I want to hear from a liberal!

[Objectitron]

I would like a liberal to articulate why they are a liberal and how it is inspiring? Silence will become self-confirming.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

I would like a liberal to articulate why they are a liberal and how it is inspiring? Silence will become self-confirming.

How?

[Zeluvia]

Well, I started out liberal, went conservative, and am back to liberal, with modifications.

However, the meanings of the words "liberal" and "conservative" have changed over my lifetime.

Is your choice of Political labels supposed to be "inspiring"? I wasn't aware that it was.

Socially, I am liberal. I don't think the government has any business in our private lives, at all. In fact, I am closer to libertarian on social issues. If we could get the government out of marriage that would be nice, although I DO think people should be fiscally AND socially responsible for their DNA based progeny.

Economically, I am probably middle of the road. I realize that money is like a fluid, it flows, and you have to amass large amounts of it in pools to invest in order to grow the economy, but I also realize that money Naturally pools in large quantities, and if you dont pay your producers enough to consume, you lose the middle class, and democracy depends on the middle class. The destabalization of Unions in the name of business to my mind was a mistake. I don't want to work to live, I want to live to work, but the US still has this "work or you starve" mentality, and the majority of us work some pretty craptastic jobs, and we need the right to organize for our protection from exploitation, which DOES still happen, and if we get rid of the illegals, more Americans will be subject to exploitation.

I disagree with using wars to "fix" the economy. I find our economic dependence on arms sales to the rest of the world morally rephrensible. I think we should be a leading country, but we should be leading by example, and while we like to THINK we are doing that, I have talked and read enough from the rest of the world to know that our reputation of being capitalist imperialists is somewhat deserved.

We have a huge demographic bubble coming to hit our economy, and between that and the new flat earth, I think we will lose alot of ground as the world catches up to us. Our dreadful negligence of education coupled with our short attention span consumer driven culture will not help us, and I find the consumption driven disposable immediate satifaction culture that our capitalist economy has created to be disturbing and vaguely immoral. In that I find I agree with some of the more extreme Muslims, although I disagree with them on the role of women in society most vehemently.

I think our political system should exist to serve the common good. I think things like water, clean air, ect are the common good. I do not trust "private" for profit interests to operate for the "common good" so I see a role for government in regulation and protection of the common good.

This is probably because I used to work in for profit healthcare, and I know that "pillow" therapy is recommended when the Medicare runs out = p

But how do you find being a Conservative "inspiring"?

[Pilgrim]

I would like a liberal to articulate why they are a liberal and how it is inspiring? Silence will become self-confirming.

I'm not sure answering your question would do any good? Your second sentence seems to indicate that you're not really interested in dialogue but are more interested in just confirming what ever it is you already think you know.

[Stabbytheclown]

Civil liberties are nice. I like having a drink, a little flutter, a puff on the old Camberwell Carrot, having the option for relations with people outside my race and (if I so desired) within my gender, worship any religion or none, and the freedom to blaspheme and burn flags. I see no reason for the law to intervene because stuffy old people want to interfere with my private life.

Safety nets are nice. I like that our poor people get an education, police protection, a fire service and healthcare (UK). I see no reason to scrap those things and revert to a neo-feudal system where all one's opportunities are decided by one's station of birth.

That's the basics of why I describe myself as liberal. I won't necessarily agree with every party that claims to be liberal (your Democrat party for example is more right wing than our Conservatives), and I'm unlikely to believe in what right wing talkshow hosts and tabloids claim are liberal ideas, so be wary of strawmen.

That what you're looking for?

[Timothy Leary]

I would like a liberal to articulate why they are a liberal and how it is inspiring? Silence will become self-confirming.

I'm somewhere between a liberal and a libertarian these days (with a dose of conservative thought), so I'll bite.

I am liberal(ish) because I believe we can end our dependence on oil, become carbon nuetral, and provide healthcare to all of our citizens, increase the quality of our education, while at the same time lowering the overall tax burden and pumping the economy.

It ain't a pipe dream, and it won't happen overnight - but I know exactly how to do it.

[Objectitron]

Well, I started out liberal, went conservative, and am back to liberal, with modifications.

However, the meanings of the words "liberal" and "conservative" have changed over my lifetime.

Is your choice of Political labels supposed to be "inspiring"? I wasn't aware that it was.

Socially, I am liberal. I don't think the government has any business in our private lives, at all. In fact, I am closer to libertarian on social issues. If we could get the government out of marriage that would be nice, although I DO think people should be fiscally AND socially responsible for their DNA based progeny.

Economically, I am probably middle of the road. I realize that money is like a fluid, it flows, and you have to amass large amounts of it in pools to invest in order to grow the economy, but I also realize that money Naturally pools in large quantities, and if you dont pay your producers enough to consume, you lose the middle class, and democracy depends on the middle class. The destabalization of Unions in the name of business to my mind was a mistake. I don't want to work to live, I want to live to work, but the US still has this "work or you starve" mentality, and the majority of us work some pretty craptastic jobs, and we need the right to organize for our protection from exploitation, which DOES still happen, and if we get rid of the illegals, more Americans will be subject to exploitation.

I disagree with using wars to "fix" the economy. I find our economic dependence on arms sales to the rest of the world morally rephrensible. I think we should be a leading country, but we should be leading by example, and while we like to THINK we are doing that, I have talked and read enough from the rest of the world to know that our reputation of being capitalist imperialists is somewhat deserved.

We have a huge demographic bubble coming to hit our economy, and between that and the new flat earth, I think we will lose alot of ground as the world catches up to us. Our dreadful negligence of education coupled with our short attention span consumer driven culture will not help us, and I find the consumption driven disposable immediate satifaction culture that our capitalist economy has created to be disturbing and vaguely immoral. In that I find I agree with some of the more extreme Muslims, although I disagree with them on the role of women in society most vehemently.

I think our political system should exist to serve the common good. I think things like water, clean air, ect are the common good. I do not trust "private" for profit interests to operate for the "common good" so I see a role for government in regulation and protection of the common good.

This is probably because I used to work in for profit healthcare, and I know that "pillow" therapy is recommended when the Medicare runs out = p

But how do you find being a Conservative "inspiring"?

Thanks for your input Zeluvia! I could see how working in any healthcare system could cause you to be frustrated. However, do you feel the gov't would do a better job fixing it? You mentioned you are closer to a libertarian on social issues, but what about healthcare?

You say you are socially liberal, but want the gov't out of our lives. This seems to be more of a conservative principle. How would you get the gov't out of marriage? Are you saying we should be able to define marriage anyway we want and the gov't should accept it?

I think one has to be careful in asserting that the U.S. uses wars to "fix" the economy. I would agree in principle that the U.S. should lead by example and be the "beacon" of hope and prosperity for the rest of the world. And it would be nice to do this without being agressive or appear to be greedy capitalist imperialists. The problem is this would assume that the rest of the world is rational and plays by the rules. We would be in big trouble if we based our economic and foreign policy on what others thought about us. Remember, these same critics most likely watch our movies, listen to our music, and if given the opportunity some would live in the U.S.

No doubt the world in some places as China and India are catching up and the education system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled, especially math and science. This is a scary thing, but I don't see how being a capitalist society is immoral. What would the alternative be? In what way exactly do you sympathize with the more extreme Muslims?

I see the principles of conservatism as it relates to our political economy to be the best way. I believe lower taxes, less spending, limited gov't, secure borders, and a strong defense give each American the best chance of a good life. As it relates socially, just look at Europe. Look at the challenges they face as they become more secularized. I'm not interested in living in a country where I have to wait 2 months to see a doctor or wait in long lines (however, our waiting rooms are brutal sometimes) out the door to get simple health care. Also, I'm also not interested in living in a country were I would face a realistic Muslim extremist terrorist attack on a regular basis. I agree that conservatism is not perfect, but I do believe it gives us the best chance.

I think liberalism as it relates to politics, in theory, is fine and could be argued as inspiring. When dems create all these social programs by raising taxes they have good intentions to help people. Who doesn't like hearing that story of the poor kid who given the chance becomes something great. That is inspiring. The problem is in our society this is the exception and not the rule and we live in a society where people like to take advantage of certain things. I think people should be rewarded for hard work not rewarded for doing nothing. Competion motivates people and attempting to equal the playing field through taxes demoralizes the people working hard while at the same time rewards those who aren't. I know there are hard working middle class who are working hard and barely getting by and seem to slip through the cracks. However, I have faith that if they keep working hard in the end they will prosper.

[norwegen]

Is your choice of Political labels supposed to be "inspiring"? I wasn't aware that it was.I just read your post; your liberalism did not come by accident of birth.and democracy depends on the middle class.How? And thank God the US is not a democracy.I have talked and read enough from the rest of the world to know that our reputation of being capitalist imperialists is somewhat deserved.Amen, Sister. Capitalism is profitable, and American imperialism has been exactly the brand of imperialism that others have envied and struggled to be a part of.Our dreadful negligence of educationOn the contrary. The National Education Association is the largest labor union in the United States. And the US has no constitutional provision for education, but the Cabinet includes a Secretary of Education.

The problem with education isn’t neglect. It’s that we have government schools.But how do you find being a Conservative "inspiring"? If I may be so bold, I like the concepts of lower taxes, limited government, free enterprise, strong defense, and personal responsibility. I like equality and the idea that change should be gradual and not for the sake of change.

I see distinctions between the public and private spheres of morality and conduct. Political activism, to me, is a three-ring circus, a bunch of clowns protesting the establishment when the establishment is what made America a military and economic superpower. Designs on changing the epitome of greatness are insane.

[Objectitron]

I'm not sure answering your question would do any good? Your second sentence seems to indicate that you're not really interested in dialogue but are more interested in just confirming what ever it is you already think you know.

That couldn't be further from the truth...I love dialogue and open to ideas from others. Sorry if I came across in the opposite. I wrote the second sentence because in my personal experience with talking or listening to liberals they tend to use a lot of language but don't actually articulate the substance of their argument and back it up with facts. For example from our current national political debate, no doubt the dems focus is on "change." But after listening to them speak they don't actually explain this change, just that we need change. Not only do they not articulate this change, but they don't explain what they are changing from besides lines like: Are you tired of Karl Rove politics and cowboy foreign policy? Are you ready for change? Then everyone cheers and this is the best thing since sliced bread. I find the words empty and superficial, and eventually so will the general public. Now anyone can go to the candidates website and see exactly what this change is they're talking about, but most Americans will not. They talk about all these great things and how will this be accomplished? The only possible way is by raising taxes.

Is America in such bad shape that we need drastic change that the dems are calling for? If they take control of the presidency do you really believe America would look entirely different?

[Zeluvia]

I am old. What comes out of the mouths of politicians has no bearing on what they can or will really do.

Even when they say they have been born again.

It's all about the money.

[Zeluvia]

Thanks for your input Zeluvia! I could see how working in any healthcare system could cause you to be frustrated. However, do you feel the gov't would do a better job fixing it? You mentioned you are closer to a libertarian on social issues, but what about healthcare?

I am tired of hearing this "the government sucks, we can't trust them to do anything right" baseless rhetoric. I am not frustrated. I just see how the system actually works, when you put profit over people.


You say you are socially liberal, but want the gov't out of our lives. This seems to be more of a conservative principle. How would you get the gov't out of marriage? Are you saying we should be able to define marriage anyway we want and the gov't should accept it?

What is the legitimate concern of government in our private interpersonal relationships?


I think one has to be careful in asserting that the U.S. uses wars to "fix" the economy. I would agree in principle that the U.S. should lead by example and be the "beacon" of hope and prosperity for the rest of the world. And it would be nice to do this without being agressive or appear to be greedy capitalist imperialists. The problem is this would assume that the rest of the world is rational and plays by the rules. We would be in big trouble if we based our economic and foreign policy on what others thought about us. Remember, these same critics most likely watch our movies, listen to our music, and if given the opportunity some would live in the U.S. Did I say to base our foreign policy on what others thought about us? I said our repuation was in part deserved, meaning our government does things to "protect American interests" that really mean "protect American Economic interests".
Are you aware of Kissenger's three point plan? Can you name the three countries?


No doubt the world in some places as China and India are catching up and the education system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled, especially math and science. This is a scary thing, but I don't see how being a capitalist society is immoral. What would the alternative be? In what way exactly do you sympathize with the more extreme Muslims?
I didn't say being in a capitalist society was immoral. I said OUR version of consumerist culture that our capitalism has developed is morally questionable. It is a great tenet of advertising that in order to sell products you need to create and maintain demand. In the sixties we called that planned obsolence. Creating artifical "demand" is what our culture is all about, not making sure everyone has the minmum they NEED.


I see the principles of conservatism as it relates to our political economy to be the best way. I believe lower taxes, less spending, limited gov't, secure borders, and a strong defense give each American the best chance of a good life. As it relates socially, just look at Europe. Look at the challenges they face as they become more secularized. I'm not interested in living in a country where I have to wait 2 months to see a doctor or wait in long lines (however, our waiting rooms are brutal sometimes) out the door to get simple health care. Also, I'm also not interested in living in a country were I would face a realistic Muslim extremist terrorist attack on a regular basis. I agree that conservatism is not perfect, but I do believe it gives us the best chance.
What are you talking about? If all you have are talking points, that you are parrotting, is this really a dialogue? What do lower taxes have to do with anything? Do you want to discuss the theory of taxation? Less spending on what exactly? Limited government, what would you limit? Secure borders...how would you secure them with a smaller government and less spending? Strong defense, what do you mean by that? Do you mean supporting defense contractors with large contracts and then selling the excess munitions overseas in world hot spots? Do even know what you are saying? What does secularization have to do with anything? Are you saying conservatives are more "godly"? Do you really think healthcare delivery in the US would be so crappy just because we add 45 million uninsured to the rolls? Are those the people that will cause the long lines?


I think liberalism as it relates to politics, in theory, is fine and could be argued as inspiring. When dems create all these social programs by raising taxes they have good intentions to help people. Who doesn't like hearing that story of the poor kid who given the chance becomes something great. That is inspiring. The problem is in our society this is the exception and not the rule and we live in a society where people like to take advantage of certain things. I think people should be rewarded for hard work not rewarded for doing nothing. Competion motivates people and attempting to equal the playing field through taxes demoralizes the people working hard while at the same time rewards those who aren't. I know there are hard working middle class who are working hard and barely getting by and seem to slip through the cracks. However, I have faith that if they keep working hard in the end they will prosper.

"Who doesn't like hearing that story of the poor kid who given the chance becomes something great". Isn't this the American dream? The American promise of equal opportunity? Are you saying only Democrats believe in that America? What is the opposition to this? That there is an elite class and only they can be "great"? Are you saying it is an exception because poor people can never become great? Are you saying people are poor because they are stupid and there is nothing we can do about it, so just let's take care of "our own" where "our own" means the people YOU think you are allied with? What if they think YOU are poor and stupid and easily fooled?


I think you are full of it. On one hand, you are saying that people like to take advantage, but the ones you are worried about are people that don't want to work. What about people that like to take advantage of others for profit? Those people are okay? You have faith if they keep working hard they will prosper? Hard work makes you wealthy? Is this what the more godly conservatives believe? If people aren't prospering it is because they aren't working hard enough?
Is this a basic tenet of your faith?

I am old, and everyone I know has worked hard all their lives. We will be working till we are 70 or so. Prosper is not a word I would use for us. I am also tired of this myth of the welfare state. Who do you know who lives on welfare? What do you actually know about how welfare works or is administered?

So, are people more inherently greedy or lazy? You seem to think they are lazy. I think they are greedy = )

[Timothy Leary]

You seem to think they are lazy. I think they are greedy =

I'd say both are right 90% of the time.

[Zeluvia]

And what is this other reoccurring myth that the problem with education is the Teachers Union?

Oh so if they weren't unionized, we could pay them even LESS? And that would IMPROVE education somehow?

How?

The real reason private schools outperform public schools is because private schools CHARGE more per student than public school budgets allow, and teachers at private schools make more money, so the BEST teachers are at private schools for the most part.

And the REAL reason education has declined in this country is not because of unions or even pay, it is because of the women's equality movement. Since the '60's women have been able to choose careers other than nursing and teaching, and since we no longer HAVE to do those jobs on the cheap, this country has been finding out the true costs of quality education and healthcare.

What do you think privatizing schools would lead too in the long run? The same kind of system we have for colleges in this country right?
Where a degree from Harvard or Yale is worth a higher paycheck than a degree from a lower ranked school right? How does this give us equality of opportunity? Wouldn't this system just continue to create a more class based society?

But it seems from these posts that what conservatives want IS not equality of opportunity, they want to safeguard THEIR place and THEIR piece of the pie from others, but what most don't understand is they don't own the pie either....

[norwegen]

And what is this other reoccurring myth that the problem with education is the Teachers Union?If this teachers union is doing such a wonderful job, then you misspoke when you spoke of the "dreadful negligence of education"?Oh so if they weren't unionized, we could pay them even LESS?If that's what they agree to.The real reason private schools outperform public schools is because private schools CHARGE more per student than public school budgets allow, and teachers at private schools make more money, so the BEST teachers are at private schools for the most part.The real reason private schools outperform government schools is competition.

And government schools charge much more than private schools do. Here (http://www.reformk12.com/archives/000174.nclk) is one study.And the REAL reason education has declined in this country is not because of unions or even pay, it is because of the women's equality movement.Erm . . . okay.

[Zeluvia]

still norwegian, you haven't address the point about making even more of a class distinction in our great society....

Is competition really such a great thing? If there is only 1 private school near where you live, is that really competition? How many private schools are competeing in YOUR area?

Would healthcare be better off if hospitals and doctors competed directly? If insurance companies competed at the consumer level instead of the corporate?

Your study is flawed. It is a general study of all money spent on education, divided among all students. It doesn't say how much money PER school per student and then compare the outcomes of that school with others. So, my point stands, private schools spend more per student and there are better, and they pay teachers more.

[Zeluvia]

I'd say both are right 90% of the time.

I, for one, am too lazy to be greedy = )

I think they are mutually exclusive to an extent. Truly lazy greedy people problably turn to a life of crime or high finance....

[Zeluvia]

However, I have faith that if they keep working hard in the end they will prosper.

I need to get ready for work, but this kept ringing in my head...

Who is "they"? Is the poster saying "he" doesn't have to work hard to prosper?

I think this phrase more than anything else, and all that it implies, sums up conservatism, and why I am a liberal now = )

[norwegen]

still norwegian, you haven't address the point about making even more of a class distinction in our great society....Because I don't see anything wrong with class distinctions. I favor the individual, not the collective.Is competition really such a great thing? If there is only 1 private school near where you live, is that really competition?It's good business. The first one to take advantage of a market is the winner.Would healthcare be better off if hospitals and doctors competed directly?Yes. Consider the affordability and quality of lasik eye surgery, for example, a field that is still highly competitive.Your study is flawed. It is a general study of all money spent on education, divided among all students. It doesn't say how much money PER school per student and then compare the outcomes of that school with others. So, my point stands, private schools spend more per student and there are better, and they pay teachers more. Per school is irrelvant. Per student is all that matters. Consider the possibility that exactly half our students are in government schools and half in private schools. The private schools would be much cheaper. Do the math.

Competition, Baby. Let not your heart be sissified. :smile:

[Amazing Rando]

So, my point stands, private schools spend more per student and there are better, and they pay teachers more.

This may be true in regards to super-elite prep schools, but your average teacher at a Catholic school or Protestant Christian school earns a good deal less than public school teachers. I should know- my wife's a public school teacher. :teeth:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

This may be true in regards to super-elite prep schools, but your average teacher at a Catholic school or Protestant Christian school earns a good deal less than public school teachers. I should know- my wife's a public school teacher. :teeth:

I'll confirm that. My father's a teacher at a Catholic School.

[Zeluvia]

Well, as I live in Texas, I can say teacher's here don't get paid much, public OR private = )

But I would be interested in a study of teacher pay vs school metrics...

Anyone have one of THOSE? = )

[Zeluvia]

Because I don't see anything wrong with class distinctions. I favor the individual, not the collective.It's good business. The first one to take advantage of a market is the winner.Yes. Consider the affordability and quality of lasik eye surgery, for example, a field that is still highly competitive.Per school is irrelvant. Per student is all that matters. Consider the possibility that exactly half our students are in government schools and half in private schools. The private schools would be much cheaper. Do the math.

Competition, Baby. Let not your heart be sissified. :smile:

bah my heart is not sissified, but I see the conservatives trying to squash true competition in order to preserve the competitive edge of their CLASS...

It's only really competition if the playing field is equal, and the only equality we can insure socially is equality of opportunity....

Equality of biology we are working on = p

[Little Shepherd]

The real reason private schools outperform public schools is because private schools CHARGE more per student than public school budgets allow, and teachers at private schools make more money, so the BEST teachers are at private schools for the most part.
Sorry, but that's hogwash.

Your average private school charges anywhere from $1k to $2k per student, often giving sizable discounts to families with 2 or more children enrolled. Some higher-tiered private schools charge considerably more, but they're the exception, not the rule. This $1k to $2k per student per year is everything most private schools receive -- very little to no government subsidies involved. With that money, they manage to have decent facilities, hire decent teachers, and outperform your average public school. They're a testament to what can be done with good budgeting.

Now look at your average public school. They receive anywhere from $10k to $30k per student per year directly from the government, depending on state and district. You're right that this money doesn't come directly from the parents' pockets like most private school funds, but you'll notice that the amount they get is considerably higher! The only area public schools generally do better on is teacher salaries, and honestly they don't do all that much better. Their budget is astronomically higher than your average private school budget, and they still manage to under perform. Why? One hint -- it obviously ain't the money.

[norwegen]

bah my heart is not sissified, but I see the conservatives trying to squash true competition in order to preserve the competitive edge of their CLASS...

It's only really competition if the playing field is equal, and the only equality we can insure socially is equality of opportunity....

Equality of biology we are working on = pA level playing field is not an equality opportunity. It's an equality of results.

[Tfbandie]

Sorry, but that's hogwash.

Your average private school charges anywhere from $1k to $2k per student, often giving sizable discounts to families with 2 or more children enrolled. Some higher-tiered private schools charge considerably more, but they're the exception, not the rule. This $1k to $2k per student per year is everything most private schools receive -- very little to no government subsidies involved. With that money, they manage to have decent facilities, hire decent teachers, and outperform your average public school. They're a testament to what can be done with good budgeting.

Now look at your average public school. They receive anywhere from $10k to $30k per student per year directly from the government, depending on state and district. You're right that this money doesn't come directly from the parents' pockets like most private school funds, but you'll notice that the amount they get is considerably higher! The only area public schools generally do better on is teacher salaries, and honestly they don't do all that much better. Their budget is astronomically higher than your average private school budget, and they still manage to under perform. Why? One hint -- it obviously ain't the money.

here's some resources for private schools:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
Tuition average~4600 for religious private and 11000 for secular private

Public schools spent an average of 7600 per student
http://www.nea.org/specialed/index.html
Considering the hundreds of rules, regulations and government mandates that public schools must satisfy (lke special ed which costs nearly 20,000 per student while also bringing down test scores) i'd say it's not too bad.

But money doesn't matter when it comes to education, only one thing does: is the student taught to value education. This comes from society, community, parents, teachers and the students themselves. if we had a government committed to getting the best education, it would show first in societal attitudes, which would promote student learning in and of itself. That is one reason I count myself as a liberal.

[norwegen]

here's some resources for private schools:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
Tuition average~4600 for religious private and 11000 for secular privateIf you're not going to categorize government schools, then you've no need to categorize private schools. The average tuition of all private schools, according to your link, is $4,700.
Public schools spent an average of 7600 per student
http://www.nea.org/specialed/index.html
Considering the hundreds of rules, regulations and government mandates that public schools must satisfy (lke special ed which costs nearly 20,000 per student while also bringing down test scores) i'd say it's not too bad.As you say, the average tuition in public schools for normal students is $7,600 and for special education students is $20,000. So what is the average tuition for public school students?

Your link doesn't say. No matter; even without special education programs, private school tuition is still much cheaper.

But money doesn't matter when it comes to education, only one thing does: is the student taught to value education. This comes from society, community, parents, teachers and the students themselves. if we had a government committed to getting the best education, it would show first in societal attitudes, which would promote student learning in and of itself. That is one reason I count myself as a liberal.Government may hem and haw all it wants to about quality education. The private sector is already furnishing it.

This is one reason I count myself a conservative.

[Objectitron]

I am tired of hearing this "the government sucks, we can't trust them to do anything right" baseless rhetoric. I am not frustrated. I just see how the system actually works, when you put profit over people.

If gov't sucks so bad the why would increasing the gov't make it better. Also, since it sucks why would we give it the power to run our healthcare system



What is the legitimate concern of government in our private interpersonal relationships?

Well the obvious answer is the gov't gives tax breaks to "interpersonal relationships" such as marriage and having kids. the fact is the majority of our population define marriage as between a man and a woman. Our gov't honors that by giving tax breaks. The gov't doesn't care if you are a homosexual or transexual, you can be any persuasion you want, but why should it be obligated to give these same breaks to a minority of our population when the majority says otherwise. We live in a democracy and when we reach a point where enough pressure can be put on the politicians to change the definition of marriage...then so be it.

Did I say to base our foreign policy on what others thought about us? I said our repuation was in part deserved, meaning our government does things to "protect American interests" that really mean "protect American Economic interests".
Are you aware of Kissenger's three point plan? Can you name the three countries?

Whose other interests should we be protecting? Sure, the U.S. has made poor foreign policy decisions, but I don't believe these warrant the hostility shown arround the world, especially from extremist and moderate Muslims. When the U.S. donated all the money, supplies, and workers on the ground to aid the Tsunami victims in 2004, were we praised? We were not. We are equated with being evil, is that fair? Do you think our gov't or troops are evil? Do you see the flag burnings and the rage of these people who hate us? Or other countries who wish to criticize us publicly, but we would be the first to call if they were attacked? I assume you are talking about Kissenger's and Nixon's plan for Vietnam. That issue warrants a thread in itself.

I didn't say being in a capitalist society was immoral. I said OUR version of consumerist culture that our capitalism has developed is morally questionable. It is a great tenet of advertising that in order to sell products you need to create and maintain demand. In the sixties we called that planned obsolence. Creating artifical "demand" is what our culture is all about, not making sure everyone has the minmum they NEED.

How are we doing this...I'm confused?

What are you talking about? If all you have are talking points, that you are parrotting, is this really a dialogue? What do lower taxes have to do with anything? Do you want to discuss the theory of taxation? Less spending on what exactly? Limited government, what would you limit? Secure borders...how would you secure them with a smaller government and less spending? Strong defense, what do you mean by that? Do you mean supporting defense contractors with large contracts and then selling the excess munitions overseas in world hot spots? Do even know what you are saying? What does secularization have to do with anything? Are you saying conservatives are more "godly"? Do you really think healthcare delivery in the US would be so crappy just because we add 45 million uninsured to the rolls? Are those the people that will cause the long lines?

I have more than talking points, don't insult me. I think it is pretty simple why people favor lower taxes...because the gov't takes less money that we earned. I think that is pretty important as a principle. No I do not want to discuss the theory of taxation neither am I qualified to do so. Well there are many things we could spend less on such as education, earmarks (politicians' pet projects), well-fare, and ironically the IRS for starters. You would have to define what our government was designed to do and then limit what it is not designed to do. Cutting the department of education might be the first thing I would do and then cut other useless bureaucracies. Defense is the main function of gov't as I see it so it would make sense to put more of our tax money into securing the borders. For starters, we can finish the fence and then add the necessary technology to enforce our borders. Depends how you define "godly." If you define it quantitatively by amount of christians, then conservatives tend to have more christians than liberals. If you define it qualitatively as having certain virtues...well that is impossible to measure. Personally, I don't think its worth arguing. You tell me about the long lines...why is it that people come to the U.S. for quality healthcare...sure people from the U.S. go to other countries, but for cheaper lesser quality. I think our healthcare is way too expensive and should be regulated, but privately, not by our gov't, which you have said sucks.



"Who doesn't like hearing that story of the poor kid who given the chance becomes something great". Isn't this the American dream? The American promise of equal opportunity? Are you saying only Democrats believe in that America? What is the opposition to this? That there is an elite class and only they can be "great"? Are you saying it is an exception because poor people can never become great? Are you saying people are poor because they are stupid and there is nothing we can do about it, so just let's take care of "our own" where "our own" means the people YOU think you are allied with? What if they think YOU are poor and stupid and easily fooled?

I believe each American defines his or her American dream. How do we not have equal opportunity? Actually, minorities have more opportunity. They can get into schools with lower test scores than whites. It seems the dems like to divide America into the haves and the have nots when the majority of Americans are middle class. I believe in an America where your success depends on you and you are responsible for your success, not the gov't. Now, many people start with a head start and a minority of people are picked over others based on sex, race, and creed, but as a whole if you want to do something in life you can. Free-enterprise and competition fuel this process. I never said the poor are stupid, but statistics show that the well-fare system as it is today is not motivating change in behavior. So, one can deduce that pumping money into these social programs is not the answer. If everyone did the right thing then they would be great...but statistics show otherwise. They can think whatever they want about me, but that doesn't change their position or get them a job. Faith-based organizations or other non-profit organizations have been shown to do a better job in taking care of the poor than gov't. We as human beings have a personal responsibility to help the less fortunate, the gov't does not.


I think you are full of it. On one hand, you are saying that people like to take advantage, but the ones you are worried about are people that don't want to work. What about people that like to take advantage of others for profit? Those people are okay? You have faith if they keep working hard they will prosper? Hard work makes you wealthy? Is this what the more godly conservatives believe? If people aren't prospering it is because they aren't working hard enough?
Is this a basic tenet of your faith?

Of course people are profiting off of people, that's the whole idea of capitalism. Now taking advantage of people is something different and is wrong, but what type of economic system would be better or more positive? Should people be punished for making money? Should we be socialists? History says no! It is possible for the gov't to regulate as they do for monopolies to guarantee competition. Do you think if we gave the means and mode of production back to the gov't, this would fix corruption? If people are corrupt then why wouldn't they be in any economic system. There's nothing godly about being wealthy nor is it ungodly if you are wealthy because you work hard. Am I the one who is really full of it? Ask the French if they would prosper more if they went back to a 40 hr work week. My faith has nothing to do with economic systems.

I am old, and everyone I know has worked hard all their lives. We will be working till we are 70 or so. Prosper is not a word I would use for us. I am also tired of this myth of the welfare state. Who do you know who lives on welfare? What do you actually know about how welfare works or is administered?

People define prosperity different ways. Some people love to work. Some people hate it and when they retire they become even more bitter. It is possible to have prosperity by the simple act of working. I know plenty of people on welfare and they no exactly how to manipulate the system in order to stay on it. One clever way is to have kids and not get married. Another way is to fake injuries. Don't think I'm naive. I don't, however believe everyone on welfare is taking advantage of it, but enough do to cause a drain on our economy.

So, are people more inherently greedy or lazy? You seem to think they are lazy. I think they are greedy = )

I would say it depends on the person, but they are probably both

I have a question, are you a socialist?

[Objectitron]

I would say it depends on the person, but they are probably both

I have a question, are you a socialist?

This looked too confusing so I'm just going to post again what I replied to you.

If gov't sucks so bad the why would increasing the gov't make it better. Also, since it sucks why would we give it the power to run our healthcare system

Well the obvious answer is the gov't gives tax breaks to "interpersonal relationships" such as marriage and having kids. the fact is the majority of our population define marriage as between a man and a woman. Our gov't honors that by giving tax breaks. The gov't doesn't care if you are a homosexual or transexual, you can be any persuasion you want, but why should it be obligated to give these same breaks to a minority of our population when the majority says otherwise. We live in a democracy and when we reach a point where enough pressure can be put on the politicians to change the definition of marriage...then so be it.

Whose other interests should we be protecting? Sure, the U.S. has made poor foreign policy decisions, but I don't believe these warrant the hostility shown arround the world, especially from extremist and moderate Muslims. When the U.S. donated all the money, supplies, and workers on the ground to aid the Tsunami victims in 2004, were we praised? We were not. We are equated with being evil, is that fair? Do you think our gov't or troops are evil? Do you see the flag burnings and the rage of these people who hate us? Or other countries who wish to criticize us publicly, but we would be the first to call if they were attacked? I assume you are talking about Kissenger's and Nixon's plan for Vietnam. That issue warrants a thread in itself.

I have more than talking points, don't insult me. I think it is pretty simple why people favor lower taxes...because the gov't takes less money that we earned. I think that is pretty important as a principle. No I do not want to discuss the theory of taxation neither am I qualified to do so. Well there are many things we could spend less on such as education, earmarks (politicians' pet projects), well-fare, and ironically the IRS for starters. You would have to define what our government was designed to do and then limit what it is not designed to do. Cutting the department of education might be the first thing I would do and then cut other useless bureaucracies. Defense is the main function of gov't as I see it so it would make sense to put more of our tax money into securing the borders. For starters, we can finish the fence and then add the necessary technology to enforce our borders. Depends how you define "godly." If you define it quantitatively by amount of christians, then conservatives tend to have more christians than liberals. If you define it qualitatively as having certain virtues...well that is impossible to measure. Personally, I don't think its worth arguing. You tell me about the long lines...why is it that people come to the U.S. for quality healthcare...sure people from the U.S. go to other countries, but for cheaper lesser quality. I think our healthcare is way too expensive and should be regulated, but privately, not by our gov't, which you have said sucks.

I believe each American defines his or her American dream. How do we not have equal opportunity? Actually, minorities have more opportunity. They can get into schools with lower test scores than whites. It seems the dems like to divide America into the haves and the have nots when the majority of Americans are middle class. I believe in an America where your success depends on you and you are responsible for your success, not the gov't. Now, many people start with a head start and a minority of people are picked over others based on sex, race, and creed, but as a whole if you want to do something in life you can. Free-enterprise and competition fuel this process. I never said the poor are stupid, but statistics show that the well-fare system as it is today is not motivating change in behavior. So, one can deduce that pumping money into these social programs is not the answer. If everyone did the right thing then they would be great...but statistics show otherwise. They can think whatever they want about me, but that doesn't change their position or get them a job. Faith-based organizations or other non-profit organizations have been shown to do a better job in taking care of the poor than gov't. We as human beings have a personal responsibility to help the less fortunate, the gov't does not.

Of course people are profiting off of people, that's the whole idea of capitalism. Now taking advantage of people is something different and is wrong, but what type of economic system would be better or more positive? Should people be punished for making money? Should we be socialists? History says no! It is possible for the gov't to regulate as they do for monopolies to guarantee competition. Do you think if we gave the means and mode of production back to the gov't, this would fix corruption? If people are corrupt then why wouldn't they be in any economic system. There's nothing godly about being wealthy nor is it ungodly if you are wealthy because you work hard. Am I the one who is really full of it? Ask the French if they would prosper more if they went back to a 40 hr work week. My faith has nothing to do with economic systems.

People define prosperity different ways. Some people love to work. Some people hate it and when they retire they become even more bitter. It is possible to have prosperity by the simple act of working. I know plenty of people on welfare and they no exactly how to manipulate the system in order to stay on it. One clever way is to have kids and not get married. Another way is to fake injuries. Don't think I'm naive. I don't, however believe everyone on welfare is taking advantage of it, but enough do to cause a drain on our economy.

I have a question, are you a socialist?

[Timothy Leary]

I, for one, am too lazy to be greedy = )

I think they are mutually exclusive to an extent. Truly lazy greedy people problably turn to a life of crime or high finance....
Insurance Agents
Crime & High Finance at the same time!

[Zeluvia]

A level playing field is not an equality opportunity. It's an equality of results.

nope you have that backwards....you can not get equality of results, because people are different...

you can only try to make sure your society promotes equality of opportunity, so that your best and brightest are free to contribute to the general welfare of that society....

And that is what level playing field means, we all have equal access to opportunity, and that includes, in fact is defined by, childhood education.

[Timothy Leary]

This is one of the reasons I support vouchers - for students who are able to take advantage of vouchers, you can reduce the strain on the public school system and save money at the same time.

here's some resources for private schools:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
Tuition average~4600 for religious private and 11000 for secular private

Public schools spent an average of 7600 per student
http://www.nea.org/specialed/index.html
Considering the hundreds of rules, regulations and government mandates that public schools must satisfy (lke special ed which costs nearly 20,000 per student while also bringing down test scores) i'd say it's not too bad.

But money doesn't matter when it comes to education, only one thing does: is the student taught to value education. This comes from society, community, parents, teachers and the students themselves. if we had a government committed to getting the best education, it would show first in societal attitudes, which would promote student learning in and of itself. That is one reason I count myself as a liberal.

[Zeluvia]

Sorry, but that's hogwash.

Your average private school charges anywhere from $1k to $2k per student, often giving sizable discounts to families with 2 or more children enrolled. Some higher-tiered private schools charge considerably more, but they're the exception, not the rule. This $1k to $2k per student per year is everything most private schools receive -- very little to no government subsidies involved. With that money, they manage to have decent facilities, hire decent teachers, and outperform your average public school. They're a testament to what can be done with good budgeting.

Now look at your average public school. They receive anywhere from $10k to $30k per student per year directly from the government, depending on state and district. You're right that this money doesn't come directly from the parents' pockets like most private school funds, but you'll notice that the amount they get is considerably higher! The only area public schools generally do better on is teacher salaries, and honestly they don't do all that much better. Their budget is astronomically higher than your average private school budget, and they still manage to under perform. Why? One hint -- it obviously ain't the money.


Show me some studies. The teachers I know get paid more at the local Catholic school.

So what is the real economics here? Do we have two budgets of two comparable schools to look at?

[Zeluvia]

you guys are going to fast for me : )
will catch up with you after work = )

[norwegen]

nope you have that backwards....you can not get equality of results, because people are different...

you can only try to make sure your society promotes equality of opportunity, so that your best and brightest are free to contribute to the general welfare of that society....

And that is what level playing field means, we all have equal access to opportunity, and that includes, in fact is defined by, childhood education.I understand what you're saying. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Equality of results is absolutely possible, however different people may be. Surely, you've heard of socialism. :wink:

It may be Wikipedia, but it illustrates the idea that an equality of results is a level playing field.Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome, a more socialistic philosophy, means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else. For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_opportunity_versus_equality_of_results

In the US, any citizen may start a business, earn a college degree, enlist in the armed services, flip hamburgers, or panhandle. We all make choices in life. Government gradually levels the playing field as it increases taxes to fund expanding welfare programs. When it takes property from some in order to give it to others, it moves toward a result that ends in equality.

Sadly, though, this "equality" is oppressive to the productive. Welfare is socialism; it's oppressive; it's theft; it's Democratic; it's unAmerican.

[Pilgrim]

Sorry, but that's hogwash.

Your average private school charges anywhere from $1k to $2k per student, often giving sizable discounts to families with 2 or more children enrolled. Some higher-tiered private schools charge considerably more, but they're the exception, not the rule. This $1k to $2k per student per year is everything most private schools receive -- very little to no government subsidies involved. With that money, they manage to have decent facilities, hire decent teachers, and outperform your average public school. They're a testament to what can be done with good budgeting.

No offense but that's not right either. Maybe an independent Christian school charges that little but your average private school charges more than that and that is only a portion of the money they receive. Nearly ever private institution also fund raises and it is from those gifts that the majority of what they do gets done. For example, I attended a Country Day School in PA. They receive as much or more from the annual fund than they do in tuition and they are quick to remind us alumni that tuition covers only a portion of what goes on.

The average tuition (http://www.capenet.org/facts.html) for a private k-12 school is $6,799. Remove religious institutions from the figuring and it goes up to over $12,000. And the only private schools who are not getting government money are the religious ones. All the non sectarian schools are taking full advantage of government subsidies.

[Pilgrim]

This looked too confusing so I'm just going to post again what I replied to you.

If gov't sucks so bad the why would increasing the gov't make it better. Also, since it sucks why would we give it the power to run our healthcare system


You'll have to ask the conservative party, they are the party that for the last 8 year has continued to expand the government.

[Objectitron]

You'll have to ask the conservative party, they are the party that for the last 8 year has continued to expand the government.

You're right they have and they have let spending get out of control. It's hard to say if Bush is truly a conservative, no doubt he is a republican, but that doesn't make him a conservative on all issues. There is a difference between the two. Just like not all democrats are liberal, but the majority are. However, Lieberman tends to be conservative on a lot of defense issues.

[Zeluvia]

I understand what you're saying. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Equality of results is absolutely possible, however different people may be. Surely, you've heard of socialism. :wink:

It may be Wikipedia, but it illustrates the idea that an equality of results is a level playing field.Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome, a more socialistic philosophy, means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else. For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_opportunity_versus_equality_of_results

In the US, any citizen may start a business, earn a college degree, enlist in the armed services, flip hamburgers, or panhandle. We all make choices in life. Government gradually levels the playing field as it increases taxes to fund expanding welfare programs. When it takes property from some in order to give it to others, it moves toward a result that ends in equality.

Sadly, though, this "equality" is oppressive to the productive. Welfare is socialism; it's oppressive; it's theft; it's Democratic; it's unAmerican.


And I propose that the characterization of ANY part of the American system as a "welfare" system according to this definition is a myth.

We do not subsidize able bodied people to live without working, except in prisons.

[Zeluvia]

Sorry, but that's hogwash.

Your average private school charges anywhere from $1k to $2k per student, often giving sizable discounts to families with 2 or more children enrolled. Some higher-tiered private schools charge considerably more, but they're the exception, not the rule. This $1k to $2k per student per year is everything most private schools receive -- very little to no government subsidies involved. With that money, they manage to have decent facilities, hire decent teachers, and outperform your average public school. They're a testament to what can be done with good budgeting.

Now look at your average public school. They receive anywhere from $10k to $30k per student per year directly from the government, depending on state and district. You're right that this money doesn't come directly from the parents' pockets like most private school funds, but you'll notice that the amount they get is considerably higher! The only area public schools generally do better on is teacher salaries, and honestly they don't do all that much better. Their budget is astronomically higher than your average private school budget, and they still manage to under perform. Why? One hint -- it obviously ain't the money.


Okay we have apples oranges and bananas here again.

First off, education funding and performance varies WILDLY by state.
So any comparison on a National level is flawed.

What started this and what we are looking at is "Do teacher salaries make a difference to student metrics, ie educational outcomes."

Do schools that can and do pay MORE get better teachers, and does that show in student outcomes?

Now I have a friend whose SON is teacher in the local Catholic Private school. He does get paid MORE than most of the school districts in the state pay. However, I called her back and asked her about the "special needs" kids. They do NOT take them. They will not even take an ADD kid unless he is under a doctor's care and on medication.
They do expel children who are disruptive.

This adds another dimension to the cost of public education, and thank you for bringing it up. How much is tuition at a private school for special needs kids?

[Zeluvia]

This looked too confusing so I'm just going to post again what I replied to you.

If gov't sucks so bad the why would increasing the gov't make it better. Also, since it sucks why would we give it the power to run our healthcare system

I am sorry, but next time please respond to my post point by point.
Where did I say government sucks so bad? Some government programs are run well and efficiently.


Well the obvious answer is the gov't gives tax breaks to "interpersonal relationships" such as marriage and having kids. the fact is the majority of our population define marriage as between a man and a woman. Our gov't honors that by giving tax breaks. The gov't doesn't care if you are a homosexual or transexual, you can be any persuasion you want, but why should it be obligated to give these same breaks to a minority of our population when the majority says otherwise. We live in a democracy and when we reach a point where enough pressure can be put on the politicians to change the definition of marriage...then so be it.

Why does government give tax breaks for kids? Why should I pay taxes to send kids to school if I don't have any? You are not addressing the theory here. What is the interest of government in marriage?


Whose other interests should we be protecting? Sure, the U.S. has made poor foreign policy decisions, but I don't believe these warrant the hostility shown arround the world, especially from extremist and moderate Muslims. When the U.S. donated all the money, supplies, and workers on the ground to aid the Tsunami victims in 2004, were we praised? We were not. We are equated with being evil, is that fair? Do you think our gov't or troops are evil? Do you see the flag burnings and the rage of these people who hate us? Or other countries who wish to criticize us publicly, but we would be the first to call if they were attacked? I assume you are talking about Kissenger's and Nixon's plan for Vietnam. That issue warrants a thread in itself.
Nope, Kissingers three point plan had nothing to do with Vietnam.
I never said we shouldn't be protecting our interests, or protecting anyone else's. Read what I said.



I have more than talking points, don't insult me. I think it is pretty simple why people favor lower taxes...because the gov't takes less money that we earned. I think that is pretty important as a principle.
How much money did you pay in taxes last year for the privelege of living in this country? Did you find it excessive? What is the economic principle behind this theory of taxation you are talking about?
I still fail to see any substance behind your posts, or understanding of the deeper theories and issues.


No I do not want to discuss the theory of taxation neither am I qualified to do so. Well there are many things we could spend less on such as education, earmarks (politicians' pet projects), well-fare, and ironically the IRS for starters. You would have to define what our government was designed to do and then limit what it is not designed to do. Cutting the department of education might be the first thing I would do and then cut other useless bureaucracies. Defense is the main function of gov't as I see it so it would make sense to put more of our tax money into securing the borders. For starters, we can finish the fence and then add the necessary technology to enforce our borders.
Okay now you are getting to specifics. What is the long term outcome of cutting education funding? Who are we defending ourselves from?
What do YOU see as the proper role of government?


Depends how you define "godly." If you define it quantitatively by amount of christians, then conservatives tend to have more christians than liberals. If you define it qualitatively as having certain virtues...well that is impossible to measure. Personally, I don't think its worth arguing. You brought a problem with "secularization" not me.
I asked you how it was a problem for Europe. Conservatives only have more Christians for the last 25 years or so, prior to that the "christians" voted overwhelmingly Democratic. The watershed was abortion.
But I am glad you agree that the secular or non-secular attitudes of a person or country have nothing to do with the politics or the economics.



You tell me about the long lines...why is it that people come to the U.S. for quality healthcare...sure people from the U.S. go to other countries, but for cheaper lesser quality. I think our healthcare is way too expensive and should be regulated, but privately, not by our gov't, which you have said sucks.
I never said the government sucks. I am still trying to figure out where you think I said that. I don't know about long lines, but I have had to wait in the emergency room for HOURS. What you don't realize is that Medicare is so huge in this country that it already dictates alot of the economy of healthcare. Another thing you do not realize is that when we look at healthcare costs, we include the cost of Healthcare Insurance. Take a look at the profit loss sheets for some of the majorly traded Healthcare companies.


I believe each American defines his or her American dream. How do we not have equal opportunity? Actually, minorities have more opportunity. They can get into schools with lower test scores than whites. Only if they can pay for it, and only colleges, and only certain schools. Another myth. Ever heard of Edgewater School District vs the State of Texas? Look it up.


It seems the dems like to divide America into the haves and the have nots when the majority of Americans are middle class.
oh now this is rich.... did you not read Newt's Contract with America?
That was the start of the last 20 years of "division" within this country.


I believe in an America where your success depends on you and you are responsible for your success, not the gov't. Now, many people start with a head start and a minority of people are picked over others based on sex, race, and creed, but as a whole if you want to do something in life you can. Free-enterprise and competition fuel this process. I never said the poor are stupid, but statistics show that the well-fare system as it is today is not motivating change in behavior.
You are mixing things up. How can a child be responsible for his success at age 3? Many people do have a head start. They have families who worked hard to give them that head start. Other people have wealth. Both of those are good indicators of success, if your parents can afford to get you to the best schools and best colleges.
Yes there is a problem with the culture of poverty, but it is NOT caused by our non-existant welfare state. Show me one able bodied person not caring for children under school age who is not working to live, and I will agree we have a "welfare" state. I know there are not any in Texas.


So, one can deduce that pumping money into these social programs is not the answer. If everyone did the right thing then they would be great...but statistics show otherwise. They can think whatever they want about me, but that doesn't change their position or get them a job. Faith-based organizations or other non-profit organizations have been shown to do a better job in taking care of the poor than gov't. We as human beings have a personal responsibility to help the less fortunate, the gov't does not.

Taking care of the poor? Is that what we want to do? Just "take care of them"? Personally, I want to break the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty, not feed it with soup kitchens.


Of course people are profiting off of people, that's the whole idea of capitalism. Now taking advantage of people is something different and is wrong, but what type of economic system would be better or more positive? Should people be punished for making money? Should we be socialists? History says no! It is possible for the gov't to regulate as they do for monopolies to guarantee competition. Do you think if we gave the means and mode of production back to the gov't, this would fix corruption? If people are corrupt then why wouldn't they be in any economic system. There's nothing godly about being wealthy nor is it ungodly if you are wealthy because you work hard. Am I the one who is really full of it? Ask the French if they would prosper more if they went back to a 40 hr work week. My faith has nothing to do with economic systems.

I love the french. They do have capitalism, but they also respect a human's right to a vacation.


People define prosperity different ways. Some people love to work. Some people hate it and when they retire they become even more bitter. It is possible to have prosperity by the simple act of working. I know plenty of people on welfare and they no exactly how to manipulate the system in order to stay on it. One clever way is to have kids and not get married. Another way is to fake injuries. Don't think I'm naive. I don't, however believe everyone on welfare is taking advantage of it, but enough do to cause a drain on our economy.

Sorry, but you are not doing well in showing me that you have anymore understanding of the issues than what you saw on TV.

What books have you read about these subjects? Maybe we should pick a book, read it, and then discuss it.


I have a question, are you a socialist?

No, I am not. I think economic systems such as capitalism, socialism, and communism are theories, and as such are tools.
Depending on circumstances of resources, need, public education levels, and societies, different economic systems may be better suited to conditions than others. I am not a apologist for any of these systems, all have flaws and strengths, and just pointing out some flaws in capitalism does not make me a socialist. I have read enough Ayn Rand to agree that selfishness is more of a virtue than altruism.
However, I have serious problems with conspicious consumption and a materialist consumer driven culture.

While it is true that competition is good for some purposes, what is the ultimate outcome of ANY competition? A winner and a loser ....
And what does a winner do once he wins? He consolidates power to keep from being challenged. And what did this cause in America's history?

[Pilgrim]

You're right they have and they have let spending get out of control. It's hard to say if Bush is truly a conservative, no doubt he is a republican, but that doesn't make him a conservative on all issues. There is a difference between the two. Just like not all democrats are liberal, but the majority are. However, Lieberman tends to be conservative on a lot of defense issues.

Let's say it together: No. True. Scotsman.

[norwegen]

And I propose that the characterization of ANY part of the American system as a "welfare" system according to this definition is a myth.

We do not subsidize able bodied people to live without working, except in prisons.Welfare fraud is rampant.

But more of an issue than welfare abuse is welfare itself. The violation of property rights in America is no myth. Simple question, Zeluvia: what God-given or constitutional right do you have to any of my property?

[Objectitron]

I am sorry, but next time please respond to my post point by point.
Where did I say government sucks so bad? Some government programs are run well and efficiently.

I did respond to you point by point, refer to my original post, but it was too confusing to who was saying what because the words were all in the same color. You're are right...I mispoke about you thinking gov't sucks...I misread what you wrote and I apologize. I only have so much time to respond to all your questions. I am glad we agree that some gov't programs are run well and efficiently


Why does government give tax breaks for kids? Why should I pay taxes to send kids to school if I don't have any? You are not addressing the theory here. What is the interest of government in marriage?

The gov't gives tax breaks for families or single parents who claim their kids as dependents to help offset the cost of raising them. I don't think you should have to pay taxes to send kids to school if you don't have any. The gov't's interest in marriage is to promote what it sees as certain values. I think they believe they can save the American nuclear family through legislation. However, I don't believe this to be true and I don't think it should be the business of the federal gov't. However, there are plenty of arguments to be made that a stable two-parent family is ideal for our society...but that is another argument in itself.


Nope, Kissingers three point plan had nothing to do with Vietnam.
I never said we shouldn't be protecting our interests, or protecting anyone else's. Read what I said.

Look...I don't have time to play guessing games, Kissinger had a lot plans. If you want to talk about one specific then identify it and we can.

How much money did you pay in taxes last year for the privelege of living in this country? Did you find it excessive? What is the economic principle behind this theory of taxation you are talking about?
I still fail to see any substance behind your posts, or understanding of the deeper theories and issues.

I don't believe it is any of your business how much I paid, but I do believe it to be excessive. The economic principle that if you tax less, more money will flow, then we will have a higher GDP and gov't in the end will get more money to waste on education and stupid pet projects like studying fruit flies. You are asking me a lot of questions. It is hard to get into specifics on every one.

Okay now you are getting to specifics. What is the long term outcome of cutting education funding? Who are we defending ourselves from?
What do YOU see as the proper role of government?

I think the question should be what is the long-term outcome if we don't? The gov't has spent billions on education and we, the supposed superpower of the world, can't even crack the top 10 in math and science. If we keep the department we should change how the money flows. For example, if we had school choice, which would create competition and better education because there would be more incentive, the families could use the money allocated to send their child where they see fit. I feel families probably could make better decisions than the federal gov't. The proper role of gov't in the simplest terms is security and to maintain order. Well, we are defending ourselves from many things. We are a sovereign nation and should be able to regulate who comes in and out of our country like other industrialized nations, and we should know who these people are. Almost a 1/3 of our inmates are illegals...I think that is a threat. How hard would it be for a terrorist to smuggle a dirty bomb through Mexico? I believe radical Islamic extremism to be a real threat and not a myth. When groups of people say they want to destroy us and have attempted to in the past, I find thes threats credible. And if we can defeat them on their own turf then we can stay safe at home and the liberals can cry and moan about how we're wasting money and oppressing Mulim people...but you know what...they are safe.
You brought a problem with "secularization" not me.
I asked you how it was a problem for Europe. Conservatives only have more Christians for the last 25 years or so, prior to that the "christians" voted overwhelmingly Democratic. The watershed was abortion.
But I am glad you agree that the secular or non-secular attitudes of a person or country have nothing to do with the politics or the economics.

One argument against secularism is it gives way to moral relativism, which can be argued erodes society. I know you want me to cite specifics, but you have asked me too many other questions, but I would argue that secular societies have been sympathetic to Muslim extremists and now are feeling its negative effects, for example in the UK, Netherlands, and France. You're right dems used to more christian...both parties looked a lot different 25 years ago...we see the republicans wanting to return Reagan's philosophies, which I don't see as such a bad thing.





I never said the government sucks. I am still trying to figure out where you think I said that. I don't know about long lines, but I have had to wait in the emergency room for HOURS. What you don't realize is that Medicare is so huge in this country that it already dictates alot of the economy of healthcare. Another thing you do not realize is that when we look at healthcare costs, we include the cost of Healthcare Insurance. Take a look at the profit loss sheets for some of the majorly traded Healthcare companies.

You're right...you didn't...sorry about that again. You can't compare the emergency room to quality care from a provider. We all know the emergency room is where people go who don't have insurance and your place in line is dictated by the severity of your condition. I've waited for 8 or 9 hours in a military emergency room with my wife before
Only if they can pay for it, and only colleges, and only certain schools. Another myth. Ever heard of Edgewater School District vs the State of Texas? Look it up.

No I haven't. I will and will comment on it later. Well, my brother-in-law is a coach for a prominent University and they have a certain criteria for getting into the schools. They are a non scholarship (athletic) school but a lot of their players go for free as long as they meet certain academic standards. For minorities the SAT, ACT, and GPA are all lower to get the same benefits as non minorities. I'm sure it is different for different schools, especially private ones, but don't tell me there isn't certain advantages for minorities. If you want to argue that minorities in general do not receive as quality of education as non minorities that is one thing, but they do receive certain benefits.


oh now this is rich.... did you not read Newt's Contract with America?
That was the start of the last 20 years of "division" within this country.

Please clarify exactly what you are saying


You are mixing things up. How can a child be responsible for his success at age 3? Many people do have a head start. They have families who worked hard to give them that head start. Other people have wealth. Both of those are good indicators of success, if your parents can afford to get you to the best schools and best colleges.
Yes there is a problem with the culture of poverty, but it is NOT caused by our non-existant welfare state. Show me one able bodied person not caring for children under school age who is not working to live, and I will agree we have a "welfare" state. I know there are not any in Texas.

I don't know if I even can respond to your last few sentences. Are you being serious or sarcastic? I happen to live in Texas too and know there are many able bodied people not working. They are living off of checks from the gov't. Having kids is a possible solution to remain on the welfare system. If you took their checks away they would be forced to work to live. But as long as they are staying below the poverty line those checks will keep coming in.



Taking care of the poor? Is that what we want to do? Just "take care of them"? Personally, I want to break the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty, not feed it with soup kitchens.

As would I, but you can't force people to work or to become educated. I believe in personal responsibility and should help those in need, not just keep them alive, but at some point some are beyond any type of real help. How would break the cycle of poverty? I'm very interested in how you would do this.


I love the french. They do have capitalism, but they also respect a human's right to a vacation.

I agree, but they do have an element of socialism, but the majority of the population would like to break free from it. I think the election of a conservative like Sarkozy is evidence of that. They want capitalism and to only work 35 hours a week, it is hard to have it both ways. Some of their socialistic ideals will be hard to break. What does a vacation have to do with the work week?


Sorry, but you are not doing well in showing me that you have anymore understanding of the issues than what you saw on TV.

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I'm doing the best I can. I'm not that old and realize you have more life experiences than I do and I respect that, but I can assure you while I'm not an expert I have more understanding of some of the issues than what is on Fox or CNN. I do have a Master's degree in International Relations and enjoy learning.
What books have you read about these subjects? Maybe we should pick a book, read it, and then discuss it.

Depends on the subject, most of them were from grad school. They covered more on international issues, but we covered the theories within our political economy, security issues, and reseach methods to name a few. I'm not sure about a book club, but if you name a book I might be interested.
No, I am not. I think economic systems such as capitalism, socialism, and communism are theories, and as such are tools.
Depending on circumstances of resources, need, public education levels, and societies, different economic systems may be better suited to conditions than others. I am not a apologist for any of these systems, all have flaws and strengths, and just pointing out some flaws in capitalism does not make me a socialist. I have read enough Ayn Rand to agree that selfishness is more of a virtue than altruism.
However, I have serious problems with conspicious consumption and a materialist consumer driven culture.

While it is true that competition is good for some purposes, what is the ultimate outcome of ANY competition? A winner and a loser ....
And what does a winner do once he wins? He consolidates power to keep from being challenged. And what did this cause in America's history?

Depends how you look at. Economic conversatives (not to be confused with political consveratism) would see it as a zero-sum game or there is a winner and a loser. Economic liberals, such as Adam Smith, would see it as a positive sum game where everyone wins.
Define winning?

You present some interesting arguments and I respect your views and your life experiences. I understand that you are older and most likely wiser than I am, but this doesn't make my arguments less valid. Its hard to answer so many questions and it is a little overwhelming. Maybe we could start debating individual topics or pick 2 or 3 and go from there.

[Zeluvia]

Welfare fraud is rampant.

But more of an issue than welfare abuse is welfare itself. The violation of property rights in America is no myth. Simple question, Zeluvia: what God-given or constitutional right do you have to any of my property?

Did God give you property?

[Zeluvia]

Why does government give tax breaks for kids? Why should I pay taxes to send kids to school if I don't have any? You are not addressing the theory here. What is the interest of government in marriage?

The gov't gives tax breaks for families or single parents who claim their kids as dependents to help offset the cost of raising them. I don't think you should have to pay taxes to send kids to school if you don't have any. The gov't's interest in marriage is to promote what it sees as certain values. I think they believe they can save the American nuclear family through legislation. However, I don't believe this to be true and I don't think it should be the business of the federal gov't. However, there are plenty of arguments to be made that a stable two-parent family is ideal for our society...but that is another argument in itself.


Okay, let's do one at a time. If I shouldn't have to pay school taxes if I don't have kids, why should people WITH kids get a lighter tax burden to raise them? What is the governments LEGITIMATE interest in kids? What "values" is the government promoting by sanctioning families? Almost ALL welfare in this country is centered around children. There are no able bodied working age people in this country on welfare, there are CHILDREN and their PARENTS on welfare. So, doesn't welfare promote a value too?

But let's just talk about this one thing. What is the legitimate interest of the government in children?

[PolarBeer]

Okay, let's do one at a time. If I shouldn't have to pay school taxes if I don't have kids, why should people WITH kids get a lighter tax burden to raise them? What is the governments LEGITIMATE interest in kids? What "values" is the government promoting by sanctioning families? Almost ALL welfare in this country is centered around children. There are no able bodied working age people in this country on welfare, there are CHILDREN and their PARENTS on welfare. So, doesn't welfare promote a value too?

But let's just talk about this one thing. What is the legitimate interest of the government in children?

I'm not sure what the purpose of having a government is if it doesn't care about children. They are the future workers of that country, and their education and well-being will directly affect the future economy of the country in question. Assuming that a typical government cares about a long-term robust economy, a typical government will care about children.

(Did that make sense?)

pb

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Let's say it together: No. True. Scotsman.

Does that really apply in this case? I mean, if one of the defining tenets of "Conservativism" is a belief in small government, then it doesn't strike me as fallacious to say that Bush, not adhering to that basic principle, was no Conservative.

[Objectitron]

Okay, let's do one at a time. If I shouldn't have to pay school taxes if I don't have kids, why should people WITH kids get a lighter tax burden to raise them? What is the governments LEGITIMATE interest in kids? What "values" is the government promoting by sanctioning families? Almost ALL welfare in this country is centered around children. There are no able bodied working age people in this country on welfare, there are CHILDREN and their PARENTS on welfare. So, doesn't welfare promote a value too?

But let's just talk about this one thing. What is the legitimate interest of the government in children?


I guess we should define exactly what welfare is. Are we talking about all federal and state assistance to include unemployment insurance? Or specific programs?

It is hard to decipher if its interest is legitimate or not but it seems the gov't see kids as potential victims and unable to protect themselves. I guess you could say the gov't has a proverbial soft spot for children. Why? Most likely because the gov't is ran by individuals who feel the same. Now, this is a superficial argument I'm making not backed by research that I know of. But look how the dems like Pelosi attacked Bush for vetoing their SCHIP proposal. What was her defense, she insuates that since it was vetoed then Bush doesn't care about children's healthcare, even though Bush gave legitimate and valid objection to the cost of such a program, but Pelosi and others knew that their proposal would resonate with the average person if they accused Bush of not wanting to help children. The American people believe in general that all children deserve healthcare and if their family can't affort it the gov't should provide access to it. I believe no matter what one's political persuasion is people care for the well-being of children and the gov't is just an extension of it. I think it just something innate in most human beings to want to care for the needs of those that can't fend for themselves, especially for children. It is sad when politicians exploit children for partisan politics.

[Objectitron]

Does that really apply in this case? I mean, if one of the defining tenets of "Conservativism" is a belief in small government, then it doesn't strike me as fallacious to say that Bush, not adhering to that basic principle, was no Conservative.

many don't believe he really is. However, he is not the only one to blame for the increase in government. He is conservative on a lot of issues, it is hard to guage if some people are overall or truly conservative.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

many don't believe he really is. However, he is not the only one to blame for the increase in government. He is conservative on a lot of issues, it is hard to guage if some people are overall or truly conservative.

I really think he only panders to Conservative social issues, which never floated my boat since I'm pretty "liberal" socially.

[Tfbandie]

If you're not going to categorize government schools, then you've no need to categorize private schools. The average tuition of all private schools, according to your link, is $4,700.
As you say, the average tuition in public schools for normal students is $7,600 and for special education students is $20,000. So what is the average tuition for public school students?

Your link doesn't say. No matter; even without special education programs, private school tuition is still much cheaper.

Government may hem and haw all it wants to about quality education. The private sector is already furnishing it.

This is one reason I count myself a conservative.
No you're still wrong, check the links, the reason we don't distinguish public schools, is that there's no distinction. there is between religious and non religious (religious private schools with low tuition tend to do on par with public schools in the area)

Alright you want some math let's do it
13.2% have special needs ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3451/is_200410/ai_n13202736)
The best estimate I've seen of specific numbers states that 13.2% of students have special needs. With an average cost of 7600 per kid, 100 kids =$760,000
Special ed costs 13.2*20,000=264000
regular ed costs=496000
cost per regular ed student= 496000/86.8= 5714; 1000 more than religious private schools, and 5300 less than private nonsectarian schools.

Considering that in recent testing Public and private schools scored virtually the same (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/education/15report.html?ex=1310616000&en=abe9690ed35b306f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
And with the extra limitations posed by having special education students in public schools, I'd say, not a bad comparison

[Zeluvia]

I guess we should define exactly what welfare is. Are we talking about all federal and state assistance to include unemployment insurance? Or specific programs?

I agree we should define it. But is you that is using the term welfare state. I say that is a myth. In no way shape or form is the US a welfare state. So you must define to ME what you mean by welfare state.

This is how I see it:

It IS true that the welfare of the 60's and 70's was broken, but that is no longer true. Things that are being done to break the cycle and culture of poverty include spreading "section 8" and "lower income" housing out amongst "regular" neighborhoods to break ghettos, workfare for unwed or single parents (you can't get welfare after your children are school age without attempting to find work or attending school anymore, and I have heard but not verified there is a "cap" on how many children will be covered)

Unemployment in most states lasts about 8 months, max, and you have to show you are actively seeking work with at least 3 applications a week, as well as enrolling with the state job search agency. You can get it extended to 18 months, but you usually must attend and qualify for a re-training program.

Able bodied working people in SOME states can get Emergeny Food Stamps, but you can NOT own a home, or any savings account, or any other assets other than a car in order to qualify, and at the most you can collect that for is three months. You also have to register with the state employment board, and the same rules for collecting unemployment apply.

Pregnant women and families with very young children without assets and under a certain income level, even if they are working, can get WIC and food stamp assistance. But that buys you milk, cheese, and only FOOD, and the types and even brands are specified in some cases.

By far the largest amount of money goes to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and Supplemental Social Security. Medicare is not free, you pay for it from your Social Security benefits. There are also a ton of rules and regulations, and you almost have to join an HMO. The government pays the HMO from your Social Security, and the HMO keeps costs down on care, and usually manages to make a profit too.

Social Security is a whole nother kettle of fish, but I do not consider that "welfare". You have to be at least 65 now to start collecting, and the age is increasing now. If you continue to work, your Social Security is reduced $1 for every $2 you earn. Amazingly, they do NOT count income earned from investments in this formula, only earned income from JOBS. This is one area we could probably save alot of money in, if we subjected the wealthy to the same type of asset test we do the poor. Remember, no one pays into SS on earnings over $75,000 a year.

Also remember that before Social Security, we did not have "nuclear" families in the US. We had "extended families". This was because the older members of the family ended up living with the younger. I don't remember a big outcry when grandma was able to live on her own, and people crying about the death of the "extended" family. But in many ways, having an older parent or parents live with you was both a blessing and burden, and a CULTURAL change ensued when children no longer had to provide for parents no longer able to work.

Medicaid is insurance for poor only. It only covers children for the most part, although if you have a catastrophic illness and you have no assets..(once again, no home or savings) you may qualify for a one time benefit. About 45% of Medicaid enrolled children have parents that work, but are in low income jobs. I think the cut off is earned income of $17,000 a year for a family of 3, but I could be wrong, it's been a few years.

SSI is for disabled people, widows, and orphans. It can take up to 5 years to prove a disablity to SSI, and there are lawyers and advocacy groups that have to help people qualify. It is not easy to do, as a matter of rule they always deny the first claim. SSI will pay a widow/er a monthly stipend, until the children reach 18. It will pay the children a stipend after 18 ONLY if they are enrolled in school. The max age to collect SSI is 24, even if in school. The amount SSI pays is about $400 a month, it is based on an earnings formula, and is about 1/3 of what you would get from SS.

So, just where would you cut welfare?


It is hard to decipher if its interest is legitimate or not but it seems the gov't see kids as potential victims and unable to protect themselves. I guess you could say the gov't has a proverbial soft spot for children. Why? Most likely because the gov't is ran by individuals who feel the same. Now, this is a superficial argument I'm making not backed by research that I know of. But look how the dems like Pelosi attacked Bush for vetoing their SCHIP proposal. What was her defense, she insuates that since it was vetoed then Bush doesn't care about children's healthcare, even though Bush gave legitimate and valid objection to the cost of such a program, but Pelosi and others knew that their proposal would resonate with the average person if they accused Bush of not wanting to help children. The American people believe in general that all children deserve healthcare and if their family can't affort it the gov't should provide access to it. I believe no matter what one's political persuasion is people care for the well-being of children and the gov't is just an extension of it. I think it just something innate in most human beings to want to care for the needs of those that can't fend for themselves, especially for children. It is sad when politicians exploit children for partisan politics.

I think you are still missing my question. Socially, not politically, what is a STATE's legitimate interest in children? It has nothing to do with soft spots or politics or victims.


I'm not sure what the purpose of having a government is if it doesn't care about children. They are the future workers of that country, and their education and well-being will directly affect the future economy of the country in question. Assuming that a typical government cares about a long-term robust economy, a typical government will care about children.

This is closer to what I think. The life of any individual is measured in decades, a state/government has to think in longer terms. The future of the US in the next 100 years is in the kids being born today.

[Objectitron]

I agree we should define it. But is you that is using the term welfare state. I say that is a myth. In no way shape or form is the US a welfare state. So you must define to ME what you mean by welfare state.

I don't think I said we live in a welfare state, because that is not what I believe. I believe if we increase federal funds and create more federal aid programs then we will be heading in that direction. Where and when did I say that exactly?

So, just where would you cut welfare?
I'm certainly not an expert on this issue and I'm going to read what the Urban Institute has to say about that (http://www.urban.org/welfare/index.cfm). However, I favor giving grants to non profit oganizations and faith-based orgs to handle some of the issues. I think there should be a safety net, but I don't think it is the gov't's obligation to take care of an individual's every need . At a point there has to be personal responsibility. We just have figure out where to draw the line.



I think you are still missing my question. Socially, not politically, what is a STATE's legitimate interest in children? It has nothing to do with soft spots or politics or victims.

It doesn't...I disagree



This is closer to what I think. The life of any individual is measured in decades, a state/government has to think in longer terms. The future of the US in the next 100 years is in the kids being born today.

I would agree with this too


Sorry for the short responses, but this is all I have time for right now. I will do some more research and respond soon. I would like to know where YOU stand on what the role of gov't should be

[Objectitron]

Z,

I've reviewed an analysis of welfare since the reforms in 1996 via the Urban Institute. I view the evidence overall as encouraging in that more people are getting off of welfare prior to 1996. As to which welfare programs I would cut, I am not sure. I will leave that up to the policy makers. 2 programs I wouldn't cut would be food stamps and the welfare-to work program.

I don't think that is the big issue here. The programs in and of themselves seem reasonable. However, I question how it is administered, its accountability, and its ineffectiveness to truly get people out of poverty for the rest of their lives. I think it gives individuals, especially children, a since of entitlement that they didn't earn and don't deserve. I question why the gov't should be able to take money away from me and my family and give it to others because they happen to be poor. Honestly, I don't mind that a certain percentage of my paycheck goes to social programs like welfare or medicaid in theory. I guess I get cynical when I personally observe families using this money from TANF for playstations or selling their foodstamps for drugs, alchohol, or cheetos. Did you know that enough foodstamps can buy you a car in some places? This is a true story from a former undercover cop working cases in welfare fraud. He actually bought a car with food stamps. My wife works in child psychiatry at a healthcare center and about 95% of her patients are on medicaid; there's no telling how many are also on different welfare programs and section 8 housing, I know many also have SSI. Almost all, according to her, of her patients and families have PSPs, portable dvd player, cell phones, and video games they bring with them to their appointments. She always comments how the moms of the kids have all sorts of ringtones too which cost at least $2 a piece. Additionally, a lot the children she sees complain to their mom (usually) or dad that they should get their SSI check directly and be able to spend it on video games or whatever they want since it is their check. Many children she sees have these amenities while at the same time having poor hygiene and health in general.

I'm sorry, this is my hard earned money going to these programs. I categorically question where the money and food stamps are really going. I don't even think that is the biggest issue though. I think our welfare system has created a culture of entitlement where adults and children truly believe they are entitled to these benefits. To truly believe you deserve something from the gov't for doing nothing is scary and sad in my opinion. I think if we are going to have a welfare system ran by the gov't there needs to be more accountability; we should be able to know and individuals should have to prove where the money given to them is going. However, you have to create agencies to monitor or oversee the funds which ironically takes more tax money. People should be so grateful that their gov't gives them free healthcare, or a very low co-pay with SCHIP, free education, free food, etc. I've been to Haiti and Venezuela, I'v seen what true poverty is. No doubt we have true poverty in our country, but we also have individuals who abuse and take advantage of the system which ruins it for everyone. This is why I would favor grant-based funding to faith-based orgs or non profit orgs to ensure that our poor are taken care of and receive the education necessary to compete for jobs.

Do you really believe section 8 housing should be moved into better neighborhoods? Do you think it would really reduce poverty, crime, and racism? Do you think you would see a change in culture? How would the individuals in the neighborhoods react to their new neighbors?

[Zeluvia]

Personally, I think you need take another look at the US and state budgets. Your hard earned money is not going to support the poor, and even if it was, is that so morally reprehensible?

I think the idea that there are millions of poor leeching off the US taxpayer in the US is a strawman. It simply isn't true.

You keep harping on costs, and yet we are going in debt for war. Do you think we will get better economic returns on the war? Is the war a better investment than our own citizens?

Yes, moving lower income housing and spreading it out amongst regular housing breaks ghettos, breaks the culture and cycle of poverty, keeps investment up. It has been provent to work.

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/pastweek.html I read here alot.

[Objectitron]

Personally, I think you need take another look at the US and state budgets. Your hard earned money is not going to support the poor, and even if it was, is that so morally reprehensible?

I think the idea that there are millions of poor leeching off the US taxpayer in the US is a strawman. It simply isn't true.

You keep harping on costs, and yet we are going in debt for war. Do you think we will get better economic returns on the war? Is the war a better investment than our own citizens?

Yes, moving lower income housing and spreading it out amongst regular housing breaks ghettos, breaks the culture and cycle of poverty, keeps investment up. It has been provent to work.

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/pastweek.html I read here alot.

Ok...then where does the money come from? I agree that in my paycheck there aren't deductions specifically for "welfare", but you're saying the gov't doesn't take a percentage of my income tax for these programs? Or state income tax? Or if I don't have state income tax, then state sales tax? At some level I am paying for these programs.

It is not morally reprehensible, but its makes me furious to know that my money and everyone else's is not appreciated or misused. Do you not believe the welfare and medicaid culture has a sense of entitlement that the policy makers helped create? I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

When and where has moving section 8 housing been proven to break the culture of poverty?

The war has certain long-term goals and is an investment in the security of our citizens...something the gov't is actually designed to do..welfare is an added "bonus" from our gov't even though originally our gov't was not designed to be a "nanny". So I'll ask you again, what should the role of our gov't be?

[Zeluvia]

okay, well here is my problem.

It isn't just PEOPLE that the government supports, its also companies, other countries, ect.

You are mad? I am not mad because I support our society, I am FURIOUS over the cost of the war. It's BILLIONS!!!

You say giving children health insurance is too expensive. Would it cost more than we paid Haliburton and Blackwater?

You are bitching about a few pennies thrown to some beggars, when we are bleeding red ink from supporting military contractors and mismanaged money on the war, and I don't see conservatives asking where their 9 BILLION went ...

But lets go somewhere else for a minute.

Worst case scenario....what is the WORST terrorists could do to the USA? I mean the WORST possible scenario? We get conquered?

Now compare that to continued economic exsanguation as jobs and investments move offshore, and our populace gets stupider....what is the long term effect of that?

Then think about the movement of money in the US. You are buying a line meant to distract you. Do you actually KNOW anyone that lives on welfare? When was the last time YOU were in an American ghetto? When was the last time you bought something made in America?
When was the last time you talked to someone whose job was outsourced?

What is YOUR personal experience of the US?

[Objectitron]

okay, well here is my problem.

It isn't just PEOPLE that the government supports, its also companies, other countries, ect.

You are mad? I am not mad because I support our society, I am FURIOUS over the cost of the war. It's BILLIONS!!!

You say giving children health insurance is too expensive. Would it cost more than we paid Haliburton and Blackwater?

You are bitching about a few pennies thrown to some beggars, when we are bleeding red ink from supporting military contractors and mismanaged money on the war, and I don't see conservatives asking where their 9 BILLION went ...

But lets go somewhere else for a minute.

Worst case scenario....what is the WORST terrorists could do to the USA? I mean the WORST possible scenario? We get conquered?

Now compare that to continued economic exsanguation as jobs and investments move offshore, and our populace gets stupider....what is the long term effect of that?

Then think about the movement of money in the US. You are buying a line meant to distract you. Do you actually KNOW anyone that lives on welfare? When was the last time YOU were in an American ghetto? When was the last time you bought something made in America?
When was the last time you talked to someone whose job was outsourced?

What is YOUR personal experience of the US?


We aren't going to get anywhere comparing war spending and welfare. I never said medicaid was too expensive. I just question whether it is the gov't's responsibility to provide it. You still haven't answered my question yet again, what is the main or proper role of gov't?

Worst case scenario...terrorists get their hands on a nuclear weapon, smuggle it in through the Mexican border or through other means...set it off in big city killing millions...our gov't and economy crippled...then to make matters worse our gov't not being able to decipher who's responsible. Welfare and job outsourcing won't be subjects in anyone's talking points.

I'm not destracted from the issues. I have close family members who are on welfare and other social programs. They abuse it and are not progressing into a contributing member of society. One refuses to get married to her baby's father because she wouldn't receive as much money from the gov't. This same person is very bright and received free education training. After the training which the gov't provided she decided she wasn't going to do anything with it. She now is in another free education program, you don't see anything wrong with that? Where's the accountability?

I'm a product of a single-parent "broken" family (My dad left before I was 2). We were poor when I was little, but my mom was too proud to take a handout from the gov't even though we qualified. She worked hard and eventually we progressed financially without the aid of our gov't. She instilled in me this same work ethic and same attitude that it means something to work hard even if you receive little. This work ethic and attitude has inspired me to be the best I can be with what I have. Am I too proud to take aid from the gov't? I am not, but I don't have a sense of entitlement that the gov't owes me something or I deserve free healthcare. I think the gov't owes me, since they take a chunk of my paycheck, protection from my enemies foreign and domestic foremost and then an environment where if I work hard and make the right choices I can prosper.

My other experiences with the U.S. has taught me that if you want something bad enough, if you do your part, you can achieve almost anything you want, the sky is the limit.

I had friends growing up who lived in the projects, and I played sports and went to school right next to the projects. We shouldn't be moving the projects, people should be moving themselves out of the projects.

I understand there is a problem with outsourcing jobs, but what is the true alternative? Maybe we should have more regulation or at least more pressure to keep jobs here. The fact is globalization is occuring, this is the world we live in today. We just have to find a way to succeed and stay on top. It is possible for Americans to do other things than work in factories or telecommunications and I think the gov't could aid in free education if jobs are outsourced. Or maybe CEOs should be less greedy, which would help. Maybe the greed stems from deteriorating social values that once made this country so great.

[Zeluvia]

Well to me when you talk about the proper role of government, the conservative's seem to think that it is about defense, where liberals seem to think it is about planning for the future.

I brought up the cost of the war, because if we could pay for THAT, we surely could pay for more children of working parents to have health insurance, we could pay for more research in alternative energy technology that could produce jobs, ect...

It's about where you spend your money.

Now for me, I grew up pretty well cared for, although my parents seperated when I was 13, when my father became very ill. He had multiple problems, diabetes coupled with a serious existential crisis (he was a rocket engineer), and other problems. He was dead by the time I turned 19, and it was SSI that helped put me and my brother through college, because his illness pretty much bankrupted the family.

From about 14 to 19, I spent alot of time hitchhiking around the country, getting into alot of different kinds of trouble and meeting ALOT of different kinds of people. After 2 years in college, I took off hitchhiking again. I finally settled down where I am now, went back to college, and jumped into a "career path" worked my 60 hours a week managing healthcare finance. However, I suffer from the same tendency to existential crisises.

I got off the treadmill, denouced consumerism, simplified my life, and now live happily right around the poverty level.

I think the FACT of globalization is what concerns me most in the future, not terrorists. A terrorist attack, even if they took out 2 or 5 major cities, would cripple us but not destroy the US. For some reason I don't feel external threats to be as big a problem as internal destability would be. In a very real way, I compete for what little living I want with people in India and the Phillipines.

So, what is the proper role of the government? Well, government's ROLE is to macromange our relationships with each other and the world. But it also has to provide continuity, stability, and it has to be flexible and forward thinking, and plan.

Let me ask you about this woman in your family. Does the father of the child not have to pay child support? The accountablity for that child's welfare is on that child's parents. I know in the state I live in, if one parent is on welfare, they will persue the other parent for support, regardless of maritial status. Also, how old is the child? After the child reaches school age, where I live she would have to go to work.

But should we penalize that child because of the actions of the parents? Or do we as a society have a future interest in that child?

[Objectitron]

Well to me when you talk about the proper role of government, the conservative's seem to think that it is about defense, where liberals seem to think it is about planning for the future.

I brought up the cost of the war, because if we could pay for THAT, we surely could pay for more children of working parents to have health insurance, we could pay for more research in alternative energy technology that could produce jobs, ect...

It's about where you spend your money.

Now for me, I grew up pretty well cared for, although my parents seperated when I was 13, when my father became very ill. He had multiple problems, diabetes coupled with a serious existential crisis (he was a rocket engineer), and other problems. He was dead by the time I turned 19, and it was SSI that helped put me and my brother through college, because his illness pretty much bankrupted the family.

From about 14 to 19, I spent alot of time hitchhiking around the country, getting into alot of different kinds of trouble and meeting ALOT of different kinds of people. After 2 years in college, I took off hitchhiking again. I finally settled down where I am now, went back to college, and jumped into a "career path" worked my 60 hours a week managing healthcare finance. However, I suffer from the same tendency to existential crisises.

I got off the treadmill, denouced consumerism, simplified my life, and now live happily right around the poverty level.

Thanks for telling a little about yourself...it makes it easier for me to see where you are coming from and I do. All the money in the world won't be enough to get people to make the right choices or be responsible or be healthy...just look at our so-called celebrity role models. I'm not as harsh as you probably think, I care for the well-being of my fellow man or woman. Of course we could spend more money on children's healthcare than the war, and you might see that happen if Clinton or Obama win. But, is that the function of gov't, to provide adequate healthcare to children no matter what the GDP is? We could also use those billions of dollars of earmarks and put that money towards healthcare. I think we should use that money to start paying off our debt. I'm not really attacking medicaid...even though I'm a conservative I have that proverbial "soft spot" for children and want them taken care of whether by the gov't or through other means. Plus they are our future work force and leaders. Also, if they stay impoverished then they are more likely to commit crimes, which in the end cost tax payers even more money to house them once they are incarcirated. All I am is questioning that this is the gov't's responsibility. I think we have a difference of what the role of gov't is, so we'll just have to maybe move on on this one and tackle another issue such as all that spending for war.

I think the FACT of globalization is what concerns me most in the future, not terrorists. A terrorist attack, even if they took out 2 or 5 major cities, would cripple us but not destroy the US. For some reason I don't feel external threats to be as big a problem as internal destability would be. In a very real way, I compete for what little living I want with people in India and the Phillipines.

This is an interesting point, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. A terrorist attack on 2 or 5 major cities wouldn't necessarily destroy us, but we would be in more trouble than any possible internal destabilization. Now, jobs are being outsourced, but they are also coming here too. Where I am from originally a Toyota plant created 1000's of new jobs. This is the new era of free trade where companies don't have ship goods as much anymore, instead they set up shop where they want the goods to go. I don't like the fact that we have a huge trade deficit with China and they flood our markets with cheep goods while at the same time devaluing their currency so we can't compete. I don't like their labor laws and how they treat their workers. They're communists who act like capitalists. Many companies notice that they can move their operations to countries like China where they know they can have cheap labor. While this may be unethical, unfortunately it is necessary to compete. Plus, the people working in American factories overseas don't really have other alternatives besides to work for hardly anything, besides to not work at all. What alternative do they have? They are still treated better than how their gov't treats them. Have you ever read The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy? It is a very interesting and easy read about globalization. We need to apply pressure on countries like China to be more ethical and to stop devaluing their currency and ensure there is more fair trade than free trade. I'm in the camp where whether you like or don't like the monster called globalization you have to admit it is here to stay

So, what is the proper role of the government? Well, government's ROLE is to macromange our relationships with each other and the world. But it also has to provide continuity, stability, and it has to be flexible and forward thinking, and plan.

That's a rather vague and interesting definition. How would it macromanage? Stability is a good word I would have used too.
Let me ask you about this woman in your family. Does the father of the child not have to pay child support? The accountablity for that child's welfare is on that child's parents. I know in the state I live in, if one parent is on welfare, they will persue the other parent for support, regardless of maritial status. Also, how old is the child? After the child reaches school age, where I live she would have to go to work.

I don't think he does pay, they live together on and off, but I'm sure they tell the gov't whatever gets them the most money. The child is 7. The mother goes from job to job (gets fired) and sometimes doesn't work at all.

But should we penalize that child because of the actions of the parents? Or do we as a society have a future interest in that child?

I don't think we do penalize children, the choices of the parents penalize children...not just socially or financially...but mentally as well. Currently, the gov't provides for the well-being of the child, but can't act as the parent, it is too big and inefficient for that. We don't want to just keep the child alive, the child needs love, education, and hope. The gov't can give a child a chance, but not love. The child needs to learn right and wrong behavior as well as eat, be clothed, and have a place to sleep. The destruction of the family, especially in minorities, is the biggest reason we have welfare in our country today. It is not the gov't's responsibility it is the parents or guardians. I don't think we should immediately cut welfare, but transition it into private-funded orgs who run programs more efficiently. We have to have an interest in the future of our children because they are our future. We just have to figure out how to do it the best and most efficient way possible.

[norwegen]

No you're still wrong, check the links, the reason we don't distinguish public schools, is that there's no distinction. there is between religious and non religious (religious private schools with low tuition tend to do on par with public schools in the area) Y'okay, bandie. While the rest of us talk of the two options: government schools and private schools, you keep talking about your three: government schools, private religious schools, and private non-sectarian schools.

Suit yourself.

[Zeluvia]

I don't think we do penalize children, the choices of the parents penalize children...not just socially or financially...but mentally as well. Currently, the gov't provides for the well-being of the child, but can't act as the parent, it is too big and inefficient for that. We don't want to just keep the child alive, the child needs love, education, and hope. The gov't can give a child a chance, but not love. The child needs to learn right and wrong behavior as well as eat, be clothed, and have a place to sleep. The destruction of the family, especially in minorities, is the biggest reason we have welfare in our country today. It is not the gov't's responsibility it is the parents or guardians. I don't think we should immediately cut welfare, but transition it into private-funded orgs who run programs more efficiently. We have to have an interest in the future of our children because they are our future. We just have to figure out how to do it the best and most efficient way possible.

See, we aren't really that far apart. I don't like the government wasting my money either. I just define that waste differently.

When I said that government Macromanages our relationships, it does it by defining the rules of ownership and property, by defining the limits of one person's rights and the beginnings of anothers, by defining what institutions exist, and what their "legal identity" within society is. This is basically the same thing it does with our relationships with other countries. It defines where our "rights" as a country begin and end, and it defends and protects those rights.

But human society changes, and the government has to change too. Governments that don't fall.

I have a few serious worries, things that I think really matter for the future of the US, of which I will not be a part, because of my age, but I like to think we will at least make it to 300 years.

The first is the Social Security/Medicare/Retirement debacle. The second is our national debt. Now for the most part, national debt is an asset, but not if we can't pay the interest.

The second is the global economy, and while I like that the rest of the world is being lifted up, I think there is a real concern that there will be a "leveling" effect, where the high comes down while the low rises.

We are coming off a long boom. The history of the US is NOT that we came out of the gate the number 1 country in the world and stayed there for 200 years = p. Unlike older countries, we had incredible resources to exploit, such as the worlds second largest breadbasket, the plains, minerals and coal, iron, .....how could we NOT succeed?
And yet we have stumbled economically many, many times. All of the stumbles can be seen as the governments failure to react fast to changing world issues.

Nothing in history causes destabilization in a country faster than class conflict.

I think breaking ghettos works because it gives kids a chance to grow up without the depressive, hopeless realization they are poor.

My family became poor fairly suddenly, when I was already spoiled rotten. Throughout all my life, from the streets to the boardrooms, and back again, I have NEVER thought of myself as poor. Kids need that kind of confidence. They need to be exposed to what the choices ARE and what the consequences are. Isolating populations in Ghettos just makes being POOR into a mindset and a culture. We have been there and done that throughout history.

I live in a neighborhood that is mixed low income and lower middle class, my neighbors are plumbers and taxi drivers and grocery store managers, and it is limited to 10% section 8 rentals. And right down the street we have upper middle class. A fairly large area is older homes of middle middle class. Two blocks away we have an "assisted living" facility. Across the street from that is an apartment complex that is limited to no more that 20% section 8. But all these kids go to the same schools, and because MY school district has MIXED property value system, the schools are good. And the property values here have actually gone up. On my street there are hispanics, asians, blacks, whites, and we all seem to get along just fine. We have almost NO crime, except when the kids beer grab at the convience store....well the cops were here New Years Eve cause of illegal fireworks, but ....that happens every year.

It's a nice neighborhood = )

[Objectitron]

See, we aren't really that far apart. I don't like the government wasting my money either. I just define that waste differently.

When I said that government Macromanages our relationships, it does it by defining the rules of ownership and property, by defining the limits of one person's rights and the beginnings of anothers, by defining what institutions exist, and what their "legal identity" within society is. This is basically the same thing it does with our relationships with other countries. It defines where our "rights" as a country begin and end, and it defends and protects those rights.

But human society changes, and the government has to change too. Governments that don't fall.

I have a few serious worries, things that I think really matter for the future of the US, of which I will not be a part, because of my age, but I like to think we will at least make it to 300 years.

The first is the Social Security/Medicare/Retirement debacle. The second is our national debt. Now for the most part, national debt is an asset, but not if we can't pay the interest.

The second is the global economy, and while I like that the rest of the world is being lifted up, I think there is a real concern that there will be a "leveling" effect, where the high comes down while the low rises.

We are coming off a long boom. The history of the US is NOT that we came out of the gate the number 1 country in the world and stayed there for 200 years = p. Unlike older countries, we had incredible resources to exploit, such as the worlds second largest breadbasket, the plains, minerals and coal, iron, .....how could we NOT succeed?
And yet we have stumbled economically many, many times. All of the stumbles can be seen as the governments failure to react fast to changing world issues.

Nothing in history causes destabilization in a country faster than class conflict.

I think breaking ghettos works because it gives kids a chance to grow up without the depressive, hopeless realization they are poor.

My family became poor fairly suddenly, when I was already spoiled rotten. Throughout all my life, from the streets to the boardrooms, and back again, I have NEVER thought of myself as poor. Kids need that kind of confidence. They need to be exposed to what the choices ARE and what the consequences are. Isolating populations in Ghettos just makes being POOR into a mindset and a culture. We have been there and done that throughout history.

I live in a neighborhood that is mixed low income and lower middle class, my neighbors are plumbers and taxi drivers and grocery store managers, and it is limited to 10% section 8 rentals. And right down the street we have upper middle class. A fairly large area is older homes of middle middle class. Two blocks away we have an "assisted living" facility. Across the street from that is an apartment complex that is limited to no more that 20% section 8. But all these kids go to the same schools, and because MY school district has MIXED property value system, the schools are good. And the property values here have actually gone up. On my street there are hispanics, asians, blacks, whites, and we all seem to get along just fine. We have almost NO crime, except when the kids beer grab at the convience store....well the cops were here New Years Eve cause of illegal fireworks, but ....that happens every year.

It's a nice neighborhood = )

Do you live in a big city? I think it is a little idealistic to assume that crime and drugs won't initially follow the section 8 housing, no matter where it goes, even if you put it on a desserted island. The time necessary to reduce crime and drug trafficking and abuse that characterizes section 8 would be too much for the average citizen to tolerate, especially in larger cities.

[Zeluvia]

Do you live in a big city? I think it is a little idealistic to assume that crime and drugs won't initially follow the section 8 housing, no matter where it goes, even if you put it on a desserted island. The time necessary to reduce crime and drug trafficking and abuse that characterizes section 8 would be too much for the average citizen to tolerate, especially in larger cities.

Yep, I live in a major city. And when we did concentrate section 8 housing we did have crime and drugs. It was so bad in one area it drove a mall out of business.

So, they won't do it again.

We do have area's of town that have higher crime, mostly gang related.

[Zeluvia]

We don't want to just keep the child alive, the child needs love, education, and hope. The gov't can give a child a chance, but not love. The child needs to learn right and wrong behavior as well as eat, be clothed, and have a place to sleep. The destruction of the family, especially in minorities, is the biggest reason we have welfare in our country today. It is not the gov't's responsibility it is the parents or guardians. I don't think we should immediately cut welfare, but transition it into private-funded orgs who run programs more efficiently. We have to have an interest in the future of our children because they are our future. We just have to figure out how to do it the best and most efficient way possible.

Well, let me ask you this, would your sister be better off if she MARRIED the guy? Do you really think that?

I do think that babies on welfare should be DNA tested, and mothers when they apply must give names of partners, and then the father identified, and charged support. In fact I think that a running bill should be made against both parents, and should they win the lotto or get rich, they should have to pay it !!

Or would society and her be better off if she had aborted early?
I for one am pretty happy we aren't feeding 20 million or so other children of irresponsible mothers, but I realize as a conservative you have a different view.

Could you expound on how you see taking care of the children of the irresponsible SHOULD work and what laws we would need in place to "protect" and I assume you mean "enforce" the family?

[Objectitron]

Well, let me ask you this, would your sister be better off if she MARRIED the guy? Do you really think that?

I do think that babies on welfare should be DNA tested, and mothers when they apply must give names of partners, and then the father identified, and charged support. In fact I think that a running bill should be made against both parents, and should they win the lotto or get rich, they should have to pay it !!

Or would society and her be better off if she had aborted early?
I for one am pretty happy we aren't feeding 20 million or so other children of irresponsible mothers, but I realize as a conservative you have a different view.

Could you expound on how you see taking care of the children of the irresponsible SHOULD work and what laws we would need in place to "protect" and I assume you mean "enforce" the family?


I'm with you on the whole loto thing...sounds good to me. She's not my sister, and I don't think she would be better off by marrying him. He was married to another woman when they conceived. Our family didn't know until the baby was born and then his wife divorced him.

Who's going to pay for this DNA testing? Who's going to oversee this whole operation? Sounds like more taxes to me

One could argue that our society would be better off if we aborted any baby who might be a hindrance to society...Hitler tried that once. I see abortion as immoral and therefore is not an option in this or in almost any case (I'm more sympathetic in cases of rape and incest). Only in rare cases should abortion be discussed in my view, which would be less than 1%.

You say you're pretty happy not feeding 20 million or so children of irresponsible mothers, but we already are feeding millions, what's 20 million more? We could take the $700,000 for a bike track in Minnesota that congress approved and use it for the kids! We have billions and billions of earmark spending we could be using for something else. I don't think abortion is the solution to ending child poverty or hunger. It still doesn't change the behavior of irresponsibility and no personal accountability.

The last thing I would want the gov't to do is enforce the family. That's like God forcing us to obey him. I think the gov't is well within their right to promote certain family values like being responsible for your children and 2-parent (man and woman) households. I don't think that is too much to ask. unfortunately, orgs like the ACLU (who also defended Manlove) who represent a minority of American views step in and say anything like that is unconstitutional. Academic studies have shown that children who grow up in a 2-parent (mom and dad) home are more succesful than those who don't. Does this mean if you didn't have a loving mom and dad then you are doomed. I'm a perfect example that you still can be successful, but it is harder. A typical person tends to repeat the behavior of their parents creating a cycle of a broken family. Like I said in a previous post, my father was not really in the picture and my mom raised me by herself and with the help from my grandmother. Children need a mom and a dad for many different reasons and studies support that. This doesn't mean that you're doomed if you're not raised that way. Why shouldn't we encourage this? What is so bad about having a family with parents who can pro-create with one another?

The answer is moral relativity. Who am I or anybody in the gov't to say what the RIGHT way is? The answer is I define what is good for me and you have no right to say that it isn't. Unfortunately, in my opinion, moral authority is eroding and moral relativity is creeping in. It is common sense that this type of thinking will pervade our family and our decisions. It's about me me me me me me...who cares what is best for the children...the gov't shouldn't have a say what is the best...but I expect the gov't to provide. This is the mentality of welfare. Why should the gov't just dish out money with out saying where it should go. Did your parents just give you money not knowing what you were going to do with it? That would be irresponsible

Like I've been saying throughout this post, ENTITLEMENT is the problem! Once we break that mentality, people will begin to appreciate social programs and have a sense of personal responsibility. When welfare began with the New Deal people didn't have this mentality of entitlement and we really were in desperate times. Are we in desperate times today? Like I said before, I've seen desperate in Haiti and Venezuela. Maybe we should institute a poor exchange program with Haiti. Then people would realize how great they have it here. Of course I'm being sarcastic. But my point is the people in Haiti who truly have nothing are happy and have no sense of entitlement. They don't whine and moan about not getting their CHECK, they are grateful for anything. They will work all day for a dollar and not complain. This at least was my experience.

What happened in our soceity where we decided the gov't is in charge with fixing every problem?

[Zeluvia]

I'm with you on the whole loto thing...sounds good to me. She's not my sister, and I don't think she would be better off by marrying him. He was married to another woman when they conceived. Our family didn't know until the baby was born and then his wife divorced him.

Who's going to pay for this DNA testing? Who's going to oversee this whole operation? Sounds like more taxes to me

One could argue that our society would be better off if we aborted any baby who might be a hindrance to society...Hitler tried that once. I see abortion as immoral and therefore is not an option in this or in almost any case (I'm more sympathetic in cases of rape and incest). Only in rare cases should abortion be discussed in my view, which would be less than 1%.

You say you're pretty happy not feeding 20 million or so children of irresponsible mothers, but we already are feeding millions, what's 20 million more? We could take the $700,000 for a bike track in Minnesota that congress approved and use it for the kids! We have billions and billions of earmark spending we could be using for something else. I don't think abortion is the solution to ending child poverty or hunger. It still doesn't change the behavior of irresponsibility and no personal accountability.

The last thing I would want the gov't to do is enforce the family. That's like God forcing us to obey him. I think the gov't is well within their right to promote certain family values like being responsible for your children and 2-parent (man and woman) households. I don't think that is too much to ask. unfortunately, orgs like the ACLU (who also defended Manlove) who represent a minority of American views step in and say anything like that is unconstitutional. Academic studies have shown that children who grow up in a 2-parent (mom and dad) home are more succesful than those who don't. Does this mean if you didn't have a loving mom and dad then you are doomed. I'm a perfect example that you still can be successful, but it is harder. A typical person tends to repeat the behavior of their parents creating a cycle of a broken family. Like I said in a previous post, my father was not really in the picture and my mom raised me by herself and with the help from my grandmother. Children need a mom and a dad for many different reasons and studies support that. This doesn't mean that you're doomed if you're not raised that way. Why shouldn't we encourage this? What is so bad about having a family with parents who can pro-create with one another?

The answer is moral relativity. Who am I or anybody in the gov't to say what the RIGHT way is? The answer is I define what is good for me and you have no right to say that it isn't. Unfortunately, in my opinion, moral authority is eroding and moral relativity is creeping in. It is common sense that this type of thinking will pervade our family and our decisions. It's about me me me me me me...who cares what is best for the children...the gov't shouldn't have a say what is the best...but I expect the gov't to provide. This is the mentality of welfare. Why should the gov't just dish out money with out saying where it should go. Did your parents just give you money not knowing what you were going to do with it? That would be irresponsible

Like I've been saying throughout this post, ENTITLEMENT is the problem! Once we break that mentality, people will begin to appreciate social programs and have a sense of personal responsibility. When welfare began with the New Deal people didn't have this mentality of entitlement and we really were in desperate times. Are we in desperate times today? Like I said before, I've seen desperate in Haiti and Venezuela. Maybe we should institute a poor exchange program with Haiti. Then people would realize how great they have it here. Of course I'm being sarcastic. But my point is the people in Haiti who truly have nothing are happy and have no sense of entitlement. They don't whine and moan about not getting their CHECK, they are grateful for anything. They will work all day for a dollar and not complain. This at least was my experience.

What happened in our soceity where we decided the gov't is in charge with fixing every problem?

Okay, well you seem to be arguing both sides. On one hand you say we should care for children of irresponsible parents, on the other you say we shouldn't. Which is it? We didn't used to. This history paper kinda defines what it was like before Social Security and welfare.
Is that what we should go back too? I think we should go back to fixing our infrastructure and creating jobs that way personally.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#welfare

Most welfare is now in the hands of the states, not the federal government. Only Social Security is now covered by the Federal government.

DNA testing, like all technology, only gets cheaper. The issue to me is getting the onus of care off the MOTHER entirely, and putting half the responsibilty where it belongs, on the fathers. Is the father paying anything for this child?


Also, according to the this paper, the drop in crime rate over the last 30 years could be correlated to the increase in abortion.
What do you say to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

It makes sense to me, especially since 82% of abortions are had by single women. Does it to you?

And how would you "promote" the two parent family? Obviously, income tax breaks for married people don't work, because it doesn't matter if they have children or not....

[Objectitron]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2229513]Okay, well you seem to be arguing both sides. On one hand you say we should care for children of irresponsible parents, on the other you say we shouldn't. Which is it? We didn't used to. This history paper kinda defines what it was like before Social Security and welfare.
Is that what we should go back too? I think we should go back to fixing our infrastructure and creating jobs that way personally.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#welfare

Most welfare is now in the hands of the states, not the federal government. Only Social Security is now covered by the Federal government.

DNA testing, like all technology, only gets cheaper. The issue to me is getting the onus of care off the MOTHER entirely, and putting half the responsibilty where it belongs, on the fathers. Is the father paying anything for this child?


I'm not arguing both sides. I consider my self a realist and know that the US isn't going to drastically cut funding for needy children anytime soon, so I'm arguing how we should act in our current system. I'm kind of asking the question in general, should it be the gov't's responsibility to take care of our needy children? whether I believe it is or not doesn't change the fact that as of now it is the gov't's responsibility. I think it would be wrong to just cut all spending...it would create chaos...I would favor a gradual withdraw from gov't spending for welfare as long as people were getting jobs and then eventually leave it up to the non profit orgs to deal with it. That's the ideal situation, but it may be wishful thinking.

We live in a different era now than we did during the depression. I think there is a different mentality, maybe I'm being naive since I didn't live through the depression. Our economy is not in shambles, at least not yet, like it was during the depression. Systematic discrimination against women and minorities has decreased. I don't think our gov't had any other option but to invest in our economy and create jobs that way, but I don't we should return to that unless we go through another depression.

I found the article very interesting...I know that states had a lot of control, but that wasn't my point. WE are still paying for it no matter who is running things. The states still receive federal funding to run welfare...for some the federal gov't matches dollar for dollar. I think maybe states should look hard at the "Wisconsin Works" program and institute something similar. I don't care what program we use or not use, people are still going to not work for different reasons, people are going to walk out on their families, people are going to be drug addicts. What we have to do is create this best environment to decrease and deter this type of behavior. I don't think the "Swedish Model" would be the right choice because our country is so diverse and population is too large. I'm not in favor of half my paycheck going to the gov't no matter how close to a Utopia it might be able to create for me. I like being able to spend my money on what I want to spend it on. People on welfare shouldn't get that same benefit because it is not their money.

DNA testing is very expensive, especially if you're testing millions of people, not to mention those long lines again. I'm with you on the responsibility of the father...but how would you create an accountability system?...who is going to pay for it?

The child lives on and off with her father so he provides for her needs I guess, but when he and his girlriend, because they're not married, break up (almost once a month) the child goes with her mother and they stay at a male friends house. No gov't system can help them, no amount of money can help them. They will make bad choices no matter what. The only thing that can help them is for them to take personal responsibility and realize they do not have entitlement from the gov't or from extended family members (Before, our family would give them money, but not anymore). Not even non profit orgs could help them. They are beyond help...only homelessness and starvation could motivate them to change their behavior and that might soon be a reality, but I hope and pray that it will not come to that. I hope and pray they will realize they are looking the gift horse right in the mouth. I wish they could have come with me to Haiti!

[Objectitron]

Also, according to the this paper, the drop in crime rate over the last 30 years could be correlated to the increase in abortion.
What do you say to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

It makes sense to me, especially since 82% of abortions are had by single women. Does it to you?

And how would you "promote" the two parent family? Obviously, income tax breaks for married people don't work, because it doesn't matter if they have children or not....[/QUOTE]



This is an interesting study...did you read the entire study or just the wikipedia article? I glanced at the paper (67 pages) and it is from Stanford Law. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I do know that statistics don't explain a phenomenon, but only show if a statistical relationship exists. I did a statistical analysis on different causes of human rights abuses in grad school. It is also interesting that other scholars disagreed with the findings.

In my opinion it doesn't matter if a relationship in fact exists because I don't believe abortion should be legal. A study like this could only promote a systematic termination of a sub-group of society. I don't care if it brings crime down. If we terminated the mentally ill and disabled that would bring taxes down too...where does it stop? I think we have a difference of opinion about when life begins. I'm about to be a father and couldn't possibly comtemplate terminating my baby girl, especially since I can feel her kick. She is real, you should see her on the ultrasound. She kicks all the time, but when I put my hand on my wife's stomach she stops. I say because she knows that I will always protect her, I will always be there for her. How could I even think about taking her to a clinic and have a doctor execute her. I have until 26 weeks, she is almost 25 weeks, according to the law I have a little more than a week. I want to regurgitate at the thought of losing my baby girl. I would lay my life down for her...how could I think about taking it from her. But that's just me.

We need to create an environment in our society where a sense of responsibility is written on our hearts. Where people make choices because it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, I don't know if it is possible. But, I don't see how allowing abortion to be a choice will aid in this pursuit. It is just an easy out...even if it benefits society by reducing crime.

You know what, I'm not sure how I would promote the "nuclear" family...we are so far removed from it in our society and I have no recollection in my life for it being promoted except via the republican forum. I'm going to have to think about that one in light of what the ACLU might do if it was promoted publicly besides the religious right.

[Zeluvia]

Well, the "family" model has changed over time. Like i said, the "nuclear" family term was only coined in 1947.

Long term thinking here, we may be changing to a more flexible family model.

Yes, I actually read the entire book Freakenomics, not just that one study. However it makes intuitive sense to me, being old, that aborting 20 or 40 million (I forget the math) unwanted children would have an effect on crime.

These aren't easy problems. In my opinion, the government's responsiblities to provide stability and plan for the future are what cover the requirement that it provide at least FOOD for the poor and education for children.

I still think internal destability is the number 1 cause of the failure of governments historically, and not external threats.

I do agree with you that the idea of 'entitlement' is a problem. But I also see this problem with upper middle class kids =-p

[Objectitron]

Well, the "family" model has changed over time. Like i said, the "nuclear" family term was only coined in 1947.

Long term thinking here, we may be changing to a more flexible family model.

Yes, I actually read the entire book Freakenomics, not just that one study. However it makes intuitive sense to me, being old, that aborting 20 or 40 million (I forget the math) unwanted children would have an effect on crime.

These aren't easy problems. In my opinion, the government's responsiblities to provide stability and plan for the future are what cover the requirement that it provide at least FOOD for the poor and education for children.

I still think internal destability is the number 1 cause of the failure of governments historically, and not external threats.

I do agree with you that the idea of 'entitlement' is a problem. But I also see this problem with upper middle class kids =-p

No kidding...entitlement is pervasive in our society no matter which class it is...however only the lower class has a sense of entitlement from the gov't, upper middle class get it from "daddy." Both fail to realize what it means or feels like to earn.

Maybe destability is number 1...but where do you see this in the US? Sure there are some disgruntled workers...but can they unify?

Our gov't most definitely is planning for the future...why do you think there is all that UFO controversy in Texas...but in all serious I have faith that our gov't is one step ahead of everyone else, but who knows fore sure...hope is what keeps us alive.

I guess you could say, in all reality, the role of gov't in the US is evolving...but what is evolving into? Is this evolution inevitable or can we dictate it? According to Marx, we are on the brink of socialism! Meaning socialism is the next step after capitalism before the ushering in of communism. Funny how Marx never invisioned the role of the state in the same way current and former socialist countries did. These countries can't get to the point where the general population is interesting in sharing everything. Maybe Marx was wrong?

[Zeluvia]

They are all wrong, they are all products of the enviroments THEY lived in. Like Ayn Rand.

Were Adam Smith, Marx, or Ayn Rand here today, they would say different things.

Can workers unite? Should they unite? Isn't that kinda what happens when the country votes Democratic over Republican?

Is there a problem with workers uniting? Are the workers the cause of instability?

There was a theory out there that that is what the Republicans fear most, the unity of workers....do you think that is true?

I don't know about you, but I am a worker. I have no illusions that I am anything else.

[Objectitron]

They are all wrong, they are all products of the enviroments THEY lived in. Like Ayn Rand.

Were Adam Smith, Marx, or Ayn Rand here today, they would say different things.

Can workers unite? Should they unite? Isn't that kinda what happens when the country votes Democratic over Republican?

Is there a problem with workers uniting? Are the workers the cause of instability?

There was a theory out there that that is what the Republicans fear most, the unity of workers....do you think that is true?

I don't know about you, but I am a worker. I have no illusions that I am anything else.


It depends why the workers are uniting...and what will they do when they unite? People unite for different reasons. Obama wants people to unite for change...even though he can't articulate this change, but since he is a truly gifted speaker he doesn't have to articulate this change. Thus, he can manipulate the masses for unification in an effort for change.

I don't think workers here in the U.S. cause instability, unless you count the writers out in Hollywood...I wish they would settle their strike so I could watch TV again. I think fear causes instability, whether it is the fear of the market or fear of a terrorist attack. The 24 hour news media likes to exploit this fear so you will continue to watch the news.

I consider my self a conservative...I'm pretty sure I'll eventually be a Republican...but right now I'm still a registered Independent. I don't fear workers uniting...what I fear is people who don't know what the hell is going on...people who vote based on emotions...people who look at politicians as saviors and/or movie stars...people who want change but don't know why...people, who are in general, and allow themselves to be manipulated.

[Zeluvia]

It depends why the workers are uniting...and what will they do when they unite? People unite for different reasons. Obama wants people to unite for change...even though he can't articulate this change, but since he is a truly gifted speaker he doesn't have to articulate this change. Thus, he can manipulate the masses for unification in an effort for change.

I don't think workers here in the U.S. cause instability, unless you count the writers out in Hollywood...I wish they would settle their strike so I could watch TV again. I think fear causes instability, whether it is the fear of the market or fear of a terrorist attack. The 24 hour news media likes to exploit this fear so you will continue to watch the news.

I consider my self a conservative...I'm pretty sure I'll eventually be a Republican...but right now I'm still a registered Independent. I don't fear workers uniting...what I fear is people who don't know what the hell is going on...people who vote based on emotions...people who look at politicians as saviors and/or movie stars...people who want change but don't know why...people, who are in general, and allow themselves to be manipulated.

But see, that is just it. You know what is going on from YOUR perspective, given YOUR experiences of living in America. So what you know and what I know are different.

I think the greatest manipulation of people in MY time has been the use of evangelical Christians by the Republican party on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. By pandering to those issues, which really IMO make no difference whatsoever in how our country is run or our economic or foreign policy arenas, they convinced a whole lot of people to vote for a social change agenda they can not really deliver, and even if delivered, would make very little difference to our real problems, which is the demographic bubble of boomers hitting retirement and our energy problems (In that we have to import most of our energy).

So, I do agree with you. I don't like when people are fooled or manipulated, but the way I see it, that is exactly how we got 8 years of G.W. Bush.

Instability is historically caused by serious class imbalance, so serious that a large part of the population is hungry. I do not think we are anywhere near that kind of problem yet.

As for exploiting fear, I think I could make an arguement that it is the Republicans that most often use fear in their campaigns. Fear of criminals, fear of the USSR, fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants. While all these things do represent threats, I think campaign ads designed to manipulate these fears are preponderantly used by the Republicans.

BTW, to MY view, the divisive tactics of the Republicans over the last 12 years or so have finally come home to roost in their own party.
The division between "evangelical" voters and "fiscal conservatives" is very evident now within the party.

[Objectitron]

But see, that is just it. You know what is going on from YOUR perspective, given YOUR experiences of living in America. So what you know and what I know are different.

I think the greatest manipulation of people in MY time has been the use of evangelical Christians by the Republican party on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. By pandering to those issues, which really IMO make no difference whatsoever in how our country is run or our economic or foreign policy arenas, they convinced a whole lot of people to vote for a social change agenda they can not really deliver, and even if delivered, would make very little difference to our real problems, which is the demographic bubble of boomers hitting retirement and our energy problems (In that we have to import most of our energy).

So, I do agree with you. I don't like when people are fooled or manipulated, but the way I see it, that is exactly how we got 8 years of G.W. Bush.

Instability is historically caused by serious class imbalance, so serious that a large part of the population is hungry. I do not think we are anywhere near that kind of problem yet.

As for exploiting fear, I think I could make an arguement that it is the Republicans that most often use fear in their campaigns. Fear of criminals, fear of the USSR, fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants. While all these things do represent threats, I think campaign ads designed to manipulate these fears are preponderantly used by the Republicans.

BTW, to MY view, the divisive tactics of the Republicans over the last 12 years or so have finally come home to roost in their own party.
The division between "evangelical" voters and "fiscal conservatives" is very evident now within the party.

How were we manipulated by Bush?

Why is the large part of the population hungry? Is it the gov't's fault?

I don't agree with you that Republicans are fear mongers, but even if they were, at least they have substance and stand for something...Dems, especially liberals, seem to have empty rhetoric and lack articulation. What has Obama, who is a lot further left than Hillary, really told us he would do if he becomes President besides CHANGE, which he can't articulate?

I would agree that Republicans are attempting to rediscover their identity or return to more conservative ideals...but at least they know what these ideals and principles are...and they are noble. Democrats just lick their finger and hold it up to the wind and go as the wind blows as long as it isn't in the direction of the Republicans. However, there are some good Dems out there, they just aren't represented very well.

[Zeluvia]

What do think Republicans "stand" for that has "substance"?

I would say they are trying to get rid of the far right conservatives and go back to being economic conservatives, and not social conservatives.

I think you are wrong about everything !! = )

Democrats have always represented workers, Unions, Farmers, minorities and everyone else who wanted their "rights" protected but didn't have enough money. Most Christians that believed in caring for their fellow man were historically Democrats. The Democrats have rose and fell in the south because of the support for minority rights.

Republicans have always represented the money.

When Christianity "sold out" in the early '80s, it caused a change in Christian values as well as the Republican party. Christianity has become MORE commercial than it ever was before, its feel good and prosperity gospel mesh well with the social Darwinist, Randian self-responsiblity, Calvinisit you are poor because God wants you that way Republicans.

[Objectitron]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2241144]What do think Republicans "stand" for that has "substance"?
QUOTE]

These are some things that I believe have substance and virtue:
Belief in a higher power or something bigger than ourselves
Belief in personal responsibility and accountability
Support of marriage btw a man and woman only, discouraging divorce
Encouraging and promoting a healthy home where both parents care and provide for children
Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education
Support for policies that encourage adoption over abortion
Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment
Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity
Support for abstinence, education regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases
Support for policies that protect children from obscenity and exploitation

If Dems want to jump on board with these beliefs and philosophies, I'm all for it! These have substance because they have a long history and a good track record in our nation whether one believes in them or not. Liberals can't seem to articulate what a "family" is today or family values; basically, a family is what you make it. There is no ultimate authority or a unifying mechanism for today's liberal ideals. Conservatives already know what a family looks like based on the tradition and the history of judeo-christian values of our nation and our Constitution. These values inspired our Constitution, and the Bible or at least biblical principles inspired the men to form our Constitution. There is authority and history. What to today's liberals have as their authority or unifying base? I say "today's liberals" because most of the conservative principles are based on classic liberalism which is almost the opposite of today's neo neo liberalism.

[Zeluvia]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2241144]What do think Republicans "stand" for that has "substance"?
QUOTE]

These are some things that I believe have substance and virtue:
Belief in a higher power or something bigger than ourselves
Belief in personal responsibility and accountability
Support of marriage btw a man and woman only, discouraging divorce
Encouraging and promoting a healthy home where both parents care and provide for children
Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education
Support for policies that encourage adoption over abortion
Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment
Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity
Support for abstinence, education regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases
Support for policies that protect children from obscenity and exploitation

If Dems want to jump on board with these beliefs and philosophies, I'm all for it! These have substance because they have a long history and a good track record in our nation whether one believes in them or not. Liberals can't seem to articulate what a "family" is today or family values; basically, a family is what you make it. There is no ultimate authority or a unifying mechanism for today's liberal ideals. Conservatives already know what a family looks like based on the tradition and the history of judeo-christian values of our nation and our Constitution. These values inspired our Constitution, and the Bible or at least biblical principles inspired the men to form our Constitution. There is authority and history. What to today's liberals have as their authority or unifying base? I say "today's liberals" because most of the conservative principles are based on classic liberalism which is almost the opposite of today's neo neo liberalism.


I thought you said you were AGAINST big government being involved in our lives?

Every single thing you have said was "substance" is about controlling INDIVIDUAL behaviors....and since you think this is the stance of a political party, you think GOVERNMENT should have MORE control over the BEHAVIOR of INDIVIDUALS.

Do you even see the the problem with this? And what you THINK Republicans stand for, how do you LEGISLATE it?

Give me some examples of the FEDERAL laws you would pass to give these things "substance" in society and how they would be ENFORCED, or how they would be "supported".

You are right back where we began, you are making assertions, quite possibly emotional ones, without any practical basis in what can actually be DONE, or what is the PROPER role of government in the lives of INDIVIDUALS.

Every part of your "Republican" platform is social conservatism. It is against the freedom and rights of individuals. It is the difference between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. IMO nothing you stated as a Republican value is the proper role of the Federal Goverment, or can be done without violating the rights of individuals and creating a Big Brother police state and spending alot of money. It is an utopian dream where everyone is just like YOU.

Now discuss how you would practically implement EVERY thing on your list.

[Objectitron]

[QUOTE=Objectitron;2241511]


I thought you said you were AGAINST big government being involved in our lives?

Every single thing you have said was "substance" is about controlling INDIVIDUAL behaviors....and since you think this is the stance of a political party, you think GOVERNMENT should have MORE control over the BEHAVIOR of INDIVIDUALS.

Do you even see the the problem with this? And what you THINK Republicans stand for, how do you LEGISLATE it?

Give me some examples of the FEDERAL laws you would pass to give these things "substance" in society and how they would be ENFORCED, or how they would be "supported".

You are right back where we began, you are making assertions, quite possibly emotional ones, without any practical basis in what can actually be DONE, or what is the PROPER role of government in the lives of INDIVIDUALS.

Every part of your "Republican" platform is social conservatism. It is against the freedom and rights of individuals. It is the difference between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. IMO nothing you stated as a Republican value is the proper role of the Federal Goverment, or can be done without violating the rights of individuals and creating a Big Brother police state and spending alot of money. It is an utopian dream where everyone is just like YOU.

Now discuss how you would practically implement EVERY thing on your list.

You're missing my whole point. I don't think all these things should be legislated. They are PERSONAL principles I hold to as conservative. You are putting words into my mouth. I would not legislate that you have to be married to have children, but I would believe it and promote it as an individual. I wouldn't legislate that everyone must believe in God, that's insane! THIS ISNT MY REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, these are values that conservatives and most Republicans hold most dear. THEY ARE VALUES AND BELIEFS and are the essence of what makes us who we are. I don't know how to explain this any other way.

The Republican platform is and will remain small gov't, low taxes, strong nat'l security and defense, and protecting the rights of the unborn.

Do you not understand the difference?

I would possibly legislate a federal ban against abortion because I believe it is murder.
I would possibly legislate a federal ban on gay marriage because its not what the framers invisioned, nor is it something healthy for a society. I can argue this with statistics or from an anatomical approach before I defer to my values.

Our values make us as individuals who we are. They influence every choice we make. So of course they will influence political and economic decisions. Just like your values, whatever they might be, influence everything you do. However, certain personal beliefs do not need to be superimposed on a society or legislated. But if a majority hold to certain values such as the ones I listed, wouldn't this be represented in the public arena and legislation?

All I was arguing was why my values have substance...because they have an authority, longevity, and were adhered to by most of our leaders when we became a nation. Plus, many today share these same values and do not wish to get rid of them or call them into question. Is this not substance and credibility?

My question to you is do modern liberal ideals have this same substance? I see no authority; each individual defines his or her authority. Most of liberal ideals are in rebellion to conservative ideals, are they not? Many liberal believe in many different things; there is no unifying base in what they believe are values, is there?

A political platform and social values are two different and separate things, but they influence each other. Can you articulate what the Dems and liberals believe as their base in regards to social values besides moral relativism?

[Zeluvia]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2241589]

You're missing my whole point. I don't think all these things should be legislated. They are PERSONAL principles I hold to as conservative. You are putting words into my mouth. I would not legislate that you have to be married to have children, but I would believe it and promote it as an individual. I wouldn't legislate that everyone must believe in God, that's insane! THIS ISNT MY REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, these are values that conservatives and most Republicans hold most dear. THEY ARE VALUES AND BELIEFS and are the essence of what makes us who we are. I don't know how to explain this any other way.

The Republican platform is and will remain small gov't, low taxes, strong nat'l security and defense, and protecting the rights of the unborn.

Do you not understand the difference?

I would possibly legislate a federal ban against abortion because I believe it is murder.
I would possibly legislate a federal ban on gay marriage because its not what the framers invisioned, nor is it something healthy for a society. I can argue this with statistics or from an anatomical approach before I defer to my values.

Our values make us as individuals who we are. They influence every choice we make. So of course they will influence political and economic decisions. Just like your values, whatever they might be, influence everything you do. However, certain personal beliefs do not need to be superimposed on a society or legislated. But if a majority hold to certain values such as the ones I listed, wouldn't this be represented in the public arena and legislation?

All I was arguing was why my values have substance...because they have an authority, longevity, and were adhered to by most of our leaders when we became a nation. Plus, many today share these same values and do not wish to get rid of them or call them into question. Is this not substance and credibility?

My question to you is do modern liberal ideals have this same substance? I see no authority; each individual defines his or her authority. Most of liberal ideals are in rebellion to conservative ideals, are they not? Many liberal believe in many different things; there is no unifying base in what they believe are values, is there?

A political platform and social values are two different and separate things, but they influence each other. Can you articulate what the Dems and liberals believe as their base in regards to social values besides moral relativism?


What on earth are you talking about? What good do these values have in the political arena if they are just talking points and have no practical application to real world problems? If you aren't going to legislate them, then what POINT does it have to have them?

You already know the difference, "EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFINES HIS OR HER AUTHORITY" there, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM is the value of the Liberal. You said it yourself. In as much as possible, without violating the rights of others, everyone is free to express themselves and THEIR values. That is the only real liberal value. And tell me what is so horrible about individual freedom? It is NOT the same as moral realtivity. Where did you get that?

Now, answer me this, do you REALLY believe everyone that says they are a Republican or says they are a Christian shares the exact same values as you, and will act on them the exact same way you do?

[Objectitron]

[QUOTE=Objectitron;2241662]


What on earth are you talking about? What good do these values have in the political arena if they are just talking points and have no practical application to real world problems? If you aren't going to legislate them, then what POINT does it have to have them?

You already know the difference, "EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFINES HIS OR HER AUTHORITY" there, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM is the value of the Liberal. You said it yourself. In as much as possible, without violating the rights of others, everyone is free to express themselves and THEIR values. That is the only real liberal value. And tell me what is so horrible about individual freedom? It is NOT the same as moral realtivity. Where did you get that?

Now, answer me this, do you REALLY believe everyone that says they are a Republican or says they are a Christian shares the exact same values as you, and will act on them the exact same way you do?

I disagree with you on this one. I think my values are very important in the political arena, but not every value should be legislated, nor could it. I believe in God, but I also believe that everyone should have a choice whether to believe in God. Therefore, I can't legislate that everyone should believe in God. I believe in the right to life of every human being, and I define a human being as one at conception, thus I am compelled to favor the human being's right to live over intentional termination. My belief in God influences my belief in the right of life which influences what type of legislation I would support to defend an innocent human being's life. The principles influence decisions, but we don't legislate every principle.

I would agree with you that everyone should have the freedom of expression as long as it doesn't violate others' inalienable rights. However, I would argue that many of these freedoms of expression are not healthy for our society and stand against traditions which have made our country great. Thus, I promote my beliefs over your values, but not legislate them. However, if the majority of our society adheres to the traditional belief of marriage, and they elect leaders with the same position, the leaders are within their rights to legislate for the majority. This is what a democracy is all about. One day, the majority of our society might contend marriage is defined as something else, then they can elect new leaders to make policy and give benefits to same sex marriages.

I believe in individual freedom...I don't know why you think I don't. I'm not going to impose my religious beliefs or my values on anyone. I will promote them and say they are better than the values of liberals...because I have that freedom. If I were an elected official my value system would reflect my votes, decisions, and possible legislation. But I would be just an extension of the American people or the people I represent. How do our current laws IMPOSE values on the population? By banning abortion, this is not imposing conservative values, it is saying that enough people believe it to be murdering innocent life. A ban on same sex marriage only says that how gov't defines marriage does not include those of the same sexes. Imposing these values would not allow same sex relationships. A law like this is reflection of certain values, they are not imposed. Plus, this type of law is an entitlement, it does not violate anybody's freedoms or rights.

It absolutely is moral relativity because, for liberals, ones morals are not absolutely defined and are relative to the person standing next to me. There is no authority for these morals. All there is is chaos. But I 100% agree that you have the right to these morals as long as they don't infringe on my rights. I just don't agree with them.

Every conservative, not Republican, does not degree wholeheartedly on everything in relation to social values, but there are certain values, most of what I listed, that predominately all adhere to. Which ones do conservative disagree on?

Just because you are a Christian does not make you a conservative, 40% of evangelicals are democrats, but still most are socially conservative. There is such a thing as "liberal" Christians who are pro-choice and favor moral relativity. They don't share my values and certainly are not conservatives. There are atheists and agnostics that find conservative values virtuous and become conservatives, while maintaining these values are what make our country great.

If liberals' only value is freedom, then how will they unify? Republicans value freedom too!
How will this value guide in decision making? If one values freedom only, how does one decide what is right or wrong? What is right for me, is wrong for you...how will this mentality make us a moral people? Better yet...how would a liberal define morality? Conservative values ,at their core, have been developed over many centuries. Moral relativity is just making its advent. This is why my values have substance, or they at least are definable.

[Zeluvia]

Okay, my understanding of the differences between Liberal and Conservative are about economic policy, and social policy, and foreign policy. I said before that I thought it was the role of the government to macro manage relationships between individuals, businesses, and other countries. The differences between liberals and conservatives are about THESE things.

So, in my next post I will give you more details about where I see these differences.

bsolutely is moral relativity because, for liberals, ones morals are not absolutely defined and are relative to the person standing next to me. There is no authority for these morals. All there is is chaos. But I 100% agree that you have the right to these morals as long as they don't infringe on my rights. I just don't agree with them.


But for now lets just look at this statement. You claim liberals have no "authority" for their morals, and yet you recognize that 40% of evangelical Christians are democrats. Only about 11 -19% of the country is atheist, the only people that usually are branded as moral relativists. Not all atheists are liberals. About 50% of the country is "liberal" So, it does not mathematically compute that "All liberals are moral relativists"

Just because some Christians don't share your morals it does not make them moral relativists. I don't think I have ever met a Christian moral relativist.

Who is the final authority for your morals? Who has the right to judge you? I contend it makes no PRACTICAL difference to our society if you believe in objective morals or moral relativism. Show me how it does? While it's a nice philosophical pickle to gnaw on, in PRACTICE there is no difference. God does not met out justice in our world while we are alive, it is left up to men to make decisions. There is no difference between this and moral relativism. Not only that, but no one seems to know FOR SURE what God thinks, so in PRACTICE even so called objective religious based morality is RELATIVE to the current interpretation or denomination.

I will be back later with more = )

[Objectitron]

But for now lets just look at this statement. You claim liberals have no "authority" for their morals, and yet you recognize that 40% of evangelical Christians are democrats. Only about 11 -19% of the country is atheist, the only people that usually are branded as moral relativists. Not all atheists are liberals. About 50% of the country is "liberal" So, it does not mathematically compute that "All liberals are moral relativists"

These evangelicals are not liberal...it is possible to be a Dem without being liberal. They are the Southern Dems which represent the Bible Belt. Their social values are similar to conservatives, but in other policies they favor Democrats. My grandmother, who is pushing 90, told my mom that she would vote for Mickey Mouse before she would vote for a Republican. But, her values are the same as mine. She has loyalties to the Democratic party from the post-depression. She's a conservative, she just doesn't know it.

Just because some Christians don't share your morals it does not make them moral relativists. I don't think I have ever met a Christian moral relativist.

You should get get out more! Google Bishop Spong and Brian McClaren

Before I answer any more of your questions, I would like you to address all of mine first please.

[Zeluvia]

Okay let's start over. You seem to want to take this discussion to moral relativity vs moral authority. You reject my definition of Liberals = Democrats and Republicans = conservatives. You seem to be saying that in your mind, liberals = moral relativists.

That is a different kettle of fish, and not one I am prepared to discuss.
I am a moral relativist, because that is what I find is the actual PRACTICE of morality in the real world. But I still have strong ideas of right and wrong, and I think our morality is a shared species morality which is a by-product of brain development and evolution. I am a biological determinist, so to a certain degree I do believe in an inherent instinctive morality, although it is not objective, nor absolute.

So, I am going back through this thread, looking for questions of yours I have not addressed. But if you really meant to talk to a moral relativist instead of an American Liberal Democrat, then I think we should re-examine where we are going with this thread.

[Objectitron]

Okay let's start over. You seem to want to take this discussion to moral relativity vs moral authority. You reject my definition of Liberals = Democrats and Republicans = conservatives. You seem to be saying that in your mind, liberals = moral relativists.

That is a different kettle of fish, and not one I am prepared to discuss.
I am a moral relativist, because that is what I find is the actual PRACTICE of morality in the real world. But I still have strong ideas of right and wrong, and I think our morality is a shared species morality which is a by-product of brain development and evolution. I am a biological determinist, so to a certain degree I do believe in an inherent instinctive morality, although it is not objective, nor absolute.

So, I am going back through this thread, looking for questions of yours I have not addressed. But if you really meant to talk to a moral relativist instead of an American Liberal Democrat, then I think we should re-examine where we are going with this thread.

There are plenty of questions in my second to last post that you didn't answer that have nothing to do with moral relativity. I don't think we have to go a moral relativity conversation. I was just pointing out that liberals don't have a solid system of beliefs and morals. You, yourself, might have your own system of beliefs that you believe to be moral, but the liberal standing next to you might believe something totally different. Thus, as a collective group, liberals are moral relativists. There is no authority or unifying base to help shape your morality. While conservatives don't agree on every little thing, they predominately adhere to judeo-christian values, which have an authority. This is my only point...we can move back to politics and platforms if you would like.

Let me ask you this first though...you describe yourself as a hippy grandmother and coupled with your many life experiences, I get the impression you are probably over 50. Hasn't the judeo-christian value system had influence over you in some way throughout your life? Can you say that this value system has not influenced your current value system? What do you think will happen to our future generations if we tell them they should believe whatever they want to believe, and there is no absolute truth? Do you really trust evolution and inherent instinctive morality to do the job? If you do, that is fine, but I think that is very scary to think about.

[Zeluvia]

There are plenty of questions in my second to last post that you didn't answer that have nothing to do with moral relativity. I don't think we have to go a moral relativity conversation. I was just pointing out that liberals don't have a solid system of beliefs and morals.


But from your first post here, this has been the basis of your arguement, or what you keep returning too, that what you call "liberals" do not have a solid system of right and wrong. When I point out that not all liberals are moral relativists, you remove those people from the classification of liberal, so you are leaving me with the position that Liberals = moral relativists.




You, yourself, might have your own system of beliefs that you believe to be moral, but the liberal standing next to you might believe something totally different. Thus, as a collective group, liberals are moral relativists. There is no authority or unifying base to help shape your morality. While conservatives don't agree on every little thing, they predominately adhere to judeo-christian values, which have an authority.

This is no point. In fact it makes MY point that the practical application of morals is relative. You say about conservatism, and I am summarizing, let me know if I get something wrong.

1. We as a group agree on 95% of morals
2. We all follow these absolute morals 100%
3. We can write them all down, we agree so well
4. We don't believe in making everyone follow those morals.
5. We believe we should have political power to influence legislative decisions as a group that believes in this list of morals, but we promise, we won't be using it to make YOU live like we THINK you should.

So, what is the difference PRACTICALLY between a moral absolutist and a moral relativist, given the above statement is that of a moral absolutist?

Here, I will try to make it simple. If you truly believe in individual freedom, then you will not force your morals on someone else, so the NET effect of your moral system in society is moral relativism, no matter what you like to call it.


This is my only point...we can move back to politics and platforms if you would like. I don't mind, I am enjoying our one on one with no input from the local peanut gallery. I hope we are making each other think = )


Let me ask you this first though...you describe yourself as a hippy grandmother and coupled with your many life experiences, I get the impression you are probably over 50. Hasn't the judeo-christian value system had influence over you in some way throughout your life? What do you think will happen to our future generations if we tell them they should believe whatever they want to believe, and there is no absolute truth? Do you really trust evolution and inherent instinctive morality to do the job? If you do, that is fine, but I think that is very scary to think about.

Okay, I will respond directly to these questions.

1. Hasn't the Judeo-Christian value system had influence in some way over me throughout my life?

Certainly the AMERICAN value system has influence over me. But is this really a Judeo-Christian system entirely, and which values in PARTICULAR are an influence? I have been thinking about this.

One of the problems with the other Abrahamic religion..Islam..for me is the treatment of women. Islamists can argue that Islam was FORWARD thinking in it's treatment of women some 1200 years ago, and in some respects they are right. So where did the "West" (defined as North America, Europe, and Australia) get their ideas of equality of women? What ancient cultures treated women as equals?

Northern Europeans tribes, and some African tribes, and some Native American tribes, in general, treated women as equals. Ancient Judaism, and Egyptian culture in SOME cases treated women as equals. Rome certainly did not. Greece did not. So whence this value? From the "church"? IMO that can not be historically or biblically supported. It has to be culturally. Both Celts and Teutons had women leaders, women fought alongside men, and did not have all the cultural "uncleanliness" of the Judaic traditions. When North American was being settled, they brought their women with them. This is a stark contrast to the way that Spain settled South America. The King of Spain realized very late he should be sending families instead of priests, and when he finally did start sending families, he sent GERMAN ones.

So is equality of women a Judeo-Christian value in your opinion, or a much older cultural value? Or is it a value you find in any culture where women have to work side by side with men to survive?

I like Humanism. (do not confuse this with secular humanism) Humanism started with the Prostestant Reformation. It was originally a part of the Protestant Reformation. It exalts the individual over both the church and the state. It was a break with the church, because it said that an INDIVIDUAL could have a direct relationship with god without going through the church. It was this brand of Humanism that influenced the formation of the US. Is this a Christian value? If it is, it is a fairly NEW one. But this value of the individual IMO is not "Judeo-Christian". It is a result once again of the influence of much older cultural values that resurged despite oppression.

2. Can you say that this value system has not influenced your current value system?

Well, my current value system places Compassion very high. In some respects, this is a Christian value, not necessarily a Jewish one. I always thought that the excess of the capitalist competition paradigm were offset very well by the Christian value of compassion. However, Christianity is not the only religion to value compassion, and from what I see today, Capitalistic competition has eroded the value of Christian compassion. So I am not sure that you could call "compassion" a Christian value anymore, it is a human value.

3. What do you think will happen to our future generations if we tell them they should believe whatever they want to believe, and there is no absolute truth?

I have faith in humanity. Faith is trust based on based on past performance. (as defined by JPH). I am not saying this cynically. In the 1600's in Europe, the church had a lock on absolute truth, and humans said ...umm excuse me, no you don't. I think future generations will work it out just like every generation in the past has. The problems and pressures they face will be different, just like ours are different from our parents.
Trying to make them live from some "absolute" won't work. They will adapt and adjust to the conditions of their time just like we do, and all the dust of the dead behind us have. The only "absolute" truth is the need for the species to survive.

4. Do you really trust evolution and inherent instinctive morality to do the job?

They have proven they do the job. Human civilization goes back at least 10,000 years. Only one small part of the world was Jewish, and followed a Judaism we would recognize for about the last 2300 years, and only a part of the world has been Christian for the last 1700 years.

This is not the only high point in Human Civilization over the centuries. The Egyptians were not Christian, the Romans were not, the Greeks were not, the Chinese were not, the Japanese were not, the Mayans were not, the Aztecs were not, and yet they evolved moral systems and advanced civilizations. So yes, I have faith that the truth of the necessity of survival will continue to "do the job".

If you do, that is fine, but I think that is very scary to think about.

It's not scary, it is grand and awesome and beautiful. And uniquely human.

[Objectitron]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2242864]But from your first post here, this has been the basis of your arguement, or what you keep returning too, that what you call "liberals" do not have a solid system of right and wrong. When I point out that not all liberals are moral relativists, you remove those people from the classification of liberal, so you are leaving me with the position that Liberals = moral relativists.


Hold on a minute...you are manipulating my words. I think liberals know the difference btw right and wrong...at least most of them. This is based on the influence of judeo-christian or "American" values in which they are questioning. If I wasn't specific in my last post, I'll try to be in this one. I think the promotion of moral relativism is still in its infant stages, but is growing. If the influence starts to win the majority, I think our whole value system will look different, and what the majority of people consider to be wrong behavior today will become accepted as the norm in future generations. If liberals, could find a base of morals that the majority could agree to, then they wouldn't be moral relativists. The majority of liberals are moral relativists, this is usually what makes them liberal and progressive, or going against the traditional grain if you will. If all morals are up for grabs, who decides what is right or wrong?




This is no point. In fact it makes MY point that the practical application of morals is relative. You say about conservatism, and I am summarizing, let me know if I get something wrong.

1. We as a group agree on 95% of morals
2. We all follow these absolute morals 100%
3. We can write them all down, we agree so well
4. We don't believe in making everyone follow those morals.
5. We believe we should have political power to influence legislative decisions as a group that believes in this list of morals, but we promise, we won't be using it to make YOU live like we THINK you should.

I think anyone is naive to think that a group follows anything 100%, but I will say they strive for it. People have power to influence legislative decisions. What people hold as absolute truths and what they believe is the backbone of our society will influence every decision they will ever make in life, to include political ones. How are conservatives forcing people to live by their values? I don't see how these values attack peoples' freedoms, instead they allow for these freedoms. The Constitution itself says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." The people who wrote this all shared judeo-christian or "American" values, in no way did they force them upon people.

There is a big difference between a belief and a value, if there was not then judeo-christian would be an oxymoron. Nobody is forcing these beliefs or values. It is human nature to promote what you believe to be true.

I'll respond to the rest of your questions later

[Zeluvia]

[QUOTE]


Hold on a minute...you are manipulating my words. I think liberals know the difference btw right and wrong...at least most of them. This is based on the influence of judeo-christian or "American" values in which they are questioning. If I wasn't specific in my last post, I'll try to be in this one. I think the promotion of moral relativism is still in its infant stages, but is growing. If the influence starts to win the majority, I think our whole value system will look different, and what the majority of people consider to be wrong behavior today will become accepted as the norm in future generations. If liberals, could find a base of morals that the majority could agree to, then they wouldn't be moral relativists. The majority of liberals are moral relativists, this is usually what makes them liberal and progressive, or going against the traditional grain if you will. If all morals are up for grabs, who decides what is right or wrong?






I think anyone is naive to think that a group follows anything 100%, but I will say they strive for it. People have power to influence legislative decisions. What people hold as absolute truths and what they believe is the backbone of our society will influence every decision they will ever make in life, to include political ones. How are conservatives forcing people to live by their values? I don't see how these values attack peoples' freedoms, instead they allow for these freedoms. The Constitution itself says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." The people who wrote this all shared judeo-christian or "American" values, in no way did they force them upon people.

There is a big difference between a belief and a value, if there was not then judeo-christian would be an oxymoron. Nobody is forcing these beliefs or values. It is human nature to promote what you believe to be true.

I'll respond to the rest of your questions later

Okay I will wait for you. But remember, many of our founding fathers were more deist than what we call nowadays theists. Spong is a deist IMO, and he is NOT a moral relativist. And you must review the history of the British Civil war and the Protestant Reformation to really get a sense of what kind of religious enviroment our forefathers were living in. Did you know that most of the colonies had a state church they paid taxes too? Have you read the Jefferson Bible?

And also remember the founding fathers did not consider women to be equal to men, nor black persons. What they wrote was grand, but the interpretation of it over time has changed. You notice they used the word "creator" instead of "god". Why?

[Zeluvia]

Oh BTW, my days off are Wed and Thurs, I realize yours are probably Sat and Sun...

Just letting you know do not forget our conversation, just what my times are for research and response = )

[Objectitron]

So, what is the difference PRACTICALLY between a moral absolutist and a moral relativist, given the above statement is that of a moral absolutist?

Here, I will try to make it simple. If you truly believe in individual freedom, then you will not force your morals on someone else, so the NET effect of your moral system in society is moral relativism, no matter what you like to call it.

I don't mind, I am enjoying our one on one with no input from the local peanut gallery. I hope we are making each other think = )

A moral absolutist believes certain morals should be binding for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or creed. A moral relativist believes certain morals are only binding to him or her or possibly a specific group. For example, a moral absolutist could say I believe homosexuality is a sin, thus it is wrong for anyone to participate in homosexual behavior. A moral relativist could say I personally do not participate in homosexual behavior, but I don't think it is wrong if others want to participate in the behavior. Or another example, a moral relativist might teach his or her children that premarital sex is wrong and sex should be saved for marriage, but would have no problem if his or her neighbor taught their children they should have sex when they feel ready. A moral absolutist, if they felt it was an absolute truth, would teach that having premarital sex is wrong and waiting for marriage to have sex is right. This is binding not only for their children, but society as well. You must understand that these are beliefs about right and wrong behavior.

Please note that just because one holds to absolute truths does not mean they should impose them on others. For example, If I say homosexual behavior is wrong for everyone, this doesn't mean I would be homophobic or believe we should outlaw homosexuality. It just means I disagree with the behavior. Our values should never trump law. However, our values influence legislation. I will admit it is tough to keep a balance, but I think we must try.

The gallery is quite interesting...I appreciate this dialogue very much




Okay, I will respond directly to these questions.

1. Hasn't the Judeo-Christian value system had influence in some way over me throughout my life?

Certainly the AMERICAN value system has influence over me. But is this really a Judeo-Christian system entirely, and which values in PARTICULAR are an influence? I have been thinking about this.

Our judeo-christian system is not just religious influence. It is a collection of gleaned biblical principles coupled with a strong greco-roman philosophical influence and seasoned with reason from the enlightenment. It in itself is still evolving, but gradually. What scares me about moral relativism is its extreme breakdown of certain traditions and values.

One of the problems with the other Abrahamic religion..Islam..for me is the treatment of women. Islamists can argue that Islam was FORWARD thinking in it's treatment of women some 1200 years ago, and in some respects they are right. So where did the "West" (defined as North America, Europe, and Australia) get their ideas of equality of women? What ancient cultures treated women as equals?

Societies in general have predominately been patriarchal. I think to get true gender equality in history, one would have to look to certain African or Indian tribes. Sprinkled throughout the Old and New Testaments are stories of heroic women and women of leadership. When the Jesus movement or early Christianity first began many women held leadership roles and had real influence over church affairs. If you read Romans 16 you will learn briefly about Pheobe, who was deacon, but want is interesting to me is Junia. Most people don't know about her because most translations have turned her into a man. Junia was a common greek name for a woman, and this is the name given in the most trusted manuscripts. When scribes were copying letters like Romans for future generations it wasn't too uncommen for social influences to creep in the text as well. These were minor at best, but things were changed here and there. I'm not sure when, but at some point the name began to be translated as Junias, which is not a common male name or there is little evidence that this name even existed. An interesting coincidence I guess.

So is equality of women a Judeo-Christian value in your opinion, or a much older cultural value? Or is it a value you find in any culture where women have to work side by side with men to survive?

Equality of women is most certainly a judeo-christian value. While it might not have been in the early church as it related to profession or public life, but the intrinsic worth of both a male and female were equal. This has always been true. However, this didn't change a woman's role in the culture. They were not less of a person because they were a woman. We live in a different culture today where gender roles are defined differently. However, equality of women in every aspect has certainly been adopted into the J-C value system.

I like Humanism. (do not confuse this with secular humanism) Humanism started with the Prostestant Reformation. It was originally a part of the Protestant Reformation. It exalts the individual over both the church and the state. It was a break with the church, because it said that an INDIVIDUAL could have a direct relationship with god without going through the church. It was this brand of Humanism that influenced the formation of the US. Is this a Christian value? If it is, it is a fairly NEW one. But this value of the individual IMO is not "Judeo-Christian". It is a result once again of the influence of much older cultural values that resurged despite oppression.

I would definitely say the ability to have a personal relationship with God is most certainly a christian value. I think you are equating Christian beliefs with judeo-christian values. You don't have to be a Christian or a Jew to have judeo-christian values. I know it sounds weird and maybe it is a misnomer, but Like I said before these values are not just religious in nature, they have secular and cultural influence as well. I would say our Consitution and the writings of our framers epitomize these values. They all weren't Christians, but generally held to Christian values and principles while not holding to certain dogma or doctrines.

2. Can you say that this value system has not influenced your current value system?

Well, my current value system places Compassion very high. In some respects, this is a Christian value, not necessarily a Jewish one. I always thought that the excess of the capitalist competition paradigm were offset very well by the Christian value of compassion. However, Christianity is not the only religion to value compassion, and from what I see today, Capitalistic competition has eroded the value of Christian compassion. So I am not sure that you could call "compassion" a Christian value anymore, it is a human value.

I would argue that greed and the erosion of the J-C value system has led to individuals to make very selfish business decisions. If a person is grounded in his or her morals this will reflect in business as well as any other arena. The capitalist system gives more of choice between greed and making a healthy profit without compromising one's integrity. However, if a person is a moral relativist, who is to say that being greedy is wrong, even if it exploits others? You are ridiculous to say compassion isn't a Christian value. It is at the heart of the Christian message. Who do you think run most of the non-profit orgs that help millions around the world? Have you ever been on a mission trip or a humanitarian trip? I've been on 4 outside the country and many more within the U.S. I guess I can't speak for every Christian, but it is a value I hold to be true. Did you know that Republicans give more money to charity than Democratics? This is a fact!

3. What do you think will happen to our future generations if we tell them they should believe whatever they want to believe, and there is no absolute truth?

I have faith in humanity. Faith is trust based on based on past performance. (as defined by JPH). I am not saying this cynically. In the 1600's in Europe, the church had a lock on absolute truth, and humans said ...umm excuse me, no you don't. I think future generations will work it out just like every generation in the past has. The problems and pressures they face will be different, just like ours are different from our parents.
Trying to make them live from some "absolute" won't work. They will adapt and adjust to the conditions of their time just like we do, and all the dust of the dead behind us have. The only "absolute" truth is the need for the species to survive.

The church, I guess you are referring to the Church of England, as a unit did not get a lot of things right. What happened to those leaders when the Protestants took over, the ones who getting burned at the stake? They were the true Christians who had the Christian message, not the ones in the camp of Bloody Mary. Religion was a way for the leaders of the Church of England to consolidate and keep power. It had nothing to do with any type of Christian value. I would hate to live in a society where they only absolute truth was survival and adaptation. How would there be rule of law and order? Have you looked lately at our future materialistic generation?...you are more optimistic than me.

4. Do you really trust evolution and inherent instinctive morality to do the job?

They have proven they do the job. Human civilization goes back at least 10,000 years. Only one small part of the world was Jewish, and followed a Judaism we would recognize for about the last 2300 years, and only a part of the world has been Christian for the last 1700 years.

This is not the only high point in Human Civilization over the centuries. The Egyptians were not Christian, the Romans were not, the Greeks were not, the Chinese were not, the Japanese were not, the Mayans were not, the Aztecs were not, and yet they evolved moral systems and advanced civilizations. So yes, I have faith that the truth of the necessity of survival will continue to "do the job".

What happened to those other "great" civilizations? They were conquered and are now extinct. The Chinese are now Communists. The Japanese empire died a long time ago. The Jewish and Christian culture is still marching on strong. We've had our bumps and bruises and embarrassments, but we are still here with our core values still intact. Our greatest threat is Islam via Sharia law and moral relativism.


It's not scary, it is grand and awesome and beautiful. And uniquely human.

Obviously we look at the same world and come to two very different conclusions

[Zeluvia]

So, what is the difference PRACTICALLY between a moral absolutist and a moral relativist, given the above statement is that of a moral absolutist?

Here, I will try to make it simple. If you truly believe in individual freedom, then you will not force your morals on someone else, so the NET effect of your moral system in society is moral relativism, no matter what you like to call it.


A moral absolutist believes certain morals should be binding for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or creed. A moral relativist believes certain morals are only binding to him or her or possibly a specific group. For example, a moral absolutist could say I believe homosexuality is a sin, thus it is wrong for anyone to participate in homosexual behavior. A moral relativist could say I personally do not participate in homosexual behavior, but I don't think it is wrong if others want to participate in the behavior. Or another example, a moral relativist might teach his or her children that premarital sex is wrong and sex should be saved for marriage, but would have no problem if his or her neighbor taught their children they should have sex when they feel ready. A moral absolutist, if they felt it was an absolute truth, would teach that having premarital sex is wrong and waiting for marriage to have sex is right. This is binding not only for their children, but society as well. You must understand that these are beliefs about right and wrong behavior.

Please note that just because one holds to absolute truths does not mean they should impose them on others. For example, If I say homosexual behavior is wrong for everyone, this doesn't mean I would be homophobic or believe we should outlaw homosexuality. It just means I disagree with the behavior. Our values should never trump law. However, our values influence legislation. I will admit it is tough to keep a balance, but I think we must try.

Okay, I appreciate what you are saying, but you did not address my question directly.

Individual freedom is the cornerstone of both the Protestant Reformation, Humanism, and the principle behind the founding of the United States.

But, if you hold individual freedom as a very high value, then you are by DEFAULT a moral relativist IN PRACTICE. This is the point I make you did not address. I am saying although you personally think there exists an absolute moral code, your value of individual freedom FORCES you to accept moral relativity in society.

Otherwise, you would HAVE to try to legislate your moral code, and impose it on everyone.

[Zeluvia]

Okay, I will respond directly to these questions.

1. Hasn't the Judeo-Christian value system had influence in some way over me throughout my life?

Certainly the AMERICAN value system has influence over me. But is this really a Judeo-Christian system entirely, and which values in PARTICULAR are an influence? I have been thinking about this.


Our judeo-christian system is not just religious influence. It is a collection of gleaned biblical principles coupled with a strong greco-roman philosophical influence and seasoned with reason from the enlightenment. It in itself is still evolving, but gradually. What scares me about moral relativism is its extreme breakdown of certain traditions and values.


One of the problems with the other Abrahamic religion..Islam..for me is the treatment of women. Islamists can argue that Islam was FORWARD thinking in it's treatment of women some 1200 years ago, and in some respects they are right. So where did the "West" (defined as North America, Europe, and Australia) get their ideas of equality of women? What ancient cultures treated women as equals?


Societies in general have predominately been patriarchal. I think to get true gender equality in history, one would have to look to certain African or Indian tribes. Sprinkled throughout the Old and New Testaments are stories of heroic women and women of leadership. When the Jesus movement or early Christianity first began many women held leadership roles and had real influence over church affairs. If you read Romans 16you will learn briefly about Pheobe, who was deacon, but want is interesting to me is Junia. Most people don't know about her because most translations have turned her into a man. Junia was a common greek name for a woman, and this is the name given in the most trusted manuscripts. When scribes were copying letters like Romans for future generations it wasn't too uncommen for social influences to creep in the text as well. These were minor at best, but things were changed here and there. I'm not sure when, but at some point the name began to be translated as Junias, which is not a common male name or there is little evidence that this name even existed. An interesting coincidence I guess.

Okay, but you totally ignore the fact that some of the cultures that contributed directly to the "West" were NOT patriarchial, and I am specifically talking about Celtic and Teutonic traditions.

But maybe what we need to do is decide what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" values?

To me, those are the values from those RELIGIONS, hence the names. Those values have changed over time, with changes in society, but to try and grab the things you think are valuable and they say "these are Judeo-Christian" values to me is cheating.

Equality of women is not a Judeo-Christian value. It is a "Western" value. Yes, you can find some biblical/historical support for equal treatment of women, but you can also find biblical/historical support for the oppression of women by Judeo-Christians.

What you seem to keep failing to realize is that moral relativism is the way the world really operates. Without breakdowns of traditions, would women have the equality they enjoy today?

[Zeluvia]

I like Humanism. (do not confuse this with secular humanism) Humanism started with the Prostestant Reformation. It was originally a part of the Protestant Reformation. It exalts the individual over both the church and the state. It was a break with the church, because it said that an INDIVIDUAL could have a direct relationship with god without going through the church. It was this brand of Humanism that influenced the formation of the US. Is this a Christian value? If it is, it is a fairly NEW one. But this value of the individual IMO is not "Judeo-Christian". It is a result once again of the influence of much older cultural values that resurged despite oppression.

I would definitely say the ability to have a personal relationship with God is most certainly a christian value. I think you are equating Christian beliefs with judeo-christian values. You don't have to be a Christian or a Jew to have judeo-christian values. I know it sounds weird and maybe it is a misnomer, but Like I said before these values are not just religious in nature, they have secular and cultural influence as well. I would say our Consitution and the writings of our framers epitomize these values. They all weren't Christians, but generally held to Christian values and principles while not holding to certain dogma or doctrines.

See, you are using Judeo-Christian values to me to mean "Western" values. How can you use the term and seperate it from the religions where these values spring? '

An individual relationship with god is a NEW value. Although you can find support for the idea in the bible, even the Jews had ideas about worship that was based on interpretation by a group of priests. The Catholic church carried this forward, to the point of absurdity, when they were selling dispensations. I argue that although this is a "WESTERN" value, it was a break with "traditional" Judeo-Christian values. Another example of a tradition that it was GOOD to lose.

[Zeluvia]

2. Can you say that this value system has not influenced your current value system?

Well, my current value system places Compassion very high. In some respects, this is a Christian value, not necessarily a Jewish one. I always thought that the excess of the capitalist competition paradigm were offset very well by the Christian value of compassion. However, Christianity is not the only religion to value compassion, and from what I see today, Capitalistic competition has eroded the value of Christian compassion. So I am not sure that you could call "compassion" a Christian value anymore, it is a human value.

I would argue that greed and the erosion of the J-C value system has led to individuals to make very selfish business decisions. If a person is grounded in his or her morals this will reflect in business as well as any other arena. The capitalist system gives more of choice between greed and making a healthy profit without compromising one's integrity. However, if a person is a moral relativist, who is to say that being greedy is wrong, even if it exploits others? You are ridiculous to say compassion isn't a Christian value. It is at the heart of the Christian message. Who do you think run most of the non-profit orgs that help millions around the world? Have you ever been on a mission trip or a humanitarian trip? I've been on 4 outside the country and many more within the U.S. I guess I can't speak for every Christian, but it is a value I hold to be true. Did you know that Republicans give more money to charity than Democratics? This is a fact!

It doesn't suprise me that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. They also usually give more to political campaigns. On average, Republicans have more money than Democrats. A more relevant statistic would be what percent of income do Republicans give over Democrats?

Of course Compassion is a christian value. But is also an Islamic value, and a Buddahist value, and a Secular Humanist value. Christianity does not have sole claim to this value. But when I look at the actions/platform/history of the Republican party, I see very little compassion.

When I look at modern American Christianity, I don't see a whole lot of compassion being preached anymore either.

[Zeluvia]

3. What do you think will happen to our future generations if we tell them they should believe whatever they want to believe, and there is no absolute truth?

I have faith in humanity. Faith is trust based on based on past performance. (as defined by JPH). I am not saying this cynically. In the 1600's in Europe, the church had a lock on absolute truth, and humans said ...umm excuse me, no you don't. I think future generations will work it out just like every generation in the past has. The problems and pressures they face will be different, just like ours are different from our parents.
Trying to make them live from some "absolute" won't work. They will adapt and adjust to the conditions of their time just like we do, and all the dust of the dead behind us have. The only "absolute" truth is the need for the species to survive.


The church, I guess you are referring to the Church of England, as a unit did not get a lot of things right. What happened to those leaders when the Protestants took over, the ones who getting burned at the stake? They were the true Christians who had the Christian message, not the ones in the camp of Bloody Mary. Religion was a way for the leaders of the Church of England to consolidate and keep power. It had nothing to do with any type of Christian value. I would hate to live in a society where they only absolute truth was survival and adaptation. How would there be rule of law and order? Have you looked lately at our future materialistic generation?...you are more optimistic than me.

Actually I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church. But you hit on another VERY good point.

Are churches the repositories of the "absolute" truth you think we should be teaching? Historically, the church gets corrupted by the power of being the holder of absolute truth. Shall we trust it?

Our current culture of materialism is directly related to our economic system of capitalism. Capitalism requires consumption, that requires sales, selling is manufacturing needs to be filled.

Recently I saw a book review, I will try to find it. It was about how to make churches more attractive to the young. People were raving about the new methods to attract young people to the church.
What is the difference between selling kids iPods, and then turning around and using the same methods of salesmanship to attract them to churches? Why do churches NEED to sell their product?

Think about that = p

[Zeluvia]

4. Do you really trust evolution and inherent instinctive morality to do the job?

They have proven they do the job. Human civilization goes back at least 10,000 years. Only one small part of the world was Jewish, and followed a Judaism we would recognize for about the last 2300 years, and only a part of the world has been Christian for the last 1700 years.

This is not the only high point in Human Civilization over the centuries. The Egyptians were not Christian, the Romans were not, the Greeks were not, the Chinese were not, the Japanese were not, the Mayans were not, the Aztecs were not, and yet they evolved moral systems and advanced civilizations. So yes, I have faith that the truth of the necessity of survival will continue to "do the job".

What happened to those other "great" civilizations? They were conquered and are now extinct. The Chinese are now Communists. The Japanese empire died a long time ago. The Jewish and Christian culture is still marching on strong. We've had our bumps and bruises and embarrassments, but we are still here with our core values still intact. Our greatest threat is Islam via Sharia law and moral relativism.

I disagree. The Judeo-Christian culture has changed, and become "western" culture.

Remember that old adage about the tree and the grass? The grass bends before the wind, the tree breaks. The ONLY reason Judeo-Christian culture (as you call it) is still "going strong" is not because it STANDS fast, but because it FLEXES. It changes. It's traditions change, its morals change with society. If you want to kill it completely, just try to make it solid.

The Chinese haven't been conquered since the Khans. And that was an improvement. Regardless of what political system they are today, they are moving to capitalism. Most of the other great civilizations rotted from within as well as bowing to external pressures. In most cases, it is always failure to respond to change.

Do you really think the US would be conquered? Doubt it. And those other civilizations made it for thousand of years in some cases. The pace of change is faster now, but the likelyhood of being conquered is less. Our problem going forward is within.

[Zeluvia]

It's not scary, it is grand and awesome and beautiful. And uniquely human.


Obviously we look at the same world and come to two very different conclusions

Yes, we do. I think age has actually made me embrace change, instead of fear it. Of course there are some things I do not like, but I see that change is inevitable, and even though I do not like it, it will all work out.

It has too, because we all share the same survival problems.

[Zeluvia]

Okay I answered you by making each topic its own post, so I could keep better track of our conversations.

You don't need to respond toall.

I would like to explore how you think moral absolutism benefits a society that values individual freedom. I do not see any way it works.

I would also like to know which traditions and values specifically you see most threatened, and what the outcome of their loss socially would be in your opinion.

[Zeluvia]

One more thing, you say that Judeo-Christian values are based in authority.

Whose? What? How is that authority exercized in the REAL world we live in? Who judges? Who punishes? Is that authority flexible? If it isn't then how have Judeo-Christian values changed over time?

[Objectitron]

Okay, I appreciate what you are saying, but you did not address my question directly.

Individual freedom is the cornerstone of both the Protestant Reformation, Humanism, and the principle behind the founding of the United States.

But, if you hold individual freedom as a very high value, then you are by DEFAULT a moral relativist IN PRACTICE. This is the point I make you did not address. I am saying although you personally think there exists an absolute moral code, your value of individual freedom FORCES you to accept moral relativity in society.

Otherwise, you would HAVE to try to legislate your moral code, and impose it on everyone.

I accept moral relativity because I believe in individual freedom. That doesn't mean I think it is good or believe in it. I can be what every I want to be in practice, that is what individual freedom is. I'm not a moral relativist on core J-C values, I believe everyone is better off by believing in them, but I understand they don't have to nor would I force them to. I think these core values are absolute truths that in the end everyone should be held accountable to. How does this make me a moral relativist? I don't have a choice but to accept the existence of moral relativity, but I don't have to believe in its tenets.

I'll tackle your other questions a little later.

[Zeluvia]

I accept moral relativity because I believe in individual freedom. That doesn't mean I think it is good or believe in it. I can be what every I want to be in practice, that is what individual freedom is. I'm not a moral relativist on core J-C values, I believe everyone is better off by believing in them, but I understand they don't have to nor would I force them to. I think these core values are absolute truths that in the end everyone should be held accountable to. How does this make me a moral relativist? I don't have a choice but to accept the existence of moral relativity, but I don't have to believe in its tenets.

I'll tackle your other questions a little later.

It's okay, I won't be back till next week.

I am not sure you get my point yet. It's not about accepting or rejecting a moral stance, it is about the effect of your moral stance.

Sure you can be a moral spaghettist, but if your SOCIAL action is to Respect Individual Freedom, then your SOCIAL manifestation of your moral stance is Moral Relativist.

In fact, I think if you believe in Free Will, and that people have choices,
you have to ACT as though you are Moral Relativist. But I will think about that some more.

[Objectitron]

Zeluvia,

Judeo-Christian values are what our country was founded on. The number 1 values was and is liberty. Everyone has liberty to believe and behave as they wish as long as they don't violate the law or others' rights. The majority of our citizens still believe these values and morals to be absolute truths. If you can't agree with me on this then we are both talking at the same time.

The foundation of these values are influenced strongly by Biblical morals such as the 10 commandments. Our country used to assume that these are absolutes, a majority still do, in 10 years it might just be a minority. It's up to people like me and others on this board to stand up against moral relativity that is pervading our nation. Moral relativity is NOT what are founders believed in.

You ask how can you have liberty and absolutes...because our CREATOR gave us this liberty, thus our CREATER is an absolute. This is what our founders believed n, they didn't believe that gov't gave liberty, it was God.

[Objectitron]

One other quick thing...liberty also gives me the right to say that my moral system is right and yours is wrong. How would that make me a moral relativist? I have the right to say that. I'm not officially saying this to you because I don't know exactly what you believe in, but I have the right to say it.

Liberty gives us the ability to pretty much believe and do what we want as long as it doesn't violate laws. This doesn't mean that all liberty is moral. Judeo-Christian values set boundaries and give principles for right and wrong. Which one of these values do you have a problem with ?

These are the values I will live and die by, I believe certain values to be absolutes, like the 10 commandments. I think and believe that everyone should STRIVE to live by them. Anything else is unacceptable behavior even if it is me who is doing this behavior. If this makes me a moral relativist then we need to change the definition of relativity!

[Zeluvia]

Zeluvia,

Judeo-Christian values are what our country was founded on. The number 1 values was and is liberty. Everyone has liberty to believe and behave as they wish as long as they don't violate the law or others' rights. The majority of our citizens still believe these values and morals to be absolute truths. If you can't agree with me on this then we are both talking at the same time.

The foundation of these values are influenced strongly by Biblical morals such as the 10 commandments. Our country used to assume that these are absolutes, a majority still do, in 10 years it might just be a minority. It's up to people like me and others on this board to stand up against moral relativity that is pervading our nation. Moral relativity is NOT what are founders believed in.

You ask how can you have liberty and absolutes...because our CREATOR gave us this liberty, thus our CREATER is an absolute. This is what our founders believed n, they didn't believe that gov't gave liberty, it was God.

Show me where liberty is a Judeo-Christian value in the Bible.
Or freedom. Or Equality?

What part of the 10 commandments relate to liberty, freedom and equality?

Some could argue that since you were CREATED poor, of poor parents, god meant you to stay that way. Or if you were Created of the Royal family, God meant you to rule over others. Or if you were born a Levi, you were meant to be priest.

I do have some absolute morals, to ME. I am not arguing the existance of people that believe absolute morals exist.

You said in one post that when I stand next to a fellow liberal, he could have very different morals from me, and that was moral relativity.

I am saying when you stand next to ANY American, if you VALUE individual Freedom, that American can have very different morals from you and you have to let it slide.

I am asking you...if you are NOT legislating your morality, what is the PRACTICAL (pay attention to this word) REAL WORLD EFFECT of your moral absolutes?

I do not think that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values.
It was founded on Enlightenment thinking and new philosophy, and Humanism. These at the time were in direct opposition to the mainstream "traditional" values of the church.

I think we are talking past each other. You are holding something up and saying SEE look at this !! And I am saying, yeah that is pretty, but of what USE is it?

[Zeluvia]

One other quick thing...liberty also gives me the right to say that my moral system is right and yours is wrong. How would that make me a moral relativist? I have the right to say that. I'm not officially saying this to you because I don't know exactly what you believe in, but I have the right to say it.

Liberty gives us the ability to pretty much believe and do what we want as long as it doesn't violate laws. This doesn't mean that all liberty is moral. Judeo-Christian values set boundaries and give principles for right and wrong. Which one of these values do you have a problem with ?

These are the values I will live and die by, I believe certain values to be absolutes, like the 10 commandments. I think and believe that everyone should STRIVE to live by them. Anything else is unacceptable behavior even if it is me who is doing this behavior. If this makes me a moral relativist then we need to change the definition of relativity!

I am not sure which values you consider Judeo-Christian. As far as I am concerned, if you can't find the value in the Bible, or the Torah, then it is NOT Judeo-Christian. Can we agree on that?

You keep saying that these values come from authority. I ask you how those values are enforced in the real world, not the afterlife. Authority means enforcement too doesn't it?

There are alot of things I think people should STRIVE for. I think people should STRIVE to treat everyone the way they want to be treated.

But even Confuscious has a version of this rule. It seems to me a self-evident reciprocal empathy rule.

I am not saying YOU are a moral relativist, I am saying the PRACTICAL effect of your morality if you value individual freedom is moral relativity.

You still dont get the difference do you? You can preach to someone, you can teach them, you can tell them your morals, you can do everything but FORCE them on the other person. Right?

In order to give moral authority the rule of law, we have to have a consensus of opinion that it should be a law, and we do that because we as INDIVIDUALS must agree that is a good law, and we are willing to abide by it. That is the job of representative government.

Now let's look at prohibition. Passed by a moral campaign, agreed to by the populace, and turned out to be a really bad idea, and we agreed to get rid of it.

Where does consumption of alcohol fit in your moral compass, for example? If you don't mind that some people drink, it is up to them, then as far as this thing goes, are you a moral relativist? = )

[Zeluvia]

The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics.[1]. It has been suggested that the term obscures fundamental differences between the two religions - Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism"[2] - while erasing continuities between them and other religions, especially other monotheistic faiths. The Slovenian postmodern philosopher Slavoj Žižek has argued in this last point that the term Judeo-Muslim to describe the middle-east culture against the western Christian culture would be more appropriate in these days[3], especially noting the reduced influence from the Jewish culture on the western world due to the historical persecution and exclusion of the Jewish minority. A Judaeo-Christian-Muslim concept thus refers to the three main monotheistic religions that root to the Babylonian civilization, commonly known as the Abrahamic Religions.

This is from Wiki, but it pretty much describes what I think of the term
"Judeo-Christian values".

It's an American political term, and has very little real meaning. Already in this thread you have ascribed to this value system things that are certainly not found either in the bible or the torah.

[Objectitron]

Show me where liberty is a Judeo-Christian value in the Bible.
Or freedom. Or Equality?

The idea of liberty from religious legalism and freedom in Jesus Christ is the centrality of the New Testament. Early Christians, because of persecution, were not at a place to challenge the Roman Empire politically. However, within the Christian communities, individual liberty was most definitely practiced. You have to remember to concept of liberty that we have today did not exist in this community. It was more of a group liberty. Individualism was a much later philosophy. Show me where it is not practiced in the NT? You can apply our standards of liberty on a first century culture.

The story of Adam and Eve expresses the theme of liberty. Adam and Eve had one law and one law only, they could anything else they wanted. I would call that liberty. But they still violated the one law. I think possibly this was just an etiological story, but it's stressing that liberty reigned at the beginning, but humans make poor choices and thus need boundaries of liberty. What do you think our world would like if there were no laws or morals?

What part of the 10 commandments relate to liberty, freedom and equality?

They are moral codes and codes of law, they aren't a bill of rights. How does our laws against murder or stealing relate any different to liberty, freedom, and equality? The 10 commandments are not a constitution. That's like saying how does our laws against speeding relate to liberty, freedom, and equality

Some could argue that since you were CREATED poor, of poor parents, god meant you to stay that way. Or if you were Created of the Royal family, God meant you to rule over others. Or if you were born a Levi, you were meant to be priest.

I would never believe that. You are born who you are. Cultures have assigned roles like these. I don't think God micromanages family placement, nor could we ever know if He did. What we do know is we are born who we are. In our country and culture it doesn't matter. If you're poor you can become rich. If you are rich you can become poor. It's up to you. Once again you can't put our standards and thinking on ancient cultures.

You said in one post that when I stand next to a fellow liberal, he could have very different morals from me, and that was moral relativity.

I am saying when you stand next to ANY American, if you VALUE individual Freedom, that American can have very different morals from you and you have to let it slide.

What am I going to about it..of course I have to let it "slide." This doesn't mean I think he is right. And because of my individual freedom I could make that known if I wanted to, but it wouldn't do any good most likely, but I have that right, just like you have the right to be moral relativist.


I am asking you...if you are NOT legislating your morality, what is the PRACTICAL (pay attention to this word) REAL WORLD EFFECT of your moral absolutes?

When you legislate something it loses its "value". When you have the freedom to choose right over wrong when there is no law one way or the other, this sets you apart in my eyes and makes you a person of integrity and noble. I also believe I will have to be held accountable for my actions by my family and friends and most of all God. This is very practical to teach my children morals so hopefully they will teach their children morals. The last thing I would want is the gov't to start teaching morals. It is the family's responsibility to teach these morals and it is up to individual to live them out. If this isn't practical then I don't know what is.

I do not think that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values.
It was founded on Enlightenment thinking and new philosophy, and Humanism. These at the time were in direct opposition to the mainstream "traditional" values of the church.

How? what were these mainstream "traditional" values of the church? Have you read the diaries of our founders like Thomas Jefferson. Judeo-Christian values encompass a lot of enlightenment and modern thinking. How do they not? Maybe we should change the word, but the foundation is still rooted in theism and biblical principals and morals. This doesn't mean they believed everything in the Bible, but believed in its moral teachings. There's a big difference. Did the humanists and enlightment thinkers think that gay marriage was OK? Did they think that parents should not teach morality? Did they teach premarital sex was OK? Would they allow children access to birth control devices through the school? Did they support divorce? I would think that these thinkers were way more conservative than we are today.

I think we are talking past each other. You are holding something up and saying SEE look at this !! And I am saying, yeah that is pretty, but of what USE is it?

Morals are what we use when making decisions. If they do not have a solid foundation then eventually we will lose the ability to really know the difference between right and wrong.

[Objectitron]

This is from Wiki, but it pretty much describes what I think of the term
"Judeo-Christian values".

It's an American political term, and has very little real meaning. Already in this thread you have ascribed to this value system things that are certainly not found either in the bible or the torah.

You just pointed out the criticism. You forgot this part:

Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and adapted by Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.

If you want to argue what we should really call these values, that is fine. That is a different conversation, lets stick to the actual values. We can call them whatever we want. Our society calls them Judeo-Christian values because they are rooted in the Bible. We can call them something else, but that doesn't change what they are.

[LGM]

The idea of liberty from religious legalism and freedom in Jesus Christ is the centrality of the New Testament.

That’s the most hilarious pile of rhetorical horse manure I’ve seen in some time.

Exactly what ‘religious legalism’ was cult leader Paul ‘freeing’ his gentile cult in Corinth from? Having to get circumcised to join his eternal life cult? :lol:

Puhleeeeze…there is NOTHING in the NT about the political ideas of democracy, human rights, or religious freedom.

NT theology is based on the most bigoted religious ‘legalism’ there is. “Believe Jesus Christ is god and died for your sins…and GET a pleasant eternal life…DON’T believe…and get burned forever in a lake of fire..


Early Christians, because of persecution, were not at a place to challenge the Roman Empire politically. However, within the Christian communities, individual liberty was most definitely practiced.

Puhleeeeze…you know NOTHING about any ‘early Christian communities’. You are just pulling stuff out of yer backside to fit your hilariously ignorant agenda. What specific documents do you HAVE, that the rest of the world hasn’t seen, that describes in detail what it was like to live in ‘early Christian communities’? HUH? Speak up…can’t hear you.

Thanks for amusing me.

Try reading Acts 5 for a little dose of early Christian ‘liberty’.


You have to remember to concept of liberty that we have today did not exist in this community. It was more of a group liberty. Individualism was a much later philosophy. Show me where it is not practiced in the NT? You can apply our standards of liberty on a first century culture.

It’s YOU who need to stop making up crap.

I’ve never heard of the philosophy of ‘individualism’. Is that a philosophy that says I don’t want to be burned at the stake for not mumbling the creeds of the Christian church?


The story of Adam and Eve expresses the theme of liberty. Adam and Eve had one law and one law only, they could anything else they wanted.

:lol:
Really? So if Eve wanted to kill Adam, or have sex with a horse…God was fine with that…but not eating a certain fruit.

Again, thanks for amusing me with more hilarious, contorted claims. Are you a comedian?

What’s next? I suppose the Inquisition, slavery, and slaughter of the native peoples in the Americas was all about the ideal of Christian ‘liberty’? The very reason the Pilgrims came to the new world in the first place, was because they were being PERSECUTED by the Christian church in England. GET A CLUE!

So here’s a little history lesson…the only thing that secured LIBERTY in the newly formed government of the United States was a Constitution drafted by men who had REJECTED the monarchies and Christian theocracies of Europe, and had to battle the evangelical Protestants in the new world, to keep them from trying to establish their churches as state religions. Men like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin…they weren’t CHRISTIANS.

There is NOTHING in the Judeo/Christian religion, or the history of these religions in power, that has EVER even remotely resembled the liberty found in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact, the first FOUR of the Bible’s 10 Commandments stand OPPOSED to the concept of religious liberty. GET A CLUE.

[Objectitron]

Zeluvia,

it looks like the peanut gallery has arrived...only fitting they chose to send the one who would argue with you that the sky is not blue.

Same old LGM...who just pops in every now and then to give us his enlightened opinion filled with petty insults, false claims, and googly research. Not sure if he'll be able to stay too long with us though. It won't take too long to expose his foolish hatred towards anyone who might actually believe in something bigger than themselves.

Don't worry though...because after a few posts he will get bored because we are actually having an intelligent conversation...something he knows nothing about. It's kind of like when you were a kid at the dinner table and the adults were conversing, but you couldn't really understand what they were talking about. All you could think about was playing with your toys. So don't worry...LGM will be looking for his toys soon enough.

[Objectitron]

That’s the most hilarious pile of rhetorical horse manure I’ve seen in some time.

Exactly what ‘religious legalism’ was cult leader Paul ‘freeing’ his gentile cult in Corinth from? Having to get circumcised to join his eternal life cult? :lol:

When and where did Paul say you had to get circumcised?

Puhleeeeze…there is NOTHING in the NT about the political ideas of democracy, human rights, or religious freedom.

Did I say there were political ideas of democracy or human rights practices in the NT? I did not. The NT says you should follow the rules of law and that's about it. Don't we do that in the US? Christianity is and was not a political movement.

There is definitely a theme of religious freedom in the NT. Did any of the church leaders or Jesus himself force anyone to become a believer? You show where or how religious freedom is not an element in the NT. When Christianity spread did the leaders tell the people along the way that you must either convert, pay a religious tax, or fight to the death?


NT theology is based on the most bigoted religious ‘legalism’ there is. “Believe Jesus Christ is god and died for your sins…and GET a pleasant eternal life…DON’T believe…and get burned forever in a lake of fire..

Are you sure you know what a bigot is? Anyone can be a Christian, not just a select few, it's a choice. And how is Christianity legalistic? I love how you make blanket statements and support them with empty rhetoric

Puhleeeeze…you know NOTHING about any ‘early Christian communities’. You are just pulling stuff out of yer backside to fit your hilariously ignorant agenda. What specific documents do you HAVE, that the rest of the world hasn’t seen, that describes in detail what it was like to live in ‘early Christian communities’? HUH? Speak up…can’t hear you.

We have Acts, all of Paul's, Peter's, James', and John's letters...as well as the letters that were written pseudonymously in the aformentioned names. We also have the writings of Josephus, who was Jewish, who speaks briefly about the Christians. Then there are the early church fathers like Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Origen, and so on. No matter what you might think of Christianity, you can't deny that these are historical documents and the best sources of information and history of the early church communities. Now, we have all the gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi that illuminates the diversity within the Christian movement.

IS THIS LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO HEAR?



Try reading Acts 5 for a little dose of early Christian ‘liberty’.

Ananias and Sapphira CHOSE to lie, they were not forced to sell property. Did Peter say they had to sell their property and give the proceeds to the church? You're missing the whole point of this story and the hyperbole: that you can't hide anything from God and if you're going to commit yourself to something you should go all the way. If anything, this story supports the idea of individual liberty. Our liberty always has consequences.

Why don't you read Romans and you might be able to glean the liberties and freedoms that are represented in Christ...especially when they are contrasted with the Jewish law.




It’s YOU who need to stop making up crap.

What exactly am I making up? You're the one who is challenging me, but you have not shown any evidence to support these challenges. All I hear is BLAH...BLAH...BLAH...do you have anything substantive to say?

I’ve never heard of the philosophy of ‘individualism’. Is that a philosophy that says I don’t want to be burned at the stake for not mumbling the creeds of the Christian church?

Really...you've never heard of Adam Smith? Where do you think the whole idea of liberty came from? Where do you think the philosophies of open market capitalism or free enterprise came from? Or better yet, where do the ideas of democracy come from?

I answer it for you...it all stemmed from the idea or philosophy of individualism


:lol:
Really? So if Eve wanted to kill Adam, or have sex with a horse…God was fine with that…but not eating a certain fruit.

We can only infer that, I'm just pointing out what the text actually says; there was only one law, which implies they had a lot of liberty.

How many laws do we have in the US? I think we can agree that we have a lot, but why then are we considered to be the leader of the free world?

Adam and Eve could have had hundreds of laws given to them and still could be considered free.

Again, thanks for amusing me with more hilarious, contorted claims. Are you a comedian?

What’s next? I suppose the Inquisition, slavery, and slaughter of the native peoples in the Americas was all about the ideal of Christian ‘liberty’? The very reason the Pilgrims came to the new world in the first place, was because they were being PERSECUTED by the Christian church in England. GET A CLUE!

I'm not sure you know what liberty is. The inquisition, slavery, and all the rest of the attrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not supported by the NT. These were individuals and groups choosing this type of behavior.

Where is forced conversion or war taught in the NT?

Where in the NT do you find the promotion of slavery? Slaves were told to obey their masters because that was Roman law...like I said before: early Christianity was not a political movement. Never in the NT does it say go forth and make slaves because that is what God would have you do. Have you studied Greco-Roman slavery? Most people who were slaves sold themselves into slavery for periods of time to pay off debt. Where in the NT does it say Christians should go to other lands and enslave the people to do cheap labor? This just one more of your blanket statements that are unsupported with any substantial fact or evidence.

If the Roman Catholic church during the Middle Ages, the Church of England in the 1500s, and the US in the 1800s, would have actually practiced what was in the NT, these attrocities could have been avoided. We have the "liberty" to say these things do not represent the teachings in the NT like the Pilgrims did.

So here’s a little history lesson…the only thing that secured LIBERTY in the newly formed government of the United States was a Constitution drafted by men who had REJECTED the monarchies and Christian theocracies of Europe, and had to battle the evangelical Protestants in the new world, to keep them from trying to establish their churches as state religions. Men like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin…they weren’t CHRISTIANS.

For one, there was no such thing as evangelical protestants at this time. At least, they were not called this. The term as we use it today was coined in the 20th Century when protestants were breaking from fundamentalist circles.

Obviously enough Christians believed this would not be a good idea. Are you sure they wouldn't have considered themselves Christians? I know from previous posts you are an "expert" on John Adams. Are you going to google the other founders and copy and paste their quotes like before? They might not of adhered to the doctrines of modern and mainline Christianity, but the majority of them considered themselves to be a Christian.

There is NOTHING in the Judeo/Christian religion, or the history of these religions in power, that has EVER even remotely resembled the liberty found in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact, the first FOUR of the Bible’s 10 Commandments stand OPPOSED to the concept of religious liberty. GET A CLUE.

The 10 commandments are moral codes, they aren't a bill of rights or a constitution nor do they claim to be. They are not rights at all, they are rules. Is our current law code rights? No, they are rules, our rights are embedded in the "Bill of Rights". The two are not comparable.

It is unfair to apply our current legal standards to early christian history. They were under Roman law. What we can do is look our early Christians treated one another in the Christian communities. How were their freedoms violated?

[Objectitron]

It's okay, I won't be back till next week.

I am not sure you get my point yet. It's not about accepting or rejecting a moral stance, it is about the effect of your moral stance.

Sure you can be a moral spaghettist, but if your SOCIAL action is to Respect Individual Freedom, then your SOCIAL manifestation of your moral stance is Moral Relativist.

In fact, I think if you believe in Free Will, and that people have choices,
you have to ACT as though you are Moral Relativist. But I will think about that some more.

I think before we move forward in the topic of moral relativism we need to get a good working definition of moral relativism. I preface this by saying I don't think you really are a moral relativist...or I don't think you or most people live by the standards of moral relativity.

Let's not define moral relativity by our own definitions, instead let's use the consensus definition. I don't like using wikipedia as a research tool, but I think it represents the consensus or what the average person thinks. It defines moral relativism as:

"moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition's truth."

I am not a moral relativist...I believe certain morals transcend time and culture and thus are binding for everyone and are universal truths.

You say that you are a moral relativist. You seem to hold to the belief that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. That in itself is self-contradictory of a moral relativist. That belief is a moral that you hold to. A true moral relativist would believe that if you feel it is right to impose your beliefs on me then that is true and if you believe that imposing your beliefs on me is wrong that is also true. It is relative to the person.

If someone cuts in front of you in line at the movies, could you as a moral relativist tell him or her to get to the end of the line? Not if you think what the person did was wrong. Maybe that person thought he or she was right in cutting in line. You have to keep your mouth shut if you are a moral relativist.

I think it is interesting how people who claim they are moral relativists expect everyone else to have objective morals. This is why I'm asking if you really are a moral relativist. Do your actions back up this philosophy?

How can liberals who claim they are moral relativists say, "we have a moral obligation for tolerance", but then say, "there are no right and wrongs, and therefore you shouldn't pust your morality on others?" They are saying there are NO MORAL RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE, but here is ONE that should. This doesn't make any sense, does it?

Or another one I really like from liberals who say they are moral relativists when they get offended: "You shouldn't be judgemental." What they fail to realize is they are in fact judging. Or like before, "You can't push your morality on other people." Again, they are pushing their own morality in making that statement.

So-called moral relativists also like saying, "there is no absolute truth." Isn't this an absolute truth statement that there isn't any absolutes? It is self-contradictory.

So are you a moral relativist in theory or by your actions and statements?

[Zeluvia]

Do liberals say that we have a moral obligation for tolerance? Or is tolerance a by-product of the respect for individual liberty?

See, to me this is alot of word games.

So let's break it way back down.

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Absolute: independent of arbitrary standards of measurement

Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Relative: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing

Now, when you talk about absolute morality, you mean that there is a code of right of wrong behavior that is External to Humans, that is Unchanging over time or circumstance, correct?

When you talk about objective morality, you mean that there is a morality that External to humans, that also unchanging over time, and it exists regardless of whether or not humans exist?

I don't believe in EITHER of these concepts, becuase I see nothing in history that bears out the existance of either in the real world.
Morality changes over time and societies, over cultures, and through circumstances.

This does not mean I think some principles of behavior are not better than others. It just means I see no "absolute, objective, authoritative" standard. I see human history as a long conversation about what is best, with changing circumstances changing the ideas of what is "right" and "wrong".

Now look at the concept of individual liberty. This is freedom of thought, and freedom of expression correct? This is an important humanist concept, in fact it is the very core of the idea of humanism.

How can you believe in an absolute morality, and still embrace the idea of individual freedom, when individual freedom is all about the freedom to BEHAVE as you see fit?

The only constraint on individual freedom is when it interferes with the freedom and liberty of OTHER individuals. That is not necessarily a moral stance, it is a rational extension of the idea of individual liberty.

I told you I am a biological determinist. I don't pick up a book, read a moral code and say ..oh yeah that is it. Instead I look at morality as it is expressed in the real world, and as societies use it, evolve it and CHANGE it over time, and then look at what FACTORS caused those changes, or created those moral standards of behavior.

The fact is, if you went back in time, you would recognize SOME moral standards, but not others, of early Christians. Slavery would appall you. Communism would not sit well with you. Burning Heretics at the stake would probably disgust you. Beating your wife would not seem moral to you. Paying for a dispensation to get in heaven would seem ludicrous.

There are SOME behaviors that seem to be common to most civilizations and cultures, but that would be because we are all human, and we all need to survive, and it is the same as saying there are some behaviors that are common to all primates...it is based in our biology as social animals.

What you keep missing is how the concept of individual liberty matters to the discussion of moral absolutes. I do not think individual liberty is a "moral" standard, it is a cultural value however.

When you are intolerant, or push your morals on others, it isn't morality you are violating, you are violating another person's liberty.

I happen to think that it is one of the most important cultural values of the United States, and I think it is threatened by many things...moral absolutism is only one of them.

[Objectitron]

Do liberals say that we have a moral obligation for tolerance? Or is tolerance a by-product of the respect for individual liberty?

Liberals say this all the time or something very similar. Maybe you have selective hearing or something because this is one of their trademark beliefs.

Tolerance is a by-prodcut of the respect for individual liberty and intolerance is a by-product of the respect for individual liberty. As long as I don't violate laws, I can be as intolerant as I want to be because of my individual liberty. Liberals like to say that absolute morals don't exist, but they believe in the absolute moral of tolerance.

Now, when you talk about absolute morality, you mean that there is a code of right of wrong behavior that is External to Humans, that is Unchanging over time or circumstance, correct?

Yes, I believe some morals to transcend time and space, but they are only given because humans exist. If humans didn't exist, there would be no use of absolute morality.

When you talk about objective morality, you mean that there is a morality that External to humans, that also unchanging over time, and it exists regardless of whether or not humans exist?

Objective Morality just means it has been defined within our current culture. For example, the Incas could have objective morality that is different from our objective morality, but both cultures submitt that these morals are binding to the culture, thus there is no moral relativity within the culture.

I don't believe in EITHER of these concepts, becuase I see nothing in history that bears out the existance of either in the real world.
Morality changes over time and societies, over cultures, and through circumstances.

What about murder, larceny, lying, adultery, respect for parents? These morals seem to transcend all cultures and can be found in the 10 commandments. I think that you forget that these are morals and almost all cultures have included them. What crucial morals of a society has changed over time besides slavery and women's rights? William Wilberforce, a strong Christian, help abolish slavery in England based on his morals gleaned from the NT. You have to remember that early Christians were under Roman law and influenced by their culture. Morals don't always determine gender roles and Roman morals determined Roman law, not Christian morals.

How did we decide that these morals, at least the first 4, were wrong? Moral relativity suggests that there are no absolutes, so who decides what is right and wrong? If absolute morals don't exist then people can do what ever they want if they can get away with it. You assume that humans have good morals instinctively. I think you assume wrong. I'm sure you have good morals because you have been influenced by American values when you were growing up. Our future generations may not have that luxury, I think that it is very naive to think they will automatically be moral people without absolute or objective morals as their foundation.

This does not mean I think some principles of behavior are not better than others. It just means I see no "absolute, objective, authoritative" standard. I see human history as a long conversation about what is best, with changing circumstances changing the ideas of what is "right" and "wrong".

Society has decided what is best over time on certain morals like: murder, adultery, lying, and stealing, obeying your parents. These 4 morals encompass a majority of our current laws (excluding adultery, but there is a law against it in the military). Moral relativity throws these morals up in the air because they aren't absolute. Do you want to question these morals? The morals can be found in the 10 commandments which gives them authority as well as Hammurabi's Code. Why should we question them?

Now look at the concept of individual liberty. This is freedom of thought, and freedom of expression correct? This is an important humanist concept, in fact it is the very core of the idea of humanism.

How can you believe in an absolute morality, and still embrace the idea of individual freedom, when individual freedom is all about the freedom to BEHAVE as you see fit?

When I embrace the idea of individual freedom I can also believe and promote an absolute morality because my freedom allows me to do so. I am behaving as I see fit. There is no concept of absolute freedom, just look at all the laws we have today to protect us from each other. This tells me our gov't doesn't trust us, with good reason. If we all can't unite under some type of moral umbrella there will be chaos. Just look how kids treat their parents today? Look how people get married and then get divorced in 5 years because they couldn't get along (what a commitment!). Fathers believing they have no responsibility when they get their girlfriend pregnant. People pirating music and movies (stealing) off the internet without the slight remorse because they can get away with it. I could go on and on.

Do you think humanity is capable of behaving as they see fit without some type of boundaries? How will they know right from wrong if you tell them there really isn't any true absolute right and wrongs? What should we expect?

The only constraint on individual freedom is when it interferes with the freedom and liberty of OTHER individuals. That is not necessarily a moral stance, it is a rational extension of the idea of individual liberty.

The idea of individual freedom is a moral in itself, so it is absolutely a moral stance. Most of our laws are made because of morals like murder, rape, assault, larceny, fraud, etc. So I was wrong when I said or alluded to the notion that we shouldn't legislate morals, because we always have. When call all morals into question, you are also calling these essential morals into question as well. These are essential to public order, without them, there is no individual freedom.

So when we tell our kids there are no absolute morals, we are including murder, rape, fraud, etc. How are we not? Are we to say to them, "well there are some absolutes, but the rest are up for grabs." How do you determine which ones should be absolute and which ones shouldn't? There is no authority to do so.

I told you I am a biological determinist. I don't pick up a book, read a moral code and say ..oh yeah that is it. Instead I look at morality as it is expressed in the real world, and as societies use it, evolve it and CHANGE it over time, and then look at what FACTORS caused those changes, or created those moral standards of behavior.

Most people aren't biological determinists, especially the younger generation. If you tell them there are no absolute morals and they should develop them on their own, do you really believe their morals would even resemble yours? You said before in this thread that people are greedy by nature, how would this not reflect in their morals if there are no absolutes?

Our society is built on certain morals that have been around since the beginning of civilization, we've added to them and tweaked them, but we don't take away from them. Like I said before some morals have transcended almost every culture throughout history. Some morals such as homosexuality has had mixed results, but I don't think this moral is the fabric of our society. But when you call all morals into question by saying there are no absolutes, you call the ones into question that are the fabric of our society like murder, rape, assault, fraud, larceny, cheating, kidnapping, etc. Basically, our gov't is saying if we don't make laws (based on morals) against these things, the people will do them. What does that tell you about human nature?

The fact is, if you went back in time, you would recognize SOME moral standards, but not others, of early Christians. Slavery would appall you. Communism would not sit well with you. Burning Heretics at the stake would probably disgust you. Beating your wife would not seem moral to you. Paying for a dispensation to get in heaven would seem ludicrous.

Christians particpated in slavery because it was Roman law, they didn't necessarily endorse it. Why did Christians help abolish slavery in the UK and in the US? When I look back at history when countries abandon certain morals, like the communists abandoned the moral of individual freedom (within certain boundaries) and murder, countries have declined and their immorality and brutality have been shown for what they are. Burning heretics was wrong, people believing this was right were not living by Christian morals. Eventually, men like Martin Luther confronted this hypocrisy based on Sola Scriptura. Beating your wife is a Muslim moral, not a Christian one. I think you meant indulgences...once again they were wrong, they were commiting fraud which is one of the 10 commandments no to do (do not bear false witness). If these leaders actually lived by the morals of the Bible they wouldn't have done this.

There are SOME behaviors that seem to be common to most civilizations and cultures, but that would be because we are all human, and we all need to survive, and it is the same as saying there are some behaviors that are common to all primates...it is based in our biology as social animals.

This type of rhetoric is concerning because humans, like animals, will do anything to survive, including violating any moral. When you start filling their heads with this type of speech, they will start to interpret the world in terms of survival, then moral do not matter if someone threatens our survival. This is a type of philososphy that will lead us right into a nuclear war. I don't know of another primate that can articulate morals and use reason to make decisions at the level of humanity. This is why we don't live in the wild and we can develop belief and moral systems for survival. But these systems have to at least be objective, or at least be "social contracts". Moral relativity does not suffice because there is no objective law or anything close to an absolute law.

What you keep missing is how the concept of individual liberty matters to the discussion of moral absolutes. I do not think individual liberty is a "moral" standard, it is a cultural value however.

if you consider individual liberty to be a verb then it is definitely a moral. I guess it is more of a concept than anything. I would argue though that certain morals have to exist to ensure that the concept can survive. However, when people say no such absolutes exists, this threatens individual freedom. It is interesting that liberty gives you the right to believe anything you want and behave any way you want as long as you don't break the law, but this liberty threatens individual freedom.

When you are intolerant, or push your morals on others, it isn't morality you are violating, you are violating another person's liberty.

How? As long as I don't break the law I can say and do whatever I want. I can be an intolerant bigot if I like. I can cheat on my wife, steal her money if it is in my account, open a bank account in her name without her consent, and then divorce her and have nothing to do with the kids (I might have to pay child support if the court or my former wife makes me). Who are you to say I am wrong to do this? I can not only do this, but I can also promote it as my moral value system if I would like. This is what my wife's friend's husband did to her. How can we condemn him for this if there are no absolutes? We can't. However, if there are certain absolutes like: you shouldn't commit adultery, you shouldn't steal, you should be responsible for your children, then we can condemn him. We can't legislate every moral, nor should we, but we can speak up as a society and shout, "These things are wrong!" Instead, we are shouting, "There are no true right and wrongs!"

By you saying I am intolerant, well...then you are violating my liberty to do so...are you not?
I happen to think that it is one of the most important cultural values of the United States, and I think it is threatened by many things...moral absolutism is only one of them.

So you believe tolerance is an absolute or an objective moral for US citizens? How can you believe this and then believe there are no absolute or objective morals? You would be contradicting yourself.


I see morals like groceries...we can go to the grocery store and buy whatever we want because we have the liberty to do so. If we only buy junk food, there are nasty consequences to our body, but we still have the freedom to do so. There are certain foods, historically, that we know we need to be healthy like milk, vegetables, fruit, bread, fish, chicken, etc. Certain fad diets have come and gone threatening these essential foods like Adkins and the like. However, our aformentioned essential foods will always be necessary for a healthy diet (These would represent absolute morals). Then there are foods that are neither good or bad, but should be eaten in moderation like chicken salad(These would be morals relative to a culture), the chicken is good, but the mayonaise is not so good. Then there are foods that have little or no nutritional value that we love to eat (These would be violating the absolute morals), they are the antitheses to our essential foods to a healthy diet. But what happens when we eat them, we have negative consequences. Because of liberty we can buy and eat as much of the different categories as we want, but shouldn't we focus on the foods that are essential for a healthy diet? What would happen if we told our society that there are no such thing as essential foods, all foods are the same (moral relativity)? What foods do you think our society would choose to eat the most? They would eat the food that tastes the best of course since they are told all the foods are the same. What will happen when they realized they made a horrible mistake in believing this nonsense, we will see in the next 50 years!

[Zeluvia]

Wait, I never said it was a moral absolute or an objective moral.

I said it was a cultural value that I personally value highly. The road to developing this cultural value was long, and it was accepted over time, and the circumstances that led to it's development and acceptance can be traced in history.

It did not come full blown out of any holy book I know of.

See, you are putting this backwards. YOU value what YOU value, I value what I value, and where WE agree, those are the "morals" we both accept. Our society of two would have those "morals".

You seem to think that morals come from somewhere other than humans. They don't. We make them, we break them, we change them. It is a complex group interaction.

Sometimes cultures DO go down a "wrong" path in terms of survival.

But that is what we both are worried about. The survival of our speices, our country, our culture.

I am not so worried about the survival of our culture. It has it's bad points and good points. You are worried about abortion, and homosexuals, which do not concern me at all. I am worried about consumerism, and wage slavery, and the loss of compassion, and privacy, and individualism, and enviromental changes and the effects on population and wealth.

[Zeluvia]

Liberals say this all the time or something very similar. Maybe you have selective hearing or something because this is one of their trademark beliefs.

Tolerance is a by-prodcut of the respect for individual liberty and intolerance is a by-product of the respect for individual liberty. As long as I don't violate laws, I can be as intolerant as I want to be because of my individual liberty. Liberals like to say that absolute morals don't exist, but they believe in the absolute moral of tolerance.

LEGAL tolerance. Social Tolerance. You don't have to have ANYONE over to a BBQ you dont want. But as far as the legal system goes, it should treat people as equal individuals. That means no discrimination based on actions that DO NOT VIOLATE another person's liberty.



Yes, I believe some morals to transcend time and space, but they are only given because humans exist. If humans didn't exist, there would be no use of absolute morality.

So in this vast universe, we are the only purpose of it? If god created other speices on other planets, are they human? Do they have the same moral rules?

Which moral in particular do you transcends time and has been true for all of humans for all of existance? Now remember, you are talking about right vs wrong behavior.



Objective Morality just means it has been defined within our current culture. For example, the Incas could have objective morality that is different from our objective morality, but both cultures submitt that these morals are binding to the culture, thus there is no moral relativity within the culture. That is not the understanding of objective morality I got from the Apologetics forum.



What about murder, larceny, lying, adultery, respect for parents? These morals seem to transcend all cultures and can be found in the 10 commandments. I think that you forget that these are morals and almost all cultures have included them. What crucial morals of a society has changed over time besides slavery and women's rights? William Wilberforce, a strong Christian, help abolish slavery in England based on his morals gleaned from the NT. You have to remember that early Christians were under Roman law and influenced by their culture. Morals don't always determine gender roles and Roman morals determined Roman law, not Christian morals.

So, you are saying your 10 commandments aren't all that special, because the same morals are found in other cultures? There is not one word in the NT about freeing slaves, or larceny is there?
Defenders of slavery also used the bible.


How did we decide that these morals, at least the first 4, were wrong? Moral relativity suggests that there are no absolutes, so who decides what is right and wrong? If absolute morals don't exist then people can do what ever they want if they can get away with it. You assume that humans have good morals instinctively. I think you assume wrong. I'm sure you have good morals because you have been influenced by American values when you were growing up. Our future generations may not have that luxury, I think that it is very naive to think they will automatically be moral people without absolute or objective morals as their foundation.

It has been shown that children start to develop empathy very young. Most of them. They also learn their social cues, this is true. But those sacred morals of yours....have you looked at pack animal and primate behavior? They have ideas of "right" and "wrong". "Wrong" will get you expelled from the pack, and you die. Their children also learn right and wrong from them.

Is it wrong to attack strangers? Is it wrong to defend your territory when it is necessary for the survival of your young? Is it wrong to steal from the pack leader, whose life and leadership are necessary for the survival of everyone? Is it wrong to change that leader when the leadership no longer promotes the survival of the social group?
Is it wrong to kill the offspring of another male, so that yours will live?



Society has decided what is best over time on certain morals like: murder, adultery, lying, and stealing, obeying your parents. These 4 morals encompass a majority of our current laws (excluding adultery, but there is a law against it in the military). Moral relativity throws these morals up in the air because they aren't absolute. Do you want to question these morals? The morals can be found in the 10 commandments which gives them authority as well as Hammurabi's Code. Why should we question them?
Who is questioning murder, or stealing? Adultery is outdated, we have DNA testing now to determine if that child is yours or another males, and the moral was more about the "possesion" of women and the guarantee of pure blood offspring.
Lying is and always has been a situational moral. Stealing is also situatlonal and always has been. Abraham lied to the Pharoh. The Jews stole the land from the Caananites. Jesus did NOT obey his parents.




When I embrace the idea of individual freedom I can also believe and promote an absolute morality because my freedom allows me to do so. I am behaving as I see fit. There is no concept of absolute freedom, just look at all the laws we have today to protect us from each other. This tells me our gov't doesn't trust us, with good reason. If we all can't unite under some type of moral umbrella there will be chaos. Just look how kids treat their parents today? Look how people get married and then get divorced in 5 years because they couldn't get along (what a commitment!). Fathers believing they have no responsibility when they get their girlfriend pregnant. People pirating music and movies (stealing) off the internet without the slight remorse because they can get away with it. I could go on and on.

I am not saying you can't = ). You seem to think however YOUR ideas are better somehow than liberals because you have this moral stance.
It is US that should not trust the government, because the government is merely people. When in the History of the US have we all been united under a moral umbrella? What do you want to do to REALLY fix this? Teach everyone if they don't behave they will burn in hell for eternity? Has this threat kept people in line throughout history?

Why fear Chaos? Do you or do you NOT have faith in god?



Do you think humanity is capable of behaving as they see fit without some type of boundaries? How will they know right from wrong if you tell them there really isn't any true absolute right and wrongs? What should we expect?
Exactly what we have, a long continuous conversation about how we are all going to get along, that will change as our societies change.
I have asked you before, how do you set these boundaries? Who enforces them? As long as they are set and enforced by people, that is what you are going to get.



The idea of individual freedom is a moral in itself, so it is absolutely a moral stance. Most of our laws are made because of morals like murder, rape, assault, larceny, fraud, etc. So I was wrong when I said or alluded to the notion that we shouldn't legislate morals, because we always have. When call all morals into question, you are also calling these essential morals into question as well. These are essential to public order, without them, there is no individual freedom.


See, i think we have a language confusion here. We do legislate behavior, or the boundaries of it, but the CORE value underlying the legislation I do not consider a "moral" the same way as I consider "do not murder". For example, the golden rule is a guideline or value statement "do not do unto others as you would not do unto them" but it encompasses a whole lot of individual behaviors doesn't it?



So when we tell our kids there are no absolute morals, we are including murder, rape, fraud, etc. How are we not? Are we to say to them, "well there are some absolutes, but the rest are up for grabs." How do you determine which ones should be absolute and which ones shouldn't? There is no authority to do so.

There has never been any authority has there? Has anyone ever come back from the dead (other than "gods") and told us exaclty how to behave to get everlasting life? Even Christianity empathizes GRACE over WORKS. No matter how you behave in this life, you can still be "saved" right?


Most people aren't biological determinists, especially the younger generation. If you tell them there are no absolute morals and they should develop them on their own, do you really believe their morals would even resemble yours? You said before in this thread that people are greedy by nature, how would this not reflect in their morals if there are no absolutes?

Why are you so scared of the kids? They are just being kids. And our "greed" is already reflected in our morals and our laws.


Our society is built on certain morals that have been around since the beginning of civilization, we've added to them and tweaked them, but we don't take away from them. Like I said before some morals have transcended almost every culture throughout history. Some morals such as homosexuality has had mixed results, but I don't think this moral is the fabric of our society. But when you call all morals into question by saying there are no absolutes, you call the ones into question that are the fabric of our society like murder, rape, assault, fraud, larceny, cheating, kidnapping, etc. Basically, our gov't is saying if we don't make laws (based on morals) against these things, the people will do them. What does that tell you about human nature?


No, the government IS the people. The people are saying these things should be illegal, and most of us agree. What does that tell you about human nature?


The fact is, if you went back in time, you would recognize SOME moral standards, but not others, of early Christians. Slavery would appall you. Communism would not sit well with you. Burning Heretics at the stake would probably disgust you. Beating your wife would not seem moral to you. Paying for a dispensation to get in heaven would seem ludicrous.

Christians particpated in slavery because it was Roman law, they didn't necessarily endorse it. Why did Christians help abolish slavery in the UK and in the US? When I look back at history when countries abandon certain morals, like the communists abandoned the moral of individual freedom (within certain boundaries) and murder, countries have declined and their immorality and brutality have been shown for what they are. Burning heretics was wrong, people believing this was right were not living by Christian morals. Eventually, men like Martin Luther confronted this hypocrisy based on Sola Scriptura. Beating your wife is a Muslim moral, not a Christian one. I think you meant indulgences...once again they were wrong, they were commiting fraud which is one of the 10 commandments no to do (do not bear false witness). If these leaders actually lived by the morals of the Bible they wouldn't have done this.

Jewish law allowed for slavery too. I think the Christians you think were wrong to burn heretics would have burned YOU for saying they were wrong, since they had a lock on absolute morality in their day and age.
So, how can you be so sure what you think constitues absolute morality TODAY won't be just as barbaric to future Christians?



This type of rhetoric is concerning because humans, like animals, will do anything to survive, including violating any moral. When you start filling their heads with this type of speech, they will start to interpret the world in terms of survival, then moral do not matter if someone threatens our survival. This is a type of philososphy that will lead us right into a nuclear war. I don't know of another primate that can articulate morals and use reason to make decisions at the level of humanity. This is why we don't live in the wild and we can develop belief and moral systems for survival. But these systems have to at least be objective, or at least be "social contracts". Moral relativity does not suffice because there is no objective law or anything close to an absolute law.

We started developing these systems IN the wild, because one human can not survive alone. Someone has to be trusted to stay up all night and watch for leopards while everyone else sleeps. Someone has to take care of the young, because it takes about 10 years before they can reliably fend for themselves. Yes, humans will do anything to survive, would you rather they didn't? What moral code would you not break when it was YOUR survival on the line? Or is your faith in the afterlife strong enough that you would not kill to protect yourself?



if you consider individual liberty to be a verb then it is definitely a moral. I guess it is more of a concept than anything. I would argue though that certain morals have to exist to ensure that the concept can survive. However, when people say no such absolutes exists, this threatens individual freedom. It is interesting that liberty gives you the right to believe anything you want and behave any way you want as long as you don't break the law, but this liberty threatens individual freedom.

I don't see how it does. My freedom and rights are dictated by my government, which is made up of people just like me. Which is how we started this. If I were homosexual, would I vote for people that wanted to limit my participation in the society? If I were poor, would I vote for people that would make it harder for my children to suceed? If I am not Christian, would I vote for people that want to promote teaching superstition instead of science, when our future may depend on well educated people that understand science?





How? As long as I don't break the law I can say and do whatever I want. I can be an intolerant bigot if I like. I can cheat on my wife, steal her money if it is in my account, open a bank account in her name without her consent, and then divorce her and have nothing to do with the kids (I might have to pay child support if the court or my former wife makes me). Who are you to say I am wrong to do this? I can not only do this, but I can also promote it as my moral value system if I would like. This is what my wife's friend's husband did to her. How can we condemn him for this if there are no absolutes? We can't. However, if there are certain absolutes like: you shouldn't commit adultery, you shouldn't steal, you should be responsible for your children, then we can condemn him. We can't legislate every moral, nor should we, but we can speak up as a society and shout, "These things are wrong!" Instead, we are shouting, "There are no true right and wrongs!"


Well that is a good point, if that is what we are shouting. But I don't hear liberals shouting that. What I hear is people saying is that there is no right and wrong other than what WE decide it is.

And be realistic, these "moral" discussions in the US are about TWO issues, homosexual marriage, and abortion.

Neither of which I happen to consider wrong. But you do, and you say they are wrong because of your "Christian" belief. Christians say these are morals with authority from god we should be following, because they are from god.

There is no right and wrong from god. There is only what WE as a society decide is right and wrong.

[Objectitron]

So in this vast universe, we are the only purpose of it? If god created other speices on other planets, are they human? Do they have the same moral rules?

What evidence do we really have that here are other species on other planets? Roswell? There is no solid evidence, so we must proceed that there isn't.

Which moral in particular do you transcends time and has been true for all of humans for all of existance? Now remember, you are talking about right vs wrong behavior.

Not murdering, raping, stealing, lying, to name a few



So, you are saying your 10 commandments aren't all that special, because the same morals are found in other cultures? There is not one word in the NT about freeing slaves, or larceny is there?

No, I'm saying other cultures had similar moral codes.

Have you ever read Paul's letter to Philemon? Paul is pleaing to Philemon that Onesimus to be released into Christian service with Paul from slavery because he has become a Christian. Slavery was part of Roman law, it would be against the law to force Philemon to release Onesimus. Also, as many as one-third of the population of the Roman Empire were enslaved at some point. This was not the same as modern slavery.

The NT is not a list of moral codes...there are ethics and morals taught in it, but it is not intended to lay down every law. Christians, as well as Jews and Greeks believed larceny was wrong...this moral was already a part of their culture...they didn't need to be taught it.


Defenders of slavery also used the bible.

You can make the Bible say whatever you want it when you take things out of context and interpret it wrongly. They were wrong!



Who is questioning murder, or stealing? Adultery is outdated, we have DNA testing now to determine if that child is yours or another males, and the moral was more about the "possesion" of women and the guarantee of pure blood offspring.
Lying is and always has been a situational moral. Stealing is also situatlonal and always has been. Abraham lied to the Pharoh. The Jews stole the land from the Caananites. Jesus did NOT obey his parents.


Moral relativists are questioning everything, that is what moral relativism is all about. There are no absolutes. This would include all morals like murder, stealing, rape, etc.

Adultery is outdated? Why don't you talk to the men and women whose marriage has been ruined because of adultery, ask them if it is outdated.

So, you think stealing is ok? Did God tell Abrahman to lie to Pharaoh? I think you are confused to think that if something happened in the Bible, then it is what God intended. The Bible is almost 85% narrative, most of the time it is recording what was going on. I don't think God was too happy with David when he committed adultery with Bathsheeba and then sent her husband to the front lines to be killed. According to God, that land was theirs, they were just reclaiming it. The story about Jesus is an illustration that he was wise even as a youth, to suggest he didn't obey his parents is fallacious.


I am not saying you can't = ). You seem to think however YOUR ideas are better somehow than liberals because you have this moral stance.

A do believe this. At least I stand for something and my feet aren't planted in mid air.


It is US that should not trust the government, because the government is merely people. When in the History of the US have we all been united under a moral umbrella?

This is kind of a circular argument...basically we don't trust ourselves because we have created so many laws.

What do you want to do to REALLY fix this? Teach everyone if they don't behave they will burn in hell for eternity? Has this threat kept people in line throughout history?

Why do you see Christianity as such a negative thing? Do you think I am a Christian because of fear? I am a Christian because my God has paid the ultimate sacrifice for me: His life. How else could anyone show more love than dying for me when they did nothing wrong. I don't get eternity with God by what I do or not do. Salvation comes through faith that Jesus died for my sins. When I accept this I also accept His spirit inside me. Based on this relationship with God I strive to live by certain morals and principles. How is promoting these morals so wrong?


Why fear Chaos?

Why would I want to live in chaos? Who would?


I have asked you before, how do you set these boundaries? Who enforces them? As long as they are set and enforced by people, that is what you are going to get.

Our society has set these boundaries through laws and other means, and they are enforced by the gov't and the community. However, these boundaries have a long track record and at some point were developed. They didn't just show up as American laws. I agree that people are going to set these boundaries, but when these people start saying there are no absolutes, it brings every single law into question.




See, i think we have a language confusion here. We do legislate behavior, or the boundaries of it, but the CORE value underlying the legislation I do not consider a "moral" the same way as I consider "do not murder". For example, the golden rule is a guideline or value statement "do not do unto others as you would not do unto them" but it encompasses a whole lot of individual behaviors doesn't it?

The golden rule is not a law in the US, it is a moral to which our society used to hold to dearly. But when you say there are not absolute right and wrong, the golden rule can be questioned.



Why are you so scared of the kids? They are just being kids. And our "greed" is already reflected in our morals and our laws.

You must have no clue what are kids are up to these days do you?



Jewish law allowed for slavery too. I think the Christians you think were wrong to burn heretics would have burned YOU for saying they were wrong, since they had a lock on absolute morality in their day and age.

Where in the OT was slavery promoted? They probably would have...what happened when the common person started reading the Bible? They realized the Church had been corrupt and thus the Reformation. If they actually read and interpreted the Bible correctly they would have come to some different conclusions. This is a perfect example of what human nature does when it gets to make up its own rules and morals from nothing.


So, how can you be so sure what you think constitues absolute morality TODAY won't be just as barbaric to future Christians?

I have the Bible for one...I don't think legislating against rape, murder, theft, and fraud is going anywhere...well it might if we all become moral relativists!
If I am not Christian, would I vote for people that want to promote teaching superstition instead of science, when our future may depend on well educated people that understand science?

I'm a Christian and I don't think creationism should be taught as science, but I would like our kids to at least have some type of exposure to morals and values within the education system.

Well that is a good point, if that is what we are shouting. But I don't hear liberals shouting that. What I hear is people saying is that there is no right and wrong other than what WE decide it is.

You might want to listen because they are screaming it loud and clear. Have you ever heard Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer speak?

How do we decide what is right and wrong?

And be realistic, these "moral" discussions in the US are about TWO issues, homosexual marriage, and abortion.

No, the language is loud and clear...there are no ABSOLUTES!

If you say there are no absolutes about homosexuality and abortion, what is your reasoning?
Who is to stop you from thinking there are no absolutes about murder and rape?

What if I am a Muslim and believe women who are raped should be killed because they bring dishonor to my family. Who is to say I am wrong? What if I convince others to believe the same thing and they begin to represent a strong minority within the US. Then over a period of 25 years they are having children at a rate of 5 to 1 over other communities and they are now close to a majority. Who is to stop them from electing representatitves who want to change some laws where the Muslim court has jurisdiction in some communities. Moral relativity can't condemn this because there are no absolutes. According to your philosophy the people determine morals...this is what they would be doing, right?

But what if from the beginning the majority spoke out against these beliefs with a loud voice and said this type of behavior should never be accepted in any society and we will never let you subject us to this madness. thus, we have the power to legislate against them now, before it becomes a problem later. But no, for liberals this is intolerance. Why don't you look at what is going on in England right now. It could become a reality in the US if we don't speak out against it now. The liberals never speak out against anything unless it is against a conservative value or has something to do with Christianity

Neither of which I happen to consider wrong. But you do, and you say they are wrong because of your "Christian" belief. Christians say these are morals with authority from god we should be following, because they are from god.

Exactly, we should follow them because they were given by God. I have good reason to believe this.

There is no right and wrong from god. There is only what WE as a society decide is right and wrong.

Well...we'll see how well we do without God's guidance.

[Zeluvia]

What evidence do we really have that here are other species on other planets? Roswell? There is no solid evidence, so we must proceed that there isn't.

No evidence, just why create such a vast universe for only one species? But you didn't answer my question....do you think God created other humans or other species elsewhere, and would they have the SAME morals?



Not murdering, raping, stealing, lying, to name a few

None of these are true for all time. They are true ONLY within the GROUP. I borrowed this from Historic Salve from a thread in Tektonics to illustrate my point.


Honorable people aren't obliged to treat outgroup members with the same respect they treat ingroup members. You don't know anything about "honor," just like every other arrogant atheist.

When different groups of humans meet, all these moral rules do not apply between the groups, or at least have not historically.

Personally, I think we should NOT be murdering, or raping, as that is a violation of someone else's person. Lying and stealing are not so black and white to me. I would support you in any legislation that makes murdering and raping subject to social censure. So would any other liberal.

Now what is your stance on selling weapons to people that are designed to kill people? Does that cause you any moral issues?



No, I'm saying other cultures had similar moral codes.

I agree with you, they do. But that makes my point doesn't it? Some of these "morals" seem to be inherent or instinctive when we create societies.


Have you ever read Paul's letter to Philemon? Paul is pleaing to Philemon that Onesimus to be released into Christian service with Paul from slavery because he has become a Christian. Slavery was part of Roman law, it would be against the law to force Philemon to release Onesimus. Also, as many as one-third of the population of the Roman Empire were enslaved at some point. This was not the same as modern slavery.

I am not sure what you are calling modern slavery. However Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of rules about slaves, both Jewish and non-Jewish slaves. Slavery was a cultural NORM for many cultures, and a crucial part of the economic development of many civilizations.
If we could not have achieved civilization without some form of slavery, is it still wrong?


The NT is not a list of moral codes...there are ethics and morals taught in it, but it is not intended to lay down every law. Christians, as well as Jews and Greeks believed larceny was wrong...this moral was already a part of their culture...they didn't need to be taught it.

I agree with you, the NT is not a list of moral codes. But you are the one that says you stand for a set of morals "with authority". I assume you meant the authority of the Bible. Did you not?



You can make the Bible say whatever you want it when you take things out of context and interpret it wrongly. They were wrong!

A good reason not to base moral codes on the Bible !!!


Moral relativists are questioning everything, that is what moral relativism is all about. There are no absolutes. This would include all morals like murder, stealing, rape, etc.

And my point is that there have NEVER been absolutes, but we have all agreed that murder is wrong, for a very long time, in most circumstances. But even here, in the US, we recognize "justifiable homocide" ie a murder with extenuating circumstances that make it the "right" thing to do at the time.


Adultery is outdated? Why don't you talk to the men and women whose marriage has been ruined because of adultery, ask them if it is outdated.

Their marriages were not ruined by "adultery" they were ruined by other people not doing what they were expected to do. There are alot of ways to ruin a marriage. I stand by my analysis of the sin of adultery as described in the Bible being related to the idea of possession of women and making sure of the hereditary lineage of the offspring.
Remember, in the ANE, people believed that the women had no contribution to the infant other than a place to grow it, and it was solely created by the man's "seed".


So, you think stealing is ok? Did God tell Abrahman to lie to Pharaoh? I think you are confused to think that if something happened in the Bible, then it is what God intended. The Bible is almost 85% narrative, most of the time it is recording what was going on. I don't think God was too happy with David when he committed adultery with Bathsheeba and then sent her husband to the front lines to be killed. According to God, that land was theirs, they were just reclaiming it. The story about Jesus is an illustration that he was wise even as a youth, to suggest he didn't obey his parents is fallacious.

But you are saying these morals are absolute with an authority.

WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY !!!???? I have been asking you that for several threads now.


A do believe this. At least I stand for something and my feet aren't planted in mid air.

And I say your feet are planted on the shoulders of everyone who lived and died to get us where we are now. And I don't think your feet are planted as firmly as you think they are = )


This is kind of a circular argument...basically we don't trust ourselves because we have created so many laws.



Why do you see Christianity as such a negative thing? Do you think I am a Christian because of fear? I am a Christian because my God has paid the ultimate sacrifice for me: His life. How else could anyone show more love than dying for me when they did nothing wrong. I don't get eternity with God by what I do or not do. Salvation comes through faith that Jesus died for my sins. When I accept this I also accept His spirit inside me. Based on this relationship with God I strive to live by certain morals and principles. How is promoting these morals so wrong?

I think alot of your position seems to be based on fear. Fear of the future, fear of others, fear of change. But see, I do not understand the entire Christian mindset anymore. I was a Christian back years ago, for a brief time.

Why would you promote these morals to people that do not have the same relationship with God you do? Does that make any sense?

Would you even expect people who did not have this relationship to behave as you do? Why?

If how you behave has no repercussions, where is the authority in the morals?

If you do have this relationship with god, and are assured of everlasting life, why does what happens in THIS world matter to you at all?

If god is a loving god, and loves all his creation, then isn't everything that happens, both good and bad, happening for a reason, because god intended it, and so why is it necessary for YOU to make a stand?



Why would I want to live in chaos? Who would?

Good question, and yet humans in general have a strange interest in the ultimate freedom of chaos. We are fascinated with the idea.
However, I don't think total Chaos is possible, because when you get two humans together, we start making a society = )


Our society has set these boundaries through laws and other means, and they are enforced by the gov't and the community. However, these boundaries have a long track record and at some point were developed. They didn't just show up as American laws. I agree that people are going to set these boundaries, but when these people start saying there are no absolutes, it brings every single law into question.


It only questions those that claim their are absolute laws with some mysterious absolute authority THAT ARE ABOVE QUESTIONING.
Just because you QUESTION something doesn't mean you don't accept that it is good and rational after questioning it.

There is a law in San Antonio against tying your alligator to a fire hydrant. I question the necessity of this law now.


The golden rule is not a law in the US, it is a moral to which our society used to hold to dearly. But when you say there are not absolute right and wrong, the golden rule can be questioned.

And we can question it, and say, okay, it looks reasonable and rational, lets keep it.


You must have no clue what are kids are up to these days do you?

I work with kids, I play games on line with kids. I watch the news.
Seems they are doing what kids have always done.


Where in the OT was slavery promoted? They probably would have...what happened when the common person started reading the Bible? They realized the Church had been corrupt and thus the Reformation. If they actually read and interpreted the Bible correctly they would have come to some different conclusions. This is a perfect example of what human nature does when it gets to make up its own rules and morals from nothing.

The Bible is so ambigious that it was interpreted incorrectly for 1000 years? And you have already said you can MAKE it say whatever you want. So how do you know when you have it RIGHT?


I have the Bible for one...I don't think legislating against rape, murder, theft, and fraud is going anywhere...well it might if we all become moral relativists!

It won't, because these laws make rational sense. And it was the rise of education, reading, and rational thinking that changed the way the Bible was interpreted. What is the difference between using a phrase in the bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" to kill witches, and "A man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" to persecute homosexuals?


I'm a Christian and I don't think creationism should be taught as science, but I would like our kids to at least have some type of exposure to morals and values within the education system.


There is, it just doesn't come with the Bible. The education system just by being a social enviroment teaches kids how to interact with each other. And kids learn from their ENTIRE enviroment, which includes television, which probably has a larger effect than schools.


You might want to listen because they are screaming it loud and clear. Have you ever heard Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer speak?

How do we decide what is right and wrong?

The same way we always have. We just don't need to ascribe it to some mysterious authority, and we can change it without anyone having to get burned at the stake because someone misinterpreted some 2,000 year old book.




No, the language is loud and clear...there are no ABSOLUTES!

If you say there are no absolutes about homosexuality and abortion, what is your reasoning?
Who is to stop you from thinking there are no absolutes about murder and rape?

What if I am a Muslim and believe women who are raped should be killed because they bring dishonor to my family. Who is to say I am wrong? What if I convince others to believe the same thing and they begin to represent a strong minority within the US. Then over a period of 25 years they are having children at a rate of 5 to 1 over other communities and they are now close to a majority. Who is to stop them from electing representatitves who want to change some laws where the Muslim court has jurisdiction in some communities. Moral relativity can't condemn this because there are no absolutes. According to your philosophy the people determine morals...this is what they would be doing, right?

Yep, and it could happen. I for one would fight this, because of my stated value in individual liberty, and the equality of women. We could lose, we could get burned at the stake, and the world would be in a kind of dark age for women for awhile. Would it stay that way forever?
Or would the human spirit eventually change the dynamic again?

But even if you scream this is absolute !! what stops this from happening, if no one but you thinks it is an absolute?



But what if from the beginning the majority spoke out against these beliefs with a loud voice and said this type of behavior should never be accepted in any society and we will never let you subject us to this madness. thus, we have the power to legislate against them now, before it becomes a problem later. But no, for liberals this is intolerance. Why don't you look at what is going on in England right now. It could become a reality in the US if we don't speak out against it now. The liberals never speak out against anything unless it is against a conservative value or has something to do with Christianity


Well, I for one would speak out against this. I abhor Islam and it's treatment of women. I think it shares many things in common with Christianity, in that it gets it's ideas from the MIS interpretation of an old book. I think you don't realize that Liberals are not atheists, and atheists speak out against all religious silliness.

But do you realize how many things YOU have in common with Islamic fundamentalists?


Exactly, we should follow them because they were given by God. I have good reason to believe this.

So does that Islamic fundamentalist over there. I won't give him any rope, so I am not giving you any either = p. You are both IMO being irrational. I would rather look at how what you believe affects society, and then judge if your moral stance is "good" or "bad" by MY morals.
Then I will either agree with you, or not = )



Well...we'll see how well we do without God's guidance.

We have done fine so far, some ups and downs, but there are ALOT of us = )

[Zeluvia]

BTW, while you have your Bible out...

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=777

check out what this thread says, verses what is actually written in the Bible...

Is this aritcle accurate?

= )

[Objectitron]

No evidence, just why create such a vast universe for only one species? But you didn't answer my question....do you think God created other humans or other species elsewhere, and would they have the SAME morals?

I really have no idea...the universe is so vast that one could postulate that there would have to be other species in other galaxies, and maybe there are. I would speculate that God would demand the same morals from other species, but how they receive and develop these morals could be totally different. But in the end...nobody really knows, we can only speculate.


None of these are true for all time. They are true ONLY within the GROUP. I borrowed this from Historic Salve from a thread in Tektonics to illustrate my point.

I think these morals are true for all time whether cultures adhered to them or not, including the Hebrews before they were given a moral law code.

Personally, I think we should NOT be murdering, or raping, as that is a violation of someone else's person. Lying and stealing are not so black and white to me. I would support you in any legislation that makes murdering and raping subject to social censure. So would any other liberal.

I would say that 99.9% of all people, including liberals and conservatives, would agree that murder and rape are wrong. The percentage is probably not as high for stealing, cheating, and lying. Moral relativism is a "relatively" new concept. What really concerns me is the language people use who are moral relativists. They are saying there are no absolutes while assuming everyone believes things like murder and rape are wrong. This is a total contradiction to believing there are no absolutes. Future generations will pick up on this language and be able to justify that no moral is absolute, while assuming all morals, including murder and rape, are not absolute. They will believe what the liberals are saying about moral relativity, but they will different assumptions.

Now what is your stance on selling weapons to people that are designed to kill people? Does that cause you any moral issues?

We have relatively strict laws about selling these weapons, but the 2nd Ammendment is hard to get around. It doesn't really cause me any moral issues at the present time because what are the alternatives? If we stop selling these type of weapons and repossesed the ones we have already sold, guess who would hold all the weapons? Criminals and gang bangers...I don't think this would be a good idea. Regulating weapons sales, especially automatics, is a good idea, but we have to accept the fact that guns are here to stay...especially since we have the right to bear arms.


I agree with you, they do. But that makes my point doesn't it? Some of these "morals" seem to be inherent or instinctive when we create societies.

Some are and some aren't...but what sets these morals apart is that they were given by God.

I am not sure what you are calling modern slavery. However Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of rules about slaves, both Jewish and non-Jewish slaves. Slavery was a cultural NORM for many cultures, and a crucial part of the economic development of many civilizations.
If we could not have achieved civilization without some form of slavery, is it still wrong?

Modern slavery is very different from slavery in the first century...like I said before a lot of people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. I understand that slavery occured in almost all ancient civilizations. The Bible is pretty neutral about it being an absolute moral or not. You have the Hebrews and Christians owning slaves, you have regulation on how to treat slaves on the one hand. Then you have God leading the Hebrews out of slavery and punishing Pharaoh for keeping them in slavery, as well as Paul's letter to Philemon appealing for his slave's release because the slave was now a Christian. Slavery is never promoted. So, I think you could make a reasonable case that God leaves this up to humans to decide within specific cultures. All I can say is there is something in side me that tells me slavery is wrong and should be condemned.

I don't we had to have slavery to achieve civilization. If an asteroid hit earth and wiped out almost all the world's population and we had to recreate civilization without technology, I don't think we would have to have slavery to achieve it.

I agree with you, the NT is not a list of moral codes. But you are the one that says you stand for a set of morals "with authority". I assume you meant the authority of the Bible. Did you not?

I did...there are many morals in the NT, especially in Jesus' sermon on the mount that have authority. We have to be careful to interpret these morals correctly. All throughout Paul's letters there are morals given for the Christian life. When is the last time you read one of his letters?



A good reason not to base moral codes on the Bible !!!

I was saying that you can make the Bible say anything you want when you interpret things incorrectly, much in the same way we take polticians words out of context all the time. We have to remember the authors were writing to a specific audience at a specific time. I don't really see how you could misinterpret the giving of the 10 Commandments, it is pretty straightforward and is given 3 times!



And my point is that there have NEVER been absolutes, but we have all agreed that murder is wrong, for a very long time, in most circumstances. But even here, in the US, we recognize "justifiable homocide" ie a murder with extenuating circumstances that make it the "right" thing to do at the time.

That is not the same thing as murder...we have self-defense and insanity, but the courts don't consider revenge to be justifiable. Self-defense is not considered murder, nor was it considered murder in the 10 Commandments. A revenge killing was also not considered Murder to the Hebrew people. Remember, the Hebrews believed an eye for an eye. To them, revenge was justifiable and not considered murder and thus, not a violation of the commandment. Our courts do not agree, rightly so, because we wouldn't have public order and it is not part of our current culture. However, morally (like in A Time To Kill), I could understand how someone could murder out of revenge. I think we are all capable of that. But if we do, we have to accept the consequences. The Commandment is pointing to intentionally taking another person's life, excluding revenge and self-defense. The revenge could sometimes be a payment of some sort instead of someone's death.



Their marriages were not ruined by "adultery" they were ruined by other people not doing what they were expected to do. There are alot of ways to ruin a marriage. I stand by my analysis of the sin of adultery as described in the Bible being related to the idea of possession of women and making sure of the hereditary lineage of the offspring.
Remember, in the ANE, people believed that the women had no contribution to the infant other than a place to grow it, and it was solely created by the man's "seed".

From a Christian perspective, the possession aspect is thrown out when Jesus says you commit adultery when you look at a woman another than your wife with lust. I don't really think that men can live up to those standards all the time, but Jesus is illustrating how precious marriage was. Notice how he is directing these comments only to men. Paul says that a deacon or an elder should only have 1 wife, showing how important a marriage is between one man and one woman only. In Genesis, Adam and Eve become one flesh. Polygamy is never incouraged in the Bible, it seems that when people like Abraham and David had many wives they encountered a lot of problems because of it.



But you are saying these morals are absolute with an authority.

WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY !!!???? I have been asking you that for several threads now.

My authority is rooted in what God (including Jesus) said, as recorded in the Bible, and what the devout followers had to say on certain matters. These moral were confirmed by our founding fathers. Certain morals were added by our founding fathers like liberty in gov't, but they did not contradict the absolute morals in the Bible; meaning they did not legislate or possess morals that prevented anyone from living out Biblical morals, but they certainly believed in these morals.

What is your authority?


And I say your feet are planted on the shoulders of everyone who lived and died to get us where we are now. And I don't think your feet are planted as firmly as you think they are = )

I agree to a certain extent with your first sentence, but I would also add the first shoulders were planted on God's, thus that is the foundation. I feet are well-planted, I have some wiggle room with my own conscience, but my morals are pretty much set in stone.


I think alot of your position seems to be based on fear. Fear of the future, fear of others, fear of change. But see, I do not understand the entire Christian mindset anymore. I was a Christian back years ago, for a brief time.

What am I afraid of? I'm concerned, not affraid...I just happen to think our nation is going about morals the wrong way. I don't think you ever understood the Christian mindset. Why wouldn't we want the best future possible?

Why would you promote these morals to people that do not have the same relationship with God you do? Does that make any sense?

It makes perfect sense because I believe them to be right. You don't have to be a Christian to have Christian morals. I can believe homosexuality is wrong and not be a Christian. I don't agree with them, but many (not all) liberal Christians, who I do believe are Christians, believe that homosexuality is ok. I believe God (as well as Jesus) gave certain morals and our founders believed in these morals, my Mom believes in these morals, why shouldn't I? Why wouldn't I promote them?

Would you even expect people who did not have this relationship to behave as you do? Why?

I don't expect them to, but I think they are absolutes, so I think they should.

If how you behave has no repercussions, where is the authority in the morals?

Our behavior has many repercussions, what are you talking about?

If you do have this relationship with god, and are assured of everlasting life, why does what happens in THIS world matter to you at all?

Why on earth are we here then? I'm not one of those Christians who thinks we are just here as a test to go to heaven. God created us for specific purposes and to enjoy life and one another. He has set boundaries so we can enjoy life here and not suffer consequences of wrong choices. Name one Christian moral which you personally consider to be a negative or a hindrance to your enjoyment as a human being?

If god is a loving god, and loves all his creation, then isn't everything that happens, both good and bad, happening for a reason, because god intended it, and so why is it necessary for YOU to make a stand?

Absolutely not...what makes life so great and so bad is something called free will. Because God loves us he does not force us to love Him back. We are not a bunch of robots...we are very creative and intelligent beings. It is necessary to take a stand because not all choices are good.



It only questions those that claim their are absolute laws with some mysterious absolute authority THAT ARE ABOVE QUESTIONING.
Just because you QUESTION something doesn't mean you don't accept that it is good and rational after questioning it.

The problems are: Why are you questioning it? How are you questioning it? And how are you determining if it is good or not?

I love questioning things, I think this is how we learn. But, when we start to question morals, most liberals throw out the Bible as a credible source in which to judge. They also question morals that only a small minority of people are questioning when the majority of people believe something else. One cannot say Biblical morals are not part of our society or the history of our great nation. It is not fair to just toss them out because some or many feel there are no absolutes. This is exactly what we are doing.


There is a law in San Antonio against tying your alligator to a fire hydrant. I question the necessity of this law now.

I'm glad you can use common sense



And we can question it, and say, okay, it looks reasonable and rational, lets keep it.

How do you gauge if its reasonable and rational, what is you authority? What if you can't get a consensus?

I work with kids, I play games on line with kids. I watch the news.
Seems they are doing what kids have always done.

What age? Every night on the news where I live starts out with a rape, murder, assault, or kidnapping usually involving ages from 13-25. I don't remember kids always being involved in gang warfare to today's extent, being hooked on drugs and alchohol to the point it has become the norm, getting pregnant in mass quantities before the age of 16, commiting suicide at alarming rates, being out-tested in math and science by over two dozen countries, and so on. If this is what kids have always done in our country, how did we achieve status as a hegemon? I think we should be very concerned with our future generations. They have selective hearing, but they are listening when we are telling them there are no absolutes!



The Bible is so ambigious that it was interpreted incorrectly for 1000 years? And you have already said you can MAKE it say whatever you want. So how do you know when you have it RIGHT?

There are certain right ways to interpret the Bible and certain wrong ones. You have to attempt first to understand what the author is trying to say, not what you want him to say. It is important to know the historical setting as well as the audience of the author well before you should apply anything to your life or to modern times. You need to undestand the form and genre, are they using hyperbole or allegory, or are they meaning something very literal. There are certainly gray areas, but there are also things that are black and white. You also have to look at how other people interpreted things, and how were they interpreting things. It is a whole science (hermeneutics) in itself. We have to do this in order to understand the Bible. It can be hard, but it would be ridiculous to just throw your hands up and say, "well, this is just to hard to understand, everyone is questioning it and pointing out apparent contradictions, let's just give up." No, instead lets figure out what God is doing and what the authors are trying to say.

The Bible covers over 1400 years and has 66 books filled with different types of literature. The information is so vast and covers so many different topics I could pull things out of context to make certain points, when the author never intended to make that point. That is why I say you can "theoretically" make the Bible say anything you want.

The Bible really isn't that ambiguous, it just seems that way. Wants you dissect certain verses and chapters and look at the background and history of the time, many times it is quite clear what is going on.



I'll deal with the rest of your questions a little later.

[Zeluvia]

I will wait, because I posted a different view on the 10 commandments I really want you to review.

Morally, we probably agree on alot of things, our difference is that I accept my MORALS were created by people, and by culture. If Jesus did exist, he was a human, not a god. No different than the intelligent and wise teachings of many men, from Confuscious to Emerson and Gibran.

The beauty of accepting that our morals are OURS and have no authority, is that we can USE common sense when we question them. We don't have to go about keeping the milk and the meat seperate anymore, because we understand the biology of disease.

Sure, the collection of books of the bible represent wisdom. Ecclesiastes is a very deep philosophical treatise. But this is not inspired wisdom, nor authoritative wisdom, and it is not even CLEAR wisdom.

This trend to try to recreate the ANE in order to understand the bible is NEW, and it ADMITS that what the bible says is not authoritative for all time. And it is an exercise in futulity, because we can not KNOW with certainty anything at all about what was going on 2,000 in the minds of other men. We can't know with certainty what is going on in the minds of the people here on this forum, much less long dead people in long dead cultures. We can guess, we can approximate, we can theorize, we can build scenario's that approach 99.99% accuracy, but we can't KNOW.

And its the same with what "god" wants. We can get to 99.99% maybe, but never certainty. And what Jehovah, and Yahweh, and Allah all want seems to be a bit different. Who is to say which god is right? How did YOU decide? Did YOU check them all out, or just take the one you were RAISED to believe in?

[Objectitron]

BTW, while you have your Bible out...

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=777

check out what this thread says, verses what is actually written in the Bible...

Is this aritcle accurate?

= )

Absolutely not...it is a total smear campaign. We would have to start a new thread in a different forum to cover the 10 Commandments and how they were given. Once again we can't place our understanding of our culture on an ancient civilization. This article would have a valid point if we saw this happening today. I would suggest to you that you should look for something objective to read...not something from secular web where their agenda is clear.

[Zeluvia]

Absolutely not...it is a total smear campaign. We would have to start a new thread in a different forum to cover the 10 Commandments and how they were given. Once again we can't place our understanding of our culture on an ancient civilization. This article would have a valid point if we saw this happening today. I would suggest to you that you should look for something objective to read...not something from secular web where their agenda is clear.

Regardless what his agenda is...Exodus is the book that records the giving of the commandments and the covenant with god.

And in Exodus 20, there are 14 commandments....although in modern Bibles this is labeled the 10 commandmets.

And in Exodus 34, God says to record the COVENANT, and the Convenant ends with milk and goats.

Everything he says there is in the bible, just the way he says it is. In fact, it makes no sense to record common sense common morals like
"thou shalt not kill" that every society more or less followed, and to record in stone the actual specific convenant between God and the Hebrews...doesn't it?

Why carve in stone something that was self evident? Why not carve in stone the "special" relationship between god and his people, the actual terms of the convenant?

The promise of a land to be theirs for example, makes sense that this promise should be carved in stone no?

Anyway, your ability to close your mind to even the possiblity that the tradition is wrong without picking up your bible and checking his statements is interesting. How can it be a "smear" campaign if what he is saying is ACCURATE?

And where do you find "objective" assessments when it comes to faith? Biblical scholars that BELIEVE in God and the truth of the bible? are they "objective"?

Besides, I am quite able to decide for myself, and read more if i need too = )

[Objectitron]

It won't, because these laws make rational sense. And it was the rise of education, reading, and rational thinking that changed the way the Bible was interpreted. What is the difference between using a phrase in the bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" to kill witches, and "A man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" to persecute homosexuals?

They make rational sense to you Now, but they might not make rational sense to our culture in 50 YEARS.

How we interepret the Bible now is not way off from how the early church interpreted things...especially values. The early church disputed who wrote certain books and had different interpretations on different topics, but they were all pretty unified on the moral and values...much in the same way as the scholars of the Enlightenment who began to focus on historical criticism. There was a long period where no one new what the heck was going on because the Church had all the copies of the Bible and the common man didn't or he didn't read. Remember, the books of the NT and some OT books were written during a period of "enlightenment" when people were pondering the same questions we are today and using reason and philosophy. Even when the Church had all the Bibles in the Middle Ages it was not all lost. Men like Thomas Aquinas enabled the faith to stay somewhat afloat.


There is, it just doesn't come with the Bible. The education system just by being a social enviroment teaches kids how to interact with each other. And kids learn from their ENTIRE enviroment, which includes television, which probably has a larger effect than schools.

Our education system sucks! You learn how to survive and become popular, and while you're doing that you make friends and try and learn something. Kids learn how to cheat, lie, manipulate, do drugs, fight, and become arrogant from their environment at school. Since this is going on I don't see the harm in introducing right and wrong, or at least expose them to diferent value systems where you can ask them why they think something is right and why they think something is wrong, into the class room since their parents don't seem to teach it to them.



The same way we always have. We just don't need to ascribe it to some mysterious authority, and we can change it without anyone having to get burned at the stake because someone misinterpreted some 2,000 year old book.

Whether you like it or not, our country's current moral or value system is strongly influenced by Jews and Christians, whose moral foundation is rooted in the OT and NT.



Yep, and it could happen. I for one would fight this, because of my stated value in individual liberty, and the equality of women. We could lose, we could get burned at the stake, and the world would be in a kind of dark age for women for awhile. Would it stay that way forever?
Or would the human spirit eventually change the dynamic again?

I'm not one to find out...this is why tolerance should go only so far. Our founders had no anticipation or vision for the nature and consequences of radical Islam.

But even if you scream this is absolute !! what stops this from happening, if no one but you thinks it is an absolute?

Absolutely nothing...this is why people like me do and should speak out. I see what is happening in Europe and I do not want it to happen here.

Well, I for one would speak out against this. I abhor Islam and it's treatment of women. I think it shares many things in common with Christianity, in that it gets it's ideas from the MIS interpretation of an old book. I think you don't realize that Liberals are not atheists, and atheists speak out against all religious silliness.

Many atheists and agnostics share common things with Christianity and Islam when it comes to morals and values, does that make them similar too?

Besides the fact that Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, what else do they share?

Our Holy books are totally different. They believe the Koran is a complete dictation from God. Christians believe it was written by human authors (we're undecided how much God had a hand in inspiring the writers)
Our theology (besides monotheism) is totally different
Our perspective of who God is and how he operates is totally different
Our idea of salvation is totally different
Who we believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus is totally different
Our cultures are completely different
Our mindset is completely different
How they view and treat women is completely different
I could go on and on

I fail to see the similarities...you need to stop listening to the media and find out for yourself the differences

But do you realize how many things YOU have in common with Islamic fundamentalists?

What?????????...that we both agree that absolute truths exist...even though these truths are at odds with each other.

Do you really know or understand what Islamic fundamentalists really believe?
The only beliefs I share with them are that monotheism exists and there is an afterlife...we might share a few morals, but Islam transcends many cultures, so it is tough to say. Like I said before we both agree that absolute truth exists...we just categorically disagree about what this absolute truth is.

You sound like Rosie O'donnell..are you sure you know what I believe?

I would never kill a Christian for becoming an atheist or a Muslim...I would never intentionally kill an innocent human being period, let alone in the name of God...I would never want to create a theocracy...I would never recruit adults let alone children in an effort to commit terrorism...I would never celebrate murder let alone suicide...I would not kill my daughter because she was raped...never never never never!

They have hardly anything in common with me!



So does that Islamic fundamentalist over there. I won't give him any rope, so I am not giving you any either = p. You are both IMO being irrational. I would rather look at how what you believe affects society, and then judge if your moral stance is "good" or "bad" by MY morals.
Then I will either agree with you, or not = )

How am I being irrational? I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I facts and evidences to I believe what I believe along with a long history to support it. I can defend the authenticity of the Bible without using the Bible. I can tackle tough questions...I do not run away from them. I am not sitting alone over in the corner, there are many sitting right next to me. How am I irrational?

I would not force you to live by my morals, the Islamic fundamentalist would...I would not force you to believe in God, the Islamic fundamentalist would. I would not force you to do anything you don't want to do, the Islamic fundamentalist would kill you for doing nothing.

While you wouldn't give me a rope, I will be happy to toss you mine!

[Objectitron]

Zeluvia;2251697]Regardless what his agenda is...Exodus is the book that records the giving of the commandments and the covenant with god.

Before you come to any rash conclusions...read Deurteronomy 5:6-21, which is another recording of the 10 Commandments. Moses is clearly telling the Hebrews what the commandments are. The Hebrews later categorized them as 10 commandments with the Hebrew words Aseret ha-Dibrot, which mean "the 10 statements"

Secular web didn't give you that tid bit of information, did they?

What you need to do in order to understand the historicity of the 10 Commandments is to read all the way through Exodus--Numbers, and read through different commentaries (both liberal and conservative). You will get a better idea about what is going on instead of relying on secular web. Please do some real research before you start bashing the 10 Commandments. If in the end you come to the same conclusion...so be it.

[Objectitron]

Why carve in stone something that was self evident? Why not carve in stone the "special" relationship between god and his people, the actual terms of the convenant?

How were the 10 commandments self-evident? This was his special relationship with his people, they were to keep these 10 commandments and God would stay truthful and bless them.

The promise of a land to be theirs for example, makes sense that this promise should be carved in stone no?

They hadn't made it there yet nor were they worthy of it yet

Anyway, your ability to close your mind to even the possiblity that the tradition is wrong without picking up your bible and checking his statements is interesting. How can it be a "smear" campaign if what he is saying is ACCURATE?

I had my Bible right and front of me. I am not close minded, this person from the article is close minded. There's a lot of things that are confusing on the surface of the Bible, especially the OT, and some things are still confusing when we scrape off the first surface. We still have an obligation to understand the text the best way we can and accept certain conclusions. This guy has no intention of doing this...why would I waste my time reading his crap when he has no attention in at least trying to be objective.


And where do you find "objective" assessments when it comes to faith? Biblical scholars that BELIEVE in God and the truth of the bible? are they "objective"?

Some scholars come across objective or at least moderate, some are conservative, some are liberal in their interpretation. I read all sides and try to come to a conclusion about certain things. No credible scholar would assert that the Hebrews didn't believe they had 10 clear commandments that were the basis of their faith. It's pretty simple really...they grouped some commandments together, especially the last one.

[Objectitron]

I think we have some misunderstandings that occur naturally in a forum setting. I really don't think we are far appart on a lot of issues, I also think our morals are pretty close as well.

Reading through some of my posts I can see how I could come across as being an evangelical fundamentalist. Some times I go to the extreme because you are going to the far left on some issues. I'm trying to pull you back.

I do believe in some absolutes when it comes to morals which are rooted in the Bible, I think we really only differ on homosexuality and abortion. However, I'm a typical American male who likes to go out with friends and a have a beer or two and go dancing. I enjoy life and most of my Christian friends would find me quite liberal. I question a lot of things about the Bible such as authorship and am definitely not a strict inerrantist. I would adhere more to the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its teachings and truthfulness when interpreted correctly, according to the original manuscripts. I acknowledge that there are some inconsistencies, historical errors, and seeming contradictions. So, I don't think this is inerrancy by the way we use the word in our society. I think many things in the Bible should be interpreted allegorically or etiologically. Basically, I'm not just a Bible thumper who wants to tell you how wrong you are and how right I am.

I think that skeptics have some very valid and honest questions about the Bible and Christianity, and I will do my best to answer them. I have some questions of my own. I have no agenda to push my faith on other people, but I will defend it when it is attacked. I just come to the conclusion after weighing all the evidence, that Christianity is true and its morals are absolute. I come to this conclusion inspite of how men and women who have claimed to be Christian have drug Christianity through the mud.

I believe the Bible to be historically reliable even though its true intent is not to be a history or science book. It is telling a story of redemption and its authors used illustrations, they were not necessarily trying to teach us science or astronomy. The Gospels themselves I find the most historically reliable because there are 4 different points of view, but they all come to the same conclusion. They might differ in certain areas, but wouldn't we if we were retelling something we witnessed...wouldn't you emphasize certain things when I would emphasize others? If they all said the same exact thing throughout they wouldn't be as credible. They all point to Jesus dying and resurrecting. I don't know of any other human being who resurrected himself, do you? Why do you believe this couldn't have happened?

Lastly, I have had instances where I have experienced God and I believe my nature has changed. I have thought my faith through and understand what I believe and why I believe it. I know and have studied the alternatives. They don't have the answers I am looking for. I realize I am not perfect and I make mistakes. This separates me from God. However, I believe Jesus lived a sinless life and could be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, mine included. Thus, I admit I am not perfect and don't live up to God's standards and accept Jesus' sacrifice as justification before God. This sounds kind of crazy, I understand that completely, but I believe it to be true.

If in the end I am wrong and this life is the only one we have then I have lost nothing. If in the end I was right then I have gained everything. If I would have chose not to believe then I would have lost everything.

So, as we continue our dialogue on moral relativism and morals, please note that I have no intention on forcing my beliefs on society, but my hope is that society will believe what I believe because they choose to believe it for themselves. Islamic societies aren't afforded this opportunity. They are forced to believe or at least behave like they believe. I think we have to legislate certain morals like murder or rape because they infringe on others' liberties. We should never legislate religious belief, this should always be a choice of the person. This doesn't mean I can't promote my beliefs and the belief that certain absolutes exist.

[Zeluvia]

I think we have some misunderstandings that occur naturally in a forum setting. I really don't think we are far appart on a lot of issues, I also think our morals are pretty close as well.

Reading through some of my posts I can see how I could come across as being an evangelical fundamentalist. Some times I go to the extreme because you are going to the far left on some issues. I'm trying to pull you back.

I do believe in some absolutes when it comes to morals which are rooted in the Bible, I think we really only differ on homosexuality and abortion. However, I'm a typical American male who likes to go out with friends and a have a beer or two and go dancing. I enjoy life and most of my Christian friends would find me quite liberal. I question a lot of things about the Bible such as authorship and am definitely not a strict inerrantist. I would adhere more to the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its teachings and truthfulness when interpreted correctly, according to the original manuscripts. I acknowledge that there are some inconsistencies, historical errors, and seeming contradictions. So, I don't think this is inerrancy by the way we use the word in our society. I think many things in the Bible should be interpreted allegorically or etiologically. Basically, I'm not just a Bible thumper who wants to tell you how wrong you are and how right I am.

I think that skeptics have some very valid and honest questions about the Bible and Christianity, and I will do my best to answer them. I have some questions of my own. I have no agenda to push my faith on other people, but I will defend it when it is attacked. I just come to the conclusion after weighing all the evidence, that Christianity is true and its morals are absolute. I come to this conclusion inspite of how men and women who have claimed to be Christian have drug Christianity through the mud.

I believe the Bible to be historically reliable even though its true intent is not to be a history or science book. It is telling a story of redemption and its authors used illustrations, they were not necessarily trying to teach us science or astronomy. The Gospels themselves I find the most historically reliable because there are 4 different points of view, but they all come to the same conclusion. They might differ in certain areas, but wouldn't we if we were retelling something we witnessed...wouldn't you emphasize certain things when I would emphasize others? If they all said the same exact thing throughout they wouldn't be as credible. They all point to Jesus dying and resurrecting. I don't know of any other human being who resurrected himself, do you? Why do you believe this couldn't have happened?


Because it isn't necessary for it to have happened, in order for a religion to say it happened. There are many other possible scenarios. I have read very widely, and looked into alot of other religions and faith systems. Finally, it struck me that they all must be the creation of men, therefore the idea of a personal god who seemed very HUMAN was probably the construction of men.

It's a pretty amazing thing, that the books live so long, and are so similar in many respects. However, to ME, when you remove god from the picture, the idea of responsiblity really takes off. No one saves us, we have to do EVERYTHING ourselves. Including survive.
And if you look at history, there aren't any provable intercessions by god when we are messing up. We always reap the consequences of our actions IN this life.


Lastly, I have had instances where I have experienced God and I believe my nature has changed. I have thought my faith through and understand what I believe and why I believe it. I know and have studied the alternatives. They don't have the answers I am looking for. I realize I am not perfect and I make mistakes. This separates me from God. However, I believe Jesus lived a sinless life and could be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, mine included. Thus, I admit I am not perfect and don't live up to God's standards and accept Jesus' sacrifice as justification before God. This sounds kind of crazy, I understand that completely, but I believe it to be true.

I too have had many spiritual experiences, so I understand why people write these things, and try to explain them. But searching for the explanation of these experiences is what let me to biology. It's fascinating.


If in the end I am wrong and this life is the only one we have then I have lost nothing. If in the end I was right then I have gained everything. If I would have chose not to believe then I would have lost everything.


Pascal's wager. Sorry, but it is no longer possible for me to believe that way. You can't go backwards.


So, as we continue our dialogue on moral relativism and morals, please note that I have no intention on forcing my beliefs on society, but my hope is that society will believe what I believe because they choose to believe it for themselves. Islamic societies aren't afforded this opportunity. They are forced to believe or at least behave like they believe. I think we have to legislate certain morals like murder or rape because they infringe on others' liberties. We should never legislate religious belief, this should always be a choice of the person. This doesn't mean I can't promote my beliefs and the belief that certain absolutes exist.

What I think about is the parrallels between current Islamic societies and the "dark ages". Islamic societies are threatened at their core by Western society. That they react with fundamentalism is a no-brainer.
Fundamentalism is reactionary, it is an attempt to return to the past, when the future is too scary. Many progressive Islamic scholars are calling for an Islamic Reformation.

Christianity in this country is changing fast. In my life time the emphasis, the "morals" the concerns and the actions of Christianity in our society has done a 180 degree turn. It is threatened, and so fundamentalism is predictable.

Quite frankly, I think both religions are in their death throes. Neither will make it another 100 years in their current forms. They carry too much ancient and antiquited imagery and restrictions. They are human centric in a vast universe, they are theistic in a world where a personal god does not answer prayers, he does not turn hurricanes, or lead troops to victory in battle. To wake up and say look, our morals are not absolute, we have to develop them, and keep them ourselves to me is our responsibility for the future. When we say there is no absolute, it frees us to say "we don't care what allah, jehovah, and yahweh said, this is what is RIGHT for all humans. and we can AGREE on it".

If you take my worldview, then some very smart people wrote the bible, and then to make sure people listened, they added god to it. It was a good idea at the time, but it didn't go far enough. The mystery of Jesus and the teachings of Mohammed added another dimension, a more spiritual one. But it doesn't go far enough.

We will go farther.

[Objectitron]

Because it isn't necessary for it to have happened, in order for a religion to say it happened. There are many other possible scenarios. I have read very widely, and looked into alot of other religions and faith systems. Finally, it struck me that they all must be the creation of men, therefore the idea of a personal god who seemed very HUMAN was probably the construction of men.

Why? There is plenty of evidence to suggest a "personal" god exists. Are you a deist?

It's a pretty amazing thing, that the books live so long, and are so similar in many respects. However, to ME, when you remove god from the picture, the idea of responsiblity really takes off. No one saves us, we have to do EVERYTHING ourselves. Including survive.
And if you look at history, there aren't any provable intercessions by god when we are messing up. We always reap the consequences of our actions IN this life.

Actually, they really aren't anything alike when you really look at them. The OT is mainly about God and his relationship with a specific people. Also, there is a lot prophetic and wisdom writings, not to mention the Psalms. The NT speaks of God becomming flesh and fulfilling the Jewish law and revealing something new: salvation based on grace instead of by works (through the Jewish law). Then you have God indwelling certain individuals who become Christians (it was a derogatory term at first in Antioch) and they announced that anyone was open to receive Christ. Then they wrote letters to different churches. The Koran is supposed to be God's actual words recited by Muhammad. I don't know if you've read it, but it is practically incoherent unless you read the Hadiths and Sunnah which act as commentaries; there is no context without these other writings. In the Koran, Jesus is said to not have even been crucified and Ishmael was the one who was to be sacrificed, instead of Isaac. There is almost a revert back to a works based religion based on the 5 Pillars. Grace has no place in Islam. I just don't see the similarities.

How will you save yourself after this life?

Of course we reap the consequences in this life, this is what happens when you have free will.

I too have had many spiritual experiences, so I understand why people write these things, and try to explain them. But searching for the explanation of these experiences is what let me to biology. It's fascinating.

I think biology has done some major things, but it can't explain what has happened to me and others like me.



Pascal's wager. Sorry, but it is no longer possible for me to believe that way. You can't go backwards.

Sure you can...throw that puppy in reverse...beep...beep...beep


What I think about is the parrallels between current Islamic societies and the "dark ages". Islamic societies are threatened at their core by Western society. That they react with fundamentalism is a no-brainer.
Fundamentalism is reactionary, it is an attempt to return to the past, when the future is too scary. Many progressive Islamic scholars are calling for an Islamic Reformation.

This is why we have to confront it now

Christianity in this country is changing fast. In my life time the emphasis, the "morals" the concerns and the actions of Christianity in our society has done a 180 degree turn. It is threatened, and so fundamentalism is predictable.

I fail to see any type of fundamentalist movement within the US that has any real impact. "Emerging" churches are the future of Christianity, and they are anything but fundamentalist. Some are conservative, some are liberal, but they are not fundamentalist. Fundamentalist churches don't fit in with our society, thus they are irrelevant.

Quite frankly, I think both religions are in their death throes. Neither will make it another 100 years in their current forms. They carry too much ancient and antiquited imagery and restrictions. They are human centric in a vast universe, they are theistic in a world where a personal god does not answer prayers, he does not turn hurricanes, or lead troops to victory in battle. To wake up and say look, our morals are not absolute, we have to develop them, and keep them ourselves to me is our responsibility for the future. When we say there is no absolute, it frees us to say "we don't care what allah, jehovah, and yahweh said, this is what is RIGHT for all humans. and we can AGREE on it".

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. These religions aren't going anywhere unless we have nuclear war or a world dissaster. I do agree that they will look different, but what they teach in terms of theology will be very similar, but the delivery must change.

I think God does answer prayers, not every prayer, because most prayers affect others' free will. Who knows why God intervenes when he intervenes, but I think there is a wealth of evidence that he does in fact intervene. If God saved us from every hurricane, we wouldn't have been able to develop warning systems and advance in meteorology, what would be the point? Natural dissasters are part of life and our creative innovations has led us to save many lives. I think God lets us deal with things like this because He knows this helps us evolve as people. I don't think is interested in micromanaging our life. However, who is to say God hasn't turned huricanes back into the ocean?

Actually, Jehova and Yahweh refer to the same entity. They are both based on the tetragrammaton (YHWH). The Jews didn't not pronounce this name of God, they would say Adonnai or Hashem if they were reading a Torah scroll. English translations have translated the Hebrew word for God as Yahweh and Jehova, they mean exactly the same thing. Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Christians who speak Arabic use the same word. It's pointless to argue if Christians and Muslims worship the same God because you can't prove it one way or another. What you can prove is there is a difference of perspective of who God is, which is quite telling.

If you take my worldview, then some very smart people wrote the bible, and then to make sure people listened, they added god to it. It was a good idea at the time, but it didn't go far enough. The mystery of Jesus and the teachings of Mohammed added another dimension, a more spiritual one. But it doesn't go far enough.

Actually, some very not so smart people wrote the Bible, some of the Greek in the NT is horrible. If these people were so smart why did they include things that make them look bad (especially in the OT)? Why is it that it is an accepted fact that Jesus was crucified by the Romans? If Jesus wasn't resurrected, why isn't there a body of literature from the first century asserting that the early followers of Jesus were a bunch of liars? Why did almost every disciple of Jesus, including Paul and James, die horrible deaths for believing in a carpenter's son? Why does faith in Christ continue to transform lives 2,000 years later?

I don't think Muhammad was that spiritual...I think he was hallucinating...what did he do that was so spiritual?

Are there stories of him healing the lame and blind, feeding thousands of people with hardly any food, claiming he was God, being sinless, being martyred, raising from the dead?

They are nothing alike...did Jesus inspire and encourage conquest for booty? Say Christians and Jews should be killed wherever you find them? Tell his followers to beat their wives and make them sleep in other rooms? Did he say that 2 women equal 1 man? Did he say that hell is mainly filled with women? These things are what Muhammad said, it seems to me that Jesus said the opposite.

I think your worldview lacks clarity; these 3 religions are not similar at all. Christianity spread becaue the Christians were persecuted. Islam spread based on the Muslims doing the persecuting. Judaism doesn't attempt to spread at all. Faith in Christ in the MAIN belief within Christianity. Islam and Judaism reject this belief.

How was Islam progressing from Christianity? If anything its reverting.

We will go farther.[/QUOTE]

Before we do, I want you to answer my questions about how you think I compare to an Islamic fundamentalist and the other related questions I asked. Thank you.

[Zeluvia]

Okay, but it will have to be next week = )

[Zeluvia]

I haven't forgotten this thread Obj, my reply got a bit long, I went back to reread the thread, and changed my mind about some things I was going to say.

[Objectitron]

I haven't forgotten this thread Obj, my reply got a bit long, I went back to reread the thread, and changed my mind about some things I was going to say.

Ok...I'll wait for your reply

[Zeluvia]

okay, starting over, and trying to answer some questions, but I have to go back a bit to go forward.

1. You stated you would be willing to die for the traditions you think are valuable. This is interesting. Many people are like this, and I think it is partly related to instinctive responses in our social brain. The willingness to sacrafice self to protect what is perceived as valuable could have species survival implications for a social animal. But when it comes to actually drawing those lines in the dirt, many people get over that instinctive emotional response and say ...wait, what was I dying for again? This is where I think fundamentalists of all stripes are similar. They grab something that already FITS what they BELIEVE, claim it is AUTHORITY from someone, and then want to die for it. This is some kind of cosmic drama, that satifies some sense of self.

2. Paul never knew the living Jesus. He had a strange encounter, for one to three days, and was filled with the spirit. He is considered to be the pivotal founder of Christianity as we know it. He spent about 2 weeks with the actual apostles, and didn't agree with them on many things. He went with his "vision".

Mohammed ... Paul.... sorry I don't see much difference there, except Paul could read and write.

3. Deuteronomy and Exodus sound very different. The writer makes a good case that the actual contract between God and the Isrealites concerned land and promises to be fulfilled in Exodus, but if Deuteronomy was a much later book, out of a different tradition, there was plenty of time to make changes to the original exodus tradtion.

But what can we really KNOW? I am not talking about an existential type of knowing...I am saying that when it comes to old books, be it the Bible or the Quran, what we know is only what survived, and the form it survived in. The history of the Quran is to me just as specious and subjective and questionable as the history of the Bible.

So to me, the willingness of anyone to DIE for the traditions that are based on books written, edited and interpreted by MEN, when those interpretations and meanings could have changed countless times over centuries, is irrational.

Now ask me to die for something I consider valuable, and I will weigh the value of the thing verses the value of my life. When I was younger, not so much. With age comes wisdom.

3. The religions are very similar. They come out of similar tribal, wandering nomadic paternal agricultural societies. They have changed over time. They have old books, subject to interpretation, that changes over time. They can be used to justify and vilify. They are taught as absolute authority in their respective cultures, to children. They both promise life after death for the believer, or the follower. They both prescribe a way to live, although the Christian version has changed over time and does less proscribing, and more gracing.

Comparing them to religions from other types of societies, such as the hunter/gatherers of north america, or the sea faring groups of the Celtic islands, or those that eek out a living in frozen wastelands, is enlightening.

To me, religion represents a long line of evolution of human thought.

We moved from spirits, to gods, to one god, and then to more transcendental ideas. These old books just hold us back.

As for the different ways Islam and Christianity spread, I think you are confused. It is true that SOME early Christians were persecuted by the Romans as atheists, but when Constantine converted the Empire to Christianity, Christianity was spread through persecution.

This is an article I found years ago. I have verified SOME of the data as being historically accurate.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm

[Ryokan]

Mohammed ... Paul.... sorry I don't see much difference there, except Paul could read and write.
Just a quibble, but Paul never took up arms, never conquered any cities or slaughtered any people, and generally pointed his cult of personality towards a guy who wasn't him. He also didn't own a successful business but ran around living like a hippy and tended not to accept cash rewards for his service of God, unlike Mohammed. Paul also, while not a modern man, tended to be more sympathetic to things like women's rights.

[Zeluvia]

Just a quibble, but Paul never took up arms, never conquered any cities or slaughtered any people, and generally pointed his cult of personality towards a guy who wasn't him. He also didn't own a successful business but ran around living like a hippy and tended not to accept cash rewards for his service of God, unlike Mohammed. Paul also, while not a modern man, tended to be more sympathetic to things like women's rights.

It's okay. Mohammed had the example of Rome and Constantine to draw from when he decided to be possessed of the spirit and tell us what god said.

[Ryokan]

It's okay. Mohammed had the example of Rome and Constantine to draw from when he decided to be possessed of the spirit and tell us what god said.

I think he was more inspired by the old testament and Judaism. Mohammed dug the Jews, unlike some of his followers. Christianity he was blah about. Thats why Jews were so psyched when the Muslims took over most of the Arabian holdings of the Eastern Roman Empire.

[historic salve]

Just a quibble, but Paul never took up arms, never conquered any cities or slaughtered any people, and generally pointed his cult of personality towards a guy who wasn't him. He also didn't own a successful business but ran around living like a hippy and tended not to accept cash rewards for his service of God, unlike Mohammed. Paul also, while not a modern man, tended to be more sympathetic to things like women's rights.
Anybody who thinks Paul had a personality cult is off his rocker, and has obviously never read 1 & 2 Cor or Gal.

[Ryokan]

Anybody who thinks Paul had a personality cult is off his rocker, and has obviously never read 1 & 2 Cor or Gal.

I agree. That's what I was saying.

[nomad]

Anybody who thinks Paul had a personality cult is off his rocker, and has obviously never read 1 & 2 Cor or Gal.

it's clear Paul had one (1 corinthians 1); it's also just as clear he disapproved, which i think was ryokan's point.

[Objectitron]

okay, starting over, and trying to answer some questions, but I have to go back a bit to go forward.

OK, sounds good.

1. You stated you would be willing to die for the traditions you think are valuable. This is interesting. Many people are like this, and I think it is partly related to instinctive responses in our social brain. The willingness to sacrafice self to protect what is perceived as valuable could have species survival implications for a social animal. But when it comes to actually drawing those lines in the dirt, many people get over that instinctive emotional response and say ...wait, what was I dying for again? This is where I think fundamentalists of all stripes are similar. They grab something that already FITS what they BELIEVE, claim it is AUTHORITY from someone, and then want to die for it. This is some kind of cosmic drama, that satifies some sense of self.

There's a big difference when you're dying for your religion and you take innocent people with you. You don't see this in Christian fundamentalism.

2. Paul never knew the living Jesus. He had a strange encounter, for one to three days, and was filled with the spirit. He is considered to be the pivotal founder of Christianity as we know it. He spent about 2 weeks with the actual apostles, and didn't agree with them on many things. He went with his "vision".

He only disagreed with Peter and James about whether the gentiles should have to live under Jewish law or not. Their beliefs about Jesus were the same.

Mohammed ... Paul.... sorry I don't see much difference there, except Paul could read and write.

Are you serious? Have you read Paul's writings as opposed to the the Quran. There's no comparison. Also, I don't remember Paul being a political and military leader nor did he have 11 wives, let alone even 1. He also did not marry a 9 year old. He spread his message by being imprisoned and flogged, Muhammad spread his message with the sword. I could go on and on. Please tell me how they were similar, because I would love to hear it?

3. Deuteronomy and Exodus sound very different. The writer makes a good case that the actual contract between God and the Isrealites concerned land and promises to be fulfilled in Exodus, but if Deuteronomy was a much later book, out of a different tradition, there was plenty of time to make changes to the original exodus tradtion.

You're going to have to be a little more specific. Have you ever heard of the Documentary Hypothesis? Not all scholars believe in this theory, but most teach it. It might better explain authorship.

But what can we really KNOW? I am not talking about an existential type of knowing...I am saying that when it comes to old books, be it the Bible or the Quran, what we know is only what survived, and the form it survived in. The history of the Quran is to me just as specious and subjective and questionable as the history of the Bible.

So to me, the willingness of anyone to DIE for the traditions that are based on books written, edited and interpreted by MEN, when those interpretations and meanings could have changed countless times over centuries, is irrational.

Now ask me to die for something I consider valuable, and I will weigh the value of the thing verses the value of my life. When I was younger, not so much. With age comes wisdom.


Historically speaking, the NT has been well-preserved and the writings we have today are almost identical to the originals. The Gospels are especially historically reliable. I'm reading a book right now entitled The Jesus Legend: A Case fo the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition If you google it you can get a lot of info off the web. There is no such thing is true objective history, but we can do our best to make it as objective as possible.

My willingness to die is based on the message of the NT, regardless if the NT existed, the story of Jesus and his sacrifice would still be told today. It transmitted orally for over 20 years before it was written down. You may think that makes it more legend or fiction, but be people were still living when it was written down who would have disputed them. In fact, Luke uses eyewitness testimony, and he wrote his Gospel at least 30 years after Jesus died. So, my willingness to die is based on the message that has transformed my life, not on some old book.

We have the interpretation of the early churches and they aren't as different as you might think.

3. The religions are very similar. They come out of similar tribal, wandering nomadic paternal agricultural societies. They have changed over time. They have old books, subject to interpretation, that changes over time. They can be used to justify and vilify. They are taught as absolute authority in their respective cultures, to children. They both promise life after death for the believer, or the follower. They both prescribe a way to live, although the Christian version has changed over time and does less proscribing, and more gracing.

Are you serious? You could make the case that Judaism began from Abraham, but much of Judaism has been influenced by the Greek and Roman culture after the Jews were exiled during the Babylonian and Persian captivities. Rabbinic Judaism was born out of this culture, which was very intellectual and philisophical, not some wandering nomadic agricultural society.

Christianity was also born into a thriving sophisticated culture. Now, I will agree that Jesus' disciples seem to be some good ole boys from the country, but Paul encountered thriving metropolises during his missionary journey. He was also an expert on Judaism, having studied under one of the top Rabis in Jerusalem. He was no country bumpkin or wandering nomad. From the beginning, Christianity was a religion about faith and reason. The earliest Christian writings after the NT were apologies (defenses) of Christianity. To convert a Roman culture, one had to be able to articulate an argument that was believable and made sense

Even Muhammad was not your average Arab nomad. He was a caravan trader living in the market hub of Arabia. He would have been exposed to other cultures during his trading days before he became a prophet, especially to Christianity and Judaism.

Every religion has some type of scripture, ethics, and a question of afterlife. By your reasoning every religion is the same to include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and others. You left out the main similarity between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they are monotheistic. After that, they differ in their belief systems, but generally share the same morals.

Comparing them to religions from other types of societies, such as the hunter/gatherers of north america, or the sea faring groups of the Celtic islands, or those that eek out a living in frozen wastelands, is enlightening.

How are they similar?

To me, religion represents a long line of evolution of human thought.

We moved from spirits, to gods, to one god, and then to more transcendental ideas. These old books just hold us back.

You could be right and you could be wrong. However, regardless of what you believe about these old books, they do record some historical events that can't be dismissed. These events have reshaped our world. You might believe the resurrection didn't happen, but there is a lot of historical evidence that says it did. So, if it somehow were to be confirmed as an historical event in the same way we believe John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, would this change your line of thinking about Christianity and religion?

As for the different ways Islam and Christianity spread, I think you are confused. It is true that SOME early Christians were persecuted by the Romans as atheists, but when Constantine converted the Empire to Christianity, Christianity was spread through persecution.

Christianity spread for almost 300 years before Constantine, so what am I confused about? Constantine made it ok to be a Christian in the Roman Empire, he never required it or taxed people who weren't Christian. While he might have been over zealous in destorying the pagan idols, he certainly never killed anyone or forced people to convert. Christianity under Constantine did not spread like Islam did under Muhammad and the Caliphs. There was no such thing in the 4th century as Christian expansion. The Emperors that followed him cancelled many of his reforms and reinstituted paganism as the state religion as well as Emperor worship.

300 years is a long time. That is longer than Mormonism has existed by 100 years and look how well it has spread. To make the blank statement that Constantine converted the Empire to Christianity is fallacious. He just allowed it to spread and helped in its promotion.

This is an article I found years ago. I have verified SOME of the data as being historically accurate.
[url]http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm[/url

Interesting

[Zeluvia]

christianity survived 300 years in MULTITUDE of forms.

If it had not been made the "state" religion, and then spent some 1000 years persecuting heretics and forcing conversions, it would probably still be one of many, and have even MORE forms than it has today.

You kinda make one of my points. Religions are influenced by their cultures, and cultures by their enviroments. This does not leave much room for divinely inspired writings. It is all too human.

Regardless of the Many differences between Paul and Mohammed, they are similar in that they both spoke "for" the spirit, started religions, and in modern times we would treat them medically for their delusions.

[Objectitron]

christianity survived 300 years in MULTITUDE of forms.

If it had not been made the "state" religion, and then spent some 1000 years persecuting heretics and forcing conversions, it would probably still be one of many, and have even MORE forms than it has today.

You make it sound as if Christianity was a pluralist religion in itself. It is the trendy today to say that Christianity was so diverse it its early years, but there isn't much evidence to support this conclusion. The Nag Hammadi find (where the Gnostic Gospels were found) hardly proves that multiple Christianities existed nor were their writings authentic. All of those writings were dated in the second century at the earliest, and they were all were written pseudonymously.

Have you ever read any of these books of the so-called alternative Christianities? There are solid reasons why these books did not make into the Christian cannon besides the fact they were written too late to have authority. Do you think that Constantine codified Christianity? If there were multiple forms of Christianity as you claim, why did Constantine pick the one that represents most of the theologies of today? If they were so diverse, it seems he would have been hard-pressed to choose the right one.

I'm not questioning whether alternative forms of Christianity existed (gnostics, docetists, marcionists, etc.), but I do question the severity of their influence and their popularity, which you seem to place on the same level as orthodox Christianity.

You kinda make one of my points. Religions are influenced by their cultures, and cultures by their enviroments. This does not leave much room for divinely inspired writings. It is all too human.

Why not? Does religion not influence culture. When Constantine became a Christian, did not the culture of the Roman Empire change. I think it is a two-way street. It is human because humans wrote it down.

That is an outright lie that Christianity participated in forced conversions for 1,000 years. The Inquisitions did not last that long, nor did Bloody Mary's purge either. And the Inquisitions and the Church of England in the 1500's did not represent the teachings of the NT. It was all about consolidating power. This is a true testimony to what happens when you fuse religious and political leadership, and manipulate the masses because you are the only one who possesses and can read the religious texts.

Regardless of the Many differences between Paul and Mohammed, they are similar in that they both spoke "for" the spirit, started religions, and in modern times we would treat them medically for their delusions.

Then you are lumping them in with the Dali Lhama, Confucious, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. Because they all did the same things you mentioned.

There were many witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Has there ever been a body of literature before the Quran (over 600 years later) that disputes the resurrection based on eye witness accounts. Why isn't there documents from the first century saying that Jesus didn't resurrect? What evidence exists that claims that Jesus' disciples were delusional? Paul and the other Apostles seemed very rational in their claims and explanations, did they not?

[Zeluvia]

Well, I didn't really want to get into these apologetics discussions.

I am not talking about the holy inquistion, I was only referring to that link, which is the first 200 years or so after Constantine converted and the Nicene council codified the NT.

I have read quite a bit of history.

I have spent a few years reading apologetics, and yes I have read the other Christian texts, and yes, the church fathers that spoke out about all the "heresies" that existed prove that they did exist and were popular in some areas.

But to answer your question, yes I lump all divine revealed religions together, although Buddha and Confucious are a bit different, in that they did not seem to claim divine relevation in the form of a god talking to them, but more in finding or discovering enlightment within themselves.

[Zeluvia]

But, this was about liberal vs conservative...

so let me ask you....where do you place compassion, care for the less fortunate, mercy, humility, and the other graces on your list of values to apply to your politics?

[Objectitron]

But, this was about liberal vs conservative...

so let me ask you....where do you place compassion, care for the less fortunate, mercy, humility, and the other graces on your list of values to apply to your politics?

These are definitely values that I highly "value", but I don't think it is the gov't's main role to provide them. However, I don't think the gov't should ignore them, but they definitely shouldn't be top priorities. Protecting Americans from enemies foreign and domestic should be top priority, because if we can't get this right we can forget about anything else, like national healthcare. The next priorities should be to lower taxes, limit gov't spending, and ensure a free-market economy, not because this is what a gov't should do, but history has shown this is the best way for our economy to grow. Higher taxes, more spending, and protectionism, which the Dems are offering, has never been shown to stimulate the economy and put more money in our pockets.

There is absolutely no way the Dems can follow through on all these promises, like national healthcare, without raising taxes. They like to use the rhetoric that they will cut the Bush tax cuts for the rich and small businesses, but that will not pay the $280 billion a year which Obama has proposed, or the $210 billion Hillary has proposed. They both have admitted that if they got rid of or let the tax cuts expire, it would only save at most $100 billion a year. In reality it will only save them about $75. So, how are they going to pay for all this? You said earlier we could be using the allocated money for Iraq on other things, but that doesn't work because we are using deficit spending for the war and borrowing the money from China and Japan. So, we should borrow money for national healthcare above national defense? Does this make sense to you?
If the Dems take control, they will raise everyone's taxes or they will not follow through on all these promises.

Anyway, back to your questions. The American gov't gives more "compasionate" money than any other country in the history of the world. How do you see our gov't not compassionate? how does free healthcare, well it really isn't free because we will be paying for it through higher taxes, encourage people to get jobs and provide for their family? I don't think you can require or force compassion. The Dems would punish those that wouldn't partake in their nat'l healthcare program, is that compassionate? I do agree that healthcare costs too much money and our gov't should do something to lower the cost, but an entire overhaul would be a mistake. We don't need universal healthcare, we just need affordable healthcare.

As we talked about earlier, I believe that welfare reform that congress forced President Clinton to sign in the mid 90s was step in the right direction, but I think it could be reformed even more. I think we are better off helping the less fortunate because we really have compassion for them and use charities, community programs, and non-profit orgs to help them. The gov't and all its bureaucracies does not know how to show compassion and it definitely isn't real.

[Duder]

Greetings, All -

What it means to be a liberal has changed much over the centuries and even over the past few decades. But since the present form of liberalism is fairly close to my own understanding of what is right and desirable, I can comment on this topic.

One aspect of liberalism is its understanding of economics - in other words, who gets the cookies? Liberalism stands in opposition to the Reaganesque ideas that everbody prospers best when you 1) further enrich the rich, 2) place society's essential services in the hands of private enterprise and 3) allow corporations to function as they please without government interference. Conservatism today is a "top down" philosophy. Make things a comfortable as possible for the most powerful and wealthy, and they will then make life better for all of us.

As someone who has closely watched society for the past 30 years, Reagan conservatism has not worked out as advertised. We have a ghastly budget deficit, a widening rich-poor gap and a crumbling infrastructure that comes from giving so much to the rich that we cannot pay our bills as a society. Moreover, the quality of services that we all receive has declined dramatically, as larger and larger monoplies fix prices and cheapen products. Health care, for example, is poor, too expensive and not universally available. Our nation's manufacturing base has all but disappeared as corporations chase cheap labor oversees. Pretty soon there will be nothing much for us to do but sell each other french fries at McDonalds.

A liberal thinks all of this has been a terrible mistake. Liberals dislike all the privatization that has happened in recent decades, and feel that there are some things so essential to all of us that we ought to own, operate and maintain them in common - such as our roads and bridges, our power grids, our military (see Blackwater) , our media airwaves, our health care system, and so on.

Liberalism is a "bottom up" philosophy. If society nurtures the people, they will prosper. If society trusts the people, they will govern intelligently. Liberalism is an outgrowth of John Lock's idea that human nature is essentially good. Conservatism, on the other hand, comes from Hobbs, who felt that human nature was beastly, and that people need a strong hand to whip them into line and a wise father figure to give them what they need.

Which is the more Biblical point of view? It depends upon what parts of scripture you like to emphasize.

A liberal Christian takes to heart Jesus' teaching that what you do for the poorest and most desparate, you do for Him. A conservfative stresses ". . . niether let him eat".

A Christian liberal stresses how man is a divine creation, and must therefore be good in the final analysis, as Locke believed. A conservative stresses the fallen nature of man and agrees with Hobbs.

As a liberal Christian, it is my belief that man is basically good, and to whatever degree he has fallen, it does not corrupt that basic goodness. God's adversary has not nearly enough power to thwart God's design - to change its essential nature from good to bad.

Blessings,

- Duder

[Philosophickle]

Good to see you back Duder!

[Ryokan]

Duder!

[Objectitron]

Duder,

It seems everyone around here knows you, so I hope that is a good sign. I'm still the new guy around here, and I appreciate your post. However, I have to say that I disagree with most of it. It appears you and I look at the world different, or at least mankind.

What it means to be a liberal has changed much over the centuries and even over the past few decades. But since the present form of liberalism is fairly close to my own understanding of what is right and desirable, I can comment on this topic.

What about conservatism do you find fault with (i.e. lower taxes, limited gov't, etc.)?

One aspect of liberalism is its understanding of economics - in other words, who gets the cookies? Liberalism stands in opposition to the Reaganesque ideas that everbody prospers best when you 1) further enrich the rich, 2) place society's essential services in the hands of private enterprise and 3) allow corporations to function as they please without government interference. Conservatism today is a "top down" philosophy. Make things a comfortable as possible for the most powerful and wealthy, and they will then make life better for all of us.

Do you ever ask yourself the question why people are rich? Do you think it is just handed to them on a platter?

Do you think we shoud be placing soceity's essential services in the hands of something as inefficient as the gov't?

You do know that businesses are what make our economy grow, right?

As someone who has closely watched society for the past 30 years, Reagan conservatism has not worked out as advertised. We have a ghastly budget deficit, a widening rich-poor gap and a crumbling infrastructure that comes from giving so much to the rich that we cannot pay our bills as a society. Moreover, the quality of services that we all receive has declined dramatically, as larger and larger monoplies fix prices and cheapen products. Health care, for example, is poor, too expensive and not universally available. Our nation's manufacturing base has all but disappeared as corporations chase cheap labor oversees. Pretty soon there will be nothing much for us to do but sell each other french fries at McDonalds.

The budget deficit is not because of Reaganomics, it is because congress chose to spend more money than they had.

So, the rich-poor gap is attributed to what?

Which infrastructure is crumbling?

Do you have a problem with buying products at lower costs? Do have a problem with paying lower taxes? Do you think liberals will want to go to the mom and pop store or Wal Mart if we go into a recession?

We have the best healthcare in the world, why do people come here in droves? I will agree that it is too expensive, which is a problem of both the Dems and Republicans, but does that mean it should be universal and required?

The US is not a manufacturing country anymore, our focus has shifted to services, which make a whole of a lot more money. I do think it is unfortunate that many people have lost their jobs, especially in Michigan, but what are the aternatives? Should we have higher tarifs and better regulations? This absolutely will slow trade down and nobody wins. Globalization is not an abiration. What makes humanity so great, especially opposed to other animals, is we can figure out something else to do and we improvise. We can't just say, "well, all I know how do is work in a factory, I guess my life is over." People will always find a way to survive. I know that sounds harsh, but competition is what drives us. We can always learn something new or become more educated. There is always a way in our country. There are more social and gov't services available that no one should have an excuse.

A liberal thinks all of this has been a terrible mistake. Liberals dislike all the privatization that has happened in recent decades, and feel that there are some things so essential to all of us that we ought to own, operate and maintain them in common - such as our roads and bridges, our power grids, our military (see Blackwater) , our media airwaves, our health care system, and so on.

Do you really think Mickie D's is our best option? Do you think we would still be a super power and at least the major hegemon if our only available job options was the fast food industry? This is a crippling mentality and this mentality of negativity is part of the problem.

Liberalism is a "bottom up" philosophy. If society nurtures the people, they will prosper. If society trusts the people, they will govern intelligently. Liberalism is an outgrowth of John Lock's idea that human nature is essentially good. Conservatism, on the other hand, comes from Hobbs, who felt that human nature was beastly, and that people need a strong hand to whip them into line and a wise father figure to give them what they need.

No offense, but I do not want the bottom of our society leading us into the future, do you? How are these bottom dwellers not being nurtured? Do you know that over 60% of the federal budget goes towards entitlements. What these people need to do is to put the bottle and needle down, clean themselves up, and find a job. I guess that is too much to ask, right? I suppose we should coddle them and continue to enable them to keep their lifestyle instead of motivating them to get an education, a job, and start providing for their families. We have all the social programs in the world, but we still have the problem, so how do we fix it? Do we just keep pumping more and more money into it?

Conservatism has more of a neutral idea of human nature, meaning some people are naturally good and some are bad. Thus, the good ones will be good no matter what type of gov't you have and the bad ones will be bad. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a gov't that favors those that do well and says to the ones that don't, "You better catch on or you'll be left behind." Why should my hard-earned money go to someone who knows nothing about hard work?

Which is the more Biblical point of view? It depends upon what parts of scripture you like to emphasize.

A liberal Christian takes to heart Jesus' teaching that what you do for the poorest and most desparate, you do for Him. A conservfative stresses ". . . niether let him eat".

Was he talking about gov't spending? No, he was speaking to the community. I agree wholeheartedly that it's the communities role to help out the poor and less fortunate. This is the best way to establish accountability. Jesus was referring to the ones who really couldn't provide for themselves, he wasn't referring to the ones who were lazy. Paul was referring to the ones who didn't want to help and provide.

A liberal Christian should read the Bible a little more closely and quit inferring things that aren't there.

A Christian liberal stresses how man is a divine creation, and must therefore be good in the final analysis, as Locke believed. A conservative stresses the fallen nature of man and agrees with Hobbs.

Please tell me how history supports this conclusion. Locke agreed with Hobbes that human nature could be selfish. Based on your view of human nature, why has it produced such bad results?

As a liberal Christian, it is my belief that man is basically good, and to whatever degree he has fallen, it does not corrupt that basic goodness. God's adversary has not nearly enough power to thwart God's design - to change its essential nature from good to bad.

Do you think we are born with a good nature, or does Christ change our nature?



Take care,

OJ

[Zeluvia]

Thanks Duder, good to have a Liberal Christian in the thread, and welcome back = )

You may take over now, and that way the theological differences won't get in the way

[Duder]

Duder,

It seems everyone around here knows you, so I hope that is a good sign. I'm still the new guy around here, and I appreciate your post.

Hi, Objectitron -

Glad to meet you. It's been about 18 months since I was here. Been driving a truck all over the nation, and I'm away a month at a time. Seems like I haven't had much energy for posting in my precious home time. So really, it is me who is the new guy. It'll take me a while to get my Tweb sea legs back.

However, I have to say that I disagree with most of it. It appears you and I look at the world different, or at least mankind.

All right, let's talk about it.

What about conservatism do you find fault with (i.e. lower taxes, limited gov't, etc.)?

My main grievance is not with conservatism per se. Conservatism is a sometimes-needed counterbalance to liberalism run amok. It has an honorable tradition, and some very honorable adherents. I am thinking of good Republicans like Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned us half a century ago about the pitfalls of a military-indusrial complex with too much power and influence.

The ideas you mention, 1) lower taxes and 2) limited government are not bad ideas in themselves. They can be good ideas in the right time and circumstance.

If you think, however, that the neoconservatives have lowered taxes for the working class, you have been sold a bill of goods. By far, the greatest part of their tax breaks have gone to the corporations. Why on earth would a rational people want to give tax breaks to oil companies that are raking in billions per month in profit? So that they will sell us gas cheaper? Give me a break!

If middle class Americans have seen a slight reduction in taxes under the neocons, these gains are more than offset in the reduction in the quality and quantity of services available to average citizens. As just one example, fire stations all over the nation are shutting down because the funds aren't there to keep them running. But if you are rich, you can now pay for private fire responders! This is what John Edwards means when he talks about two Americas. The privilaged enjoy what we all used to enjoy - what used to be common to everybody.

Limited goverment, too, is not a bad idea in itself. When the government starts to tromp on the rights of citizens, it needs to be limited. The Bush administration has suspended habeas corpus, institutionalized torture, eavesdropped on millions of American citizens, attacked a nation that did not threaten us, turned its Justice Department into a muscle arm of the RNC, and declared its superioroty over the other branches of government in a most un-democratic fashion. Those kinds of actions are not conservative. They are radical. This government needs to be limited!

When Republican operatives talk about liberty, what they mean is the liberty of the powerful to oppress the weak. When they talk about limited government, they mean freeing the corporations from regulation (labor law, environmental standards, etc.), and from the obligation to contribute to the common weal of the nation.

Do you ever ask yourself the question why people are rich? Do you think it is just handed to them on a platter?

I have no beef with rich folks. Most of the ones that I know, I like very much. But what you have to understand is this: the rich today, who undoubetly earned their wealth and who have every right to enjoy it, are getting richer than they deserve to be, and they are giving back less than they should. They have more influence over the government than they deserve to have. I am reminded of Jesus' talk about the rich man who is given preferential treatment in the temple. We, as a society, have begun to almost worship our rich folks as gods! And we treat the poor with scorn and derision. It seems a most unchristian state of affairs to me.

Do you think we shoud be placing soceity's essential services in the hands of something as inefficient as the gov't?

Whoever said the government was inefficient? Take health care. If our system were not-for-profit, there is a 30% savings right off the top! Medicare is a marvelously efficient system, compared to the private insurance boondoggle.

This is slightly off topic, but it should be mentioned: The private HMOs maximize their profit by denying care. That is what they were invented to do. Tell me - what normal society's health care system denies health care to those with pre-existing conditions? If you are sick, you can't get coverage. Too bad, so sorry, go away and die. But our profits were up in the last quarter! That is the sort of evil that needs to be fixed in a national, single-payer system.

do know that businesses are what make our economy grow, right?

What do you mean precisely by "make our economy grow"?

I love business, industry, commerce and innovation. Great stuff. But I hate huge monopolies and megacorps that drive people's businesses out of business and squash innovation.

The budget deficit is not because of Reaganomics, it is because congress chose to spend more money than they had.

Which Congress do you mean? The (so-called) conservative Republican Congress that gave President Bush everything he wanted, thus demolishing a nifty budget surplus and putting our grandchildren in debt to the Chinese? That Congress?

Which infrastructure is crumbling?

Ask a truck driver like me who sees the condition of our cities and highways. Better yet, ask someone in Minneapolis. Something about a bridge there.

Do you have a problem with buying products at lower costs?

Yes, I do - when cheaper products means low wages and poor benefits for Americans.

Do have a problem with paying lower taxes?

Yes, I do - when the United states is 29th in infant mortality. I will gladly have us all contribute more to the common good.

Do you think liberals will want to go to the mom and pop store or Wal Mart if we go into a recession?

If the liberal in question has been hurt by the recession, he will hold his nose and go to Walmart. What does that demonstrate?

We have the best healthcare in the world, why do people come here in droves?

What fairy tales have you been reading?

I will agree that it is too expensive, which is a problem of both the Dems and Republicans, but does that mean it should be universal and required?

Absolutely it should be universal. There can be no question about the ethics or morality of it. Not to mention the practicality.

Again, those who are telling you "health care should be a decision between the doctor and the patient, therefore we need to keep the system private" are con men. Health care decisions are not between doctor and patient under our system, they are made by for-profit corporations. I would prefer that the health care system be managed by my elected representatives, not by corporate fatcats.

The US is not a manufacturing country anymore, our focus has shifted to services, which make a whole of a lot more money. I do think it is unfortunate that many people have lost their jobs, especially in Michigan, but what are the aternatives? Should we have higher tarifs and better regulations? This absolutely will slow trade down and nobody wins. Globalization is not an abiration. What makes humanity so great, especially opposed to other animals, is we can figure out something else to do and we improvise. We can't just say, "well, all I know how do is work in a factory, I guess my life is over." People will always find a way to survive. I know that sounds harsh, but competition is what drives us. We can always learn something new or become more educated. There is always a way in our country. There are more social and gov't services available that no one should have an excuse.

You said that competition is what drives us. I will grant you that, with the caveat that its competition within democratically established guidelines. That means regulation.

Do you think we have competition now? We don't! There are too few in the game any more for real competition to take place.

Do you really think Mickie D's is our best option? Do you think we would still be a super power and at least the major hegemon if our only available job options was the fast food industry? This is a crippling mentality and this mentality of negativity is part of the problem.

If I am right, however, ignoring the neocon attack on the middle class is the problem. Our economy has been hollowed out. An economy has to produce things to flourish. Ours doesn't any more. Look around and see how hard it is to buy made-in-America products.

This new service economy . . . who do we serve? How? We sell each other french fries. That's a metaphor, of course, but an appropriate one.



No offense, but I do not want the bottom of our society leading us into the future, do you?

Yes. Americans are hard working and innovative. A well-informed, healthy and prosperous population will keep America great. Trust it. It's the essence of democracy.

What you appear to suggest is the rule of an aristocracy.

How are these bottom dwellers not being nurtured?

Your use of the term "bottom dwellers" betrays a distain for the People.

Do you know that over 60% of the federal budget goes towards entitlements. What these people need to do is to put the bottle and needle down, clean themselves up, and find a job.
Ah. The elderly need to put away their meds and go back to the salt mines! Wounded and disabled vets need to quit thier bellyaching and go back to the lfront lines! The mentally ill need to just slap themselves in the face and shape up!

What didn't I think of that? Brilliant!

I guess that is too much to ask, right? I suppose we should coddle them and continue to enable them to keep their lifestyle instead of motivating them to get an education, a job, and start providing for their families. We have all the social programs in the world, but we still have the problem, so how do we fix it? Do we just keep pumping more and more money into it?

There again is that bitter distain of the poor, who were Jesus' best friends.

Conservatism has more of a neutral idea of human nature, meaning some people are naturally good and some are bad. Thus, the good ones will be good no matter what type of gov't you have and the bad ones will be bad. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a gov't that favors those that do well and says to the ones that don't, ...

The early American Calvinists had a similar notion. It was thought that those who prospered were specially blessed by God with grace. Those who were poor probably had bad characters. What this philosophy ignores is the ways in which the rich and powerful can further enrich themselves by oppressing the weak, even if many of the weak are good people.

"You better catch on or you'll be left behind." Why should my hard-earned money go to someone who knows nothing about hard work?

Are you saying that the poor in this country do not work hard? Oh, my. You're reading fairy tales again.

Was he talking about gov't spending? No, he was speaking to the community.

How does the community express itself and act for common purpose? Through its government. That is, if it is a democratic government, which ours might not be for much longer if the trend toward fascism continues.

My friend, I am in favor of things that help Jesus' most beloved friends - the weak. If it is a goverment program that does this as an expression of the community will, good! Yes, that is a socialist impulse. So is national health care. So are environmental standards and labor regulations that limit the power of corporaate greed. The rich are going to have a hard enough time squeezing through the eye of that needle. Lets help the poor fellows out and teach them to be more responsible and compassionate.

I agree wholeheartedly that it's the communities role to help out the poor and less fortunate. This is the best way to establish accountability. Jesus was referring to the ones who really couldn't provide for themselves, he wasn't referring to the ones who were lazy. Paul was referring to the ones who didn't want to help and provide.

There you go again with "help the good ones and to heck with the riffraff and the bad guys". Jesus specifically mentioned convicts as ones to be helped. Criminals in prison! Many Christians are, and indeed, even some of the disciples were, very uncomfportable with Jesus friendship with the dregs of society with whom he liked to keep company - prostitutes even! You will not find a single example of Jesus talking down to a poor person, or a criminal, or even a thief. But he had a sharp tongue for some "respectable types", didn't he?

That is a mystery hard for many to embrace. The fact is, true Christianity is never mainstream and popular. It is essentially underground, lowly, humble. It has dirty fingernails and BO. Forgive me, but the ranting of modern conservative Christian leaders sounds to me like the voices of the same respectable scribes, pharisees and hypocrites that Jesus railed against.

A liberal Christian should read the Bible a little more closely and quit inferring things that aren't there.

Thereis a famous quote, I forget from whom: "Show me what a man finds in his Bible and I'll tell you what kind of man he is." What you and I cherry pick from scripture betrays our natures. My bias is in favor of the low. I think that was Jesus' bias, too.

Please tell me how history supports this conclusion. Locke agreed with Hobbes that human nature could be selfish. Based on your view of human nature, why has it produced such bad results?

In a nutshell - unbridaled power.

With the exception of individuals who are perverted, people want to do good. If they know what the good is, they will pursue it.

Our society has many perverted people in power. That is the result of rewarding greed. Greed from on high handicaps the people, and makes it harder for them to see what the good is that they should and would pursue.

Do you think we are born with a good nature, or does Christ change our nature?

This is a discussion that requires fine nuance. Short answer - yes, we are born, most of us, with good natures. Life and experience can corrupt us. The Fall is something that happens to each of is in life - not a single event in the past. Talking snakes and forbidden fruit are metaphorical devises, not historical facts.

[LGM]

Duder!

Good to see you back...hope all is well with you and your family.

Recent 'conservative' administrations like Reagan and GW Bush who have 'lowered' taxes, have NOT lowered spending...and they certainly haven't reduced the size of government, quite the opposite. Bush especially has dramatically expanded spending and the government, pouring billions into a failed war, and pork barrel 'homeland security' spending which has nothing to do with any effective security.

So these alleged conservatives are not really 'lowering' taxes, they are simply running up huge debt during their administrations, and thereby deferring taxes, shifting taxes to future taxpayers, and causing problems for future administrations. Their fiscal irresponsibility will eventually catch up to us.

But they will be long gone, and their shortsighted stupidity will be someone else's problem.

Alas, they are just a reflection of our own shortsighted greed. We get the government we deserve.

[Objectitron]

My main grievance is not with conservatism per se. Conservatism is a sometimes-needed counterbalance to liberalism run amok. It has an honorable tradition, and some very honorable adherents. I am thinking of good Republicans like Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned us half a century ago about the pitfalls of a military-indusrial complex with too much power and influence.

The ideas you mention, 1) lower taxes and 2) limited government are not bad ideas in themselves. They can be good ideas in the right time and circumstance.

So...lower taxes and limited gov't should not be our goals today?

If you think, however, that the neoconservatives have lowered taxes for the working class, you have been sold a bill of goods. By far, the greatest part of their tax breaks have gone to the corporations. Why on earth would a rational people want to give tax breaks to oil companies that are raking in billions per month in profit? So that they will sell us gas cheaper? Give me a break!

I never said they did. However, they haven't increased. There are more corporations out there than oil companies. The tax breaks weren't intended to make the rich richer, they were intended to help out small businesses who file their taxes on the same level as the rich. The more money these small businesses have the more they can grow, which creates jobs.

These same oil companies are also the ones researching alternative energy sources. What oil companies are you talking about that have anything to do with the price of oil? I think your beef is with OPEC, they are the ones raising oil prices to over $100 a barrel.

Do you think the Dems will not raise taxes on everyone? Have you looked at what they are proposing. There is absolutely no way by just letting the tax cuts expire the Dems like Obama and Clinton will have enough money to pay for their plans. It is a scam. I think maybe it is you who has been sold a bill of goods.

If middle class Americans have seen a slight reduction in taxes under the neocons, these gains are more than offset in the reduction in the quality and quantity of services available to average citizens. As just one example, fire stations all over the nation are shutting down because the funds aren't there to keep them running. But if you are rich, you can now pay for private fire responders! This is what John Edwards means when he talks about two Americas. The privilaged enjoy what we all used to enjoy - what used to be common to everybody.

Con Edwards is full of crap. You do know that he lives in a 29,000 sq ft house and probably has his own fire responders, right? He also charges colleges over $30,000 to speak about poverty. His "two Americas" is the fairy tale intended to divide our nation even more. Privat fire responders are a rare commodity and fire departments aren't federally funded, but they can apply for grants. My church supports a local fire station and we have a fundraiser every year. To suggest that the quality of services has declined because of the reduction of taxes is absolutely not true. Under the "neocons" as you say, the federal gov't has brought in more money with lower taxes. When you tax less, businesses have more money to buy equipment and create jobs, which makes more money. Even though the tax percentages are less, the GDP is higher, which allows the gov't to take more money at a lower rate.


Limited goverment, too, is not a bad idea in itself. When the government starts to tromp on the rights of citizens, it needs to be limited. The Bush administration has suspended habeas corpus, institutionalized torture, eavesdropped on millions of American citizens, attacked a nation that did not threaten us, turned its Justice Department into a muscle arm of the RNC, and declared its superioroty over the other branches of government in a most un-democratic fashion. Those kinds of actions are not conservative. They are radical. This government needs to be limited!

Oh give me a break...quit using the liberal talking points. The Patriot Act only allows the gov't to listen in on international calls from suspected terrorists and associates. While waterboarding is controversial, it has been proven to work, especially on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Anyway, it will be done away with if McCain becomes President because he has spoken openly against it. Everyone thought that Hussein had WMDs, even most of his ministers. Hussein said himself that he had to convince the world he had them to deter Iran from invading. Please tell me how Iraq with WMDs is not a threat? Even Hillary supported the war based on the intelligence. Obama likes to say he has always been against the war, but he was in the Illinois State Senate and not privy to any intelligence on the matter. Do you have any evidence or proof that backs up these talking points, because all I hear is the liberal rhetoric that I always hear, but there is no substance.

When Republican operatives talk about liberty, what they mean is the liberty of the powerful to oppress the weak. When they talk about limited government, they mean freeing the corporations from regulation (labor law, environmental standards, etc.), and from the obligation to contribute to the common weal of the nation.

Please tell me who are the weak and how are they oppressed? It is not the gov't's role to over regulate.


I have no beef with rich folks. Most of the ones that I know, I like very much. But what you have to understand is this: the rich today, who undoubetly earned their wealth and who have every right to enjoy it, are getting richer than they deserve to be, and they are giving back less than they should. They have more influence over the government than they deserve to have. I am reminded of Jesus' talk about the rich man who is given preferential treatment in the temple. We, as a society, have begun to almost worship our rich folks as gods! And we treat the poor with scorn and derision. It seems a most unchristian state of affairs to me.

They benefit because they file their taxes on the same level as most small businesses. Liberal seem to have this idea that the tax breaks were intended for individuals instead of businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of America, not huge corporations. Who are you to say that someone is richer than they deserve to be? Should they be punished with higher taxes because they worked hard and made good investments? What incentive would there be to be rich then? There would be no motivation if the gov't taxed the heck out of them, especially the small businesses. How would they grow?

I'm not talking about the "privileged" rich like Paris Hilton or some other Hollywood wack job. They disgust me. I'm talking about shrewd people who make good financial and personal choices and have a good education, and then make good investments. These are the type of people you want in leadership positions. These are the type of people who create business and wealth for the entire nation. I don't think Jesus would have a problem with these type of people. Remember his parable about the 10 talents. Who was he impressed with? The one who invested them or the one who buried them? He blessed the one who was shrewd and cursed the one who was not.

Who treats the poor with scorn? There are two types of poor: working poor and the poor who got that way based on their choices and are paying the consequences. The working poor have a chance to become rich, the other type of poor will always be poor no matter what you do for them.



Whoever said the government was inefficient? Take health care. If our system were not-for-profit, there is a 30% savings right off the top! Medicare is a marvelously efficient system, compared to the private insurance boondoggle.

This is slightly off topic, but it should be mentioned: The private HMOs maximize their profit by denying care. That is what they were invented to do. Tell me - what normal society's health care system denies health care to those with pre-existing conditions? If you are sick, you can't get coverage. Too bad, so sorry, go away and die. But our profits were up in the last quarter! That is the sort of evil that needs to be fixed in a national, single-payer system.

You're living in fairy tale land if you think the gov't is efficient. Just take this stimulus package they put together. We are not going to receive the stimulus until the summer. By then we could have gone into a recession and be back in a surplus. I'm not going to spend time trying to convince you how inefficient the gov't is as an entity, just look at countries who let the gov't run everything. Then look at the communist countries who try and do the same thing. They have always been inefficient because there is no competition, incentive, or motivation.

We have a problem with healthcare no doubt, but making it universal would be a grave mistake. You need competition to provide the best care. Medicare is an incredibly inefficient system. Ask anyone over 65 about their options for healthcare and you'll find that they are extremely limited.

I would ask you why this person who was sick didn't have coverage in the first place. If you gamble by not having healthcare until you get sick, that is a gamble you might not want to take. I would agree that there are some greedy people out there and perhaps there should be more regulation, but nationalizing it would only make the problem worse. Do you like the long lines at the DMV? They will be even longer with universal healthcare. Why don't you research how long it takes to get something simple as an MRI in Canada or the UK.



What do you mean precisely by "make our economy grow"?

I love business, industry, commerce and innovation. Great stuff. But I hate huge monopolies and megacorps that drive people's businesses out of business and squash innovation.

Increase in GDP. It is a simple formula: If your GDP is higher, the federal gov't will take in more money.

Which Congress do you mean? The (so-called) conservative Republican Congress that gave President Bush everything he wanted, thus demolishing a nifty budget surplus and putting our grandchildren in debt to the Chinese? That Congress?

That congress let spending get out of control and they paid for it by being ousted by the Dems. However, the popularity of the new congress is worse than the previous one and is continuing to spend money on useless earmarks like studying fruit flies.



Ask a truck driver like me who sees the condition of our cities and highways. Better yet, ask someone in Minneapolis. Something about a bridge there.

Highways and bridges that are old and falling apart will be replaced. I don't know where you live, but everywhere I have lived in my life I've had to put up with a lot of traffic because of construction, which I understand to be a necessary evil. It is fallacious to suggest that our infrastructure is falling apart based on a few isolated cases. Since it has now been brought to the attention of every American, congress will approve money for reconstruction, but unless it is an interstate it is not the federal gov't responsibility, it is the responsibility of the state and city gov'ts. You're going to have to take this beef to them, not to the federal gov't. This would be a time where an increase in a state or local tax would be worth it.



If the liberal in question has been hurt by the recession, he will hold his nose and go to Walmart. What does that demonstrate?

That he will compromise his principles in order to survive



What fairy tales have you been reading?

So far...just the ones that you have proposed!



Absolutely it should be universal. There can be no question about the ethics or morality of it. Not to mention the practicality.

Again, those who are telling you "health care should be a decision between the doctor and the patient, therefore we need to keep the system private" are con men. Health care decisions are not between doctor and patient under our system, they are made by for-profit corporations. I would prefer that the health care system be managed by my elected representatives, not by corporate fatcats.

The same elected representatives who like to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in their freezers, hire hookers, and like to play footsie in the little boys' room? They wouldn't manage the healthcare, they would more or less set the system up. Your fellow citizen would be managing the healthcare for set salary with no incentive to provide the best healthcare possible. Very bad idea!



You said that competition is what drives us. I will grant you that, with the caveat that its competition within democratically established guidelines. That means regulation.

What the heck does "democratically established guidelines" mean. Are we voting on these guidelines? Whose talking points did you steal this line from? Regulation is fine, but too much regulation slows down trade, which slow down profitts, which decreases GDP, which forces the gov't to raise taxes to have enough money to spend on studying fruit flies.

Do you think we have competition now? We don't! There are too few in the game any more for real competition to take place.

You're talking about only a few industries. If there wasn't real competition then we wouldn't have the biggest market in the world. Why do you think China, and the EU invest primarily in our markets?



If I am right, however, ignoring the neocon attack on the middle class is the problem. Our economy has been hollowed out. An economy has to produce things to flourish. Ours doesn't any more. Look around and see how hard it is to buy made-in-America products.
I'm in the middle class, I don't feel attacked. No, an economy has to produce capital to flourish. We already have all the industries. As long as we have a lot of capital, we can let other countries do the manufacturing. When we were an infant country we couldn't do this, but now we can. Would you rather work in a factory or a coal mine, or work in an office?

This new service economy . . . who do we serve? How? We sell each other french fries. That's a metaphor, of course, but an appropriate one.

Do you know what service is? It is an industry, not a verb!


Yes. Americans are hard working and innovative. A well-informed, healthy and prosperous population will keep America great. Trust it. It's the essence of democracy.

You've got it right! You should be asking the question: why are the poor not prosperous? It certainly is not the gov't's fault

What you appear to suggest is the rule of an aristocracy.

How? Aristocracy is ruling because of what family you belong to. What I am suggesting is the people that should be leading our country are those that rose to power because they worked hard, got a good education, made good choices, and had a little luck. This has nothing to do with aristocracy.



Your use of the term "bottom dwellers" betrays a distain for the People.

I was being sarcastic, I don't have disdain for the people.


Ah. The elderly need to put away their meds and go back to the salt mines! Wounded and disabled vets need to quit thier bellyaching and go back to the lfront lines! The mentally ill need to just slap themselves in the face and shape up!

What didn't I think of that? Brilliant!

The elderly have Medicare and Social Security, the vets have the VA, and the mentally ill have all the services they need. The programs are readily available. The problem is that these services are run by the gov't and are inefficient. Social Security was never intended to be a full retirement plan.



There again is that bitter distain of the poor, who were Jesus' best friends.

Are you sure about? Jesus' best friends were hardworking poor because they were oppressed by the Roman Empire, which was led by dictators. The US is hardly oppressive to anyone who works hard.



The early American Calvinists had a similar notion. It was thought that those who prospered were specially blessed by God with grace. Those who were poor probably had bad characters. What this philosophy ignores is the ways in which the rich and powerful can further enrich themselves by oppressing the weak, even if many of the weak are good people.

The prosperity gospel is a load of crap and is oppressive in itself and prays on the uneducated who are easily manipulated. This is certainly not what I believe. Please show me how the MAJORITY of the rich in America oppress the weak. How does Bill Gates oppress anyone. Have gave away a billion dollars to help AIDS research. It has been statistically proven that conservatives give away a higher percentage of their income than liberals. What does that tell you?


Are you saying that the poor in this country do not work hard? Oh, my. You're reading fairy tales again.

Depends on which poor you are talking about. I grew up poor initially. My dad was not in the picture and my mom was forced to raise me by herself with a low paying job in healthcare management. She never asked for a handout from the gov't and worked hard and made good choices. Eventually, we made it into the lower middle class. Please show me how this is not possible for anyone who works hard.



How does the community express itself and act for common purpose? Through its government. That is, if it is a democratic government, which ours might not be for much longer if the trend toward fascism continues.

Wrong! A community expresses itself and acts for common purpose by acting like a COMMUNITY. Why does gov't have to get involved? When you begin forcing people to pay more money, the word compassion loses its meaning. Since you have such a positive outlook on humanity, why wouldn't humanity just give out of the goodness of their heart? Why do we have to get the gov't involved?

Are you sure you know what fascism means? Or is this more talking points from liberal websites. Please give us evidence that our gov't is leaning towards fascism. Just more empty liberal rhetoric to arouse the emotions with absolutely no substance.

My friend, I am in favor of things that help Jesus' most beloved friends - the weak. If it is a goverment program that does this as an expression of the community will, good! Yes, that is a socialist impulse. So is national health care. So are environmental standards and labor regulations that limit the power of corporaate greed. The rich are going to have a hard enough time squeezing through the eye of that needle. Lets help the poor fellows out and teach them to be more responsible and compassionate.

Why were Jesus' friends weak? they were oppressed by the Romans. They had no concept of democracy. We are a very rich and prosperous nation. Jesus' friends would not be weak in our society.

Why should the gov't do what the community can do better? The Apostles never asked the Romans to help with their poor did they? The community provided these needs. The Bible does not support gov't social programs!

You're right, you have a lot of socialist impulses and never has a socialist society succeeded for a long period of time.



There you go again with "help the good ones and to heck with the riffraff and the bad guys". Jesus specifically mentioned convicts as ones to be helped. Criminals in prison! Many Christians are, and indeed, even some of the disciples were, very uncomfportable with Jesus friendship with the dregs of society with whom he liked to keep company - prostitutes even! You will not find a single example of Jesus talking down to a poor person, or a criminal, or even a thief. But he had a sharp tongue for some "respectable types", didn't he?

I don't have time to whip out my Bible, but when does Jesus help out criminal and convicts financially?

He was friends with them no doubt, but I don't recall him slipping a twenty into their pockets. I remember him breaking bread and feeding 5,000 to 7,000 men, not counting women and children, but I don't recall him requiring the Sanhedrin to provid food and shelter to the poor. I'm not talking down to the poor, I'm speaking in generalizations because I have to for the sake of brevity. Jesus met peoples' spiritual and physical needs, but his focus was always on the spiritual. He stayed away from politics.

He had a sharp tongue for hypocrites, especially the pharisees. I don't think he would have a sharp tongue for someone who works hard, makes a lot of money, and spends it wisely (including giving it back to charity). He actually speaks highly of these type of people. He would have a problem with those who squander everything and make poor financial and lifestyle choices, would he not?


That is a mystery hard for many to embrace. The fact is, true Christianity is never mainstream and popular. It is essentially underground, lowly, humble. It has dirty fingernails and BO. Forgive me, but the ranting of modern conservative Christian leaders sounds to me like the voices of the same respectable scribes, pharisees and hypocrites that Jesus railed against.

Spare me this propaganda social gospel. This would be true if we lived in Haiti (which I have been twice by the way). But we live in a nation that at least admits to be predominately Christian, whether they live it out is a different story. There are no laws against preaching the gospel, so why would it need to be underground like in China. Why should we not wear deoderant and not take showers. It is not a sin to use your common sense. We don't live in the first century or oppressed by a dictator. We live in a great nation. Just because you are rich does not make you a hypocrite. How you got there and what you do with the wealth and prestige would determine that. I think you have been manipulated to believe in a reality that doesn't exist here. Being humble is not selling everything you have and living on the street. That would be stupidity.


Thereis a famous quote, I forget from whom: "Show me what a man finds in his Bible and I'll tell you what kind of man he is." What you and I cherry pick from scripture betrays our natures. My bias is in favor of the low. I think that was Jesus' bias, too.

I don't cherry pick anything. You are only presenting one side of Jesus' teachings, the one that means the most to you. An objective study of Jesus in all the gospels does not present Jesus as a socialist or communist. I try and study the Bible as objectively as possible and let the authors say what they say and go from there. I don't cherry pick the sermon of the mount and then read those teachings into everything else Jesus said and did. I'm actually pretty liberal (not socially) in my view of the Bible and how it was created.

[Objectitron]

With the exception of individuals who are perverted, people want to do good. If they know what the good is, they will pursue it.

Then why are the majority of people below the poverty line not pursue this good you are talking about.

Our society has many perverted people in power. That is the result of rewarding greed. Greed from on high handicaps the people, and makes it harder for them to see what the good is that they should and would pursue.

Not all rich people are greedy and not all poor people are lazy!



This is a discussion that requires fine nuance. Short answer - yes, we are born, most of us, with good natures. Life and experience can corrupt us. The Fall is something that happens to each of is in life - not a single event in the past. Talking snakes and forbidden fruit are metaphorical devises, not historical facts.

So if we are nature is good, then why does Paul say our nature is bad. Do you reject his teachings? If we are so good in our nature, then why did Jesus have to die a horrible death for us?

I would see the Adam and Eve story as allegorical too.

[LGM]

So...lower taxes and limited gov't should not be our goals today?

This pandering rhetoric always amuses me.

We have a Federal government with a Trillion dollar annual budget, 9.2 trillion dollar debt, with 1.8 million civilian employees, with FRIGHTENING unfunded retirement benefits.

We have to PAY FOR THIS. If the Federal government were a Corporation, they would be BANKRUPT.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Democrats Tax and Spend...and Republicans tax a little less and SPEND just as much.

So, stop the nebulous soundbites, and feel free to identify what PARTS of the government President Objectitron is going to DO AWAY with.

The interest on the debt, the defense budget, and the SS and Health Care entitlements, make up the VAST proportion of the Federal budget. Everything else is mouse nuts.

What are you going to CUT...to make the government smaller?

FBI? EPA? Labor? Transportation? FEMA, DOE? Federal Judiciary?

Speak up!

Can't hear you...

"Cut taxes and make government smaller!" is the type of pandering rhetorical tripe that lying politicians utter that gets kneejerk Rush Limbaugh fans drooling in a voting booth.

Actually cutting government programs or whole departments, or taking away people's sacred entitlements is a little more difficult isn't it? What did George Bush do in 8 years...with a Republican Congress? NOTHING...he increased spending on the military, gave away a new entitlement, and basically handed out cash to any Oil Company who contributed to his PAC.

[Objectitron]

This pandering rhetoric always amuses me.

We have a Federal government with a Trillion dollar annual budget, 9.2 trillion dollar debt, with 1.8 million civilian employees, with FRIGHTENING unfunded retirement benefits.

We have to PAY FOR THIS. If the Federal government were a Corporation, they would be BANKRUPT.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Democrats Tax and Spend...and Republicans tax a little less and SPEND just as much.

So, stop the nebulous soundbites, and feel free to identify what PARTS of the government President Objectitron is going to DO AWAY with.

The interest on the debt, the defense budget, and the SS and Health Care entitlements, make up the VAST proportion of the Federal budget. Everything else is mouse nuts.

What are you going to CUT...to make the government smaller?

FBI? EPA? Labor? Transportation? FEMA, DOE? Federal Judiciary?

Speak up!

Can't hear you...

"Cut taxes and make government smaller!" is the type of pandering rhetorical tripe that lying politicians utter that gets kneejerk Rush Limbaugh fans drooling in a voting booth.

Actually cutting government programs or whole departments, or taking away people's sacred entitlements is a little more difficult isn't it? What did George Bush do in 8 years...with a Republican Congress? NOTHING...he increased spending on the military, gave away a new entitlement, and basically handed out cash to any Oil Company who contributed to his PAC.

Why don't you go crawl back under your rock LGM, Duder and I are trying to have an adult conversation.

If the federal gov't were to go banckrupt, so would the world. The world depends on our markets (i.e. NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX). Your wrong in your assertion that the Dems and Repubicans tax similarly. By taxing less you allow businesses to grow, which increases your GDP and makes more money for the gov't. If you curb spending, which the former Republican Congress did not do, you can use the surplus money from taxes to pay off debt to the Chinese and others. By taxing a lot and spending a lot, you can't let your economy grow or pay off debt.

I would start by cutting the worthless Dept. of Education. However, you don't have to necessarily cut any dept., but you can limit the size of their bureaucracies and their sphere of influence. The IRS is another thing we should look into to cutting, or at least we need to simplify the tax code.

SS is going to be the biggest problem because there won't be any funding in 10 years. This might be a promise the gov't is going to have to break. The amount of people taking social security is going to jump from 54 million to 68 million in the coming years because of the baby boomers. So how does President LGM propose we fix this? More taxes?

[LGM]

Why don't you go crawl back under your rock LGM, Duder and I are trying to have an adult conversation.

I'm here under your pretentious rock. sniff...sniff...spells like Fox News in here...


If the federal gov't were to go banckrupt, so would the world.

:lol: Wow...you must fancy yourself a brilliant economist!

No...when our federal government runs into deeper and deeper fiscal problems, it will have to tax it's way out, dramatically cut spending and programs, and it's currency will lose value. The latter is already happening.


The world depends on our markets (i.e. NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX).

Those are global markets nitwit...they aren't the government. Nasdaq or it's listed companies like Microsoft isn't in any debt, and it doesn't have unfunded retirement benefits promised to millions of workers.


Your wrong in your assertion that the Dems and Repubicans tax similarly. By taxing less you allow businesses to grow, which increases your GDP and makes more money for the gov't.

Please, there isn't any significant difference in how business 'grew' under the Bush or Clinton tax plans.

Microsoft, IBM, Merck, GM aren't growing more or less because of some tinkering with marginal tax rates.

You probably don't even pay any Federal income taxes. Well I do...A LOT. And my wife is a tax accountant. And we get NAILED with the AMT.

So the crap about cutting taxes is just offset in the AMT and lots of other 'fees' that are really just taxes.


If you curb spending, which the former Republican Congress did not do, you can use the surplus money from taxes to pay off debt to the Chinese and others. By taxing a lot and spending a lot, you can't let your economy grow or pay off debt.

Yeah...so CUTTING taxes is NOT the first step...it's CURBING spending.


I would start by cutting the worthless Dept. of Education. However, you don't have to necessarily cut any dept., but you can limit the size of their bureaucracies and their sphere of influence. The IRS is another thing we should look into to cutting, or at least we need to simplify the tax code.

Window dressing. The IRS is the governments COLLECTION agency. Trust me, they are the only people with a SHOT at collecting all the money people don't pay.

What we spend on the Federal Education Dept in a year equals a week of the Iraq war or Medicaid payments or interest on the debt. Window dressing.

So in other words, you aren't going to do much, are you President Conservative Objectitron? Except cut more taxes...

I thought that was the case...

[Objectitron]

Those are global markets nitwit...they aren't the government. Nasdaq or it's listed companies like Microsoft isn't in any debt, and it doesn't have unfunded retirement benefits promised to millions of workers.

No...they are American markets that let foreign companies trade on them, that's why they are called global markets. Hence the names New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange. You tell me who the nitwit is? My point is that if our federal gov't were to even broach the word bankruptcy, the American markets would crash. Thus, ushering in a rippling and crippling effect across the world. This is why it is not a possibility.


You probably don't even pay any Federal income taxes. Well I do...A LOT. And my wife is a tax accountant. And we get NAILED with the AMT.

I'm no Wesley Snipes...I pay a lot in federal taxes. The AMT needs to be cancelled, it was never intended to affect as many people when it was created over 30 years ago.


What we spend on the Federal Education Dept in a year equals a week of the Iraq war or Medicaid payments or interest on the debt. Window dressing.

You prove my point. Why even have something so insignificant if it doesn't work. You asked me what I would cut and I told you. I'm not going to cut the department of defense, would you?

So in other words, you aren't going to do much, are you President Conservative Objectitron? Except cut more taxes...

I don't think we need to do anything drastic, I don't think we are living in peril like the Dems monger everday. I certainly am not interested in the type of change Barack Obama is proposing, even though I don't think he knows what the change is, he just likes the way it sounds.

Lowering taxes and curbing spending are two things we need to do right away. The Dems will do the opposite no matter what they are promising.

If you were President, what would you do?

[Zeluvia]

First off you don't "know" what any of them will do. So that is silly.

And you still haven't admitted that the last Democratic president left office with a budget surplus.

So where is your support for your assertion that the Democrats will do this?

FDR? Something that happened 60 years ago?

[Duder]

Duder!

Good to see you back...hope all is well with you and your family.

LGM, you blathering atheist, unrepentant sinner, dispicable heathen and rabid heretic!

How you been, man? I've missed you. Good to talk to you again.

We are well. Ups and downs, hits and misses, joys and pains - you know how it is - no complaints.

Recent 'conservative' administrations like Reagan and GW Bush who have 'lowered' taxes, have NOT lowered spending...and they certainly haven't reduced the size of government, quite the opposite. Bush especially has dramatically expanded spending and the government, pouring billions into a failed war, and pork barrel 'homeland security' spending which has nothing to do with any effective security.

So these alleged conservatives are not really 'lowering' taxes, they are simply running up huge debt during their administrations, and thereby deferring taxes, shifting taxes to future taxpayers, and causing problems for future administrations. Their fiscal irresponsibility will eventually catch up to us.

But they will be long gone, and their shortsighted stupidity will be someone else's problem.

Alas, they are just a reflection of our own shortsighted greed.

Yes, I have noticed the same thing among neo-conservatives. These guys today make real conservatives puke and old-school conservatives spin in their graves.

We get the government we deserve.

Sometimes I am tempted to throw up my hands and say the same thing myself. But honestly, I don't think its true. I think that in recent elections the democratic process has been hijacked by jerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement and the best Supreme Court money can buy.

These guys have not won on a level field, and the nation deserves better.

[Objectitron]

First off you don't "know" what any of them will do. So that is silly.

And you still haven't admitted that the last Democratic president left office with a budget surplus.

So where is your support for your assertion that the Democrats will do this?

FDR? Something that happened 60 years ago?


So we shouldn't believe what they are saying?

I never denied Clinton left with a budget surplus. He also crippled and neglected our intelligence services.

My support in this assertion is both Obama and Clinton have layed out how much it will cost for their proposals. There is no way to pay for it but to raise taxes. How else can they pay for it? They have admitted letting the Bush tax cuts expire will not be enough to pay for it. Where else are they going to get the money? We are borrowing money already from the Chinese and Japanese to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we pulled out every troop, which they said they will not do, we would still be borrowing money that we don't have, and it still would not be enough.

[Zeluvia]

So, how do we pay back all the money we borrowed?

How do we pay the interest on Bush's debt?

Your estimate of Clinton's intelligence service seems right off Fox News also. What exactly did Clinton do that "crippled" our intelligence?

As far as what I have read, he had meeting every week with the heads of all the intelligence agencies, to help them share info and keep him informed, a practice GW Bush stopped.

Do you make more than 75,000 a year? Which "tax cut" that will be repealed raises YOUR taxes?

[LGM]

Do you make more than 75,000 a year? Which "tax cut" that will be repealed raises YOUR taxes?

The income tax cuts are a complete sham because of the AMT.

For those of us who make more than 200K per year, the AMT takes back almost all of the rate cut. My income also means I'm phased out of all the College tuition tax benefits and of course I don't qualify for countless other tax breaks. The alledged tax cut is a cruel joke for people who make 100K - 300K, because AMT takes it all back. It really only benefits the super high income people making over 500K per year where the AMT takes less of percentage.

Sorry, if you want to start wars, and police forces in other Arab countries, you have to pay for them. If you want to give lots of endless benefits to people, and great retirement benefits to all those millions of government employees, you have to pay for them. But fiscally irresponsible dweebs like Bush don't believe in that. Just put it on my tab he says. He's basically been handing a suitcase of money to the superrich, and his Corporate backers like Halliburton, for the last several years, while at the same time asking poor marines and their families to continue to sacrifice in hell holes like Fallujah without any well defined mission other than being a police force in a civil war.

All of Corporate America has had to go thru radical revisions and cutbacks to their retirement benefit plans. These companies from GE to IBM have done away with guarenteed pensions and retiree medical benefits and gone to 401K and long term care plans that require the employee to contribute significantly. Meanwhile, the Federal government and the military hasn't done anything, and in the next 30 years there will be HUGE unfunded retirement promises that hundreds of thousands of military and civilian federal employees will be trying to collect on.

Again, feel free to cut the entire Federal Dept of Education from the budget. Get rid of HUD completely. It's mouse nuts compared to the entitlement spending, retirement benefits, defense spending and the HUGE growing interest payments on the debt.

The US Federal government has been borrowing money at the best interest rate you can get, T Bill and Notes, and dumping it into a huge trough. People in the USA are also way over extended on personal credit. Well, the day of reckoning is coming, just be prepared for your greenback to continue to lose significant value over the next decade, and your taxes will HAVE to go up, no matter who is in the White House or Congress.

[Zeluvia]

Don't forget that changing pension plans to 401ks changed stock market investing and power pools....the effects are more far reaching than just shifting retirement burden to the employee.

[Objectitron]

So, how do we pay back all the money we borrowed?

How do we pay the interest on Bush's debt?

Your estimate of Clinton's intelligence service seems right off Fox News also. What exactly did Clinton do that "crippled" our intelligence?

As far as what I have read, he had meeting every week with the heads of all the intelligence agencies, to help them share info and keep him informed, a practice GW Bush stopped.

Do you make more than 75,000 a year? Which "tax cut" that will be repealed raises YOUR taxes?


It's simple...the federal gov't has to take in more money than it spends. Actually executing this is what is difficult because we Americans love to spend spend spend. The Dems think higher taxes will pay it off and the Republicans believe lower taxes will pay it off. The reality of the matter is that you have to curb spending too. Liberals don't do that. However, this is a conservative principle. But, the Bush Administration cut taxes but didn't curb spending, which we are paying for today and the Rebublican congress paid for by being ousted. Hopefully, McCain will cut and curb. Obama and Clinton will do the opposite. The proof is in what they are proposing. What makes you think that they would do different?

The question should be what did Clinton do at all for the intelligence services? What did he do when the USS Cole was attacked? Did he kill bin Laden when he had a chance? Did he require the FBI to share info with the CIA and other intelligence services? De he cut down the CIA and their budget? The answers to these questions are: nothing, nothing, no, no, yes!

My beef with the tax cuts is that these cuts benefit small business, which are the backbone of our economy and they grow jobs. Leting them expire would be a huge mistake that could weaken our economy. I think Bush didn't go far enough in the tax cuts, he could have went even further. Personally, I feel I pay to much in taxes and would like more cuts, the Dems would raise my tax bracket probably 20%. That is unacceptable!

[Objectitron]

Don't forget that changing pension plans to 401ks changed stock market investing and power pools....the effects are more far reaching than just shifting retirement burden to the employee.

What are the far reaching effects you are talking about?

My future retirement plans assume that SS will not exist. Thus, I am in control of my own destiny and the oneous is on me to provide my own retirement and make good investments. I'm fine with that mentality and reality. However, people who are in their 40s and early 50s were relying on SS to at least supplement their retirement and they're really wondering what will happen in the next 15 years.

[Zeluvia]

Before Social Security, people did exactly what you are doing now.
They invested for retirement in the Stock Market, savings accounts and Treasury bonds.

The reason Social Security exists is because the banks and the markets failed, and wiped out people's retirement savings.

So, what is to keep this from happening to you in the future?


Also, you might want to look at what is happening in Chile.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=962

and google Chile Retirement

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what... just think of Social Security and Medicare as you helping to support your own grandparent's retirement and health care.

[Objectitron]

Before Social Security, people did exactly what you are doing now.
They invested for retirement in the Stock Market, savings accounts and Treasury bonds.

The reason Social Security exists is because the banks and the markets failed, and wiped out people's retirement savings.

So, what is to keep this from happening to you in the future?


Also, you might want to look at what is happening in Chile.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=962

and google Chile Retirement

We are to keep it from happening again, but there are no guarantees just like there is no guarantee that SS will exist in 20 yrs. If it crashes again, we will start over again. We will have bigger problems to worry about than retirement. SS would be great as a supplement, but it too is doomed to failure.

I don't think you can compare Chile's situation to a future situation of the US because the countries are so different. Chile has endured a lot of political and economic instability over the past 50 years, including a military coup. All in all, considering their circumstances they have been really successful in their governmental and economic reforms, and I believe are considered the 26th most competitive country in the world in regards to economics. Low participation seems to be the biggest hindrance for the AFP. Also there is a lack of competition in the funds they are using. The US has the best and most competitive market in the world. . Additionally, Chile has a higher unemployment rate as well and it rose to 10% in 1999. Currently, the government is ran by a socialist political party. I just don't think you can compare the two.

What do you think is the best thing to do for retirement when SS kicks the bucket?

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are to keep it from happening again, but there are no guarantees just like there is no guarantee that SS will exist in 20 yrs. If it crashes again, we will start over again. We will have bigger problems to worry about than retirement. SS would be great as a supplement, but it too is doomed to failure.That is a myth. The reality is that Social Security may be headed towards a solvency issue. The key word is may. It is not written in stone. In addition tiny minor changes to the plan could make a significant enough difference that will allow Social Security to continue without much of a problem.

[historic salve]

We are to keep it from happening again, but there are no guarantees just like there is no guarantee that SS will exist in 20 yrs. If it crashes again, we will start over again. We will have bigger problems to worry about than retirement. SS would be great as a supplement, but it too is doomed to failure.
What makes you think social security will be bankrupt that soon? I think the general estimate is within the century if nothing is done. That's 80 years longer.

[Objectitron]

By 2012, SS will be paying out more in benefits than it collects. While you are right in that if nothing is done to SS as it stands, it will take about 80 years before it is truly bankrupt, but the benefits will continue to be decreased yearly. By the time I reach the age of retirement, the benefits will have been decreased by at least 26%.

Americans are going to demand and are demanding that something be done to fix it. The big problem is worker-to-beneficiary ratio. In 1950 it was 16-1, now it is around 3-1, soon it will be 2-1 because of the retirements of baby boomers and the lower birth rate compared to the 1950s. To keep the benefits as is the gov't would have to raise the pay roll taxes significantly. This will not bode well with most Americans, especially young adults. This is why the gov't is going to have to do something and why it is considered a failure.

So, by 2012 the gov't is either going to reduce benefits, raise taxes, or seek privatization via voluntary personal savings accounts. I believe the number of SS beneficiaries will jump significantly in the next 10 years from 54 mllion to 68 million.

How is this a myth?

[Zeluvia]

We are to keep it from happening again, but there are no guarantees just like there is no guarantee that SS will exist in 20 yrs. If it crashes again, we will start over again. We will have bigger problems to worry about than retirement. SS would be great as a supplement, but it too is doomed to failure.

I don't think you can compare Chile's situation to a future situation of the US because the countries are so different. Chile has endured a lot of political and economic instability over the past 50 years, including a military coup. All in all, considering their circumstances they have been really successful in their governmental and economic reforms, and I believe are considered the 26th most competitive country in the world in regards to economics. Low participation seems to be the biggest hindrance for the AFP. Also there is a lack of competition in the funds they are using. The US has the best and most competitive market in the world. . Additionally, Chile has a higher unemployment rate as well and it rose to 10% in 1999. Currently, the government is ran by a socialist political party. I just don't think you can compare the two.

What do you think is the best thing to do for retirement when SS kicks the bucket?

Move to Mexico =P

Own your own home, some rental properties, other real property you can sell, stay out of debt, have enough land to garden on, and stay healthy so you can work as long as possible, and have a few kids you can live with if that all fails, which has been the "retirement" plan of choice for centuries.

One of the biggest social changes social security has given our society is that the aged are no longer dependent directly on their children.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Do your parents require social security to make ends meet? Or did they get a good pension program?
Would you be willing to have your parents and your wifes parents live with you and care for them?

On a side note, if people thought that they would have to rely on their children to support them in their old age, you think they would be home-schooling them?

[Zeluvia]

By 2012, SS will be paying out more in benefits than it collects. While you are right in that if nothing is done to SS as it stands, it will take about 80 years before it is truly bankrupt, but the benefits will continue to be decreased yearly. By the time I reach the age of retirement, the benefits will have been decreased by at least 26%.

Americans are going to demand and are demanding that something be done to fix it. The big problem is worker-to-beneficiary ratio. In 1950 it was 16-1, now it is around 3-1, soon it will be 2-1 because of the retirements of baby boomers and the lower birth rate compared to the 1950s. To keep the benefits as is the gov't would have to raise the pay roll taxes significantly. This will not bode well with most Americans, especially young adults. This is why the gov't is going to have to do something and why it is considered a failure.

So, by 2012 the gov't is either going to reduce benefits, raise taxes, or seek privatization via voluntary personal savings accounts. I believe the number of SS beneficiaries will jump significantly in the next 10 years from 54 mllion to 68 million.

How is this a myth?

If we let the 11 million illegals in the country p