posted
I made a comment on the other side that made me wonder ... are there any American political groups that take a reasonable, moderate position on religion?
Basically, all I see on one side is the Religious Right, which is all about the promotion of a single conservative religion — one that I often take serious exception with, and which doesn't particularly respect my beliefs, or the beliefs of other minority religions (or lacks thereof).
Then on the other side, I see the folks who tell me that I have no business allowing my religion to influence my political opinions, that the mention of God invalidates any idea as religious imperialism or fanaticism, and that religion should be a private thing that you keep hidden from public life, much like an unsightly sore.
I don't agree with either of these positions. I don't think that evangelical Christianity should dominate American law and culture, but I also don't think that religion should be dismissed from the public forum or treated as an ugly, destructive influence. Is there anyone out there who actually agrees with that position? Or am I alone?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I'm a fairly religious Jew, but I don't think laws should be made with any relgious beliefs in mind. There are a lot more Republicans with this mindset than people are lead to believe due to the high volume of anti-homosexual rhetoric.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually suspect that most people have a moderate view on religion, just like most people have a moderate view on most issues. The voices in politics are divided, but the people aren't.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, that would describe my feelings to a T. I am very bothered by the Right who insist the US is a "Christian " nation, and who try to use that to influence legislation about, for example, what adults choose to do in their bedrooms. But I cannot seperate my faith from my political beliefs- for example, Christ spoke often about the poor, which means I would not vote for a candidate whose policies would making life harder for the poor
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually suspect that most people have a moderate view on religion, just like most people have a moderate view on most issues. The voices in politics are divided, but the people aren't.
i think Lady Jane is right. Moderates aren't good press.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
A hard-line pro-life, anti-gun control, near-absolutist free speech, generally pro-free market with regulations designed principally to allocate true costs and provide accurate information, pro-school choice, anti-federal investment and interference in local concerns, in favor of converting all civil marriages to civil unions with equal access to same sex couples, squishy on the death penalty and pro-drug rehab programs but otherwise very tough on crime and criminals, pro safety-net-only direct welfare benefits, pro-government investment in economic infrastructure including job training, with a foreign policy skeptical of the UN or international governance party?
I'd get like 3 votes. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then on the other side, I see the folks who tell me that I have no business allowing my religion to influence my political opinions, that the mention of God invalidates any idea as religious imperialism or fanaticism, and that religion should be a private thing that you keep hidden from public life, much like an unsightly sore.
That is the moderate (gutless) position. The radical (correct) position is that freedom of religion was a necessary step on the way to freedom from religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first, I didn't see Dag's last line, Banna, and I thought you were voting multiple times. In that case, you should move up to Washington, that's how we do it here
Dag, I pretty much fall in line with a lot of what you're saying ... though I may be somewhat squishier on abortion and gun control, and I don't know where I stand on the UN. I have been annoyed recently at conservative commentators jumping on the Oil-for-Food scandal as an opportunity to just say "Abolish the UN!" I can't help but think that would be a huge step backwards ...
Mostly, though, I am a proponent of high expectations and standards of behavior for individuals, particularly the expectaion that people will take personal responsibility for their actions. That position informs a lot of the rest of my opinions ...
Anyway, getting off my own subject, I guess Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for gun-control and the lack of squishyness on the death penalty I would say that's the closest thing to an accurate description of my political views I've ever seen.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better than the other choices out there Dag. Not 100% with you of course, but you'd still get my vote.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would like to point out that the loser of the presidential election was the sort of person puppy seems to be looking for. Religion influences personal life, and is a major part of his private life, and effects the way he views policy, but does not allow religious teachings to create policy.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Kerry's approach in my opinion, was that while I agreed with him in principle, he was willing to take that principle so far as to endorse actions he believed were wrong simply because his beliefs were based on religion. While I don't let religion influence my political view, I still see abortion as wrong. Kerry was never capable of considering that abortion might be wrong from a secular standpoint.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not with you on abortion or gun control (depending on your definition of "gun control") but I like the rest.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, while we're all defining our political positions, I forgot to mention that I'm less firmly-decided about gay marriage than Dagonee is ... though I'm certainly in a more moderate position than, say, OSC Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am ambivalent on the gun thing as well. I think everyone should be able to have a gun, but I think quantity and type should be able to be regulated.
P.S. And I hold the line on marriage as well. I know it personally hurts people that I feel this way, but I support the war in Iraq too and that actually kills people.
posted
I could amend gun control to "anti-gun most ownership restrictions or prohibitions but pro-registration and dealer regulation."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am, although the last time I posted in a gun control thread however, you were probably a year away from joining Hatrack. My ideal would be only police, military personel, and those who need guns to hunt for business purposes (food and clothing although not entertainment) would be allowed to have guns. I don't see that as a realistic possibility however, so I only really advocate tough control as opposed to a full scale ban.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support gun ownership because it is an equalizer for women. (Granted that I've spouted the maxim "don't carry a weapon you don't want used on you".)
But I don't like the carnival style marketing of guns.
P.S. I see squishy on the death penalty, what does that mean? I'd like to see no death penalty but also more life without parole.
posted
"Kerry was never capable of considering that abortion might be wrong from a secular standpoint."
I think thats because, secularly, its very obvious that legal abortion is a necessary ill that must be available to maintain the structure of a free and equal society. As well, I think its very likely that this is a question Kerry wrestled with as a much younger man. He's been a senator for a long time, after all, and has been in public service since he joined the navy over 35 years ago. In a presidential election, its very very rare to hear explanations for positions that politicians adopt, and asking Kerry to explain the other side of one of his positions, during election season, would have garunteed he lost... after all, the whole Bush campaign was geared around making Kerry sound as if he couldn't make up his mind.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, mothertree, since its also something currently being discussed on this thread, how you feel about abortion? Abortion has DEFINETELY been an equalizer for women, to a far greater extent then gun ownership has been.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think thats because, secularly, its very obvious that legal abortion is a necessary ill that must be available to maintain the structure of a free and equal society.
If by "obvious" you mean no reasonable, secular case can be made for banning abortion, you're dead wrong.
quote:I see squishy on the death penalty, what does that mean? I'd like to see no death penalty but also more life without parole.
It means I think the current death penalty system needs abolition or reform, that I'm not sure I'd vote to keep it in my state, but that the State has the moral authority to execute criminals.
posted
Dag, that's awesome. Despite the fact that you are far better-informed than I am about just about everything, we have the exact same position on the death penalty, as far as I can tell. Ie, that the state has the authority to institute the death penalty when necessary ... but that I would personally rarely judge it necessary.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many logical adjuncts to abortion, just none that the dominant category of politicians is willing to enact on their own sex.
As a Christian, I find an enthusiasm for guns and the death penalty to be as problematic as gay marriage. I don't see how the right can promote their ideal as a Christian nation.
Paul: I believe life begins before birth. I don't know when, exactly, and until science has determined it I consider abortion to be killing an innocent baby. Effectively, I'm a "from conception" advocate. The fact that it has economic benefits for the mother (in 95% of cases) is not relevant in my view.
posted
"If by "obvious" you mean no reasonable, secular case can be made for banning abortion, you're dead wrong."
I've never seen one. I've also seen about 50 attempts. Every so called secular argument I've seen for banning abortion comess back to a belief that abortion, at any stage, is murder... and that position relies on religious beliefs. Philosophically, there's no reason to call an embryo a person, unless you invoke a soul. Because murder is the killing of a person... not the taking of life, and in order to ban abortion, you have to establish that an embryo is a person. A person is a being with rights and responsibilities, subject to the protection of the law. Further, there's no way to ban abortion and enforce that ban without violating several tenets of what I, and most americans, consider to be reasonable secular principles.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe life begins before birth. I don't know when, exactly, and until science has determined it I consider abortion to be killing an innocent baby. Effectively, I'm a "from conception" advocate. The fact that it has economic benefits for the mother (in 95% of cases) is not relevant in my view.
That pretty much sums up my view on abortion. I would rather err on the side of caution and not risk killing something that could be a life than take that risk in favor of economical consideration. I don't see why religion is necessary to believe a baby that is not yet born is valuable as a life, but religion isn't necessary to to believe that a baby that is born is valuable as a life.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the initial post seriously mischaracterizes the position of 99.9% of people who believe that the state has no business promoting religion, and misunderstands why many people have a problem with the use of God *solely* to support an idea.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Geoff, I suspect that the modern Democratic party is far, far closer to your interpretation of a "moderate" religious position than its detractors would have you believe. I know it's far too religious for me, for example. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*would probably vote for Dag* But, i don't believe the state has the right to execute people. I don't think that banning abortion will get rid of it, only pull it underground and people who can afford it will still get them. it would be best to promote education instead of just banning it out right. I don't think that any church should be allowed control of government policies, but, it's still important to look at all perspectives when considering what is best for the country. Promoting abstinence only is not enough, telling kids "don't have sex" doesn't work when you have half naked people sauntering around all over the media as appealing as warm fresh cookies. Kids must also be taught about contraceptives, about saying no if they don't want to have sex and about alternatives. It's not about moderation, more about what works best. It is unfair to deny gays the right to civil union or marriage when they pay their taxes and work like straight people do. As long as a person is not a convicted criminal their rights should be upheld.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I'm sure the first part of my post also sounds like a mischaracterization to conservative evangelical Christians. However, this is how both sides come across to a person who is standing between them, rather than on one side or the other. I know there are plenty of reasonable people on both sides who don't quite mean it the way it gets said, but that doesn't mean I don't feel dismissed or alienated Or even that I shouldn't.
Quoting Paul (the hatracker, not the apostle) ...
quote:Every so called secular argument I've seen for banning abortion comess back to a belief that abortion, at any stage, is murder... and that position relies on religious beliefs.
Only in the sense that it relies on a person presuming to know what cannot be proven scientifically — that an unborn human should or should not be valued as equal to or nearly equal to an independent, living human.
It can't be proven scientifically because whether you take a position for or against abortion, it is all about values.
Science can only describe how the world functions. It can declare odds of survival at different stages of development, for instance. It can record and describe the behavior of an unborn human and make guesses as to its level of consciousness, if any.
But what it cannot even begin to do is determine what we, as morally-conscious beings, should value. Do we value this incipient human life more highly or less highly than we do the freedom and convenience of its mother? Does that value change with that unborn human's level of development, or with the mother's situation, at what point, and why? These are questions we can only answer by our consciences, and not by any scientific study.
So in a sense, yes, it always comes down to "religion" ... if by "religion" you mean "all things that humans determine as a matter of faith and conscience, rather than through science" ... but it always comes down to that on BOTH sides of the debate, not just on one.
quote: all things that humans determine as a matter of faith and conscience
I think what makes me uncomfortable is the use of the phrase "faith and conscience," as I consider the two things to be remarkably dissimilar. I'm perfectly happy with humans relying on conscience when making ethical decisions; I'm not a fan of faith, though, as an alternative to conscience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So anyway, Paul, my point that directly addresses yours is, I don't think abortion is murder. I think it's wrong, but not because I think I've found a way to construe that existing murder statutes apply to unborn humans in some incontrovertible way.
Rather, I think that we have laws disallowing murder for a reason, while we also have laws permitting the death penalty and war for a reason. We have determined, as a society, that human life is worth protecting by law, but that there are controlled situations in which lives can be taken for the sake of some higher value.
I, personally, have made a similar determination about abortion. I think those incipient lives are worth protecting by law, though there are situations in which their value is outweighed by some other consideration (a threat to the mother's health, for instance, or the aftermath of a rape). Why do I value the lives of unborn humans this way, while many people value other considerations much more highly? That would take years to explain.
But it can't be dismissed as simply as, "You can't prove it's murder, so it's all right!" Murder isn't the only action in the world that is morally and ethically wrong. It IS possible for something to be wrong without it being murder.
And using the reasoning you're using, really, it's possible to declare that ANYTHING should be legal, since at their roots, all of our laws are based on shared values that cannot be proven "true", and that cannot be founded solely in other proven laws.
posted
Tom, to make you more comfortable, that line could easily have read "faith OR conscience" and meant the exact same thing to me People couch their conscientious decisions in different language, based on their background, and I wanted to cover all bases — both religous and irreligious — since I believe that ultimately, at their core, both groups make these kinds of decisions in similar ways.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wanted to cover all bases — both religous and irreligious — since I believe that ultimately, at their core, both groups make these kinds of decisions in similar ways
See, I don't believe that. If you make a decision because it seems like it'll produce the best outcome, you're acting based on logic. If you make a decision because it seems like it's the most moral of the alternatives, you're making a decision based on conscience. What role does faith play in either of these? (Answer: none.)
By this standard, faith just adds an extra element to either of those two approaches; it gives you another reason to believe that your approach is the logical one (like OSC's stand on gay marriage), or gives you another reason to believe that your approach is the moral one (like most people's opposition to abortion.)
At best, then, faith is merely a factor in a larger decision; that decision still comes down to conscience or logic. Which is a good thing, IMO.
quote:I don't think that any church should be allowed control of government policies, but, it's still important to look at all perspectives when considering what is best for the country.
Practically nobody in America would disagree with that, it seems to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you consider the perspective of a neo-Nazi? A Communist who believes Stalin was the greatest-ever leader of a nation-state? A headhunting, illiterate cannibal who believes cars are evil spirits?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool it, KoM. Or which religious people on this board would you say are in any way as delusional as your examples -- whom, it may be noted, are also free under our system to vote according to their beliefs, right or wrong?
------
"Tom, from what you just posted, it sure sounds like you agree, except for where you said you don't agree."
Again, that's because I don't think we should be equating faith with conscience. The two are hugely different things; if anything, the former is merely a modifier of the latter.
posted
Why not? If a communist has an interesting perspective on a certain thing, if a cannibal makes a fascinating point, it happens. Good ideas can come from anywhere, no reason to dismiss them if they are rational and logical. Even wise people can come up with ridiculous ideas. It varies.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But it can't be dismissed as simply as, "You can't prove it's murder, so it's all right!""
I didn't say abortion is all right. I said it shouldn't be banned. There is a huge gulf in between those two positions.
" Why do I value the lives of unborn humans this way,"
I value unborn humans too... but here's the thing. I can't find a reason or way to ban abortions, from secular grounds, without putting a higher value on unborn humans then on many other principles that the vast majority of americans would say are "reasonable" and important principles. In the end, every argument I've seen that seeks to ban abortion, values the unborn human higher then those principles because of a view that the fetus or embryo already has a soul, or the equivalent.
As a society, we ban things because they are more destructive to society if we allow them, then if we ban them. Not only that, the practice has to be abhorrent. And, according to our constitution, has to be banned in such a way as to preserve american principles. Otherwise, we simply shun them, or regulate them in some way.
In order to be FOR banning abortion, you have to value the unborn human MORE then constitutional principles. (Insert conservative rant about privacy, insert comments that privacy was an established constitutional principle by the early 1800's, insert whole slew's of side bar about constitutional principles). Thats tough to do, without viewing the embryo as already having a soul. In fact, so far, I've found it to be impossible.
"Murder isn't the only action in the world that is morally and ethically wrong"
Yes, but whether an action is morally and ethically wrong isn't the determining factor in whether we ban it. Besides that, why do we consider many actions to be morally and ethically wrong? Why do we consider abortion morally and ethically wrong? Why is abortion viewed to be SO morally and ethically repugnant that people want to ban it? My contention is that people who view abortion to be morally and ethically wrong enough to want to ban it... do so based off of their religious beliefs, or from osmosified (word? Is now!) religious beliefs.
"And using the reasoning you're using, really, it's possible to declare that ANYTHING should be legal"
Ah, no. The reasoning I'm using in my above post is simply that the arguments for banning abortion rely on abortion being murder, and that this is in fact the only secular justification for banning abortion, as other principles are involved that as a society we value highly enough that they are only overturned in order to prevent murder, and that this secular definition is never achieved because the only way to show abortion is murder is to say the embryo has a soul.
(Use of murder in this post ignoring legal definition of murder and using ethical definition of murder).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should have added "without comparison otherwise". I merely meant to make the point that there are indeed some points of view which we do not seriously consider. Now, I do believe that any sort of religious faith should belong to that category, but that's not what I was saying, merely that there is indeed a line drawn.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the reasoning behind my use of those words was that religious people typically see their faith as being inextricably tied to and informing their moral decisions, and more readily think of moral decisions as "matters of faith" while non-religious people do not. Again, I was just trying to be clear that I was covering both viewpoints, in a couple of words, and was not trying to launch a semantic argument over the role of faith in decision-making
That said, I agree with your assessment. I just think you're being too picky with my word choice.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not? If a communist has an interesting perspective on a certain thing, if a cannibal makes a fascinating point, it happens. Good ideas can come from anywhere, no reason to dismiss them if they are rational and logical.
Yes, but we were discussing the shaping of society as a whole, or at least I was.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
