tight around the corners, and he held his tongue. Regardless of whether it would improve his range of choices in work and life, that is about as likely to happen as ... well, the Giant Purple Panda landing and initiating world peace through distribution of magical springerles.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, yes -- next campaign, I'm there. Just send me a date and time, and I'll come loaded with snacks. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for fun, here are non-religious reasons why I voted for George Bush.
1. I support the war in Iraq, I think the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power and I think we need to stay over there and finish the job.
2. I believe lower taxes are good for our economy.
3. I am a small business owner, and I feel that Kerry would have raised corporate and business taxes and as a small business struggling to get by and pay our people enough, I am strongly opposed to increased taxation on businesses.
4. I would like to see some portion of social security privatized.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. I support the war in Iraq, I think the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power and I think we need to stay over there and finish the job.
2. I believe lower taxes are good for our economy.
3. I am a small business owner, and I feel that Kerry would have raised corporate and business taxes and as a small business struggling to get by and pay our people enough, I am strongly opposed to increased taxation on businesses.
4. I would like to see some portion of social security privatized.
See, even though I completely disagree with all of these, I can at least respect you for having voted based on these sorts of reasons. I think you're wrong, but not illogical. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a fair question, dkw. I guess in my mind they can't ever be separated since my faith is such an integral part of how I see everything.
However, those are not issues that have been traditionally seen as religious issues along the same lines as abortion and gay marriage. There is no biblical passage that's often touted out to support voting for privatization of social security like there is when people line up on opposite sides of the abortion and the gay marriage debate.
When I think as a business owner, I think in terms of what is going to be financially best for me and my employees. When I think of social security, I think of my future in a financial light, not a religious one.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course, many of the analyses that go into deciding how to vote on those issues will be practical analysis: Does a particular economic plan help or hurt the poor? Is the war an effective way to provide peace and safety in the long run? Do privatized accounts provide for a better retirement system?
Not religious questions, although religious beliefs are necessary in deciding that these questions are relevant.
quote:Not religious questions, although religious beliefs are necessary in deciding that these questions are relevant.
Er, no they aren't. In people who are religious, though, they play a role.
What I'm saying, though, is that a good chunk (let's take that twenty-two percent figure) of the voters didn't do what Belle did. Rather, they cast uninformed votes from their guts. I'm quite willing to call that stupid.
Edit: An uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all, to me.
posted
For a religious person, I think they have to be.
I’ve quoted this before, but it’s worth posting again:
quote: We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)
We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. (Deuteronomy 30:19) [this includes capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world, as well as abortion.]
Dag is right that how one’s faith leads one to vote on any of these considerations will depend on various analyses. They aren’t black and white by any means. But to limit “religious issues” to abortion and gay marriage ignores an awful lot of the gospel, IMO.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree - everything is a religious issue to me ("questions" referred to those specific questions used to analyze the isues). And even if I thought gay marriage should be illegal for religious reasons, I would abhor that so much religous energy has been spent on it to the exclusion of other issues.
posted
the following is from my sweetie, who I sent browsing through the thread. I thought it would be good fodder for our discussions.
BTW, he has already been sent a job posting for a faculty position at U Victoria, romanylass. Our feelers are sprouting.
quote:I wonder if David would object to being called a wee bit nationalistic?
Hi Tom. Dave here.
I should clarify that my sense of being a Canadian occurs within a framework of being an internationlist. This is a perspective that I think is shared by many Canadians when we think about ourselves as a nation. It implies a valuing of peoples around the world, and striving for constructive relations between nations even in the face of immense difficulties. This view is of course seen as something akin to 'weak' down here. It might be usefully contrasted to the intense nationalism and isolationalism currently (and historically) predominant among Americans, and very central to American personal identity (i.e. the American exceptionalistic variant of patrioticism).
Not that there's anything wrong with Americans being nationalistic. I'm just pointing out that American nationalism is of different and more intense form than found in Canada, or at least in my own soul. The version down here has never made sense to me. It just never translated into anything I valued from home.
And now after a wonderful and rewarding extended visit to this land of the best and the worst, I am planning my move back home, a move that has been intended since before I arrived. I'm leaving your nation, and returning to the world. I think that this is my heart-felt answer to your (hopefully non-rhetorical) question. *smile
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I did not mean to imply that you do. I do think that large parts of the gospel are ignored when religion is mentioned in public discourse, but that was not aimed at you, personally.
I apologize that my phrasing did not make that clear.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have decided that there is work to do. I believe our two-party system is guaranteeing us a second-class leadership with a lack of vision or focus for the long term.
I believe that we are being strung along by those who use morality-based arguments, and those who argue against using them.
I believe, we need to look at our Country and our world comprehensively and select a direction that works to make us good, and then work to accomplishing that, not just for one election, but for the rest of our time here.
That we can be tugged and pushed when we should be working toward a particular goal is insane, to me.
I think we have the capacity to do much better. To be led by better people than we are even being offered as choices now. And I believe we should demand it.
And I believe that the current two party system is hurting our country in ways that are probably even hard to recognize until it's too late.
Do you realize, for example, that we still do not have a budget for LAST fiscal year in many Federal agencies? We don't have one for this fiscal year.
The one job that Congress MUST do every year, they don't seem capable of doing.
Our leaders can't seem to agree on the direction for revamping our (universally acknowledged as a failure) intelligence system.
We leave all the important work undone while we take up issues that are "vote getters."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I'm sorry I wasn't more respectful of other people's views in my initial post. I was upset, but that's no excuse.
Mainly I am worried about our personal freedoms. I am worried about the rights of homosexuals, the rights of pregnant women, and the rights of every citizen with the probability of more Patriot Acts. I just don't see how that is good for our country.
On a lighter note, I was reminded today that the Red Socks winning the World Series is supposed to be a sign of Armegeddon...
It's completely unsurprising that you've got such well-considered and articulated positions for considering (well, having already decided, anyway) to migrate to Canada. I say that without my previous sarcasm (and, I confess, a bit of gloating, which is strange since I don't like Dubya, either).
For what it's worth, I think you've got your priorities straight-were I in your position, I'd take marital happiness (not to mention the numerous other issues) over expressing-love-for-America-by-living-there six days a week and twice on Sunday. Without sounding too silly and melodramatic (I hope), it's our loss to have ya leaving.
Or more simply put (why should I use one sentence when several will do?), sorry I was such a schmuck to everyone.
posted
Well, you know, Jeff, what is a monumental shift in my 3D life will amount to a suprisingly small blip in my Hatrack life. For all intents and purposes, I'm still here.
Now I'll just be able to send y'all some of the really good maple syrup.
No worries about schmuckability, at least from my perspective. It was a remarkably tense time for Hatrack, and I'm surprised we didn't go up like a powderkeg. I think we're in the process of sorting it out, and I think there are a lot of raw feelings (understandably, sadly, and from all corners), but the worst has likely passed.
Another to Rakeesh. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I respect those who disagree with me. But that doesn't mean I want to live in a country where a man like George Bush can win an election fair-and-square.
quote:What does follow from Adam's statement is that most of his neighbors (in the extended sense) have made a choice that makes him feel uncomfortable to live here.
Doesn't mean he's saying they are "horrid ... rotten ... miserable ... truly evil." Just that he is uncomfortable living with their decisions.
I'm in the same place. I am uncomfortable as a citizen in a country that is so strongly evangelically Christian and which is comfortable with our foreign policy over the last four years.
Doesn't mean that I find any of y'all who voted for Bush to be evil -- just that I don't want to live in this country because I'm not comfortable with that trend, and I have to find a way to deal with that.
I agree with Adam's statement, and with Sara's interpretation of Adam's statement.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I considered voting TomDavidson for president, but I decided that if that isn't his real name, I couldn't bear the responsibility if the REAL TomDavidson won and was a complete fool.
posted
After a devastating result in the Australian federal elections in mid-October, I was holding out hope that perhaps something could be saved in the United States.
I was wrong.
I find it so ironic the blather that people are rolling out about Bush and the economy. I can accept that people think he's good for Iraq (hey, he only lied to get troops there, squandered the advantage over al Qaeda and stuffed up the post-war planning) but CUTTING taxes when you have over 100,000 troops tied up in a potentially long-term foreign conflict is just perplexing. Bush's tax cuts have been demonstrably worse for the economy: the Social Security Trust fund is suffering; Medicare / Medicaid are suffering; the budget surplus has been destroyed. Conservative and religious values might be on the rise, but the fabric of the American economy and its welfare components are coming apart faster than most people think.
The Bush Administration has not governed for all the people so far. They've governed for the rich ones. Why will they start now?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, the neoconservatives want to destory Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. And the bona fide conservatives want to hamstring the government by reducing its cashflow. Everybody wins, right?
Also, as one of a small number of Aussies I know, mind if I email you and pester you with questions about Australia? I'm planning to move to either Australia or NZ in the next few years.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twink, I know that. You know that. How many voters do you think know that?
-----------
Email away! It'd be great to hear from you and I'd be more than happy to give advice. If you wind up in in Sydney, we can go out and get trashed. Errr... I mean, sightsee. Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. About zero. As someone I quite like just said on another fourm, "but, hey, look at the bright side. At least family, faith and fortune have been saved from the ravages of liberalism."
------
You'll have mail shortly, sir. And don't tempt me to move sooner -- I could really use a stiff drink or three today.
Edit: Actually, to be strictly accurate, I've wanted to go out and get trashed since mid-July. When I do finally wind up in a city where I have some friends, the first outing is going to be epic.
posted
I doubt that this nation will ever be as united as we were in the year after September 11th-- heck, I doubt that we will ever be as "united" as we were when Clinton was president. I really don't think that such unity is possible as long as he's president. Not that I don't think he'll try, but if he only tries as hard as he has for the past four years, he's not going to have much luck. At the same time, many Democrats (and independents, in my case), there's too much emotion directed at him that'll probably outlast his term. I at least hope that we can get to the point where the voters that make up "the other side" no longer feel like exiles in their own land.
Honestly? I wanted Kerry to win. Badly. But Bush won the electoral college, and though 51% of the popular vote may not be much of a mandate, it's still a victory for him. For now, as much as it pains me to say it, George W. Bush will still be president of the United States.
I'm really looking forward to the day when I won't have to hear anything of this sleazy election, and when I can turn on the news and find out about some new scientific breakthrough or something. I hope that one day our two parties won't use an "Us vs. Them" mentality as such a large part of their campaign (i.e.; "Let's win America back from them", "let's keep America from falling into their hands" are some I've heard recently). Most importantly, I'm looking forward to the day when I can actually vote four years from now (17 and 10.5 months in two years, gah), and I hope that it will be for a canidate that I can have at least some respect for, or better yet, a canidate that has a lot of respect for the other guy. I guess it's easier to vote when you can't easily imagine your canidate with horns, a pitchfork, and hooves because of all the mud that's been flying around.
So, uh, congrats to Bush and Co. For the fellow Kerry folk out there, four years is far too long to keep worrying about this. I wanna try to make the best of it.
--j_k
[ November 03, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. We usually don't talk politics.) But it's there when I go to work each day, there when I go to sleep at night, always there.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
