Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Coyote]

Full blown persecution doesn't usually happen over night coyote. It didn't even happen over night in the soviet union or china. Persecution happens in stages. It begins with disinformation. It is usually subtle and seemingly reasonable to non thinking people, and usually impossible to answer. It is easy to fall into it once a pattern is established. Even you do it. As a matter of fact, you have done it in this very discussion.

Would this then be similar to the disinformation about homosexuals...athiests or even liberals circulated by the media, popular and respected pundits trying to influence public opinion?

You know the familiar bogeymen: The Gay Agenda, Godless athiest liberals out to ban all forms of religion...or even better the rumour that came to life and despite it's total falseness was hard to squelch in the Kerry/Bush election - the Democrats are going the BAN the Bible.

If it's similar to that then I suppose I can sympathize but I see little hard evidence.

For example, your suggestion that a rational parallell can be drawn between Christians in the US today and the isolated incident of the salem witch trials, or those that carried out the inquistion even further back in history. What sort of answer do you expect when you attempt to draw such parallels? Do you really believe such comparisons are valid?

Pale, you yourself are being disengenius here. You take and use the most historically abhorrent and extremist examples of "liberals" to attempt to make your point. Yet - when someone does something similar - reaching into history - you cry foul. Why?

Actually, my position vis a vis religion is pretty simple. I enjoy and admire spirituality. I seek it. I admire the real compassion that exists in many religions. I would like to emulate it. I admire real scholarship, real thought and the words and acts that originally set Christianity on it's path long before it ever became a political power. I have no beef with religion itself. However fundamentalism - whether it's Christian, Judaic, Hindu or Islam is a frightening and narrow and intolerant world order that seeks to constrain human behavior by inserting religious law into the secular sphere. It seeks to disenfranchise groups of people and even put them to death for reasons that can only seem irrational and sometimes even go against the very founding principles of their order. What they choose for themselves is one thing, but they have no right to impose that upon other free people just as no one has the right to impose upon them. If you want a look at what a "Christian world order" would look like - you can look into history. But you choose to do that selectively - choosing only to view the best and discard the less nice aspects as too long ago or not American. But is it really? Look up Christian Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism. This is a modern and surprisingly popular movement that echos the past intolerances of Christian governance.

Once sufficient disinformation is spread around, it becomes possible to openly express a distaste for a group and once it becomes socially acceptable to hate out in the open, it becomes easier to move on to phase two. Actual discrimination (as opposed to the illusory discrimination described by mare.

You mean like the openly expressed distaste for homosexuals? Or Muslims? Or Liberals?

There is example after example of government entities disregarding actual legal rights and relegating Christians to second class status.

Certain Christian groups like to trot out the same old ponies over and over again to claim persecution. But look at reality.

How many millions of court rulings are issued every year? Millions! Out of which you can guarantee to find a certain number of extreme positions, bizzare decisions and even flat out wrong crap. Do the exceptions in any way make the rule? I doubt it. Where is the evidence beyond emotional appeals. Every argument you make for sentiments against Christians - by far and away the dominant group in this country - I can make for others. But you will not take up their banners? Why?

For example, Samuel B. Kent, a US district judge in the southern district of Texas made a decree that any student uttering the word Jesus would be arrested and incarcerated for six months. In his ruling he stated"......

...This from a judge. You don't think that sounds like persecution?

No. Not when you look at the facts.

According to Wikipedia Judge Kent is unorthodox and in trouble, facing impeachment over a variety of bizarre rulings and possible misconduct - hardly a typical figure. Individuals can persecute - it happens all the time. But that hardly makes it the sort of state or culturally sponsored persecution you are trying to imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Kent
Judge Kent has become well-known throughout the legal community for his humorous orders and judgments. Examples of his unique writing style include an Order of Transfer (suggesting that, for a district judge to have jurisdiction to hear a foreign nation's complaints, it is more proper if a restaurant serving the nation's food is in the district), an Order Denying Motion to Transfer, and his Opinion in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp.

One of his opinions berated a lawyer for ineptly requesting a change of venue for a lawsuit (which involves transfer to a different federal district), when the lawyer simply wanted the case moved to another division within the same district. The judge not only pointed out the error in seeking the wrong remedy, he described the motion in his written opinion as "patently insipid, ludicrous and unequivocally without any merit whatsoever." He wrote that the "obnoxiously ancient, boilerplate, inane Motion is emphatically DENIED," and went on to disqualify the attorney who filed it from representing his client in the case any further, "for submitting such asinine tripe."​

Certainly, for every instance of "persecution" against Christians - I can find one against atheists. Consider the following from Monique Davis, a U.S. Representative:

"I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings... I'm trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois... This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God... What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous... It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists... Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."​

Does that mean there is some sort of underhanded subliminal campaign to persecute atheists and eventually label them like the Jews in Hitler's Germany (which seems to be the implication of what is in store for Christians if Liberals gain the upperhand).

No, I don't think so. And I think this whole idea of "persecution" is itself one of these "disinformation" campaigns. How can you persecute a group who's membership is something like 90% of the countries population - a percentage that includes most of the members allegedly doing the persecution?

 

[vyo476]

Sorry mare, you anulled your marriage yourself, not me. Marriage is what it is. If you show up at the football field, with your helmet and pads and a football, you aren't going to play tennis. You can call it tennis till your heart's content, but it is still football.

And if a whole bunch of people show up at the field later on, when you and your more literal buddies aren't there, and all of them want to call it tennis, how does that affect you? Why would you tell them not to?

 

[Coyote]

Consider the case of Roberts vs Madigan. A teacher in a Denver elementary school was singled out when a bible that was duely carded into the library was removed by the principal and the teacher was forced to remove his personal bible from his desk. School officials didn't want that book "in the student's sight".

Then there was Raymond Raines, a fourth grader at Waring Elementary school in St. Louis, MO. A teacher noticed him one day bowing his head over his lunch in the cafeteria saying a silent prayer. The teacher ordered him to leave his lunch and sent him to the principal's office. He was singled out in full view of all the students in the cafeteria.

The principal told him that it was against the rules for him to bless his food before he ate it and ordered him not to do it again. Two more times he was caught blessing his food and both times he was singled out in front of all of the students in the cafeteria and taken to the principal's office and was disiplined.

The administration eventually segregated him from the rest of his classmates, singled him out for ridicule for his religious beliefs, and eventually suspended him for a week from school.

You don't think that is persecution?

A Christian club in a high school in Hampton, Va that called themselves Warriors for Christ organized a canned food drive to help a local YMCA women's shelter were told by the school administration that they couldn't call the drive the Easter Can Drive because such language couldn't be tolerated at the Kecoughton High School. They were told that it had to be called the spring can drive. Can you imagine a group of muslim students being told that they couldn't give an activity a name associated with ramadan?

A teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School in Houston, Tx shouted "this is garbabe" as she threw the Bibles of two students in the trash. Two sisters were carrying bibles when they walked into their classrom, the teacher noticed them and threw her fit. She hauled the sisters out of the class, took them to the principal and called the girl's mother and threatened to turn her into child protective services because Bibles were not allowed onto school property. Does that sound like persecution to you?

In another incident at the same school, officials confronted three students who had 10 Commandment book covers on their books. The covers were taken off the books and the students were informed that the 10 Commandments were hate speech that might offend other students. This doesn't sound like persecution to you?

Each of these represents extreme examples - and more then that, examples colored by the source - there is little actual fact to judge them by. Does persecution occur? Yes. There are and will always be extremists seeking to go too far. And it is not limited to Christians - despite the fact that they want you to think so. And that does not make it institutionalized persecution.

Look at the number of cases the ACLU has fought and WON on behalf of the rights of Christians (as well as other religious groups) - yet, all you hear is how the ACLU is anti-Christian because they also fight for the rights of those who do not want religion imposed on them. Some how though - these particular types of Christians can't see that.

Here are some more examples of "persecution" to provide some balance:

Did you know there are seven states with anti-athiest laws that they actively try to enforce? Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

In 1993, Herb Silverman, professor of math at the College of Charleston, tried to apply as notary public. In the pre-printed application there was an oath he had to sign, which ended with "so help me God". He crossed out the "God". His application was thus turned down.

There is not a single state in the US that prohibits Christians from holding office.

My question is this: why claim to be discriminated against, when in fact, those that make the claim seem to be doing the discrimination?

How many more examples would you like? Interesting that you want examples "on par" with hitler's persecution of the jews. Look back into his very early days in power. It took a long time to go from subtle disinformation, to open public scorn to the ovens. It doesn't happen over night.

Jews were a tiny long hated minority in Europe. Even America refused to take in refugees early on when they were able to escape. They didn't much like Jews either then. To try and compare Christians - one of the most populous and powerful world religions - in a country considered one of the most Christian and religious of the developed world - a country where in order to be electable a presidential candidate must profess some sort of mainstream faith - too the Jews in WW2 Europe is utterly jaw-dropping and arrogant. Worse it shows an abysmal lack of knowledge of history or proportion. I can't believe you would seriously accept such flawed logic

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry mare, you anulled your marriage yourself, not me. Marriage is what it is. If you show up at the football field, with your helmet and pads and a football, you aren't going to play tennis. You can call it tennis till your heart's content, but it is still football.

You seem to think that this is something that I am personally responsible for. Why don't you tell the IRS about your situation and see if they are any more "compassionate" than me.

That's the part that is stupid and cruel, the adamant stance that what has been done is what all of us must continue to do. We must of course still put crazy people in bedlam since they are possessed by demons, people must live with birth defects because God wants them to be that way... your fear makes you afraid of change, your fear makes you cruel and lacking in compassion.

A total lack of compassion or tolerance for others (except harmless groups of cells inside other people's bodies) is fear-based. I think marriage should be about love and committment like the vows say, not genitalia or goat-herder traditions. Do you still purify yourself after touching a woman who is having her period? That would be conservative. I guess the question that comes to mind is why you are so afraid of change? Just because loveless, arranged marriages have been the tradition for thousands of years, why continue them? You DID have an arranged marriage, didn't you? Did they allow a night or two of bundling before the wedding?

In this conversation I doubt that we will get very far if we don't find a way to address Pale's overwhelming fears. I wonder if Pale is married, I wonder if he's happy, perhaps his desire to destroy other people's marriages is nothing more than a sublimated desire to escape his own.

If he's happily married, then what would make him so heartless, compassionless, and cruel as to want to destroy other people's happy marriages except overwhelming fear, expressed as hatred towards those who are not sufficiently like him. If Pale isn't religious, as he claims, then perhaps he should be, it might be that hunkering down in a building once a week with like-minded people is exactly what he needs to reassure himself that things are okay, God is still in Heaven and the Universe is moving according to God's plan. You might give it a try, Pale, it works for my brothers who think and write like you do.

Pale, you don't need to hurt other people to assuage your pain and fear, it won't work anyway, it's like scratching a mosquito bite--it feels good at the time but makes the itch worse moments later.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Would this then be similar to the disinformation about homosexuals...athiests or even liberals circulated by the media, popular and respected pundits trying to influence public opinion?

You know the familiar bogeymen: The Gay Agenda, Godless athiest liberals out to ban all forms of religion...or even better the rumour that came to life and despite it's total falseness was hard to squelch in the Kerry/Bush election - the Democrats are going the BAN the Bible.

If it's similar to that then I suppose I can sympathize but I see little hard evidence.

Pale, you yourself are being disengenius here. You take and use the most historically abhorrent and extremist examples of "liberals" to attempt to make your point. Yet - when someone does something similar - reaching into history - you cry foul. Why?

Actually, my position vis a vis religion is pretty simple. I enjoy and admire spirituality. I seek it. I admire the real compassion that exists in many religions. I would like to emulate it. I admire real scholarship, real thought and the words and acts that originally set Christianity on it's path long before it ever became a political power. I have no beef with religion itself. However fundamentalism - whether it's Christian, Judaic, Hindu or Islam is a frightening and narrow and intolerant world order that seeks to constrain human behavior by inserting religious law into the secular sphere. It seeks to disenfranchise groups of people and even put them to death for reasons that can only seem irrational and sometimes even go against the very founding principles of their order. What they choose for themselves is one thing, but they have no right to impose that upon other free people just as no one has the right to impose upon them. If you want a look at what a "Christian world order" would look like - you can look into history. But you choose to do that selectively - choosing only to view the best and discard the less nice aspects as too long ago or not American. But is it really? Look up Christian Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism. This is a modern and surprisingly popular movement that echos the past intolerances of Christian governance.

You mean like the openly expressed distaste for homosexuals? Or Muslims? Or Liberals?

Certain Christian groups like to trot out the same old ponies over and over again to claim persecution. But look at reality.

How many millions of court rulings are issued every year? Millions! Out of which you can guarantee to find a certain number of extreme positions, bizzare decisions and even flat out wrong crap. Do the exceptions in any way make the rule? I doubt it. Where is the evidence beyond emotional appeals. Every argument you make for sentiments against Christians - by far and away the dominant group in this country - I can make for others. But you will not take up their banners? Why?

No. Not when you look at the facts.

According to Wikipedia Judge Kent is unorthodox and in trouble, facing impeachment over a variety of bizarre rulings and possible misconduct - hardly a typical figure. Individuals can persecute - it happens all the time. But that hardly makes it the sort of state or culturally sponsored persecution you are trying to imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Kent
Judge Kent has become well-known throughout the legal community for his humorous orders and judgments. Examples of his unique writing style include an Order of Transfer (suggesting that, for a district judge to have jurisdiction to hear a foreign nation's complaints, it is more proper if a restaurant serving the nation's food is in the district), an Order Denying Motion to Transfer, and his Opinion in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp.

One of his opinions berated a lawyer for ineptly requesting a change of venue for a lawsuit (which involves transfer to a different federal district), when the lawyer simply wanted the case moved to another division within the same district. The judge not only pointed out the error in seeking the wrong remedy, he described the motion in his written opinion as "patently insipid, ludicrous and unequivocally without any merit whatsoever." He wrote that the "obnoxiously ancient, boilerplate, inane Motion is emphatically DENIED," and went on to disqualify the attorney who filed it from representing his client in the case any further, "for submitting such asinine tripe."​

Certainly, for every instance of "persecution" against Christians - I can find one against atheists. Consider the following from Monique Davis, a U.S. Representative:

"I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings... I'm trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois... This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God... What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous... It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists... Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."​

Does that mean there is some sort of underhanded subliminal campaign to persecute atheists and eventually label them like the Jews in Hitler's Germany (which seems to be the implication of what is in store for Christians if Liberals gain the upperhand).

No, I don't think so. And I think this whole idea of "persecution" is itself one of these "disinformation" campaigns. How can you persecute a group who's membership is something like 90% of the countries population - a percentage that includes most of the members allegedly doing the persecution?

It would seem that Pale is trying to justify his own fears so vigorously that one must consider his actions to be perhaps a form of paranoia. Looking up the word, it does seem to fit:
1 : a rare chronic nondeteriorative psychosis characterized chiefly by systematized delusions of persecution or of grandeur that are commonly isolated from the mainstream of consciousness and that are usually not associated with hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of individuals or of groups toward suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others that is based not on objective reality but on a need to defend the ego against unconscious impulses, that uses projection as a mechanism of defense, and that often takes the form of a compensatory megalomania

 

[palerider]

That's the part that is stupid and cruel, the adamant stance that what has been done is what all of us must continue to do. We must of course still put crazy people in bedlam since they are possessed by demons, people must live with birth defects because God wants them to be that way... your fear makes you afraid of change, your fear makes you cruel and lacking in compassion.

Is this really the best you can do? The fact is, mare, that it isn't just Christians who oppose redefining marriage to include homosexuals. And suggesting that I oppose homosexual marriage out of fear is a pointless and impotent ruse.

If you can make a rational argument for granting special rights due to nothing more than sexual preference that will not result in all manner of crazies coming out of the woodwork demanding special rights based on their individual quirks, then feel free. Make your rational argument. Lets hear it.

A total lack of compassion or tolerance for others (except harmless groups of cells inside other people's bodies) is fear-based. I think marriage should be about love and committment like the vows say, not genitalia or goat-herder traditions.

Think what you like, but when you demand that I think like you and you are willing to punish me if I don't, then you become a tyrant. I asked for historical examples of "marriage" between members of the same sex and you have not provided any. There is, of course, a reason for your inability to provide examples. Marriage is what it is and your demand that it be redefined is simply unreasonable.

Do you still purify yourself after touching a woman who is having her period? That would be conservative.

Actually, that is the ritual of a very specific religious group. It has nothing to do with political conservativism. Why is it that you are unable to make an argument in which you must deliberately mischaracterize people. Is this really how you view the world? Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a religious zealot?

I guess the question that comes to mind is why you are so afraid of change?

If change is necessary, then change is a good thing. Change for change's sake is idiocy. Can you make a rational argument for changing an institution that has been between men and women since its inception other than it is what you want? Can you demonstrate any genuine benefit to society to be gained by redefining marriage in order to meet the demands of 2 or 3 percent of the population for no better reason than their sexual preference which may very well turn out to be a genetic disorder?

I have no problem with change if there is a valid and acceptable reason for it. Provide one.

Just because loveless, arranged marriages have been the tradition for thousands of years, why continue them? You DID have an arranged marriage, didn't you? Did they allow a night or two of bundling before the wedding?

Again with the mischaracterization. This cost's you your credibility. You may find me cold, but I don't go about appealing to emotion or mischaracterizing people in order to make my point. I have not personally attacked you on this issue.

I have stated my reasons for opposing homosexual marriage and rather than provied equally powerful reasons for redefining marriage to include homosexuals, you attack me personally. That doesn't help your case.

In this conversation I doubt that we will get very far if we don't find a way to address Pale's overwhelming fears. I wonder if Pale is married, I wonder if he's happy, perhaps his desire to destroy other people's marriages is nothing more than a sublimated desire to escape his own.

Once more. Marriage is what it is. Yes, I am married. I have been married to the same woman for 40 years, and yes, we are happy. I have no desire to destroy anyone's marriage. What you have may be loving, and intimate, and perfect for you, but it is not a marriage. Marriage is what it is and what it alwyas has been, an arrangement between men and women.

If he's happily married, then what would make him so heartless, compassionless, and cruel as to want to destroy other people's happy marriages except overwhelming fear, expressed as hatred towards those who are not sufficiently like him.

Whose marriage am I out to destroy? Yours? You have no marriage. If you married as a male and then changed to female, you anulled your marriage. If you married your partner and she knew of your plans to change sexes, then you cheated and decieved in order to get a marriage license. You believe that is a marriage?

If Pale isn't religious, as he claims, then perhaps he should be, it might be that hunkering down in a building once a week with like-minded people is exactly what he needs to reassure himself that things are okay, God is still in Heaven and the Universe is moving according to God's plan. You might give it a try, Pale, it works for my brothers who think and write like you do.

You might get further with your agenda if you offered up a rational argument rather than continue to attack me. You say change an institution that has been what it has been forever because I want you to but offer no reasonable explanation for why. There are those who defend you and support you but they offer no rational explanation for why either. You say change but for what reason?

Pale, you don't need to hurt other people to assuage your pain and fear, it won't work anyway, it's like scratching a mosquito bite--it feels good at the time but makes the itch worse moments later.

Again, you know nothing about me so you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It is nothing more than an impotent, mindless attack because you know that you simply can't offer up a rational argument for redefining marriage. You just want it and when someone says no, you behave like a child being denied a cookie.

 

[palerider]

1 : a rare chronic nondeteriorative psychosis characterized chiefly by systematized delusions of persecution or of grandeur that are commonly isolated from the mainstream of consciousness and that are usually not associated with hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of individuals or of groups toward suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others that is based not on objective reality but on a need to defend the ego against unconscious impulses, that uses projection as a mechanism of defense, and that often takes the form of a compensatory megalomania

Geeze mare, that sounds just like you. You are sure that fundies, Bible thumpers, and catholics are everywhere and they have you in their sights. They have conspired to deny you what you want for no other reason than their own fears. I have cruised your posts on other subjects and anyone who doesn't agree with you is expressing a "Christian" viewpoint and therefore is not actually qualified to voice an opinion. You believe that if you can successfully call someone a Christian then you are exempt from rationally defending your position. The definiton of paranoia suits you to a T.

 

[Coyote]

It would seem that Pale is trying to justify his own fears so vigorously that one must consider his actions to be perhaps a form of paranoia. Looking up the word, it does seem to fit:
1 : a rare chronic nondeteriorative psychosis characterized chiefly by systematized delusions of persecution or of grandeur that are commonly isolated from the mainstream of consciousness and that are usually not associated with hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of individuals or of groups toward suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others that is based not on objective reality but on a need to defend the ego against unconscious impulses, that uses projection as a mechanism of defense, and that often takes the form of a compensatory megalomania

Well...I don't know about paranoia and associated disorders but....I do know something about logic and Pale and I have certainly argued a good deal on that front vis a vis abortion.

What I don't understand is why someone who professes a desire to make a decision (like on abortion) based upon a logical argument and indeed uses logic ruthlessly in that argument then resorts to fear mongering and emotional appeal above a realistic analysis of the evidence, a critical look at sources making these emotional claims, and a rational consideration of historical evidence in comparison with events today. It's all very emotional and it brings me back to Karen Armstrong's quote:

Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.​

Can anyone provide rational evidence to counter that quote?

 

[palerider]

Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.​

Can anyone provide rational evidence to counter that quote?

Could it be that it is true and your own politically correct leanings preclude you from seeing it? Could it be that you don't want to look at the hard, uncontrovertable evidence that exists in the form of the socialist tyrannies of the 20th century?

The fact is that modern liberlism has no patience with any philosophy that sees absolute goods or absolute wrongs an simply must remove such thinking from the public sphere. Anywhere that modern liberalism has been given its head to run its course, the results have been the same. Religion simply can not be tolerated so it is banned in favor of the religion of the state.

Do you really believe that the supporters of stalin, lenin, pol pot, mao etc really set out with the idea of banning religion? Of course not but relativism can not coexst with a philsophy that sees right and wrong in absoute terms so one must go. We have seen multiple examples in the 20th century.

I would challenge you to provide a rational argument for why it won't happen again given that the modern left has the same stated goals that the socialist dictatorships of the 20th century had in their beginnings and have voiced the same method for reaching those goals.

 

[Coyote]

Could it be that it is true and your own politically correct leanings preclude you from seeing it? Could it be that you don't want to look at the hard, uncontrovertable evidence that exists in the form of the socialist tyrannies of the 20th century?

People are quick to afix the label of "politically correct" when one disagrees with liberal ideologies. Is this because it is easier to do so then to argue the points?

Socialist tyrannies of the 20th century have more in common with rightwing dictatorships of the 20th century then they do with moderate liberal governments. What that tells me - in "hard, uncontrovertable evidence" - is that a simplistic left-right axis is highly inaccurate in trying to define political movements and government structures. When it gets to the extreme end of authoritarianism - there is no appreciable difference between left and right. The only difference is the means not the end.

It is difficult to debate this with you though, because you use such inaccurate definitions. Your definition of liberal is so wide and all-encompassing it includes any form of government that has any form of liberalism associated with it's policies at any time (even if it is primarily a rightwing government). Likewise, your definition of conservative or rightwing has to be a very narrow one, restricted to a selectively chosen period of American history and politics and stripped of it's negative attributes in order to uphold your definition of liberalism. How can one rationally debate this? It's an exercise in frustration, no?

That's kind of why I didn't rejoin this debate when it re-started until just recently...because, being what I am, I couldn't keep my mouth shut

The fact is that modern liberlism has no patience with any philosophy that sees absolute goods or absolute wrongs an simply must remove such thinking from the public sphere. Anywhere that modern liberalism has been given its head to run its course, the results have been the same. Religion simply can not be tolerated so it is banned in favor of the religion of the state.

Show me a real-life example of modern liberalism in the world where religion is not tolerated and banned in favor of the "religion of the state". I am not talking about authoritarian states that have never had a real democracy - modern liberalism working through democracy and modern conservatism working through democracy are the only valid forms of comparison here.

Do you really believe that the supporters of stalin, lenin, pol pot, mao etc really set out with the idea of banning religion? Of course not but relativism can not coexst with a philsophy that sees right and wrong in absoute terms so one must go. We have seen multiple examples in the 20th century.

That is not entirely accurate. And, more to the point - why do you think it leads to an abolition of religion in entirety? I see it as leading to the seperation of church from state, sacred from divine. Democracy can not function within the tyranny of a church run government structure any more then it can function within a secular dictatorship but religion CAN function within a dictatorship. Look at fascist Italy - a right wing dictatorship ran the government while the Catholic church controlled education and public values. Mussolini couldn't hope to overcome the power of the Vatican so he partnered with Rome and they both got what they wanted.

Religion - as a political power - can not co-exist with democracy. It can co-exist with authoritarianism because it is, at it's heart authoritarian. Left-wing authoritarian governments replace religion with state, but right-wing authoritarian governments do not.

For example:
Pinochet regime in Chile
Montt in Guatemala
Hitler and the Nazis in Germany
Mussolini in Italy
The Apartheid regime in South Africa

I would challenge you to provide a rational argument for why it won't happen again given that the modern left has the same stated goals that the socialist dictatorships of the 20th century had in their beginnings and have voiced the same method for reaching those goals.

I will give you a short answer - because you have yet to answer my question concerning fundamentalism and persecution other then to accuse me of "politically correct" blindness and....at the end of where I had left off in this debate in it's first incarnation, you never answere me on how your view of conservatism was any different then libertariansim

Ans.
It won't happen because the vast majority of the vaguely defined "left" in the western world are committed to democracy and believe in working through democracy to establish their goals. Examples of stable left leaning democracies abound in Europe.

 

[palerider]

Socialist tyrannies of the 20th century have more in common with rightwing dictatorships of the 20th century then they do with moderate liberal governments.

Sorry, we have been through that already and you lost the argument soundly. Review the arguments at the beginning of the thread.

It is difficult to debate this with you though, because you use such inaccurate definitions. Your definition of liberal is so wide and all-encompassing it includes any form of government that has any form of liberalism associated with it's policies at any time (even if it is primarily a rightwing government).

The definition of modern liberal is very specific and I have given it over and over. And are you going to try to argue that socialism is right wing again?

Likewise, your definition of conservative or rightwing has to be a very narrow one, restricted to a selectively chosen period of American history and politics and stripped of it's negative attributes in order to uphold your definition of liberalism. How can one rationally debate this? It's an exercise in frustration, no?

Likewise, the definition of conservative/classical liberal is also very specific.

Show me a real-life example of modern liberalism in the world where religion is not tolerated and banned in favor of the "religion of the state". I am not talking about authoritarian states that have never had a real democracy - modern liberalism working through democracy and modern conservatism working through democracy are the only valid forms of comparison here.

The authoritarian states are prime examples of modern liberalism run its natural course. And they are not the only valid comparisons. They are the only ones you can form any sort of argument against, but they are not the only valid comparisons.

Ask any modern liberal if the ends justify the means and which is more important, freedom or equality. Reference those values against any of the authoritarian states. The reason they were authoritarian was because they believed equality was more important than freedom and that the ends justified the means. The ends justifying the means was the given justification for doing away with the whole "democracy" thing in every case.

That is not entirely accurate. And, more to the point - why do you think it leads to an abolition of religion in entirety? I see it as leading to the seperation of church from state, sacred from divine.

You can not separate church from state so long as people are allowed to be openly religious. Religious people will make decisions based on their beliefs and standards of right and wrong. The only way to separate church from state is to eliminate one or the other. Take a look at the authoritarian states if you are unsure which was eliminated.

Democracy can not function within the tyranny of a church run government structure any more then it can function within a secular dictatorship but religion CAN function within a dictatorship.

It can't coexist with a state based on a relativist philosophy.

Look at fascist Italy - a right wing dictatorship ran the government while the Catholic church controlled education and public values. Mussolini couldn't hope to overcome the power of the Vatican so he partnered with Rome and they both got what they wanted.

Fascists were left wing. The fact that you believe that they were right wing is evidence that you really aren't "up to snuff" on your political philosophy. Mussolini described his fascist philosophy as follows:

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"

(Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

Try as you might, you can't spin that into right wing. We have been through this before ad nauseum and the end result of the discussion was that modern liberalism on paper is a very differen thing from modern liberalism in practice.

And Musollini had little choice but to deal with the vatican early on to consolidate power in italy. Had we not won the war, the pope would have found himself in exile, or at the end of a rope.

Religion - as a political power - can not co-exist with democracy. It can co-exist with authoritarianism because it is, at it's heart authoritarian. Left-wing authoritarian governments replace religion with state, but right-wing authoritarian governments do not.

For example:
Pinochet regime in Chile
Montt in Guatemala
Hitler and the Nazis in Germany
Mussolini in Italy
The Apartheid regime in South Africa[/quote]

Hitler and Mussolini were leftists and the business in south africa hardly conforms to anything that could be construed as classical liberalism.

Pinochet and Montt don't fall into the classical liberal mold either.

Ans.
It won't happen because the vast majority of the vaguely defined "left" in the western world are committed to democracy and believe in working through democracy to establish their goals. Examples of stable left leaning democracies abound in Europe.

No they aren't. The bulk of modern liberalism isn't foisted on us by congress and the senate. Modern liberalism bypasses the democratic process all together and is pushed on us by the courts.

Take another good look at europe and tell me with a straight face that they are stable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Another lie by the Pale one. When you said that my legal marriage should be taken away from me you made this personal.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is this really the best you can do? The fact is, mare, that it isn't just Christians who oppose redefining marriage to include homosexuals. And suggesting that I oppose homosexual marriage out of fear is a pointless and impotent ruse.If you can make a rational argument for granting special rights due to nothing more than sexual preference that will not result in all manner of crazies coming out of the woodwork demanding special rights based on their individual quirks, then feel free. Make your rational argument. Lets hear it.Think what you like, but when you demand that I think like you and you are willing to punish me if I don't, then you become a tyrant. I asked for historical examples of "marriage" between members of the same sex and you have not provided any. There is, of course, a reason for your inability to provide examples. Marriage is what it is and your demand that it be redefined is simply unreasonable.Actually, that is the ritual of a very specific religious group. It has nothing to do with political conservativism. Why is it that you are unable to make an argument in which you must deliberately mischaracterize people. Is this really how you view the world? Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a religious zealot?If change is necessary, then change is a good thing. Change for change's sake is idiocy. Can you make a rational argument for changing an institution that has been between men and women since its inception other than it is what you want? Can you demonstrate any genuine benefit to society to be gained by redefining marriage in order to meet the demands of 2 or 3 percent of the population for no better reason than their sexual preference which may very well turn out to be a genetic disorder? have no problem with change if there is a valid and acceptable reason for it. Provide one.
Again with the mischaracterization. This cost's you your credibility. You may find me cold, but I don't go about appealing to emotion or mischaracterizing people in order to make my point. I have not personally attacked you on this issue.I have stated my reasons for opposing homosexual marriage and rather than provied equally powerful reasons for redefining marriage to include homosexuals, you attack me personally. That doesn't help your case.Once more. Marriage is what it is. Yes, I am married. I have been married to the same woman for 40 years, and yes, we are happy. I have no desire to destroy anyone's marriage. What you have may be loving, and intimate, and perfect for you, but it is not a marriage. Marriage is what it is and what it alwyas has been, an arrangement between men and women. Whose marriage am I out to destroy? Yours? You have no marriage. If you married as a male and then changed to female, you anulled your marriage. If you married your partner and she knew of your plans to change sexes, then you cheated and decieved in order to get a marriage license. You believe that is a marriage?ou might get further with your agenda if you offered up a rational argument rather than continue to attack me. You say change an institution that has been what it has been forever because I want you to but offer no reasonable explanation for why. There are those who defend you and support you but they offer no rational explanation for why either. You say change but for what reason?Again, you know nothing about me so you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It is nothing more than an impotent, mindless attack because you know that you simply can't offer up a rational argument for redefining marriage. You just want it and when someone says no, you behave like a child being denied a cookie.

Provide one.

It would make millions of people around the world happy, it would cost nothing, it would increase the security of millions of children, and so far, even with this long session of you bleating like a sheep, you haven't provided a single good reason why homosexual and transsexual people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tradition isn't a good reason, tradition just means we've done it this way for a long time--so what? Tradition is the hobgoblin of the small mind that Einstein talked about.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Geeze mare, that sounds just like you. You are sure that fundies, Bible thumpers, and catholics are everywhere and they have you in their sights. They have conspired to deny you what you want for no other reason than their own fears. I have cruised your posts on other subjects and anyone who doesn't agree with you is expressing a "Christian" viewpoint and therefore is not actually qualified to voice an opinion. You believe that if you can successfully call someone a Christian then you are exempt from rationally defending your position. The definiton of paranoia suits you to a T.

Do you take drugs to make this stuff up or is it just a gift of BS? IF ALL THE LAWS PERSECUTING US GET REPEALED AND WE HAVE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, then I will be paranoid if I post this way, until then you are hoist on your own petard by the unjust laws that you have passed.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry, we have been through that already and you lost the argument soundly. Review the arguments at the beginning of the thread.

I recall those arguments quite well. I see no indication that I "lost the argument" much less "soundly". Perhaps in your own mind?

The definition of modern liberal is very specific and I have given it over and over. And are you going to try to argue that socialism is right wing again?

You do not use a "specific" definition in construing your arguments. Your definition goes all over the board in an attempt to prove your point.

Is socialism leftwing? Yes.

Is/are ALL socialistic attributes leftwing? No.

You can have a goverment with certain attributes that are left wing and certain attributes that are rightwing - according to political historians.

You would say that if it has any leftwing or socialistic attributes - regardless of the rest of it - it is "leftwing". That is inaccurate and dishonest.

Likewise, the definition of conservative/classical liberal is also very specific.

See above response. Liberal is very general. "Modern liberal" - well, I'm really not sure what you mean by it as it seems to be pretty broad. "Classical liberal" is specific and narrow. Conservative is as general as liberal.

The authoritarian states are prime examples of modern liberalism run its natural course. And they are not the only valid comparisons. They are the only ones you can form any sort of argument against, but they are not the only valid comparisons.

Not really. Some, perhaps - if you insist on using a simple right/left axis. Some are a mix of left and rightwing (but you insist on defining them as left) Some are rightwing (and you define those as left simply because they are authoritarian). If you use commonly accepted definitions (which you like to use for "classical liberal" but not for anything else) - you can see some are clearly rightwing such as fascism.

Ask any modern liberal if the ends justify the means and which is more important, freedom or equality.

The ends justify the means. You think that that is something that liberals alone supposedly embrace? I don't think so. As a liberal I certainly don't feel that.

• The ends: achieving a foothold in the Middle East (according to some) or imposing democracy upon another nation (according to some) justifies....
  
• The means: invading and commiting war and it's associated atrocities and regional de-stabilizing.

or

• The ends: punishment and retribution of evil justifies ...
  
• The means: capital punishment with all it's inequalities even if that means the execution of an innocent person (and there are many who wish to see the appeals process abreviated).

Reference those values against any of the authoritarian states. The reason they were authoritarian was because they believed equality was more important than freedom and that the ends justified the means. The ends justifying the means was the given justification for doing away with the whole "democracy" thing in every case.

No. The reason they were authoritarian was because one person or a group of persons wanted power over everyone else - it is as simple as that. Equality - beyond verbage, had nothing to do with it. Equality did not exist in most of those regimes. Liberalism exists within a democracy and supports a democracy because a democracy is the only guarantor of both equality and freedom.

You can not separate church from state so long as people are allowed to be openly religious. Religious people will make decisions based on their beliefs and standards of right and wrong. The only way to separate church from state is to eliminate one or the other. Take a look at the authoritarian states if you are unsure which was eliminated.

Not at all - this assertion is contradicted by everyday reality. We've existed a long time with Church authority seperated from secular authority. We and much of the west have thrived under a very secular system of law and that includes freedom of religion and freedom of people to practice the religion of their choice. Seperation of church and state is nothing more sinister then render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers. When it does not work you get systems like Saudi Arabia or Iran in the modern world (both authoritarian and religious) and a host of other examples in history.

Fascists were left wing. The fact that you believe that they were right wing is evidence that you really aren't "up to snuff" on your political philosophy. Mussolini described his fascist philosophy as follows:

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"

(Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

Try as you might, you can't spin that into right wing. We have been through this before ad nauseum and the end result of the discussion was that modern liberalism on paper is a very differen thing from modern liberalism in practice.

There is no spin. Just because an ideology frames the notion of State as it's central premise does not mean it is leftwing (or that it can't be rightwing).

Fascism started out as socialism with all the associated frills and promises - on paper. But as soon as he consolodated his power Mussolini rejected socialism, rejected the idea of equality in favor of inherent inequality and rejected the leftwing ideals of workers rights, workers ownership and unions and pretty much turned back on every promise he had made. He created a rightwing authoritarian ideology.

And Musollini had little choice but to deal with the vatican early on to consolidate power in italy. Had we not won the war, the pope would have found himself in exile, or at the end of a rope.

Again, inaccurate. Musollini knew early on he could not overcome the power of the Vatican in Italy - the power it had over the people. He needed the church to consolodate his power and in fact made a treaty with the Vatican to restore much of what it had lost.

Hitler and Mussolini were leftists and the business in south africa hardly conforms to anything that could be construed as classical liberalism.

Hitler and Mussolini were largely rightwing authoritarian ideologies - if you go by any commonly excepted definitions. The fact that they had certain attributes of leftwing ideologies does not make them "leftwing" (note: Stalin's USSR had certain charecteristics that were considered "rightwing" - does that make Stalin a rightwing dictator?).

Pinochet and Montt don't fall into the classical liberal mold either.

See - there again you are defining "conservative" very narrowly (as "classical liberal") but you are making a broad stroke with modern liberalism.

No they aren't. The bulk of modern liberalism isn't foisted on us by congress and the senate. Modern liberalism bypasses the democratic process all together and is pushed on us by the courts.

I would disagree. I think that is more rightwing talking points then reality.

If you are talking "activist judges" - then you'll find that historically, the conservatives have been just as guilty as the liberals of "by-passing" the democratic process.

Aside from that though - I do not think that by and large the democratic process has been by-passed. We are a long long ways from a dicatorship by any stretch of the imagination.

Take another good look at europe and tell me with a straight face that they are stable.

Much of western europe is quite stable, as is the U.S., Canada, Australia and a host of other countries with functioning democracies.