Bush,conservatives, and Fascism

[Coyote]

es, I am arguing that. Many, many left wing people are religious and don't want it pushed to the background. Its like saying all right wing are trying the opposite, when its clearly a huge generalization. I know right wing atheists who want a more secular society (my father for one).

Exactly!!!! The whole misconception that the left is anti-religious (a bunch of athiests?) is spin based on a small number of vocal extremists.

 

[palerider]

The right’s ideal government could be said to glorify the white European.

"all men are created equal" The fact is that when those words were written, the best science of the day said that blacks were not men. When it became undeniable that they were, constitutionalists fought to end slavery as an institution"

The right’s ideal government condoned slavery based on race alone, subjugated, betrayed and even conducted genocide on the aboriginal people of the America’s (you know, like small-pox infected blankets).

Refer to your history books coyote and stop perpetuating bad myth. At the time those blankets were handed out, we didn't know how smallpox was transmitted so the smallpox could, in no way, be honestly construed as deliberate.

The right’s ideal government was heavily driven by the concept of “manifest destiny”, a complex set of beliefs that incorporated a variety of ideas about race, religion, culture, and economic necessity.
Now tell me how the above, in practice – in any way even remotely resembles the idea that “all of us are created equal”? A nice idea…that doesn’t seem to do well in practice.

Considering the fact that the phrase "manifest destiny" wasn't even coined until nearly 100 years after the constitution was signed, that particular argument fails on its face.

Once again, if you want to see the blueprint for the ideal conservative state, refer to the constitution of the US. Isn't it odd that I find the constitution the basis for the ideal state and you do not?

The primary trait according to whom? If you carry that “primary” trait to the extreme that you choose to carry liberalism (but avoid doing so with conservatism) then you can only get anarchy and a total erosion of civil rights for minorities in your culture.

Once again, untrue. Conservativism calls for small government to protect certain rights. Anything else simply isn't conservativism. Anarchy is not required to achieve the goal of individual freedom while protecting certain rights while authoritarianism is required to achieve the goal of equality of outcome.

And that primary trait is defined by liberals.

Religious and social conservatives appear to be doing just fine – no one is forcing them to have abortions, reject their religion, or accept gay people beyond normal manners. People who are religious are free to practice their religion in public or private.

Today, yes. Tomorrow?

Taken to extremes, the rightwing version of “freedom” allowed for separate-but-equal policies. The leftwing version of “egalitarian” allowed for “mandatory sensitivity training”. The ideal, in society, is to find the golden mean that balances the two.

equality is not compatible with freedom. Equality must be enforced.

No, it doesn’t – I don’t accept your premise that equality must be “enforced” in order to be achieved. Equality can be promoted, rewarded and taught. It doesn’t have to be taken to the extreme that you insist on taking it to.

Promoted by whom? The government? Rewarded by whom? The government? And if one side is rewarded for behaving a certain way, isn't the other side, by definition punished? And taught by whom? The government? You are expressing the very ideas that require modern liberalism to be authoritarian.

If I were to take rightwing/conservative ideology to an extreme – I would take it to the sweatshop industries at the turn of the century where there was no government or union protections for the workers, mortality was high and safety codes and rights virtually non-existant. Is this your ideal? Or an extreme?

Could I make you work for 1.75 an hour? Would you do it?

But again – you are only looking at one facet of an ideology. If the stated goal of conservatism is freedom from government, then the only way you can achieve that is disintegration into small autonomous communities – or anarchy. In fact – the Libertarians most closely approximate this extreme. But that is if you only look at a single facet of the ideology. In practice – rightwing and leftwing are associated with a number of other principles.

Amall autonomous communities does not equal anarchy. A state of anarchy did not exist when this country was young and operating in a strictly constitional manner.

Let’s assuming that the goal of equality is not compatable with freedom (I don’t necessarily agree here, but it let’s assume so) then is freedom compatable with equality? Looking at history (your example of the ideal conservative government in practice) – I think not.

I have maintained all along that equality is not compatible with freedom, why would I suppose that freedom was compatible with equality. Freedom doesn't require enforcement, equality does. The constitution provides a basis for an equal chance to succeed or fail, no other opportunity is needed.

This will get us into a whole different topic so I’l be brief. Organized religion doesn’t hold the patent on spirituality, or belief in an ultimate good. That is pure arrogance. Secularism is nothing more then “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceaser’s etc.” The right as turned it into a dirty word. That doesn’t not mean it can not be taken to an extreme just like religion has been taken to extremes in the public sphere (just look at history).

When government is in charge of a religion, it always gets taken to extremes and in a liberal state, the government promotes and enforces secularism.

Ahhhhh….the old “if you don’t like it, get out” …. but, it’s my country too you know…and that very rational would easily justify the continuation of slavery, women’s right to vote…and other issues where people chose to take a stand and make a change – where freedom and equality actually intersected.

Of course it is your country too and there and if you don't like the way things are being run where you are, there should exist the opportunity to go somewhere that things are run more to your liking.

your whole slavery argument fails because it was constitutionalist - classical liberals - conservatives that put an end to the institution. Ditto for the right for women to vote, etc.

I could agree with that, in fact I do – but here you are doing what you accuse me of doing. You are using an academic definition – in practice, it doesn’t look so pretty. People live as they want to – meaning no human rights, no protections for minorities (potentially rule by mob?). You are describing the perfect libertarian model.

Do you really believe that the constitution promotes or accepts a state of no human rights, no protection for minorites, mob rule etc? Have you ever read the document?

What? That doesn’t make sense. In a modern liberal state they – like the modern conservative state – could just leave right? Unless you are talking about authoritarian right or left states (and no one can leave). But that is authoritarian. Modern liberal states would be those such as Denmark, Sweden, or Norway for example.

Sorry, but denmark sweden and norway are in the infant stages of socialism and because of their size have achieved a comfort level that they have lived with for some time. As the world becomes more globalized, external pressures are going to disturb that comfort level and they will have to resort to more authoritarian means if equality remains their goal.

Secularism is the religion of the modern left.?? Oh come on! Now you are sounding like someone spouting talking points. 9Sublime is one person.

Perhaps you shoud look around. Perhaps you should listen to the leaders of the moden liberal movement in this country both present and for the past 50 years or so then tell me that secularism isn't the religion of the modern left.

 

[9sublime]

The crusades were an answer to muslim aggression 9sublime. ?

Well, we will definetly have to agree to disagree here, and regardless, I don't think whatever the Muslims did deserved bloody slaughter after bloody slaughter and pillage after pillage of everyone and everything.

Of course they do and you are a member. You have stated more than once that you would like to see religion become an entirely private matter. To what legislative extent would you go to see your desire become reality? How far would you go to see religion removed from the public square? How far do you think other liberals might be prepared to go if given sufficient power?

Just because I want religion to be a private matter doesn't mean I'm part of some secret collective atheist church of Irreligion.

And I love the way you fail to address the main point that not all right wing people are religious and not all left wingers are atheist, which is where all of your point falls down regardless.

 

[palerider]

Well, we will definetly have to agree to disagree here, and regardless, I don't think whatever the Muslims did deserved bloody slaughter after bloody slaughter and pillage after pillage of everyone and everything.

There is nothing to agree to dissagree to here. It is simply historical fact that the crusades were an answer to muslim aggression. If you believe otherwise, then your position is based on belief and not fact.

Just because I want religion to be a private matter doesn't mean I'm part of some secret collective atheist church of Irreligion.

I asked a question. How far would you be willing to go legislatively in an effort to make religion a private matter?

And I love the way you fail to address the main point that not all right wing people are religious and not all left wingers are atheist, which is where all of your point falls down regardless.

My argument isn't about individuals. My argument is about governments and has nothing to do with whether individuals are athiests or not.

Once again, how far would you be willing to go, legislatively, to make religion a private matter?

 

[9sublime]

There is nothing to agree to dissagree to here. It is simply historical fact that the crusades were an answer to muslim aggression. If you believe otherwise, then your position is based on belief and not fact.

Sorry, my post was unclear. The crusades were just unbelievably over the top for a response to Muslim agression, and very much spurred on by something completley different, religion.

I asked a question. How far would you be willing to go legislatively in an effort to make religion a private matter?

I suppose I don't really care to be honest. Whilst I think that religion should be a private matter, too many people believe in it, and it would be very hard to leglislate. I'm basically saying legislating making it private would work about as much as cannabis being illegal. Also, I find arguing about religion funny, so I kind of enjoy people being allowed to preach about it, even if I think its not their place to tell me what to believe.

My argument isn't about individuals. My argument is about governments and has nothing to do with whether individuals are athiests or not.

So you believe the church follows irreligion, even though some, if not most, of the left, don't follow this supposed cult.

 

[palerider]

I suppose I don't really care to be honest. Whilst I think that religion should be a private matter, too many people believe in it, and it would be very hard to leglislate. I'm basically saying legislating making it private would work about as much as cannabis being illegal. Also, I find arguing about religion funny, so I kind of enjoy people being allowed to preach about it, even if I think its not their place to tell me what to believe.[/quote]

I commend you on at least telling me that you were going to be less than honest.

So you believe the church follows irreligion, even though some, if not most, of the left, don't follow this supposed cult.

The philosophy of the left, in practice, can't abide traditional religion in the public square. It will certainly promote and even encourage new age religions but not the traditonal sort. Equality of outcome is not compatible with the idea of trancendent, or ultimate good. To accept an ultimate good is to reject the idea that what an individual wants is good for him.

That traditional religion is being pushed from the public square by the left with the help of the government is not arguable, Denial of fact doesn't change fact.