The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Eschatos, Feb 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Any argument pro or against libertarianism is a philosophical one, not really a factual one, since accurate studies have not been done over a long period time. And since libertarianism is split into different factions, and none agree on the proper amount of government coersion necessary, you might as well just look at Democrat and Conservative factions which support your own view of how much government is necessary.

    Not all democrats want big government. A person can be libertarian democrat or libertarian conservative.

    I agree with the basic principle that anything should be allowed as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's individual rights. But Libertarians can not agree on what restricts a person's individual rights.

    I think the good democrats (the ones who don't want outright socialism and equality) are on the right track about what restricts a person's individual rights. There are also good republicans who are against mixing church and state. So there's good in all 3 of those parties I mentioned. Its not a matter of one party winning over the others, but of the American people choosing their leaders wisely from the spectrum of candidates. Bush was a way wrong choice in this regard, and was on the team of take as much as you can get, rather than laissez faire w/ government safeguards.
  2. son_of_the_tear Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 5
    I agree. Bush was the wrong choice. And I say this as a Republican. But hey, don't blame me. I was rooting for John McCain back in 2000 :p

    And as a Republican, I was pretty much pro Clinton. I rooted for him in 92 :D

    I will admit that I was rooting for Dole in 96, but I was not dissapointed that Clinton won and was satisfied in the end.

    And I'm also a huge supporter of Reagan and probably my favorite president along with Clinton.

    But I thought Bush Sr. was a waste, just like his son. Go figure :p I see a pattern here,
  3. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I like people who want to protect their way of life, not impose it. And there are a lot of conservatives and liberals who can agree on that. Unfortunately that has been eclipsed by the activist conservatives' agenda. People follow their leader. That's why there is such a culture war. Not because it is up to us, but because it is wished by the NeoCons who are hoping they can use 9/11 as a desperate attempt to impose their ideology.
  4. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    You're entire point is very partisan and biased despite your weak attempt at blaming both sides. The Conservatives you complain about see themselves as protecting their way of life and see Liberals as imposing their views onto everyone else. If you were actually fair-minded, you would not just conspiratorally bad-mouth "Neo-Cons."


    Ciou-See the Sig
  5. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    The Conservatives you complain about see themselves as protecting their way of life and see Liberals as imposing their views onto everyone else.

    The conservatives want to impose more than liberals. Its not imposing on anyone to allow gay marriage or to separate church and state. Its imposing not to do that.

    Protecting your way of life, if that way of life is imposing on the individual rights of others, I am not cool with.

    Conservatives try to twist it to say their individual rights are being robbed if gays are allowed to marry, if prayer is not allowed in public schools, or in the past, if blacks or women were allowed the same rights as white men.

    Under that mindset, Muslims can say we are robbing them of their individual rights by freeing their women. WHOSE individual rights are being protected under American conservatism or Muslim conservatism? Is it the powered-up alpha-males' rights, or is it the rights of all in the land?

    When conservatives look at the Taliban, they should see a distant reflection of themselves. Perhaps that is why conservatives have such hatred toward them, while liberals understand they must live with them and help them change.
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I'm fair minded and I bad mouth neocons all the time, albeit not conspiratorially. :D [face_flag]

    E_S
  7. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I'm fair minded and I bad mouth neocons all the time, albeit not conspiratorially.

    So NeoCons never conspire?:rolleyes:
  8. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    The conservatives want to impose more than liberals. Its not imposing on anyone to allow gay marriage or to separate church and state. Its imposing not to do that.

    PPOR.

    Protecting your way of life, if that way of life is imposing on the individual rights of others, I am not cool with.

    Who has a right to marriage? No one. Is there a separation of church and state in the Constituion? No. There are far more 'impositions' to consider between the two political persuasions than gay marriage and Separation.

    Conservatives try to twist it to say their individual rights are being robbed if gays are allowed to marry, if prayer is not allowed in public schools, or in the past, if blacks or women were allowed the same rights as white men.

    Where have Conservatives said that their rights are taken away if gays can 'marry?' Perhaps you meant the right of churches to practice their beliefs and thus deny marrying a homosexual couple if they are so inclined? Secondly, prayer is an expression of free speech, that should be protected. Thirdly, I'm curious about your charge that Cons were initially against the right to vote for women and blacks. Would you consider the Founding Fathers to be Liberals, and if so, didn't these Liberals deny the vote to women and blacks?

    When conservatives look at the Taliban, they should see a distant reflection of themselves. Perhaps that is why conservatives have such hatred toward them, while liberals understand they must live with them and help them change.

    That first remark is incredibly insenstive and insulting towards Conservatives, I would have thought you would know better-especially if you pretend to be "Liberal." All you seem to care to do is make broad, sweeping generalizations about Conservatives, comparing them to the Taliban of all things. Conservatives are not for a theocracy anymore than Liberals are for a socialist nanny-state.

    As an ender (sai :p) Bendu, Conservatism is not simply a state-of-mind that wants absolutely zero social change whatsoever anymore than Liberalism believes that any change is good and/or needed.


    Ciou-See the Sig
  9. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Conservatives try to twist it to say their individual rights are being robbed if gays are allowed to marry

    Where has this been said? I don't mind if people are gay. If someone wants to be gay they can. What I have a problem with is the groups telling churchs that they know have to marry them becaue it is the law. If chucrhs don't want to do that they don't have to.

    if prayer is not allowed in public schools

    What is wrong with paryer in school? It is part of the 1st admintimen.

    if blacks or women were allowed the same rights as white men.

    You might want to look at are founding father to that one. ;)

    When conservatives look at the Taliban, they should see a distant reflection of themselves.

    What a greatway to bash a whole group of people with very little to no proof. [face_plain]

    Perhaps that is why conservatives have such hatred toward them

    I don't like the Taliban because they took away the rights of all there people. Rights that ever person should have. Me I'm for the power of Free Will and Freedom of choice in what you want to do. A long with a few limits here and there so that people will at lest be safe.
  10. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    Where have activists tried to force churches to marry someone? I'm asking, as I'm not aware of people trying to compel any churches to marry anyone. Separation of Church and State and all that. In my experience activists on gay rights issues focus on getting the state to recognize homosexual marriage, and let churches square with themselves.

    Well, I agree up to a point. I see a lot of hypocrisy on this one. To be stereotypical:
    a bible thumper is the first to say that prayer is protected by the first amendment and will be the first to support prayer as a part of public and government proceedings.

    On the other hand, they are the first to object by painting things with the rather wide brush of 'obscene'. The cacophony only gets worse when art they judge to be obscene is supported by Nat'l Endowment and the like.

    Which of course gets to the heart of the liberal cause on this one. We carry a lot of baggage from our history. Liberals try to make it better by engineering things today so that history doesn't weigh anyone down. Unfortunately, in my experience this isn't possible, but that doesn't mean we should give up, we just need new solutions. ;)
  11. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    It's unfortunate for us and lucky for you the great Red-Seven does not post anymore, because he'd happily beat you with the logic stick he was so fun of wielding.

    If he ever comes back, I expect you and many others to thank him for this; Economist on Neocons


    E_S
  12. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Red-Seven is doing well, I assure you.
  13. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    But Libertarians can not agree on what restricts a person's individual rights.

    I was unaware of this, and I've been to many more conventions than you have. ;) Have any specific examples?

    I think the good democrats (the ones who don't want outright socialism and equality) are on the right track about what restricts a person's individual rights.

    Which would be...?

    ...if prayer is not allowed in public schools...

    That depends--are you talking about student-led prayer or teacher-led prayer?

    Who has a right to marriage? No one.

    Wait a minute. Individuals have sovereignty over their own minds and bodies, and if consenting adults wish to join in marriage, that is entirely up to them. No government entity has any legitimate authority to intervene. So technically, people do have the right to marry, provided that the people in question are consenting adults.

    Is there a separation of church and state in the Constituion? No.

    The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but one of the reasons the first amendment exists is so religion will not influence the government, or vice versa. Read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and any other material you can get your hands on...our founders had a lot to say about the separation of church and state.
  14. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    It seems a lot of these points can lead to other threads.

    As for prayer in school, I am for students praying when they feel they must.

    Wait a minute. Individuals have sovereignty over their own minds and bodies, and if consenting adults wish to join in marriage, that is entirely up to them. No government entity has any legitimate authority to intervene. So technically, people do have the right to marry, provided that the people in question are consenting adults.

    There is still no right to marriage-nothing is codified along that line.

    Is there a separation of church and state in the Constituion? No.

    The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but one of the reasons the first amendment exists is so religion will not influence the government, or vice versa. Read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and any other material you can get your hands on...our founders had a lot to say about the separation of church and state.

    I would rather our society be governed by the Constitution and not through the interpretation of a letter(s) written by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's letters (let alone any Founding Father or politician), no matter how nice, are not and should not be policy without consent of the governed.


    Ciou-See the Sig


    P.S. GAH! I still never use the quote tab! I'm still inlove with the copy&paste time-waster :p.
  15. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Jefferson's letters (let alone any Founding Father or politician), no matter how nice, are not and should not be policy without consent of the governed.

    But there letters show what they thought the words meant. Since meaning is the whole point of words, then that should definitely be a factor in consideration of the Constitution.
  16. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    I can accept that their words should be taken into account, but again not set as policy. Jefferson was not the only one involved in the formation of our Government.

    If we are to take Jefferson's thoughts on this into account, we must also take into account every other Founding Father involved. Even so, it is not law and is only interpretation.


    Ciou-See the Sig
  17. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    But that is the key. The court's job is to interpert the law. If the law needed no interpertation, there would be no need for a court.

  18. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    And the Judiciary bases their interepretation on the separation of church and state, which is not law, on one letter from one man [face_plain]. That does not sound at all responsible.


    Ciou-See the Sig
  19. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    What happened to Red-Seven anyway?
  20. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Moriarte, belief in "a wall of separation between church and state" was not exclusive to just one of Thomas Jefferson's letters. Behold:

    John Adams (the second President of the United States)

    Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
    ?The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.?

    From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
    ?Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ?this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.??

    From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
    ?I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved ? the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!?

    Additional quotes from John Adams:
    ?Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days??

    ?The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.?

    ?...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.?

    Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

    Jefferson?s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
    ?Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ?make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,? thus building a wall of separation between church and State.?

    From Jefferson?s biography:
    ?...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ?Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,? which was rejected ?By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.??

    Jefferson?s ?The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom?:
    ?Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.?

    From Thomas Jefferson?s Bible:
    ?The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.?

    Jefferson?s Notes on Virginia:
    ?Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments??

    Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
    ?It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.?

    ?They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.?

    ?I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redee
  21. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Do a quick Google search, and you'll be able to find far more than these. The written and spoken words of these wise men help us understand exactly what the first amendment means.

    And another quick google search can show you similar quotes and actions from those same individuals that would promote the other side of the argument.

    Kimball Kinnison
  22. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Well, consider one of the Adams quotes above (most of my books are still in boxes, so I don't have full access to them): "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ?this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.?"

    A quick reading of it would suggest that Adams was an opponent of religion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, he was in favor of a non-denominational service over that of any one sect. As he wrote to Benjamin Rush, "I have attended public worship in all countries and with all sects and believe them all much better than no religion, though I have not thought myself obliged to believe all I heard."

    Another famous Adams quote, specifically about the Constitution:
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    You can't just throw out a stream of quotes that are out of context and claim that they prove your point. Adams was a Unitarian, which is a branch of Christian Deism, and most of his comments about religion need to be looked at in that context.

    Kimball Kinnison
  24. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    I was about to charge the same thing, KK :). If Jefferson was so against God involved with government, why then would he say this: ?And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?? Is Jefferson being contradictory or just nuanced ;)? To relate to more to this thread, if this separation was meant to be a part of the Constitution, how come none of the other Founding Fathers never mentioned it once :confused:


    Ciou-See the Sig

    (The majority of this post may be better put in another thread, but I'll let KK decide since this topic is currently discussed in this thread as well)
  25. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    Quotes by John Adams in support of Christian beliefs and principles:

    "We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" [April 18, 1775]

    " The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity? I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.?

    ?[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.?

    "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]


    As for Adams religious affiliation, some argue he was a Unitarian, while others have equally compelling evidence that Adams was a more puritanical Congregationalist Christian. As for Adams "anti-religion" quotes, I suggest that you read his own writings a bit deeper, especially his letters to Jefferson. While he did say some of those things, you have to read the whole letter to get the context.

    --Adm. Nick
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.