Whatever Happpened to "Citizenship" in America? (house of representatives, borders, Minnesota)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know "people have this"? Do they type it or say it or is it a dog whistle that you hear when someone states say "get religion out of politics"?
I'm registered as Libertarian, not Republican -- and I want religion out of politics! That does not mean, however, that people who hold to religious belief should not be allowed to speak their convictions. (Again, it was Voltaire, an avowed non-believer who said, in many ways and on many occasions; "I dispute what you say, but will defend your right to say it").
Not exactly what the Absolutely Politically Correct have in mind, is it?
There is virtually no difference between a Fundamentalist spouting dogma, and a Bernie Sanders type promoting the idea that somewhere, there is a huge pile of stolen wealth which can be easily seized and "redistributed". Unlike Bernie and Lil' Mikey Moore, much of the Democratic Establishment acknowledges, at least indirectly, that that sea of liquidity can't be confiscated and squandered without destroying the nation's credit - and yours and mine as well.
But owning up to the truth more directly would drive many of the Democrats' simplistic following away; so the process is accomplished via education, spread over the generations. But a lot of years have passed since that process was this far out of balance.
I'm registered as Libertarian, not Republican -- and I want religion out of politics! That does not mean, however, that people who hold to religious belief should not be allowed to speak their convictions. (Again, it was Voltaire, an avowed non-believer who said, in many ways and on many occasions; "I dispute what you say, but will defend your right to say it").
Judging by your posts I fail to see the difference between you being a Libertarian and a Republican honestly with all the slams on the left and the far left. It just seems like a cop-out excuse to say that. I don't ever see you bash Republicans the way you bash Democrats. Anyway that is a bit off topic...
Religious beliefs have no business in politics. Now can religion shape individual politics, sure but don't turn religious ideals into politics like I've seen at church before. I'm Catholic but I don't think a prayer service is the place to talk about banning abortions or that Pence is our next Vice-President, yet I've seen that and I'm sure any Christian has seen that. I also think that we should NOT have "In God we trust" in our currency, "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance or swearing in on a holy book, because not everyone one believes in the Abrahamic God, and two not everyone believes in any god. Weren't we a nation founded upon freedom of religion and separation of church and state?
Quote:
Not exactly what the Absolutely Politically Correct have in mind, is it?
No but that is because it don't include the context of being offensive. It's like my stance on Colin Kapernick kneeling, I agree that he and others have the right to kneel during the Star Spangled Banner, but I find it offensive as a grandson of a WW2 and Korean War veteran and a great-great nephew of a WW1 veteran who died from complications of mustard gas. Does he cross the line like Donald Trump does or his supporters or radical Christians who wish death on abortion doctors, I would say no. See the difference?
Quote:
The following is from a smell test at Sephora: I tried this the other day in Sephora at the mall and it smells very generic. It don't smell like much of anything to me. I wouldn't buy this because I don't buy fragrances that I don't personally like. It maybe fun, popular and a crowd pleaser but I don't think it is worth the price tag.
No there is because with fundamentalism it depends on the specific religious view. For example I am Catholic. If you go by fundamental Catholicism, I should be anti abortion. Instead I take a simplistic view of the bible, that being I hate the sin, not the sinner and don't judge unless the party don't forgive for their actions. Take Bill Clinton and Donald Trump for example: Bill apologized for his actions yet Trump didn't really.
Quote:
But owning up to the truth more directly would drive many of the Democrats' simplistic following away; so the process is accomplished via education, spread over the generations. But a lot of years have passed since that process was this far out of balance.
This is what I was referring to in my first part by the way...
How do you know "people have this"? Do they type it or say it or is it a dog whistle that you hear when someone states say "get religion out of politics"?
Mostly it's from when they say, "it will be good when all the older white men are dead and gone" (in so many words).
Have you not been alive for the last 20 years?
Mostly it's from when they say, "it will be good when all the older white men are dead and gone" (in so many words).
Have you not been alive for the last 20 years?
I have and that only really comes from super feminists and African-American supremacists. Though that iss directed at racist and/or sexist "older white men"...
Judging by your posts I fail to see the difference between you being a Libertarian and a Republican honestly with all the slams on the left and the far left. It just seems like a cop-out excuse to say that. I don't ever see you bash Republicans the way you bash Democrats. Anyway that is a bit off topic...
Thanks for the respectful criticism. I can only answer this by pointing out that the founders of what was to evolve into the libertarian movement, and later on, the Libertarian Party, were far more philosophically grounded, and more consistent (at least, from our point of view) than most mass movements. Although Rand might be more conveniently (and commonly) cited, we also drew upon Locke, Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith (particularly, with regard to the "invisible hand" of open competition as a leveling force). From that evolved the proposition that all forms and variations of individual liberty spring from a common principle, and that the concentration and centralization of the legitimized use of force (coercion) is the greatest single threat to that principle.
Both parties have sunk to the use of coercion over the years, but I'll offer no apology for my belief that the Democrats' current collection of sometimes-contradictory single issues -- increasingly united only under the crazy-quilt of Political Correctness, is a far greater threat than a collection of Fundies, Trumpsters, and assorted malcontents. Bastiat's assertion that everyone wants to have their way at the expense of everyone else has never seemed so true, but the desire, and power to impose a particular set of beliefs is increasingly concentrated on one side of our current polarization.
Quote:
Religious beliefs have no business in politics. Now can religion shape individual politics, sure but don't turn religious ideals into politics like I've seen at church before. I'm Catholic but I don't think a prayer service is the place to talk about banning abortions or that Pence is our next Vice-President, yet I've seen that and I'm sure any Christian has seen that. I also think that we should NOT have "In God we trust" in our currency, "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance or swearing in on a holy book, because not everyone one believes in the Abrahamic God, and two not everyone believes in any god. Weren't we a nation founded upon freedom of religion and separation of church and state?
Religious and moralistic beliefs were an original and central focus of many of the oldest examples of preservation of written communication -- and when the subject matter becomes that primal, someone is bound to take offense. But assuming a set of principles has to be formulated, how can respectful exchange, and moderation of opinion ever be accomplished if no one is ever permitted to take a position that some might find offensive?; or that only one version of that exchange is officially deemed sacrosanct? I don't subscribe to the idea that the most militant atheist in the village is, by definition, the most impartial arbiter.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-22-2016 at 11:09 PM..
Thanks for the respectful criticism. I can only answer this by pointing out that the founders of what was to evolve into the libertarian movement, and later on, the Libertarian Party, were far more philosophically grounded, and more consistent (at least, from our point of view) than most mass movements. Although Rand might be more conveniently (and commonly) cited, we also drew upon Locke, Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith (particularly, with regard to the "invisible hand" of open competition as a leveling force). From that evolved the proposition that all forms and variations of individual liberty spring from a common principle, and that the concentration and centralization of the legitimized use of force (coercion) is the greatest single threat to that principle.
Both parties have sunk to the use of coercion over the years, but I'll offer no apology for my belief that the Democrats' current collection of sometimes-contradictory single issues -- increasingly united only under the crazy-quilt of Political Correctness, is a far greater threat than a collection of Fundies, Trumpsters, and assorted malcontents. Bastiat's assertion that everyone wants to have their way at the expense of everyone else has never seemed so true, but the desire, and power to impose a particular set of beliefs is increasingly concentrated on one side of our current polarization.
Religious and moralistic beliefs were an original and central focus of many of the oldest examples of preservation of written communication -- and when the subject matter becomes that primal, someone is bound to take offense. But assuming a set of principles has to be formulated, how can respectful exchange, and moderation of opinion ever be accomplished if no one is ever permitted to take a position that some might find offensive?; or that only one version of that exchange is officially deemed sacrosanct? I don't subscribe to the idea that the most militant atheist in the village is, by definition, the most impartial arbiter.
Like most of those who struggle with making an attempt to "live" a theoretical view of life, as opposed to those who feel a need to deal with life as it really is, your list of political wants tends to grow in proportion to the difference between theory and reality. I look at our current political situation as a natural outgrowth of the very real human condition, man's underlying nature, including, competitiveness, selfishness, and greed. These traits, and not political theory, are the drivers of our interactions that result in the current political reality.
Religion has been busy throughout the ages attempting to ameliorate these human traits which bring us so much misery. In most religions the admonishments surrounding the fact of our selfishness, greed, and a propensity for violence, have often been the basis for more greed and violence not less. Ayn Rand and others weren't responding to a system of oppressive politics as much as they were reacting to man's natural tendencies to overpower others for personal gain.
Your OP was referencing citizenship and all that it infers, but, the total of any nations citizens are, first and foremost, imbued with that human condition, and that serves as the wellspring for their motivation. We can attempt to impose rules, regulations, penalties and corrective actions, but, at days and, we are human and that fact includes a propensity towards looking out for ourselves, and often to the detriment of all others.
Overall, we've done a fair job of balancing our primal instincts with the notion of community and togetherness, but the unconscious mind still seeks to preserve the self at all costs. Imperfection: This is at the crux of the two paths of community, and self interest. We appear to the world as a unified force, but inside our borders we struggle to co-exist. We disagree on taxes, health care, education, wage compensation, housing, welfare, race, militarism, sexual identity, abortion, guns, religion, who should marry who, and we even disagree on whether we have a "right to die." All these issues, and we expect a "system" to bring us together for the purpose of hammering out some form of agreement. None of our illustrious "isms" have ever brought that agreement, and none ever will.
We want to live in a advanced society, but we struggle with the dilemma of what to do with so many left behind, we want honesty in our political dealings, but we struggle with being honest with our fellow humans on a daily basis. Libertarian-ism, and, all the other "isms" will always fail to include this fact of human imperfection, instead we'll argue till the cows come home about the need for change, knowing full well that we'll never change our fundamental selves. All I know is that in spite of all this apparent chaos I've found a place I like living in, warts and all...
The political hack that comes in the form of Hillary Clinton, and the bellicose billionaire that is the "Donald," both speak to an America that is severely divided over their notions of community as a thing opposed to their self interest. The fact that both of these people have made their careers inside the realm of self interest should be our clue to the nonsense that assumes either of them gives a damn about others. Changing the "system" will not change the human.
You (and others) seem to really hate older, white men.
FYI, I am a white man in his 70's.
It has been my experience over those years that broad strokes meant to define humans as a species or even in large or not so large groups are not something likely to bear much fruit. There have been in my world many examples of individual humans working together from a common desire to help the situations of others. As I have seen them in the past, I expect to see such things over and over again going forward.
You (and others) seem to really hate older, white men. Now of course, every older white man was at one time a newborn baby....a wicked creature, perhaps?? One worthy of infanticide, perhaps? Or should the extermination just happen at a certain age.....say, once past 60?? Is that when the being is untenable?? (Bye bye, Bill Clinton....)
The language you and others use towards this cohort reveals something to be ashamed of. But we are past that quaint notion in 2016, right??
I'm an old white man, and I don't see that at all. It's simply a fact that a significant portion of the GOP base are old white men.
It has been my experience over those years that broad strokes meant to define humans as a species or even in large or not so large groups are not something likely to bear much fruit. There have been in my world many examples of individual humans working together from a common desire to help the situations of others. As I have seen them in the past, I expect to see such things over and over again going forward.
While your self-description is interesting, it really doesn't change my point of view. That's because I have noticed an increasing tendency among whites to loathe whiteness. And so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are some older white males out there who believe that being older, white and male is a wicked thing.
I'm an old white man, and I don't see that at all. It's simply a fact that a significant portion of the GOP base are old white men.
See the above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
