The only thing scarier than the rise of the Religious Right...
...is the recent rise of the Religious Left, as exemplified by the following story: http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_079133502.html
The governor called his campaign a "crusade," declaring that, as he sees it, he is on the side of God in offering Illinoisans more access to medical insurance and better schools. [...] “When we get sworn into office, do you know what we do?” Blagojevich said to the crowd. “We put our hand on the Holy Bible and we swear under God that we are going to do our duty for the people. And that’s what this fight is really all about – tax fairness to fund our schools and to give everyone the chance to live the American dream. This is more than a fight in Springfield. This is a crusade.”
Those who've followed my previous posts may recall that I used to be a hard-core left-wing socialist. Heck, I even once wanted Ralph Nader to be president. Thinking back, the reason I originally sided with the left was my atheism. I'm from a Catholic family, but I never believed any of it from the start. It seemed obvious enough to me at the time that anyone anyone stupid enough to believe in this "religion" and "God" garbage must not be very smart about other things. I therefore happily went along believing leftist dogma on other topics like economics and environmentalism.
Eventually, when I actually studied economics, I learned that I was very seriously misguided about it. I lost quite a few arguments to my high school economics teacher, and before long he had me admitting that those on the Right had some useful insights on issues, after all. I still thought the Religious Right's positions on things like abortion and school prayer were ridiculous, but I had to admit that in a few areas, maybe they had known better after all. Maybe the Religious Right *wasn't* a complete bunch of know-nothing wackjobs. Maybe they had useful contributions to make to public policy after all.
Well, starting in the late 90s, I began to affiliate myself with the right instead of the left -- with the Republicans and occasionally the Libertarians rather than with the Democrats and the Greens. I had misgivings about some of the right's positions on some social issues, and I was still concerned that they would shove their religion down people's throats given a chance, but overall, when I looked at things across the board, the Republicans seemed like the clear lesser of two evils. Heck, even on social issues, I sometimes found myself agreeing with them when I gave their arguments an honest hearing. Gun rights... affirmative action... hate crimes... campaign finance... views on marriage... crime... Republicans seemed all right on these things after all. I even found myself agreeing with conservative arguments against gay rights laws -- I believe private citizens have an absolute right to freedom of association, which also includes the right to *not* associate with those we dislike. If that means anti-gay bigots are allowed to refuse to hire or rent property to gay people, so be it. That is their right -- their foolish and stupid choice -- to do so.
One thing that always confused me about the Religious Right, though, and still does, is how they justify supporting capitalism despite all the teachings of the Bible. So far as I can tell, Jesus was quite the socialist. Jesus was all about personal sacrifice on behalf of the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, etc. Sure, there are also some passages that support personal responsibility, and there's also the idea that charity should come from all of us as individual persons rather than from an impersonal government, but the overall theme is clear: being a good servant to God implies that you should devote your life not to the pursuit of your own happiness, but to helping others. I believe the teachings of Jesus are fundamentally irreconcilable with the teachings of Adam Smith.
So it has been with great disgust that I have watched the rise of the worst of both worlds: the Religious Left. The article about Illinois is typical: by raising taxes to fund health care and education programs, we are serving God's will on earth. But that's not all. Evangelical Christians seem to be moving left on other issues, too, like environmentalism and foreign policy. Take for instance: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html
Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." [...] the association board not only stood behind Cizik, but also further broadened the group's agenda with a statement condemning torture, which charged that in pursuing the war on terror, the United States had crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible."
At the same time there has been an unholy de facto alliance between the multiculturalist left and the Islamists (who are most certainly "conservative", in a very old-school sense of the word). When the Danish Mohammed cartoons were published, it was primarily those on the left who backed the right of Muslims to not feel offended by anything they see or read in the media, while the right largely stood behind the right of free speech. It is the left, not the right, that gets all huffy and puffy any time someone makes a comment even mildly disparaging of Muslims -- even if the comment is undeniably true (e.g. that the Koran tells Muslims to "slay the unbelievers" -- go take a look and see, if you don't believe me). Far-left groups like the communist front organization International ANSWER even protested against going to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. (I personally witnessed some such far-left anti-war-in-Afghanistan protests back in 2001.)
What is this bizarro world we live in where left-wing "progressives" support the "sovereignty" of nations that grant no civil rights to women and punish adultery or homosexuality with death by stoning? Who fight for the "free speech" right of left-wing activists to burn the American flag, but decry as hate speech right-wing activists' burning of the Hamas and Hezbollah flags? Where atheists, and not so much Christians, are outraged by the suggestion that Mohammed was the first Islamic terrorist?
This is far more frightening than the Religious Right ever was. The multiculturalist wing of the Left insists that we be "tolerant" of other cultures, even the intolerable anti-human Islamist culture that rejects modernity. Let's be real here: Christian conservatives may want to take us back to the 1950s, but Islamic conservatives want to take us back to the 950s. At the same time, the atheistic socialists on the Left are making common cause with the religious (Christian) left to push for more redistribution of wealth (i.e. tax hikes, especially on the rich, and a bigger welfare state).
There is absolutely nothing in these new alliances on the left that appeals to me.
- At one point you could trust the Left to oppose religion and promote atheism. No longer. (See examples above.)
- At one point you could trust the Left to fight for free speech and oppose censorship. No longer. The Left generally favors increased regulations on political speech along the lines of McCain-Feingold, supports "hate crimes" laws, and opposes "intolerance" (a.k.a. criticism) of certain favored groups such as Muslims and gays.
- At one point you could trust the Left to fight for racial equality. No longer. The Left favors government-sponsored racism in the form of affirmative action.
There is still some hope: will the move of the Left towards religion push secularists to the right, resulting in the rise of a new secularist Right that favors freedom across the board, in both the economic sphere and the social sphere?
Some more food for thought here: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html
- lordzorgon's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
What is this bizarro world
Same bizarro world where the right supports it ad nauseum in any part of the world where its interests are not threatened. I notice Bush's noble crusades were never bothered by real problems, like ongoing genocides in Africa.
Yeah, they're both free speech. If you think "decrying" = "anti-free speech", then you need a primer in basic American law.
Sheesh, for the same reason Jews would get upset if I called Jacob the first Jewish swindler (he was) and Christians would get upset if I called Jesus the first Christian bastard (he was).
Really? In which of your examples is the supposedly threatening Christian Left imposing its will on someone? Banning something? Rejecting someone? I hardly thing "universal healthcare" is as dangerous as, say, blaming the gays for 9/11.
If you think those are even remotely comparable, then you need some serious reflection.
Uh... at what point was that? The atheist wing of the party is at an all-time high of, what, 10% or so? Where are you getting this from?
Yeah, great examples. Speech promoting violence against "favored groups" is such a threat to our freedoms. Man, the gays have it so easy in this country.
Excellent. The Right's attempts to maintain an unequal status quo are much more productive.
[edit] I cut down on the rhetoric at the end here, because I was borderline out-of-line, but seriously: I don't understand how anything in here can be remotely conceived of as "dangerous", and these arguments range from specious to absurd. Do you really want to pull a typical politician's nutsoid comment about doing Gods work and a Christian speaker no one has heard of as evidence of a threatening Christian left? Compared to what? A President who does the same? A full coalition on the Right? Do people even know who Cizek is, versus Falwell, Phelps, Haggard, Donohue, etc.?
On the other hand, I agree with you 100% that the teaching of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Adam Smith are irreconcilable. Where that leaves either is up to them.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
One more thing:
I think you seriously misunderstand what the left's stance is here. It's not an issue of sovereignty, it's an issue of changing these dynamics from the inside. How successfully do you think we could impose a moral code not just on Iraq (for example), but on the entire Muslim world? I'd bet ... not too successfully.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think there was some knee-jerk
support from some on the left for oppressive regimes just because Bush said they were bad. Not saying it was widespread but IMO it was real.
OTOH conservatives, as you say, are selective about their outrage. Even with Iraq, when it became clear that the status of women was going to be degraded under the new constitution, it was the left who raised concerns and the right who went suddenly multicultural "we can't change them."
Iraq changed a lot of traditional left/right roles. It used to be liberals who wanted to intervene abroad on the basis of moral codes and human rights, while conservatives were more isolationist. Bush flipped that, and the incompetent prosecution of the Iraq war persuaded liberals to flip as well towards isolationism. Personally I don't mind changing things "from the outside" if circumstances dictate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Stuck in Iraq
"It's not an issue of sovereignty, it's an issue of changing these dynamics from the inside"
It's strange that this needs to be said. As if there were ever any liberals that wanted Saddam to stay in power a single day -- they were the ones telling the conservatives not to sell him arms in the 80s!
I fully supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, and I was 100% against the war. This should not be a difficult concept for people to wrap their little heads around, but it seems to continue to be so.
There are many ways to effect regime change, war is simply the tool of those who do not know how to truly weild power. We could have had democratic regimes in Iraq and Iran right now if Bush hadn't started the war -- the populations of both those countries were so strongly pro-US after 9/11. But because some people mistake strength for power, and mistakenly thought a show of strength in the region would increase our power (the equation of the schoolyard bully, which fails consistently when applied to geopolitics), we find ourselves isolated, which is the most powerless position to be in.
Multiculturalism ties in like this: it's not sovereignty that is offered to our adversaries, but respect. As in, "yes you are different, but we are equals". Remembering, of course, that neither side has objectivity on their side, so equality is all they can justly offer one another anyway. This is not to say that Saddam's torture rooms are the same as U.S. prisons (duh), but that falafel tastes just as good as hot dogs (dig?). Some people think this is trivial cultural hoo-ha, but these are the same people that got us "stuck in Iraq", so they don't have much wisdom to offer, to say the least.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Why do you put forth one anecdote as evidence
...of some "scary" trend? Let me clue you in on something about Democratic politicians-- 80% of the time that they use "God", they are just pandering to church-goers, trying to shore up a little support. I don't care for the dishonest pandering, but it is hardly sinister-- instead, it is much more often than not extremely superficial.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
What country in the world is .......
What country in the world is the ideal for conservatives?
You mentioned Hongkong--but there is income disparity and poverty in Hongkong as well. They also hire low salaried contractual worker from other countries like the Philippines and pay them measly wages.
Thus I dont consider that a successful conservative country.
When did I ever care about "income disparity"?
Sounds OK to me. I'm 100% in favor of hiring whoever is willing to work for the lowest wage.
Is Philippines a Republican Paradise, too?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/26/215551/772
Congress should start a program
to offer relocation assistance for Republicans to live in The Philippines. I'd certainlt be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to help my Republican neighbors forced to live in the nightmare that has become Socialist America.
qui tacet consentire
Praise the Lord
The Relocation Assistance Initiative for Republicans Who Hate Socialist America Drive
Where do I sign up? :+)
It is the economy, stupid.
It's already happening
although Republican's aren't leaving themselves; instead, they're relocating their businesses overseas. Lower costs and taxes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
100%
I'm also 100% in favor of such hiring, given that equal freedom is given to the laborers to unionize and otherwise freely associate. The minimum wage would be moot if conservatives didn't work so hard to keep people from excercising their constitutionally-mandated right to association.
If conservatives truly believed in freedom, as an ideal that was more treasured than all the gold in the world, as something we would let our nation perish in the very name of, they would help unions organize as much as possible, joining liberals in wanting to free up power from the economic elitists in the boardrooms and legislature who attempt to plan our economies for us.
But instead, in the name of "free trade [for the rich]", they strain themselves to prove that employees acting in an organized manner similar to their advesaries, the employers, who organize quite effectively without interference from so-called free-trade advocates, are somehow making the market . . . less free?
Ludicrous. Union organizers are simply fulfilling their part of the market, associating freely without interference or regulation, and maximizing their leverage to the greater eventual economic good. Sounds like something Republicans would be behind, given that freedom is such an ideal.
Oh wait, I forgot, it isn't; it's wealth.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Religious Left who believe in bible passage below
(from Matthew 25:34-46)
As a Catholic, that passage is what made me a Democrat.
That, and...
The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.
I'm sure lordzorgon would love this quote
from Sen. Sherrod Brown:
qui tacet consentire
Yes, I find that whole page pretty terrifying
It's the complete opposite of my world view.
What Brown calls "greed and materialism" is what has made America great.
Government's job isn't to promote the "common good" -- it's to protect our basic freedoms (life, liberty, property) and then get out of the way.
How about the cherished Enlightenment idea that our highest calling is the pursuit of our own happiness? Isn't the idea that we are free to pursue our own happiness, rather than being wards of the state or church who must serve the will of others, one of the founding principles of America?
The ideas expressed by Sherrod Brown on that page are, in my view, in direct contradiction with what it means to be American.
I don't have a problem with religious politicians
on either side. I certainly do have a problem with politicians who seek to justify legislation on religious grounds. If your personal morals call for you to try to provide health care for all, or to invade Iraq, good for you. However, I demand a secular and rational justification be provided for such actions. Faith might provide the motivation but if our nation is to prosper the actions of politicians must be justified (and evaluated) with cold hard reason.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
very well said
and I strongly agree with most of what you say. I don't oppose religion and have no problem coexisting with believers as long as they don't start ruining the society by moving it towards their particular religious beliefs. Some religious beliefs are fine and compatible with modern society but some, like the promotion of socialism should be rejected with vigor. In that sense Religious Right is not a threat and can be valid allies in defending Capitalism.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
As per LZ's discussion of Jesus and Smith,
I submit that the reason the "Religious Right is not a threat and can be valid allies in defending Capitalism" is because many of them choose to be extremely selective about which aspects of their religion they drag into the political sphere. Some might even say that many of them choose to be extremely selective about which aspects of their religion they follow at all.
Also, I wouldn't say the left is interested in promoting socialism. Some particular programs can be more efficiently run by the government because their goals are not exclusively profit (e.g., health care) -- that's not socialism, just common sense. Our society is modified capitalism and it seems to work best that way.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
sure
There is nothing wrong with being very selective with the different aspects of religion because some aspects of it are more applicable to our society than others.
I just think what the Left takes from religion is much more adverse to our society than what the Right does.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Martin Luther King
was so dangerous using the teachings of the bible to promote civil rights.
I wonder if Condi would have become Sec. of State without left religon's adverse effect on our social history.
It is the economy, stupid.
Once again, I'm confused
Some particular programs can be more efficiently run by the government because their goals are not exclusively profit (e.g., health care) -- that's not socialism, just common sense.
Brendan, don't get me wrong bruh. I want people to have access to health care and to get decent health insurance. Some could care less--and they have no qualms about letting people know that they don't care about people being uninsured. I do.
However, I think the disagreement comes from how it is to be administered. After looking at the absurdity of the current government dabbles in health care--particularly MediCare, and Social Security, I actually am terrified of the idea of government handling health care. I looked at the Walter Reed situation and wondered to myself--is this the "future of government health care?" Would the government handle things like the "wonderful" job they're doing with New Orleans?
Across the world, governments are shedding/scaling back their health care coverages, including Canada. For those governments who still make it work, they implement things people just don't like here (like having tight immigration controls, like Denmark). The US is not going in that direction.
So, I'm just not sure if we're ready to let the government handle health care. They really haven't proven they can run an efficient system of any type, unless you include defense, and that's debatable. If a hybrid system can take place, cool, but I'm not sure if it can.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
WRT Walter Reed
I'm not at all sure it's a good example of the failures of government-run health care -- perhaps the opposite
is more true (forgive the tone, certainly not directed at you! and also this 
take, from a conservative, strikes me as reasonable).
I think government is fairly efficient with most of its programs; for example, IIRC welfare has something like a 5% waste margin (need to dig around for the cite). I'd be fine with a hybrid system that allowed private companies to compete with government health care, so people could purchase more comprehensive or more elective coverage.
My main concern is that our current health care system is the worst of all worlds, in that it's expensive and still doesn't cover a lot of people. If there's a market-based solution I'm open to that but I haven't seen one; private companies will always try to choose low-risk pools and minimize payouts and I think that's fundamentally at odds with the goal of health care. Maybe I'm wrong, since e.g. car insurance seems to work fine, but you'll have to convince me =)
Edit: I guess I had the food stamp program in mind
. Link seems to be partisan but I assume the numbers are accurate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Perhaps we could have a
Perhaps we could have a system similar to car insurance where everyone is required (regardless of income) to be covered--like car insurance. You should either have your job cover it or you can buy a minimum coverage, low-cost option which would provide basic services and you can "buy up" to higher plans.
At the least, I'd be more willing to move insurance to the state level, where lawmakers would probably be more likely to care and would be closer to the process. Most of the federal government employees are covered for insurance already so they really don't have much of a vested interest (IMO).
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
The VA medical system
If I were in charge of things, I would close all but two or three VA hospitals. The two or three left would become research hospitals and would provide specialized care.
Those veterans who are entitled to health care would be given a card similar to a Blue Cross card that they could use at the doctor/hospital of their choice with the government paying the tab. The government would negotiate reimbursement rates rather than dictating them as it does with Medicaid.
There are examples of state-provided indigent health care that works. Until it was destroyed by Katrina, Charity Hospital in New Orleans provided a vital service. It wasn't any place you'd choose to go if didn't have to, but it was a place people could go to for at least minimal care. And having a place like Charity means other hospital ERs aren't crowded with the uninsured who go there because they know they can't be turned away from the ER.
qui tacet consentire
Medicare administrative cost lower than private
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Fina...
Medicare is efficiently run and has a lower administrative cost than private health insurance companies.
Furthermore, if you want a test, or consult specialists you dont need to ask for authorization unlike health insurances.
This shows Govt sometimes do the job better than private companies.
If this is the case...
I'm willing to listen then. Perhaps. Can anyone alert me to why conservatives are so against the whole idea of UHC if it is more efficient? I guess I've been misled to believe otherwise.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Another article on this point
Tyler Cowen in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/business/22scene.html?ex=1332216000&en...
...
Wow, interesting link
Oh, this is too rich... I was going to write a whole big reply about how comparisons of Medicare vs. private sector administrative costs are flawed because of differences between GAAP accounting vs. government accounting, the way Medicare is financed, etc. Just to be sure, I clicked on the link in your post, expecting it to be all about how Medicare is wonderfully efficient and saves us tons of money compared to private sector health insurance, etc.
Then I clicked on the link. :)
That's odd. The study you linked to appears to come to a rather different conclusion:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
That sounds like an excuse
The Medicare assumptions that they are more efficient is based on recorded statistics. The paper was aimed to explain the statistics.
Nevertheless, the paper agrees that the statistics says, Medicare is more efficiently run than private insurances.
Having worked in Health care industry--medicare is also a better insurance than HMO and other insurances which require lots of forms and authoriztion and phone calls to be able to schedule lab tests and consultants.
It does?
No, the paper seems to strongly disagree with this claim. It seems to claim that (1) Medicare is *not* significantly more efficient when you crunch the numbers properly and (2) focusing purely on "administrative costs" as a measure of efficiency is extremely misleading about which system is better run.
If we spend $100 more on administrative costs to prevent the use of a $1000 useless/unnecessary medical procedure that has no demonstrable health benefits, we have saved a net $900, even though this would increase the "percentage of health care costs going to administrative overhead."
Walter Reeds problem was privatization
Ever since the services were contracted out to a company owned by a former Halliburton official, services deteriorated.
The 300 federal employees were replaced by 60 people by this private company.
Here again shows that sometimes govt does a better job.
Good Enough For Government Work
If the NYPD was failing at curbing crime because of it's big-government ways, would you say that the City of New York should scrap socialized security and implement private security? No, because each and every citizen of NYC has a need for security, and it would be immoral to say that only neighborhoods who could affort private security should be safe -- as well as being econmically suicidial.
Similarly, if socialized medicine looks bad, its because its being adminstered poorly. The concept as a whole is the same concept behind socialized police, fire, army, roads, and schools: things that are universally-needed should be collectively paid for. The only reason medicine has not come to this place in society is because it is so new; however, I have no doubt whatsoever that, to our descendents, billing an old lady for her heart transplant will be viewed as just as immoral as billing her for the cops to catch the guy who stole her purse.
People desire health care just like they desire police care -- neither is wanted, but is thrust on them without consent. Nobody chooses to be ill (outside of the relatively insignificant amount of lifestyle-related illnesses we face today), just as nobody chooses to be mugged; in either case, billing the victim afterwards . . . well, I can't come up with a word that registers my disgust. Human beings, like labor, are not commodities.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Profit motive
Quite the opposite.
Socialism is not all or nothing. It's a sliding scale from pure capitalism to pure socialism. To the extent that various sectors of the economy are run, owned, financed, or micromanaged by the government, that's socialism. For example, America has a government-run post office, a government-run air traffic control system, and a government-run passenger train network. That by itself doesn't make America a socialist nation... but if we were to privatize those systems, that would move us one step closer to capitalism.
(Oddly enough, such capitalist utopias as Japan, Germany, the Netherlands have privatized their postal services. Canada has privatized its air traffic control. Japan and the UK have privatized rail service. The US is actually the odd man out in many of these respects, holding onto 100% government monopoly ownership/control of these industries. Many European countries have at least partially privatized these companies.)
Universal government health care would move us about 5-10% closer to pure socialism. (health care spending is ~14% of US GDP, but a good chunk of that is already government spending on health care)
As far as the "efficiency" argument goes, see my post elsewhere in this thread. Most naive comparisons of government vs. private efficiency tend to be badly flawed because they fail to take into account many key accounting, etc. differences between the two sectors. The reality is that there is no better motivator of efficiency than the profit motive.
Perhaps efficiency is the wrong word
Maybe "effectiveness" better conveys what I'm going for here. I don't doubt that private companies could manage lower expenses and higher income than the government, and in an area like the postal service that's good enough for me. Letting people vote with their cash works fine for sending letters.
However, for health care, the goal isn't to run an "efficient" operation in the sense of making money, although of course we should avoid needless waste. From my perspective, the goal is to ensure everyone has access to acceptable health care at a reasonable cost. When turning a profit becomes the metric to judge success, rather than providing necessary care to those who need it, bad things happen
.
(Two asides: first, the obvious free-market recourse to lousy health care is lawsuits that pay out enough to discourage further mistakes. Seems somewhat inconsistent with the conservative desire for caps on punitive damages to me. Second, IIRC the German "privatization" of the postal service was in name only for a long time, since Deutsche Post had a government-backed monopoly. Dunno the specifics of the other countries.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Don't agree with that goal, but...
That's certainly not my goal, but even if that were the goal, I find it exceedingly implausible that a universal, 100%-government-funded, 100%-government-run health care system would be the most effective way of reaching that goal.
More plausible, I think, would be a mostly private system plus a safety net for the very poor and very sick.
See this article for a great analysis of the key issues: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020807B
Ok
I've always been alright with allowing private companies to provide "extra" or "premium" coverage for people who weren't satisfied with the basic service. Obviously we're still pretty far apart but maybe within shouting distance. Thanks for the link, I skimmed the article but I'll try to digest it more fully over the next few days when I have time.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
About that polarization
If capitalism is your game, never fear, there will always be a business enterprise to gain from.
A little sunshine on captialism shouldn't hurt a thing in the long run.
Invest in the sunshine. It's an economic opportunity.
All we are asking for is a balance. Economic gain that takes into account the hidden costs of pouring poison into the rivers, spewing soot into the air and dehumanizes workers, has consequences.
Example. Clean coal technology would be a wise investment. Costly on the front end, but profitable in the long term.
You once schooled me that spending is savings investment. Well here is an investment opportunity we have. It might seem a little cost heavy up front, but in the long term the savings will be worth it. And our children will thank us.
The situation we face calls for some balance and will be challenging. But I think we can do it if we work together and stop with the doomsday rhetoric and start facing the challenges with clear eyes and a moral determination.
A good place to start would be to stop hysterically exaggerating our differences as this post seems to do.
It is the economy, stupid.
As a member of the religious left.....
And your evidence of this is a cartoon and a communist fringe group that was opposed to attacking Afghanistan? Is that the best you can do? By that standard of evidence, the right is part of an unholy alliance with militant Zionist settlers who want to exterminate Palestinians because there are some on your side who support Israel as a way of bringing about the Rapture and Christ's return. Using fringe groups to support sweeping generalizations rarely makes sense. Would it be fair if I used that nutjob preacher who pickets the funerals of Iraq war vets to make generalizations about all Republicans?
So what? Is that any more relevant today than the numerous passages in the Old Testament where God is invoked to sanction genocide and rape? Go take a look and see, if you don't believe me. Try Numbers and Deuteronomy and Joshua. Joshua was a big-time war criminal.
America was a lot better off when conservatives were xenophobes who didn't want to get involved in foreign countries. Sovereignty is a question of legitimacy. A government is to be recognized as legitimate and sovereign if it rules with the consent of the governed. That doesn't mean we have to approve of everything it does, just that we respect their right to live as they choose to. Doesn't mean we cannot speak out about things we find appalling in other cultures. Stoning, for instance, is barbaric. I'm all in favor of imposing sanctions on nations that practice stoning. If they want to stone adulterers, that's their business, but that doesn't mean we have to do business with them or have any other dealings with them. This, of course, does not apply to those nations where a tyrant is imposing stoning , etc. without the consent of the governed. In cases where tyranny is present, intervention is justified. It is not always wise, and it should be the last resort, but it is justified.
If you want to burn the flag in public, you have that right. I wouldn't suggest you do it around here though, unless you have a real good health plan. Anyone who burns a flag shouldn't be startled if he ends up in the emergency room. I was not aware of this new Republican trend of burning Hamas flags. Do y'all dance naked or shout "God is great!" while you do it? It's not a proper protest without some lewd activities or appeals to divine intervention.
The only reason to make a statement like this is to pick a fight, to assert that our culture is better than your culture. And if a Muslim pointed out the wholesale slaughter that goes on in the Old Testament as evidence of the barbarism of the Jews, what would be the purpose of that other than to pick a fight?
You spend a lot of time denouncing the Religious left as this great emerging evil. Yet you often no explanation for why it is so bad, other than the fact that you are an atheist who became a Republican but still clung to the Left to protect him from the terrible Christians.
qui tacet consentire
anything
that interferes with profits is bad.
Isn't that it in a nutshell.
It is the economy, stupid.
The issue is civilization vs. barbarism
Disagree. Consent of the governed is irrelevant. A government that fails to protect its citizens' fundamental rights and liberties is *not* legitimate.
Yes, it's more relevant. Christianity was heavily moderated hundreds of years ago by the secular influence of the Enlightenment; Islam was not. You won't find many Christians or Jews saying that we need to kill all the Muslims, whereas there are plenty of Muslim imams preaching death to the Jews and death to America.
When you point out some of the historical unsavory aspects of Christianity or Judaism, I find that the typical response of most followers of those religions is: "Yeah, some people from my religion did some bad things back then, but that was centuries ago -- that wasn't us. All of us today find those things done in the name of our religion back then completely abhorrent. We'd never even think of doing anything like that." They don't get offended -- they recognize the historical facts.
For that matter, evangelical Christians are subjected to all sorts of media bashing all the time -- I think they're used to it by now. Sure, they get outraged from time to time, but they tend to get outraged by things that really *are* outrageous, like government-funded "art" that, well, let's just say it involves feces. This junk is what my tax dollars are being spent on? That *is* an outrage!
Or, in a more recent case, South Park had Jesus and George Bush throwing feces at one another, and that was no big deal. But have Mohammed walk across the screen? That's a no-no. Can't offend the Muslims!
The Mohammed cartoons weren't a fraction as offensive as things I see in the media on a day-to-day basis. Or, consider the Pope's comments about Islam.
I simply don't understand why any time anyone says anything remotely critical about Islam, we have riots in Muslim countries, nuns are killed and churches are torched, and we get wonderful comments like this one:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/...
...all for quoting a comment from a historical text.
Against these uncivilized hordes, we *must* stand firm on the right to free speech. We must not be all wishy-washy and say "well, you know, you really *shouldn't* offend their religion -- you have to be responsible with how you use your free speech" (a rough paraphrase of the NYTimes editorial position on the topic). Hogwash. We have an absolute right to criticize their religion in whatever terms we want, and if they don't like it, they can go **** themselves.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54634
And the problem is what exactly? Our culture *is* better than their culture.
Doesn't that depend on who you ask?
Ask a conservative what they think of Clinton and the democrats and they will rave on about cultural decline, a lack of morals, and rail on and on about the moral bankruptcy of the left and especially Hollywood's dispicable sins of Hollywod.
So would you include the absolute right to criticize based on religon to include, that we have the absolute right to just note that some, (not all) Christians in this country are on an anti-gay crusade, or an anti-free speech crusade, when you can't hold a sign that says "Bongs for Jesus" without someone assailing your right to free speech?
Can I offend Christianity and Islam with the same attitude of, if they don't like it they can go **** themselves. Especially in light of the fact that they share a common prejudice against homosexuality as being a sin, that goes against the moral codes of their religous dogma?
It is the economy, stupid.
Egg on face
Here I was just a few days ago, postulating that the Right does not freak out about religion like the Left tends to do, and then what does lordzorgon do but prove me wrong.
and
Yeah, those guys who led the rebellion and wrote the Constitution and founded our political process during the first shakey years when it all could have gone horribly wrong, real know-nothing losers . . .
At least you came around. But honestly, all sardonic tendencies aside, I don't get this "fear of Christianity" thing.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
haha... great point n/t
It is the economy, stupid.
Afew things:
First of all, as someone who is from a very secular background, I frankly do find the rise of the Religious Right rather scary, particularly right now. It's not only happening here in the United States, but in many parts of the world, to boot. Religious fundamentalism exists in all religions, and is often quite dangerous, regardless of where it comes from.