Also, there is evidence if you think polls have any validity.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
This Pew poll shows that Millennials split 51% Democratic ; 35% Republican
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...16-and-beyond/
… “They are America’s most liberal generation by far, but when asked to name their party, nearly half say they are independents.”…
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. George Bernard Shaw
Who's worse, the lw anarchist who engages in criminal activity for political gain or the lw interest group/organization that they're working for? Oops, I should have asked the Democrat who is associated to both of them whether he admits it or not.
Why ask me? I am not a voter in your country so why does my opinion matter when it comes to your left wing over there? Probably it would be more interesting to hear what you left wingers think on the activities of their own party as those opinions impact your country. Not my opinions.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
As for my own opinion, i think there is not enough listening on both sides and both sides think rights are being taken. On the right i hear "religious
freedom" whatever that means is being taken. I would love to hear more about that tbh as i am interested to hear their side. On the left they are including gays, trans etc rights to be given to them which is getting push back by some right wingers. This is only what i hear anyway. Take with a grain of salt as i am not in your country and only hear what the media says and we well know the media. As for who is worse, i think if it goes against taking rights away (and lets be clear both sides think they are getting a sore deal) it is a criminal offense either way IF rights are being taken away. As I have only heard one side, i really cannot have an opinion on the right wing opinion of "religious freedom" and what that implies to them. Culturally i am more left wing. I have my opinions but i think it is wise to hear out the other side to come to an agreement on this. But I think some right wingers would deem both as a criminal act and may point to the constitution for their rights. So i hear anyway whether it be guns, religious freedoms etc. So, ah i know i am really rambling here. Thinking as i am typing. I think it really boils down to individual perception. Both are dangerous to a person who does not share the same views.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
I don't care if their cities are terrorized and destroyed by activities of their own. Hell, I don't care if they loot playdude's place in Manhattan and hang him from a lamp post.
Depends if it impacts the economy. It does tend to have a domino effect. Really depends on how the cities are terrorized and destroyed by their own activities.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
Religious Freedom
I'm not the ideal person to explain 'religious freedom' from a rural right perspective. The core, I think, is the right to act according to their principles of religious freedom, to avoid violating God's will as they understand it.
The conflict from an Enlightenment point of view as evolved in the US is laws and precedent barring discrimination. If one is providing goods or services to most people, to the public, one is required to provide goods and services to all, no matter what one believes God thinks about this group or that set of practices. One of the stickier problems is whether a health care provider must provide reproductive health care when their understanding is that God does not like this form of birth control, or that form of abortion. One can see a drug seller not wanting to sell an after the fact no pregnancy pill, but this could leave a rape victim going from pharmacy to pharmacy, from hospital to hospital, trying to find someone willing to sell.
That's about the most controversial example I can come up with, but there are many variations on the theme. If someone walks into a bakery to order a wedding cake, and they ask for two grooms on the top instead of a bride and a groom, do you have to sell them the cake and the two little plastic men? Can a bakery employee isolate themselves from an act of sin (at least in their eyes) or is it a question of equality and prejudice?
I don't have any difficulty seeing either side, but the law has an enforcement arm while the church doesn't.
Religious freedom is protected by the US Constitution. My daughter has the right to be a Christian in America. She has the right to wear her cross as a symbol of her faith any where she wants within America. Any fucking liberal who disagrees or objects better wake the fuck up and remember what nation they are living in. Fortunately, I live in a community that doesn't bow to liberal PC or some atheist who believes his/her right to not believe and express their disbelief in god is greater than her right to believe and express her belief in god. Despite what you hear and what liberals say and often project in regards to their level of intelligence over others, you become aware that they're not very smart. Smart people don't assemble a large social powder keg without having an inkling or clue as to what they've done to alienate American nationalists of all stripes.
Hmm ok so the way i see it the only way to maybe sort this out is for individual practices to cater to certain people do you think? So to include all as most likely some right wingers feel their beliefs are being shot down. It is the only thing i can think of atm. But that does mean laws will have to change to allow that to happen. Before left wingers hate me on that i am looking for ways to include all as things will not be sorted the way they are going. The way things are going is causing more friction between both sides. Both feeling threatened. Consensus has to be made and all somehow heard and included as people tend to double down on beliefs when threatened and close off to anything those who oppose them say.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
Why should smart people be concerned over alienating American nationalists? Enquiring minds want to know.
Nationalism does not strike me as being necessarily smart. It's ingrained in us to root for the home team, and to want it to do well. But, if people get angry at other peoples' opinions, whose fault is that, and why should smart people worry about it?
If this is really the nation of America that we are proud of, we can accept that people have opinions and will express them. I'm not sure what else our nation is about besides that, in fact.
Yes, including that they believe in God, if they do.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 05-10-2016 at 01:26 AM.
Do some atheists hate on a person wearing a cross or being a christian? I am an atheist but do not care about that. I do care though if they are taking away another person's rights, say marriage or abandoning a gay family member. But of course those folk are fundamentalists most times. Which is why i wonder if it is not such a bad idea to perhaps have different services which cater to certain people. I have mentioned in the past also to just do the job and not push your personal bias...but that probably is unrealistic. So, individual businesses which cater to certain people may be the way currently. I may not like it and definitely not what goes on in my country but that is the state of your country atm and to have a place for all may be the way instead of left and right squabbling about ideology being crammed down ones throat. Thing is will this ever happen? I doubt it very much and i doubt consensus will happen any time soon. It will happen MAYBE when it is the only choice left.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
The consequences for asserting that one is a Christian are slight. It's not as if one sports a swastika.
Political correctness is a dying fad among liberals if it hasn't largely died. We may spoof it (as "if someone with visual impairment is "visually challenged", then is a criminal "ethically challenged"?
There are plenty of smart Christians. Intelligence has practically no connection to religiosity.
Whom do agnostics and atheists alienate?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Yes, and especially the last sentence. THAT is a HUGE problem. Especially say if someone is in dire need of help and due to colour, sexual orientation or belief system several do not want to help you. What is the person to do then? That does worry me. As I mentioned personal belief should not interfere with doing ones job BUT then we have to take into account that others do not want their rights trampled on. So what should we do about them? I do not believe the answer is to alienate them further. They do, whether we like it or not have a voice and do deserve to be heard and included as we would wish to also. That is their right. So, if religious freedom is to be incorporated into the business world how will it affect it and more importantly how will it affect others like myself who are atheists, or who are gay or trans etc? Is there a place for all of us to have our own rights without trampling on someone else's rights? Do we not acknowledge the reality that there are people who think differently from us and see and experience the world differently. No matter our opinion they do have rights and should have them. But how to do it without another feeling their rights are threatened? I will be thinking about this for a while yet. Individual services should be available but then again, in an emergency it may be a life or death matter and can both sides live in harmony? I highly doubt it the way it is going currently.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
I follow several pages on fb which i partially agree with but they do go overboard and smear all religious folk as the dumbest neanderthals ever to exist. So, that is where some of this may come from. As an atheist, part of me agrees but then again, it depends on what message they are getting from religion as everyone is not the same and it is actually ignorant to smear all as the same I have learned. I think those who post on those sites should look up the definition of ignorance in the dictionary and listen to the different experiences. I am still an atheist through and through. I do not believe in it but to at least try to humanize it more than smearing a group is to try to be the opposite of a representation of ignorance. Those atheists and agnostics alienate Christians through those pages as well as what Classic xer mentioned and i am sure will develop on further.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
What is even funnier is that not all libertarians are the same. Some are economic libertarians (I'm not, so long as industrial production is the main mode of production economic libertarianism will result in the formation on monopolies which could have bad economic outcomes for the nation), some are cultural libertairans (That is to say "Classical Liberals"), and then there are the anarchists (of which there are left and right varieties).
That Playdude cannot distinguish between these four distinct groups all of which are on the libertarian side of the libertarian-authoritiarian divide is not totally shocking to me.
As it stands I'm coming more and more to a Classical Liberal position with strong Nationalistic tendencies.
A great deal of the so-called problem with those who use religious freedom to "deny service" to those the find objectionable is the fact that many of these Regressive Leftist news outfits and organizations go out of their way to find such people. If you go looking for racism you'll find it. If you go looking for anti-gay bigotry you'll find it.
As for the rural perspective of religious freedom, like you I'm perhaps not the best person to ask--though my views were formed in rural communities in the Midwest some 20 years ago. From those experiences it is my view that the rural view of religious freedom is to be able to worship god(s) as they understand him (them) without interference from outside groups be those outside groups urban/suburban people, the state, or other religious groups.
In short the rural perspective on religious freedom comes from an Enlightenment based cultural libertarianism, with a small dash of social conservatism for flavor. Given that general religious liberty has been the norm in the US for over 2 centuries it is only right that the preservation of that liberty (no matter how culturally libertarian as well) also be considered conservative.
It is my view that many so-called conservatives, particularly Boomers who call themselves such, have forgotten the conserve part of conservative.
Agnostics are more or less on fence and maintain a neutral opinion. My father never denied nor accepted the existence of God. He once told me that he would have to see it to believe it but he thought it could possible and suggested that I stick to the main rules just in case. He told that after the heart attack that should have killed him. I didn't believe in God until after he died. After he died, I began to receive signs. I suspect that he had something to do with me receiving signs from above, so to speak. I've never been a religious person but I have become a very spiritual minded and faithful person. Wealthy or well connected loud mouth Atheists who believe they're smarter than believers for some reason and their right to non belief trumps the rights of those who do are the issue and the ones who alienate believers and people who believe in equal rights.
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 05-10-2016 at 03:04 AM.
Unless of course one says so at a university that isn't already dominated by Christians. Bear in mind I in no way support Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).
Apparently someone needs to leave the house. The SJW types have been pushing the PC agenda from universities since at least the late 1990s. The fad is not quickly dying, but rather has morphed into a cult, one that will be soundly rejected in its final form and will never see the light of day again.Political correctness is a dying fad among liberals if it hasn't largely died. We may spoof it (as "if someone with visual impairment is "visually challenged", then is a criminal "ethically challenged"?
Well Religious extremists of all stripes, but I find those that talk the most about atheism to be particularly offensive. Mostly because as an Agnostic Atheist I think they reflect poorly on the philosophy. Usually it is because such persons are assholes.Whom do agnostics and atheists alienate?
Myself I have to be tolerant of two separate religions in my household. The BF has been going to an Episcopal Church for years, and the boy has been practicing neo-paganism for some time. Thankfully he chose the Norse variety over Wicca, the former has its roots in actual European mythology the other was made up whole cloth.
Not really. Agnosticism makes the statement that the existence of god(s) is unknown, and often unknowable. Theism makes the claim that god(s) exist, while Atheism says "no he doesn't".
As such agnosticism does not serve as a "middle ground" between atheism and theism. An agnostic could be theistic (usually called deists) or atheistic (such as myself).
I didn't use it or view it as the middle ground. The Agnostic position or claim is that gods existence is "unknown to them" which means they're on the fence or neutral as far as what they believe. My dad was an Agnostic. I was an Agnostic until my later teens. I've yet to meet an Agnostic who hasn't left open the possibility of believing.
Ah, agnosticism in its purest sense then.
Given that I am an agnostic atheist I'd happily believe in a god(s) should there be evidence for said god(s). However, since I doubt any such evidence will be found. I am atheistic in the sense that I don't believe in any of the gods thus far proposed by mankind.
Transgender?
Hmm... The struggle for equality and acceptance is hardly over nor apt to end any time soon. The methods and specific forms of prejudice targeted change. Certainly the tools and attitudes of the late 1990s PC movement aren't very fashionable right now.
On the other hand, I've recently encountered the concept of 'transgender'. If someone feels aggressive and pushy when waking up in the morning, said person would dress as a male. If the attitude is a bit more mellow, he/she would dress female. Along with the clothing shifts come changes in posture, voice inflection and which bathroom the individual would prefer to use.
Now, in general I've been against prejudice and favored allowing people to be themselves without being harassed or hated, but this one gives me the creeps. This seems abusable. If current trends are pushed do you end up with federal laws and court precedents saying anyone has a right to use the bathroom of their choice?
Although I do identify myself as conservative on many issues, I do not identify with the label 'right winger' ( all us are too free with labels for others, in my opinion). I do agree that we should listen more and have more constructive dialogue.
Freedom of religion is a multifaceted issue. Following is one aspect of the concerns related to freedom of religion.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16709/
… "arguments will be weighed on the scales of the “balancing test” set forth in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA states that the government may not “substantially burden” a religious person’s exercise of religion unless the burden (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest and (2) is the least restrictive means.Historically, when the government has prevailed in RFRA litigation, it has argued that the compelling governmental interest is very “heavy” and the implementing means are comparatively “light”—that is, the governmental interest is important enough to outweigh the burden imposed on religion.
Here, the government relied on a different, dangerous argument focused on the “substantial burden” component of the RFRA test: the Little Sisters are not “substantially burdened” by the HHS Mandate because their religious beliefs are wrong—specifically, their religious theory of moral complicity.
The Little Sisters sincerely believe that the religious teachings of the Roman Catholic Church forbid them to sign the HHS form that authorizes and activates the dispensation of abortifacient drugs, thereby rendering them morally complicit in the destruction of innocent human life. Fifty Roman Catholic theologians and ethicists signed an amicus brief stating that the Little Sisters’ opposition to the HHS mandate “reflects a reasonable application of principles of Catholic moral theology.”In response, the government argued that the Little Sisters’ sincere religious beliefs are wrong because the HHS forms place enough paperwork between the nuns and the abortifacient drugs to “wash their hands” of any moral complicity.
The government’s argument contravenes the First Amendment, RFRA, and Supreme Court cases interpreting the same. Whether analyzed under Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, or RFRA jurisprudence, American courts have never permitted the government to override a “substantial burden” argument by simply stating that the religious practitioner wrongly perceives the burden placed on her faith.”…
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. George Bernard Shaw
*vile language in the original altered without loss of meaning.
1. I don't like talking about race and ethnicity -- but while there isn't that much difference between the white middle class and the black, Latino, and Asian middle class because they share some common experiences in college education and similar vocational success (duh! -- that explains why people are middle class), there is a huge gap in political values and culture between poor, disadvantaged white people that does not exist between middle-class and poor blacks or between middle-class and poor Latinos. Poor blacks actually look up to middle-class blacks, and poor Latinos look up to middle-class Latinos. (I can't see Asians as any single group). Poor white people have their own problems beginning with insularity. Just think of Appalachia as a gigantic rural ghetto. To be sure, just because the Art Institute of Chicago and Symphony Hall are a couple of bus rides from the nastiest slums of Chicago doesn't mean that someone living in the worst Chicago slums will ever visit the museum or attend a concert of the Chicago Symphony. But if one is a middle-class black kid one has a chance. If one is a very promising black kid there might be some middle-class black adult who can lead one into middle-class ways.
Middle-class blacks and middle-class Hispanics show some responsibility toward their own poor. They support policies that can (in theory, at least) raise the talented among the poor people toward whom they feel some responsibility. They recognize poverty in the light of the dictum "there but for the Grace of God go I". They know that their middle-class status is inherently shaky, dependent upon the good will of the politicians. They well know that a demagogue like Donald Trump is more likely to choose to give the shaft to non-white people if something goes wrong (and it will!). Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians know how that works in America.
2. So far it is the "Establishment" Republicans who have gone down to defeat in the Republican primaries this year. The Corporate Republicans cut a deal that they would concede 'cultural values' to the (white) Religious Right so long as the Religious Right acceded to greater power of economic elites -- lax regulation on the environment and workplace safety, weakening of unions, and monopolization of commerce. The Corporate Republicans got their way with Dubya and then got ousted from both Houses of Congress in 2006 when the deal started to go bad. Corporate Republicans then offered much the same deal as the Tea Party.
So gays and lesbians should be going to prison instead of on honeymoons with their spouses; creationism should be supplanting evolution and school prayer (especially of the fundamentalist Protestant type) should be the norm in schools; pornography of any kind should be shut down instead of being easily accessible on the Web; language like yours should be completely off the airwaves. So how is that deal going?
We liberals think both the cultural part of the promise and the economics are raw deals. Black and Hispanic middle-class liberals can relate to the poor who share their ethnicity (and the black and Latino middle-class groups are on the whole liberals). White middle-class people, liberal or conservative, cannot relate well to poor white people. Members of the black and Latino middle-class aren't so distant from the ghetto or barrio... and know it.
As far as Establishment Republicans going down to defeat in the Republican primaries -- that is your Party and not mine. As a liberal Democrat I recognize that the political questions will be resolved, if at all, in the November election. Part of the answer is that Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Rick Santorum will not be the 45th President of the United States. We shall see about the President, the Senate, and the House a half year from now.
3. If it is any consolation, the Presidential nominee of 1960 who was barely defeated that year won decisively in 1968 after Barry Goldwater scared the living daylights of "Establishment" Republicans in 1964 and gave LBJ the biggest landslide win since FDR. If your Party nominates a quasi-moderate capable of assuaging the fears of many, then after Americans have had enough of the Obama and Hillary Clinton Presidencies, then maybe we have another Republican President.
4. Poverty in a society that values nothing other than material gain and indulgence can make life unspeakably horrible. The economic elites of America operate without any obvious conscience; they expect the rest of America to suffer for their insatiable greed but show how wonderful those elites are. I have some good things to say about the Old Order Amish: unlike us "English" they have no tycoons and no bureaucrats. Their 'intellectuals' are their clergy. Could I be one of them? No. I like having education beyond age 16 and eighth grade, I like having access to classical music and old movies, and I like being able to use the Internet. As someone below average in hand speed and having little upper-body strength I make a poor laborer and a sub-par factory worker.
But the Amish are astute as businessmen and are competent craftsmen. Their only drug problem is alcohol. They take care of each other. They have none of the extreme poverty that one sees in the 'English' world. Their crime rates are low. They are insulated from the worst of American mass low culture as well as from the great glories of Western art, literature, and music.
We 'English' could learn a few things -- like doing things on a human scale again.
5. Poverty is a glaring threat to anyone in the middle class. Lose your job without having a couple years of income saved and you can be broke as soon as the income runs out. The economic Right wants a return to the inequality and despotic management off the Gilded Age.
Oh, by the way -- I think we have a better way to deal with personal poverty than to jump out of windows or even )do you think that I am going to suggest suicide as you did?): prevent it. Vote against people who would use mass poverty as a means of enriching their elitist ways of life and enforcing rigid obedience. Those who demand the suffering of others for their own gain, power, and indulgence are evil.
We are approaching the time in which more productivity is unlikely to improve life. Just because plenty of cheap figurines are available at dollar stores does not mean that I am buying them. Not feeling obliged to participate in mindless consumerism is itself one way to live better.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
-Demcocrats have been the party of racism since 1828. Nowadays, they've just switched who they've decided to be racist against. They can spin it all they want, but the fact is, that as the South has given up racism, it has become Republican. I can hardly wait for the proggies to try to explain that one.
Proggies are still trying to explain how those supposedly racist Republicans elected this guy to the US senate:
https://www.scott.senate.gov/
Funny.
-Noam Chomsky, the Killing Fields denier. When actual psycopaths were committing mass murder, Chomsky was covering for them.
