main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

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. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Democrats are about spending more money on education, so I think we should continue to woo educated people as well.

    Yes, educated religous liberals could be quite a force in the Democratic Party.
     
  2. Eschatos

    Eschatos Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2005
    EJ, if Democrats are so irreligous, how do you explain the Civil Rights Movement's success? (Sorry . . . have to take a moment to stop weeping/uncontrollably laughing after remembering that GWB featured Dr. King in a campaign ad. His party was so adamantly against civil rights legislation that Bill Bradley-former NBA star and prospective Democratic presidential candidate-switched parties out of disgust.)Also, the right's embracement of Christianity and abhorrence for socialism is laughable. Socialism resembles a system derived from Christianity's positions more than capitalism does.
     
  3. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    People who claim to be about religion in the conservative fold seem more concerned with themselves and imposing standards of morality, and dictating social norms, rather than actually helping to clothe the poor and feed the hungry.

    I don't know is this is true OWM..

    If it was, how do you explain the fact that a lot of "dictating of social norms" has occured from the left as well?

    Tipper Gore and the PMRC pushed through parental advisory labels for music they thought was objectionable.

    Clinton signed the DOMA into law, in order to legislate the normalizing of marriage.

    Sen. Rangel(D) proposed the latest bill for a military draft, not the GOP, in order to install a sense of patriotism in youth.

    Clinton again, having a mistrust of firearms, legislated that belief as part of 1993's crime bill.

    Even the latest example, the so called "baggy pants law," was initiated by a demmie, because he found certain fashions shocking.

    Now, I admit that the division was more pronounced perhaps as late as the late 70's/80's, but honestly, I'd say that the democrats have engaged in just as much, if not more, social engineering as the GOP in recent times.

    Now, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not claiming that the above represents what everyone on the left believes. I know plenty of demmies who didn't support Tipper Gore, and felt betrayed by Clinton's DOMA.

    But that's the point, I think it's only fair that you apply that same standard to who you view as the other side as well.
     
  4. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    I do, Mr. 44, and I do believe you sort of helped me with my point.

    Those examples are the exception, not the rule. Those examples represent the demmies moving to the center to try and get a little bit of that social conservative vote.

    However, the vast majority of people, not necessarily those that are religous, but those that make a POINT of telling HOW religous they are, and attempt to affect political races with their supposed religiosity, THOSE are the people that tend to be more about social norms and neglect the better teachings of Christ.

    I am making a very narrow assertion here, although many people seem to take it as a broad one.
     
  5. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But that's still all about balance, no matter what the belief.

     
  6. Moriarte

    Moriarte Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Moriarte, Vez, you guys need to chill out, and remember this is a thread designed to discuss democratic issues.

    Both of you failed to read what I actually said, and just assumed I was conservative bashing, and then decided to counter with liberal bashing of your own.


    Don't play the victim with me, OWM. I completely, and calmly, understood what you said but disagree with your characterizations which are very irresponsible because they are borderline stereotyping on your part to make your point.

    You assume, that I assumed, that you are conservative bashing. If I see someone doing what you did (remembering the previous paragraph I am not speaking of con-bashing), I will call them up on it, so don't characterize myself as being "liberal bashing" or misunderstanding you simply for addressing it.

    -Yes, that is the implication. People who claim to be about religion in the conservative fold seem more concerned with themselves and imposing standards of morality, and dictating social norms, rather than actually helping to clothe the poor and feed the hungry. Liberals are all about clothing the poor and feeding the hungry, and I know that most religions including Christianity preach such good works. Therefore, the liberal democrats would do well to find charitable community service oriented Christians whose ideas of morality center more around helping their fellow man than condemning him for his lifestyle or social views, (abortion, birth control, gays, etc.)

    This arguement relies almost entirely on biased definitions of the religious right, conservatism and liberalism to reach the claim that liberal Christians are better. Am I, or anyone else, to answer your gross generalizations with similar generalizations to support voices in opposition? I could easily characterize, stereotype, and generalize liberals as the worst people in the world and, according to your argument style, that would be perfectly admissable and valid, but I doubt you'd agree.

    -No, the attacks and criticism came from their POLICIES. It is you on the right who HIDE yourselves behind the bible. You use religion to justify any number of your wretched social policies, and IMHO, the conservative right is cheapening and bastardizing religion by politicizing it so much. We seek Christians who seek to promote the better tennets of the faith, because helping your fellow man is something we have in common.

    "you on the right"-please don't get personal, OWM, perhaps you should chill out and heed your own advice. This is utterly hate-filled, vitriolic rhetoric on your part, (but then again you're the victim), and very telling. You obviously believe that your way is better, but while you condemn the supposed self-righteousness of the religious-right, you yourself express just as much, if not more, self-righteousness in condemning the "cheapening and bastardizing" of religion by the religious-right to elevate the idea that "liberal" Christians are better, or more Christ-like.

    Why aren't those on the religious-right, whom you despise, be the exceptions as you make those liberals in 44's post the exceptions? Enforcing beliefs and social norms in a non-religious manner should be just as wrong in your mind, I would think, from how you argue against the religious-right.


    Ciou-See the Sig
     
  7. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Mr44 posted on 2/15/05 4:21pm
    Sen. Rangel(D) proposed the latest bill for a military draft, not the GOP, in order to install a sense of patriotism in youth. [hr][/blockquote] I've never seen any evidence for the "installing a sense of patriotism in youth" swing to this. I've always heard it explained as a new version of the draft to make sure no one was able to get out of it unfairly.

    [blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Moriarte][b]Moriarte[/b][/link] [b]posted on 2/15/05 8:55pm[/b][hr]This arguement relies almost entirely on biased definitions of the religious right...[hr][/blockquote] By "biased definitions" you mean "not yours"? Face it, people have different definitions, but quite often each is just as wrong as every other. Calling it "biased" is just a cheap shot to try to discredit it.
     
  8. Neo-Paladin

    Neo-Paladin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2004
    I see many differences between liberal Christians and conservative Christians. On the difference I find a liberal stance on Christianity more appealing to me. These differences include personal privacy, women's rights (and family roles), their attitude towards the poor, and I feel a more connected to a loving God when I hear a more liberal preacher speak.

    However, the most important difference to me from a political stand point is that see liberal Christians want everyone to have a place in this nation. I typically find that Conservative Christians try to force their values and lifestyle on everyone. Liberals are more willing to allow everyone to live to their own standards. If you want to do something that is not hurting us and you are willing to face the consequences, then go ahead. They may try to change your mind, but they won't try and force the issue.

    This is, of course, all my personal opinion. I would be interested to hear why conservatives think I am wrong (if Eschatos doesn't mind this thread taking a tangent).
     
  9. Eschatos

    Eschatos Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Man, I am the king of tangents. Inquire away!
     
  10. Emperor_Joe

    Emperor_Joe Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2002
    A "socialist America"?

    Yes

    What nonsense.

    I agree, the idea of a Socialist America is nonsense. But, sadly, Democrats think it is the future.

    Now who's making generalizations?

    I'm stating the logical outcome of all Democrat ideas.

    The democrats have a more inclusive view over what role government should play in the economy and social welfare than the republicans, as well as a different vision for the country.

    You right, that defineition is much more suited to communism. That you for clearing that up.

    Nowhere is their platform "socialist", and that kind of talk simply demonstrates a close-minded bias.

    And that is the talk of a Pollyanna.

     
  11. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Are you familiar with the definition of the word "baiting", EmperorJoe?

    It basically means dissecting a post in such a manner that, instead of listing valid points, is meant to incite.

    You have provided nothing other than opinion to back up your farcical claims. If you wish to believe that democratic party ideals equals communism, that is your business.

    For you to insist that this is fact is another matter entirely, however.

    PPOR.

    And don't bait me again ;).

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  12. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Neo-Paladin:
    However, the most important difference to me from a political stand point is that see liberal Christians want everyone to have a place in this nation. I typically find that Conservative Christians try to force their values and lifestyle on everyone. Liberals are more willing to allow everyone to live to their own standards. If you want to do something that is not hurting us and you are willing to face the consequences, then go ahead. They may try to change your mind, but they won't try and force the issue.

    I bet the Boy Scouts would disagree with that assessment.


    Personally, I suspect the Dems' attempt to fabricate a movement of the "religious left" will fail. For one thing, Dems think they can attract religious people by changing their words but not their policies, even though their policies have the effect of marginalizing religion, making it the one and only thing that can't be invoked in a public place.

    Second, the biggest thing that the left thinks differentiates themselves from the right -- "love for the poor," or however you want to put it -- is built on a lie, the lie that the right is uncompassionate. It is not that the religious right is unconcerned about the poor (or education, or the environment), it is that we don't believe that the solutions to these social problems are always to be found in increased spending in federal programs.

    (Look how McCartney puts it: "Democrats are about spending more money on education, so I think we should continue to woo educated people as well." That assumes that "spending more" is the solution, when we spend nearly $500 billion on K-12 education each year.)

    The idea that liberals uniquely care about the poor and care about education is a lie, and few politcal movements survive on a lie for long.

    Finally, I think the left is attempting to use faith as a tool to accomplish their political ends, instead of allowing their faith to guide their politics. Every side is guilty of that to some degree, but I do not think God approves and blesses such attempts. The left believes in abortion-on-demand, for instance, regardless of what the Bible says. It is dangerous to consciously attempt to distort the Bible to say what you think would best help your cause.
     
  13. Eschatos

    Eschatos Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Whoa, Bubba, that statement's a little off. Don't you think that the Republicans, by instituting a "Presidential Prayer Team" that basically espoused the view that a vote for anyone other than Bush was a mortal sin, used religion as a tool? Don't you think that by demanding an amendment to ban gay marriage, a proposal that they have dropped like a brick since the Bush victory, Republicans were purposely inciting the culture warriors of the extreme right? Wouldn't you have to agree that having campaign volunteers target rural areas with phone messages like, "Kerry will ban the Bible(!!!!) if he is elected." uses religion merely as a means rather than an end?

    BTW, you should catch the first debate of 2004 on tape. Kerry rather eloquently outlined how believing that abortion is wrong does not mean you are justified in illegalizing it.

     
  14. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    This arguement relies almost entirely on biased definitions of the religious right, conservatism and liberalism to reach the claim that liberal Christians are better.

    -Again, you seem to be forgetting that I am discussing the kind of people we want in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. So OF COURSE liberal Christians are better for us than conservative ones.

    Bubba, Moriarte, it is the RIGHT that goes on tv condeming popular culture, gays, abortion, as if Jesus came to earth to preach out against gays and popular culture. When was the last time you heard the religous right go out and speak out about giving more aid and education to the poor? When was the last time you heard the religous right make a political speech about HELPING the impoverished peoples?

    I know Christians believe in good things, and I also believe conservative Christians believe in those things, so here I am, saying sorry for implying otherwise. However, the conservative christians political agenda doesn't match up with the Democratic Party, but liberal christians WOULD.
     
  15. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Eschatos:

    BTW, you should catch the first debate of 2004 on tape. Kerry rather eloquently outlined how believing that abortion is wrong does not mean you are justified in illegalizing it.

    He also later spoke eloquently about how faith without works is dead. Funny how he doesn't see the connection.


    McCartney, I think we could have a serious debate about whether the religious right's priorities are out-of-whack, but I will again assert that caring about the poor doesn't necessarily translate to increased spending. The so-called "war on poverty" has thus far spent something like $5 trillion and hasn't put a dent in poverty. Maybe "more money" isn't the answer.

    Bush has promised billions of aid to Africa, for instance, so I'm not sure the accusation that the right has done nothing is even close to being accurate.

    And let's be honest, the right is not solely responsible for the current culture war. Who was it that sued the Massachusetts courts to have marriage redefined? Who is it that keeps broadcasting excrement?

    Maybe if the left spent more time on issues like poverty and education and less time pushing a radical sexual agenda in the political arena and shoveling filth into the culture, the right would be less inclined to respond.
     
  16. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Who is it that keeps broadcasting excrement?

    "Fox has a schizophrenic personality. Conservatives appreciate Fox news channel for bringing balance, but the Fox entertainment network, on the other hand, has clearly been the leader in driving TV into the sewer with its non-stop sexual emphasis."

    Robert Knight, director of the conservative Culture and Family Institute
     
  17. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
  18. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    I wonder how many people here have actually visited a website of the Christian Left? Some pretty decent thinking there, although I dont agree with some musings on some websites, especially the one of the government getting involved in sports, such as putting a salary cap in Baseball or moving the Dallas Cowboys out of the NFC east. Their ideas of how to deal with the Israel-Palestine situation is naieve at best.

    Can the Christian Left work with the Democrats? Sure can but the Democrats need a slight shift, not to the left or the right but up, they need to move slightly to the Libertarian perspective. I have been researching the Christian Left for a while, and the American Christian Left is unique compared to their European and Latin American counterparts. The Christian Left in the United States isnt quite as socialist as their counterparts, though they do have some socialist ideals such as standardized health care.

    Somethings the Christian Left will disagree with the Democrats on.
    1) Abortion: Contrary to belief the Christian Left does NOT support abortion, they differ from the Christian Right in their manner of dealing with abortion. Where the Christian Right wishes the government to step in and ban it, and in for the more extreme members punish those who engage in it. The Christian Left think its not the governments place, where it loaths abortion its solution is to educate young women on the the physical and psychological damage that can and likely will be done by an abortion, and look for alternative solutions.

    2) Homosexual Marriage: Like the Christian Right the Christian Left IS against homosexual marriage, but unlike their conservative counterpart it does not believe the government needs to make a constitutional amendment banning it, nor should it make one permitting it. Realizing the country is made up of its citizens, and that homosexuals are citizens as well and entitled to the same rights as the next person. Therefore the Christian Left believes homosexuals should be allowed a Civil Union, and these should be decided by the states not the Federal Government.

    With this said I think its a good thing the Democrats are wanting to embrace the Christian Left, it will show the Republicans dont have a monopoly on God and one can be a good Christian and a liberal Democrat. Christianity is broad, with a following from people all across this nation with a variety of backgrounds and beliefs, its foolish to believe the Christian Right speaks for all of them or even most of them. The only problem with the Christian Left is it is not very well organized, to quote Lord Elrond "Its scattered, divided, leaderless", if it starts to organize and finds a strong leader, then watchout.
     
  19. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Fox's choice of programming is hardly proof that the right (religious or otherwise) approves of it.


    Xen, I'm not sure a lack of organization is the Christian Left's only problem. If you're right about its beliefs, it's going to have a tough time having any pull in the Democratic Party -- say, on the issue of abortion, where the militant feminists won't budge.

    The party seems antithetical to religious people having a political voice; the party's position on issues like school prayer will not energize a religious movement.

    And, perhaps even more fundamentally, the left's general embrace of multiculturalism, political correctness, and moral relativism would probably sap any internal religious movement of its strength and energy.
     
  20. Emperor_Joe

    Emperor_Joe Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Are you familiar with the definition of the word "baiting", EmperorJoe?

    It basically means dissecting a post in such a manner that, instead of listing valid points, is meant to incite.

    You have provided nothing other than opinion to back up your farcical claims. If you wish to believe that democratic party ideals equals communism, that is your business.

    For you to insist that this is fact is another matter entirely, however.

    PPOR.

    And don't bait me again.


    I'm not baiting you. I'm telling you the truth. Not to belive it is your bussiness, but it is the truth.

     
  21. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    If its the truth then there will be tons of evidence and you will have little trouble finding plenty of unbiased sources stating for a fact the Democratic Party is in fact socialist. If this is true then start by looking at the DNC website, and posting weblinks to their site that supports your belief. It is you who is making this bold accusition, so therefore it is you who must present evidence to back yourself up. Until you do, you are doing nothing more than posting meaningless drivel in a thread about the party, most likely looking to start an argument.

    If I am wrong, then prove your charges with unbiased sources. Happy Huntings
     
  22. VoijaRisa

    VoijaRisa Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Emperor_Joe posted on 2/16/05 1:58pm
    I'm not baiting you. I'm telling you the truth. Not to belive it is your bussiness, but it is the truth. [hr][/blockquote] Yeah.... still baiting.
     
  23. Eschatos

    Eschatos Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2005
    "He also later spoke eloquently about how faith without works is dead. Funny how he doesn't see the connection."

    Bubba, I suspect that you missed Kerry's point entirely. As a religious man, he believes that human beings have immortal souls and therefore inherent worth from conception. Howeve5r, how do you legislate that article of faith? What objective evidence can you point to that supports this claim? In short, how do you justify telling a person that doesn't believe in the existence of the soul that they are wrong? You can't-not in this life.

    Kerry was merely pointing out that we must govern through reason rather than faith. Otherwise, things get very, very messy.

     
  24. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    First I think you're conjecturing from what Kerry said, trying to make sense of it. Second, your position doesn't even allow us to make any sort of murder illegal.
     
  25. Neo-Paladin

    Neo-Paladin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2004
    As an Eagle Scout, the issue of gays and Boy Scouts is one I could go into depth on, but I won't. I'll suffice to say I think the Scouts are doing the wrong thing (promoting bigotry) and for the wrong reason ($$$ from the Mormons). Regardless, I think it is their right to exclude who they pleased. Then again, I'm sure the segregationists felt they had the right to do what they did. It's a weighty issue.

    In point of fact black spiritual communities have always had a political drive. They also have a strong voice in the party. There are other less vocal spiritual communities that are strongly liberal (the Unitarians and the Anglican Church come to mind immediately, but they aren't the political power house). Catholics are traditionally liberal, though recently activism by Cardinals has begun to swing this. None of these organizations have been sapped by Liberal's multiculturalism, political correctness, and moral relativism. And why not? If your values are good ones, your community and family will adopt them as their own. If they are not, no amount of legislation will make them better. I'm not saying anyone's values are good or not, I'm just saying a bit of social Darwinism goes into what values society finds acceptable.

    The point you make about spending money is valid. In fact this point of view is why I personally highly value conservatives in the political arena. I depend on you to put the breaks on, and make sure we don't start throwing money after foolishness. Unfortunately I haven't seen a lot of that from the Republicans for awhile, and I don't see much in the way of better options either. Until some technology advances enough to wipe out poverty or another option is open to me I'm going to keep advocating spending money to improve the lot of the poor (as Christ proscribed).

    When schools in WA have to cut their school short by a month because they run out of money (was that 2 or 3 years ago?), I'd say we don't spend enough on Education. Considering I have to pay for my collage, and in other nations with a fraction of our GNP, students are paid to go to collage, I'd say we don't spend enough on Education. As an aside I saw a bumper sticker the other day "It will be a glorious day when Schools will get the money they need, and the Air Force will have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." I don't think this should be a goal, but it made me chuckle

    While I agree both sides use Religion as a tool, I don't think that Democrats are unjustified in pointing out that they have appeal to the religious too, that their values are also spiritual values. I agree it is dangerous to distort the Bible, but it is just as dangerous to read selectively. Laws of Leviticus are thrown out because they don't apply any more, but the laws on homosexuality in the very same chapter are completely applicable. I take issue with that.

    Further I don't think accepting that other's life choices are different from mine is a radical position to take sexually or otherwise. I also find this in step with what Christ called for (before I'm accused of hypocrisy, I don't see this as being selective in my reading, but taking from the whole book what I find important).

    I respect your opinion on this, and I think I understand it in a limited sense. I hope you found what I said reasonable. Please excuse the length. I typically try to go for brevity, but there was a lot of ground to cover.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.