View Full Version : Newsweek gets religious with Dean....
Sorry for the link's lately, as I know they annoy some, but I found this disturbing and I wanted to get some other points of view on this. Yod's and Gol, I would would like to hear your points if you have time, as I know you both will have some clever remarks, probably from different sides of the street that I stand in the middle of over here.....
Of course other people should comment as well if interested...
Do you believe.... (http://www.reason.com/cy/cy012204.shtml)
_S
Of course other people should comment as well if interested...
I'll try and keep mine short so they can ;)
The whole christian predominance thing is always a bit weird to us brits, seeing as how, for a nominally christian country, we're totally secular in practice, and christians here are probably the least strict in observing religious practices (church-going etc - i.e. only 1 million of the 26 mil proclaimed christians actually go apparently).
The big thing we percieve over here is a greater readiness to use terms like evil and good in the US (Blair deliberately avoids that kind of thing most of the time, despite being a devout believer). There's always a worry that there might be a bit too much simplification in those areas (which often leads to the stereotypical view of americans as simplistic)
One worrying thing that did come out recently over here is that only 50% of brits wouldn't have a problem with a jewish prime minister (the new conservative leader is jewish). I don't know how big the sample was, but that's a worrying stat. It might reflect a dislike of Israel's policies possibly - but that type of confusion between judaism and israel is pretty damaging.
I'd say it's worrying that a clear statement of belief was required in a political interview. And that Dean's advisors feel it's necessary to paint him as the classic-christian that he's obviously not (he's already lost a lot of face with his tack changing). He should stick to his guns. There's nothing wrong with being a broad-interpreter of his faith, or even being a faith-floater/secular. Surely only the most dogmatic/fundamentalist christian would actually have a problem with it (and hopefully they're in the minority, yeah? ;))
sunfrog
01-25-04, 03:40 PM
You're evil Golgot. ;)
You're evil Golgot. ;)
Oh good ;)
Piddzilla
01-25-04, 06:52 PM
Yeah, I'm with Golgot on this one. The christian element in american politics has always felt very awkward to me. As a swede I'm not used to any discussions revolving around faith or religion at all on the political arena. Not even the Kristdemokraterna (The Christian Democrats - the swedish "christian right") talk much about it since they no it would render them many points in secular Sweden. It seems like that for a presidential candidate to appear as good (as opposed to evil) in the eyes of several americans he must simply be an active christian. If he is not, then he will probably be viewed as up to something fishy, or even as evil.
Yeah, I'm with Golgot on this one...
What? You're not with me on burning GM crops, the "evil" of petrodollars, and US/UK activities potentially causing as much death and suffering as Saddam? I am the new messiah of left-wing liberalism since Django's demi-departure! You must agree with everything I say, and take it literally! Bow down and worship me! ;)
Piddzilla
01-25-04, 07:20 PM
What? You're not with me on burning GM crops, the "evil" of petrodollars, and US/UK activities potentially causing as much death and suffering as Saddam? I am the new messiah of left-wing liberalism since Django's demi-departure! You must agree with everything I say, and take it literally! Bow down and worship me! ;)
Oh well then I guess it's time for me to start reading your posts. :p
I wouldn't go that far! ;)
Just worshipping me unquestioningly is enough (and burning the occasional GM crop in my honour) :)
Piddzilla
01-25-04, 07:57 PM
I wouldn't go that far! ;)
Just worshipping me unquestioningly is enough (and burning the occasional GM crop in my honour) :)
Consider yourself ignored! :D
Consider yourself ignored! :D
:laugh:
Yay! I've emulated my god Django! I am the second coming! (or is that going?)
Ok, maybe i should stop b4 i offend someone? Even our own holier-than-thou ghost who's still hanging around ;)
(dammit i've gotta stop aiming kicks at that well-meaning incontinent puppy. I'm from the same litter after all ;))
allthatglitters
01-25-04, 08:40 PM
this is just my own little girl insignificant opinion:
Bringing up religion in politics- while very awkward to some countries, and becoming more and more seperated in America, actually isn't as unusual when you look at America's history.
Think about it, when the colonists first settled in America, there were two main reasons why they came from Britain 1) The new land provided new hope for financial security and a chance to make dreams happen 2) Religious Freedom. Now when the constitution was written, this theme of religious freedom stayed intact with the Bill of Rights, in the first ammendment, this is stated;
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. '
Now take note that the founding fathers were raised in a christian-Dominant society, does that nesscarily mean that they as politicians wanted to force their beliefs on united states citizens? No. But did the way they were brought up and what they were taught affect the way they as politicians acted? Yes. Now does that rule still apply to today's politicians, the way of thinking that they are raised in do? Yes of course.
It is very well known that Howard Dean's views side more with secular views. Now for a political magazine to do an interview with a Presidential canidate that is trying to "sell" himself on the fact that he is going to uphold the american value they have a basis for those types of questions. When we go back and look at how strongly the christian religion influenced the way the government came into being, which now sets the tone for america's values, it is not suprising that they would ask such a question (however oddly they put it).
This definatley isn't very well put together and very scattered brained, but this isn't an explanation of why it's justified just an explanation to why they might have asked it.
Cool. Although i'm not sure religion and politics are "more and more seperated" in recent years in the US. I'm guessing that the article in Seda's link is right when it says that there's been a shift back towards christian-led politics (especially under Reagan and the two Bushs, as far as i can tell. Nothing wrong with good links btw Seds ;))
I think you've covered the problem in all this as well tho. I think the constitution says that you should be free to follow whatever religion, and as much as politics shouldn't supress religions, they shouldn't be overly strongly tied to one specific one either. (or at least, i think amendments to that extent have been added. It's all a mystery to me. I live in constitution-less anarchy ;))
Therefore, the question in the interview is a bit off in modern terms. Why didn't they also ask him if he believed Mohammed was the one true prophet then? Or if Buddha achieved enlightenment to show us the way?
Politicians will always try to appeal to the majority, but as Yods has pointed out previously, the "god" in the pledge etc is now supposed to represent any god in theory. The close ties between one religion and political policy making and canvasing is a bit worrying in a theoretically secular country.
allthatglitters
01-25-04, 09:07 PM
Cool. Although i'm not sure religion and politics are "more and more seperated" in recent years in the US. I'm guessing that the article in Seda's link is right when it says that there's been a shift back towards christian-led politics
Which would then very much explain why a political magazine would like to know a canidates religious standing and then compare him to former presidents and other candidates.
I think you've covered the problem in all this as well tho. I think the constitution says that you should be free to follow whatever religion, and as much as politics shouldn't supress religions, they shouldn't be overly strongly tied to one specific one either. (or at least, i think amendments to that extent have been added. It's all a mystery to me. I live in constitution-less anarchy ;))
Yes it does, and the fact that they have freedom for all religions makes the U.S a very diverse and argumentive country. Now a politicians job is to represent the citizens in a way that the people have voted was best at the time. The whole basis of our democracy is to give the people a voice in their choice of a politician. Now if a politician was to be the voice of every american he would have to be almost hypocritcal, but that does not mean he would have to be tied to every religious group in existence. No, in fact it would be best if he DIDN'T affiliate himself with any certain religious based groups, so then later when asked if a certain view was sourced from a type of religion he would then be saved from any public outcry.
Therefore, the question in the interview is a bit off in modern terms. Why didn't they also ask him if he believed Mohammed was the one true prophet then? Or if Buddha achieved enlightenment to show us the way?
Who knows? In all political correctness they should of. But the fact that they didn't isn't justified but only explained by the current leadership America is under.
Politicians will always try to appeal to the majority, but as Yods has pointed out previously, the "god" in the pledge etc is now supposed to represent any god in theory. The close ties between one religion and political policy making and canvasing is a bit worrying in a theoretically secular country.
I think that as time has evolved, people have become more worried over not "offending" people then doing whats right.
sunfrog
01-25-04, 09:23 PM
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach asserts that nonreligious people have a problem taking a strong stand against evil; as an example, he cites Dean's dovish stance in the war against terrorism. What piffle.
This isn't piffle, it's probably true. This is the author's own opinion. Who gives a crap about what Hitchens believes? Other than that the article is interesting.
This isn't piffle, it's probably true. This is the author's own opinion. Who gives a crap about what Hitchens believes? Other than that the article is interesting.
I guess you're right, but I have to agree that it's piffle, as I disagree with the statement as well. Rabbi Boteach (Hitchens?) is a person who speaks in front of others about how they should live their lives, and if he is spreading prejudicial ideas about 40-50% of the populace, I think that should raise at least a little concern with someone. :yup:
sunfrog
01-26-04, 01:55 AM
Non religous people are more evil. :D For instance, they like abortion and gays. Adultery and porn are ok too. Etc... etc.. They are more tolerant of people's behavior and therefor you can say they have a problem taking a strong stand against evil.
My view on this is simple: there's nothing wrong with asking Dean that question, for two reasons. 1) it's an important issue to a significant number of American voters (if 60% say it doesn't influence their decision, then apparently it does for the other 40%...and that's more than enough to justify the question), and 2) Dean's waffled on the matter a bit in the past, and the purpose of such interviews and, indeed, the campaigns themselves, is to establish what the candidate stands for.
The big thing we percieve over here is a greater readiness to use terms like evil and good in the US (Blair deliberately avoids that kind of thing most of the time, despite being a devout believer). There's always a worry that there might be a bit too much simplification in those areas (which often leads to the stereotypical view of americans as simplistic)Yes, there will be a bit too much simplification sometimes. America's generally opinionated view of right and wrong, like all good things, has its inevitable downsides. It is also, however, one of our greatest strengths, in my mind.
Laurence Peter said that America "doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there." I think that's a (mostly) fair little jab. Say what you will about our occasional stubornness, arrogance, and moral dichotomies, but the fact remains that you cannot remove them without simultaneously removing our persistence, perseverence, and confidence.
I'd say it's worrying that a clear statement of belief was required in a political interview. And that Dean's advisors feel it's necessary to paint him as the classic-christian that he's obviously not (he's already lost a lot of face with his tack changing). He should stick to his guns. There's nothing wrong with being a broad-interpreter of his faith, or even being a faith-floater/secular. Surely only the most dogmatic/fundamentalist christian would actually have a problem with it (and hopefully they're in the minority, yeah? ;))I don't see what should be worrying about asking a candidate about their religious affiliation. Voters have an interest in it, and it speaks to the nature of the man. Of course, I agree that he should stand by his beliefs, whatever they are (if he can't stand by them, he shouldn't be holding them in the first place), but I see nothing wrong with the fact that he was asked about it.
I think you've covered the problem in all this as well tho. I think the constitution says that you should be free to follow whatever religion, and as much as politics shouldn't supress religions, they shouldn't be overly strongly tied to one specific one either. (or at least, i think amendments to that extent have been added. It's all a mystery to me. I live in constitution-less anarchy ;))
Therefore, the question in the interview is a bit off in modern terms. Why didn't they also ask him if he believed Mohammed was the one true prophet then? Or if Buddha achieved enlightenment to show us the way?What's "off" about the question? The government cannot endorse any specific religion, and it hasn't. That is wholly seperate from an individual's own beliefs. A person can be as devout as they wish. They can even promise that, if elected, they will uphold the standards and ideals of their religion. Running on a specific moral platform, religious or otherwise, is perfectly fine, so long as the rest of the country is not unfairly compelled to change their minds.
As for Mohammed, or Buddha; they probably didn't ask him because 1) he's not proclaimed himself to be a Muslim or a Buddhist in the past (he has proclaimed to be Christian, however), and 2) they're simply not as widespread here. It's not a coincidence that they asked him whether or not he believed in America's most popular religion. In my mind, the question was asked purely because some people want to know the answer. We've got a fair number of Christians here, and some of them think that it is important that their leader share their core beliefs. What's wrong with that?
Politicians will always try to appeal to the majority, but as Yods has pointed out previously, the "god" in the pledge etc is now supposed to represent any god in theory. The close ties between one religion and political policy making and canvasing is a bit worrying in a theoretically secular country.I disagree. Show me a man whose core beliefs do not effect a great many of his decisions in life, and I'll show you a man who has no business calling those his core beliefs to begin with.
Moreover, isn't this sentiment a bit of a contradiction? You say that the prescence of faith in politics is troubling, but you do so shortly after implying that we shouldn't be asking candidates about their faith to begin with. But seeing as how you clearly believe it influences policy, wouldn't that make it a perfectly valid question to ask a prospective candidate?
This isn't piffle, it's probably true. This is the author's own opinion. Who gives a crap about what Hitchens believes? Other than that the article is interesting.
Who gives a crap about what Rabbi Boteach believes? ;)
Non religous people are more evil. :D For instance, they like abortion and gays. Adultery and porn are ok too. Etc... etc.. They are more tolerant of people's behavior and therefor you can say they have a problem taking a strong stand against evil.
Thanks for backing up my point with your actions again Sunny ;)
People of a strongly religious disposition are often more likely to think they know what's good and evil to begin with. What if being against homosexuality and abortion is actually "evil" across the board? You see, it's coz of opinions like that that a lot of secular europeans find religious-driven politics worrying (in the US or elsewhere). There's just too much "that's obviously evil (so my was is obviously good)" thinking that goes on.
Yods seems like a Christian that does go into depth about what his faith would have him do and analyses the details of it. You, my lovely little sunbeam, seem to be a Christian who'll jump on a religious-bandwagon near-unquestioningly (notice your previous posts about gays etc, although you seem to have realised they might be human since then ;) :rolleyes: - altho you still seem to be "anti" them in general).
I'd say it's true that widely secular societies are more likely to embrace a wide range of "rights-n-wrongs" and so may have trouble taking strong stances on things, and will embrace bad habits too (you could argue that the promiscuosness in britland, which is almost a social-rejection of religions' rules etc, is a problem - i.e. the STD/clymidia problem we have here). But we can also change our minds more readily too if the evidence requires it concerning strongly held beliefs (just as we'll happily stick with dogma too, as is only human ;)). I now agree with you that condoms shouldn't be pushed as the sole solution to AIDs in Africa, thanks to the info you posted here. I changed my mind. You should try it some time ;)
But holding an iron rod of good-n-bad up to life can be equally damaging as being flexible in your appraisal. I'll get to why in my next post...
Piddzilla
01-26-04, 07:14 AM
I kind of agree with Yoda about that since it is America, the question is valid. What is troubling with it isn't the question itself, but the fact that Dean felt nervous about being labelled secular and tried to come up with a christian phony image. If he had some balls he would have stood up for what he believes in instead. The problem is that even though he speaks and says he is fighting for "the weak" (who don't vote anyway), he is in fact fighting for the votes of the decent going-to-church-on-a-regular-basis middle class.
The good vs. evil theme, that seems to be everywhere in american politics, philosophy and culture is the reason to all this. Yoda says it is the strength of America - I think it holds America's social change back. The more to the right of the political scale, the more important this "good/evil" reasoning seems to be. As Golgot said, it is very simplistic and I think it only contributes to a wideing of the gap between the social classes in USA and alienating USA from the rest of the world. But it fits well with the rest of the american conservatism/protectionism, so it is totally logical.
All lot of time when this discussion is going the fact that America has freedom of religion comes to surface as an argument for America being more open minded than most of their critics. In general, the right wing always use the old Constitution (which was before its time in its time but not in our time ... you follow?) as a proof that America today is the flagship of freedom. USA is today by no means an unique nation when it comes to freedom of religion. It is, however, unique in the western world since it is few countries that can compete with USA when it comes to the impact of religion in political discussions. There just can't be no room for a secular candidate. At least not if he wants to win the presidential election.
It is statistically proved that the election system that US is using, the proportional system, leads to fewer people voting. The system has made the Democrats and the Republicans powerful, it's like a political oligopoly bordering to political monopoly, and it does not serve democracy well. There just isn't a political alternative for the majority of the american people since the issues they care for are being eaten up by the two big elephants. When it then comes to politics on the highest level, the presidency, these issues are politically too uncomfortable to have on a candidate's agenda. They are too radical and it would be political suicide to propagate for them in a presidential campaigne.
It is statistically proven that the proportional election system that USA is using leads to fewer people voting. The Democrats and the Republicans practise political oligopoly, bordering to monopoly, in USA and it does not serve democracy very well. There are just too few alternatives and whether it's a Democrat or a Rebulican in the White House, there is a tiny clique that wins every time. Conservatism as a philosophy at work...
Non religous people are more evil. :D For instance, they like abortion and gays. Adultery and porn are ok too. Etc... etc.. They are more tolerant of people's behavior and therefor you can say they have a problem taking a strong stand against evil.
Sigh, I had 6 paragrahs of respose ready but my browser just jumped off MoFo when I opened my messanger and it all got lost!!! ARGGGG!!!!
Here we go again....
Basically the main problem I have with religion is that it exploited too easily. There is no error correcting mechanism in place. To me this is another example (along with evangelist money scams, brainwashing of children, burning people at the stake, torture sessions) of religion being used for the wrong reasons. I have stated before and will state again, I think religion can teach many valuable life lessons, but I have seen it go astray far to many times to base my life upon it (Iraq also comes to mind, scope out those bathtubs full of acid!).
I believe this is another instance of this happening, they way it was used in this instance, by the reporter of Newsweek. The way I understand politics (how they are supposed to work anyway) is that multiple candidates compete on an even playing field, approaching the same issues from different political angles (platforms) and participating in campaigns and debates to convince the voters which side is best and whom to vote for to represent them, again based on political issues. I believe religious issues, because of their very nature, skew this even field. By swinging the debate into a character study using a set of non-political standards that not all of the candidates believe in, I believe other candidates can gain an unfair advantage. Not to mention the fact that this flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state. The fact that this can put one or more candidates on the defensive about issues they know nothing about can make them look foolish and unprepared. If this is done at the right (wrong? time (say, a newsweek article)these actions can tank a candidates chances (this is not neccesarily a bad thing in Dean's case, but it's the principle I am talking about here ;)) in the race, and all over issues that had nothing to do with the political concerns that should have been driving the publics decision.
As for tolerance and recognition of evil, I'll stop by the archdiocese of Boston after work today and see what they have to say about it, because in my eyes, they have been shown far too much tolerance.
I believe people can grow up and become a good person, and still not be religious, as long as they are shown good values by their parents and peers and understand what good community is. I stand by this belief and am living proof these ideals work (so my friends tell me anyway ;))
As for the statement that a religious question speaks of the nature of a man, I disagree. It can speak about his nature, which could be a caring man who puts family and community first, as I know many religious people who are exemplary humans with cheery dispositions and exceptionaly good values (in my eyes). It could also mean he has a incredibly warped, fanatical view of the world, where people who go to his church are good people but everyone else is a devil-worshiping heathen, as I have met these people as well. Just the fact that he is religious shows me nothing of his actual nature. I saw a special recently about a woman who was the head of a certain chapter of some religion where they put small children in a circle of adults and scream at them for hours on end at the top of their lungs. This is to cleanse them of the evil spirits. Who will cleanse them of the mental instability caused by years of sonic torture inflicted by their families and the other parishoners? These children were also told that if they disclosed this treatment to anyone outside of the church, they would burn in hell or some other such finality. Luckily, one of the kids, upon reaching adolesence, went to the press. This woman went as far as to say she didn't know this stuff was going on in her church and was just horrified....until the footage from the hidden camera worn by said teen was revealed, with this woman in one of these yelling circles. These are the situations that drive me up the wall about the misuse of religious ideals.
Alas I digress again...
enough for now....
sunfrog
01-26-04, 01:39 PM
What if being against homosexuality and abortion is actually "evil" across the board?
This is a very good question. It's just the kind of confusing thing satan would ask. lol :D :indifferent: :confused:
Yods seems like a Christian that does go into depth about what his faith would have him do and analyses the details of it. You, my lovely little sunbeam, seem to be a Christian who'll jump on a religious-bandwagon near-unquestioningly (notice your previous posts about gays etc, although you seem to have realised they might be human since then - altho you still seem to be "anti" them in general).
No, I'm facetious. Plus, somethings are cut and dry. If the Bible says it's bad what is there to think about? I'm not one of these people who says the Bible is wrong or outdated. Oh, some parts are a little extreme, like gouging out eyes, killing your kids, etc.. but I'm more of a New Testament guy. And yeah, cloning, GM, invitro fertilizatiion, and sexbots aren't in there, so I agree it needs updating but.. hmm.. maybe I am one of those guys. ;)
I like gays, they're ok. Think of it this way, Jesus kept company with tax collectors, and prostitutes, so shouldn't I hang out with evil people too? What does this mean anyway? Maybe it means God loves everyone, even if they sin, and therefor so should I. And isn't this the big thing with non-religous people? Accepting everyone no matter what they do?
(you could argue that the promiscuosness in britland, which is almost a social-rejection of religions' rules etc, is a problem - i.e. the STD/clymidia problem we have here). But we can also change our minds more readily too if the evidence requires it concerning strongly held beliefs (just as we'll happily stick with dogma too, as is only human ). I now agree with you that condoms shouldn't be pushed as the sole solution to AIDs in Africa, thanks to the info you posted here. I changed my mind. You should try it some time
You're promiscuous? :randy: Ewww.. stds! :sick:
When have they changed their minds?
Try what? Condoms? Thanx, I will. :D
No, I'm facetious. Plus, somethings are cut and dry. If the Bible says it's bad what is there to think about?
I know you're often facetious sweetie. But you also skirt round some serious issues through it too. And please tell me those last two sentences aren't serious (although i suspect they are). It's that kind of thing that's worrying. "If it's right how can it be wrong?" thinking. :p
Aren't there the dual possibilities that (a) the bible could be wrong about things, and (b) that even some of the cut-and-dry stuff can still be debated (translation issues, cross-referencing, denomination-preferences etc etc)
When have they changed their minds?
Look, b4 Yods comes in and says i'm saying secular people are instantly more open-minded, i'm not. I think secular people are as likely to be dogmatic etc as believers etc. The difference is that we don't have to start from a written religious text. We can us all of them, none of them, experience, science, whatever, to come to conclusions about what's best. You can use all these other things too, but you have to refer them back to your bible etc and understand them through that filter in many ways.
On one level that means changing your mind about "cut-and-dried" subjects is less likely to happen. On another it means mass-dogma can be reinforced culturally, lessening further the potential for wide-ranging debate and conclusions.
sunfrog
01-26-04, 01:56 PM
To Sedai,
That was an excellent post!
The good vs. evil theme, that seems to be everywhere in american politics, philosophy and culture is the reason to all this. Yoda says it is the strength of America - I think it holds America's social change back. The more to the right of the political scale, the more important this "good/evil" reasoning seems to be. As Golgot said, it is very simplistic and I think it only contributes to a wideing of the gap between the social classes in USA and alienating USA from the rest of the world. But it fits well with the rest of the american conservatism/protectionism, so it is totally logical.How does it hold our social change back? And how does a firm belief in the realness of morality divide our "social classes"?
All lot of time when this discussion is going the fact that America has freedom of religion comes to surface as an argument for America being more open minded than most of their critics. In general, the right wing always use the old Constitution (which was before its time in its time but not in our time ... you follow?) as a proof that America today is the flagship of freedom. USA is today by no means an unique nation when it comes to freedom of religion. It is, however, unique in the western world since it is few countries that can compete with USA when it comes to the impact of religion in political discussions. There just can't be no room for a secular candidate. At least not if he wants to win the presidential election.I agree with pretty much all of this. America offers genuine freedom of religion, but it is not the only country to do so. Its population remains voluntarily religious overall, however, and as such wholly secular candidates have an uphill fight from the get-go.
It is statistically proved that the election system that US is using, the proportional system, leads to fewer people voting.Not only is this false, but I've even demonstated its falsity to you in the past. You made this claim before (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=116399&postcount=39), and I debunked it the very next day (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=116536&postcount=46). Here's a quote:
But enough conjecture: if what you say is true; if our system is the cause of this apathy, then past turnouts should be low, too, right? Because we've had this system for quite some time. But as it turns out, we had a turnout of over 70% in the 1960 elections. 100 years ago, under the same electoral college, two-party system, we had no trouble hitting the 75-80% range. How, then, can our apathy be explained in the way you say?As I said in the past, it has in no way been "proved" that our system of government leads to fewer people voting. All we know is that turnouts have been dropping; that in no way speaks to the cause of the drop. And given the fact that we've had plenty of high turnouts before, under what was virtually the same system, I see no statistical grounds whatsoever for the belief that our system is conducive to low turnouts.
The system has made the Democrats and the Republicans powerful, it's like a political oligopoly bordering to political monopoly, and it does not serve democracy well. There just isn't a political alternative for the majority of the american people since the issues they care for are being eaten up by the two big elephants. When it then comes to politics on the highest level, the presidency, these issues are politically too uncomfortable to have on a candidate's agenda. They are too radical and it would be political suicide to propagate for them in a presidential campaigne.Which issues are you referring to? And if the majority of American people so badly want a third-party candidate, why do they so rarely vote for them? I don't know if you're aware, but in America, our two-party system is perfectly capable of fluctuating. If people want an alternative, it'll show in their support. And if another party gets enough support, it is capable of actually supplanting one of the existing parties. This has actually happened in the past; it wasn't always Democrats and Republicans.
In the end, the power is still completely in the hands of the people. Change in America just requires a more long-term, sustained desire. A fair number of the quirks in American government seem to echo this. Simply put, the American system allows what people want, but requires that they want it enough to stand by it for a reasonable period of time.
Sigh, I had 6 paragrahs of respose ready but my browser just jumped off MoFo when I opened my messanger and it all got lost!!! ARGGGG!!!!I'd recommend hitting the "Preview Post" button. That way, even if it goes forward, and you go back, and you get that odd form error message, refreshing should allow you to re-post the form data, thus saving all you'd written since the last time you hit the button.
Basically the main problem I have with religion is that it exploited too easily. There is no error correcting mechanism in place.The correcting mechanism is the exact same one used by people without a written moral structure: their own common sense. Ultimately, that's what everyone's correcting mechanism is, no matter what they believe. Religion is not unique in this regard.
To me this is another example (along with evangelist money scams, brainwashing of children, burning people at the stake, torture sessions) of religion being used for the wrong reasons. I have stated before and will state again, I think religion can teach many valuable life lessons, but I have seen it go astray far to many times to base my life upon it (Iraq also comes to mind, scope out those bathtubs full of acid!).In my mind, all this shows us is that religion is potent. But so is love. It can drive a man to valiantly fight for his homeland and family, or kill an innocent person in a fit of jealousy. But surely you would not say love is a bad thing based on those instances of abuse or overzealousness?
I believe this is another instance of this happening, they way it was used in this instance, by the reporter of Newsweek. The way I understand politics (how they are supposed to work anyway) is that multiple candidates compete on an even playing field, approaching the same issues from different political angles (platforms) and participating in campaigns and debates to convince the voters which side is best and whom to vote for to represent them, again based on political issues. I believe religious issues, because of their very nature, skew this even field. By swinging the debate into a character study using a set of non-political standards that not all of the candidates believe in, I believe other candidates can gain an unfair advantage.Why is it unfair? If the question is one the American people are interested in, then it's perfectly fair, because they are the voters, and these people are vying for their votes. If the question is one the American people are not interested in, then being asked the question won't likely harm them. So, if you believe the situation is unfair, you essentially have to blame the American electorate for caring about the issue.
Not to mention the fact that this flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state.How? A reporter asking a candidate about their religious affiliation in no way constitutes a government endorsement of religion, as far as I can see.
The fact that this can put one or more candidates on the defensive about issues they know nothing about can make them look foolish and unprepared. If this is done at the right (wrong? time (say, a newsweek article)these actions can tank a candidates chances (this is not neccesarily a bad thing in Dean's case, but it's the principle I am talking about here ) in the race, and all over issues that had nothing to do with the political concerns that should have been driving the publics decision.It sounds like your gripe is not with the reporter, then, or with the government, but with the American people. The reporter's job in that situation is essentially to ask the questions that the voters want the answers to.
With that established, I'd like to address the gripe itself: if I am understanding you correctly, you believe political issues and religious issues to be seperate, and therefore you believe that a person's religion should be left out of the political arena completely. But wouldn't this belief require that you also believe that the candidate's religion had no effect on their character or policies whatsoever? Aren't you contradicting yourself in the same way I believe Golgot might be when you express concern over the pitfalls and ramifications of religion, yet simultaneously claim it should be irrelevant in the eyes of the electorate?
I believe people can grow up and become a good person, and still not be religious, as long as they are shown good values by their parents and peers and understand what good community is. I stand by this belief and am living proof these ideals work (so my friends tell me anyway )Agreed. However, I've made the case in the past (and would be glad to do so again) that, even if an Atheist is what most would call a moral person, they have no logical reason to do anything other than that which benefits them. Based on their own denial of a higher standard, their moral structure must then be either a) based on instinct alone, rather than reason, b) indicative of a belief, concious or otherwise, that some absolute morality really does exist, or c) arbitrary.
As for the statement that a religious question speaks of the nature of a man, I disagree. It can speak about his nature, which could be a caring man who puts family and community first, as I know many religious people who are exemplary humans with cheery dispositions and exceptionaly good values (in my eyes). It could also mean he has a incredibly warped, fanatical view of the world, where people who go to his church are good people but everyone else is a devil-worshiping heathen, as I have met these people as well. Just the fact that he is religious shows me nothing of his actual nature.I think we're talking about different things. I didn't say that a religious man is necessarily a good man, or that a non-religious man is necessarily a bad one. I am merely making the case that a person's stance in regards to religion -- which is, if not the largest issue for most people, at least nearly so -- DOES speak to their character in some way. In what way depends on the circumstances...but I see no merit in the idea that where a person comes down on such a massive issue does not tell us anything about them.
My view on this is simple: there's nothing wrong with asking Dean that question...
Ok, if it cleared up past mumbling (or hollering ;)) by Dean it's ok. But i was thinking of this state-church seperation thing that's supposed to be in the constitution or whatever. Just seemed inapropriate on that level.
Yes, there will be a bit too much simplification sometimes. America's generally opinionated view of right and wrong, like all good things, has its inevitable downsides. It is also, however, one of our greatest strengths, in my mind.
Laurence Peter said that America "doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there." I think that's a (mostly) fair little jab. Say what you will about our occasional stubornness, arrogance, and moral dichotomies, but the fact remains that you cannot remove them without simultaneously removing our persistence, perseverence, and confidence.
Sure, i see that prevelant mentality as something you can compare to the boundless optimism and energy of "empires" throughout history. (just as all ex-empires have a similar cynicism level ;)).
The problem is that i see downsides in the persistence, perseverence and confidence too in some areas.
Iraq has been an example of the admin persisting in a course no matter what. The way the population has been brought on side is a reflection of good-bad simplicity being exploited, and general confidence that it was the right thing (yet to be decided IMO).
GM is another area when the persistance in the face of opposition has been infuriating. The confidence that nothing will go wrong, and even that the downsides and lack of success so far aren't important, are staggering on behalf of the biotechs. They're pushing too fast too early. The high US share-rating they receive that reflects market belief in future profits in this area is another example of over-confidence in face of the facts.
I find the US up-for-it-ness invigorating in many areas. But in things where i think the political or industrial thinking is off, it's incredibly frustrating.
As for Mohammed, or Buddha; they probably didn't ask him because 1) he's not proclaimed himself to be a Muslim or a Buddhist in the past (he has proclaimed to be Christian, however), and 2) they're simply not as widespread here.
Fair enough.
I disagree. Show me a man whose core beliefs do not effect a great many of his decisions in life, and I'll show you a man who has no business calling those his core beliefs to begin with.
Moreover, isn't this sentiment a bit of a contradiction? You say that the prescence of faith in politics is troubling, but you do so shortly after implying that we shouldn't be asking candidates about their faith to begin with. But seeing as how you clearly believe it influences policy, wouldn't that make it a perfectly valid question to ask a prospective candidate?
But politicians can't always act on their own moral beliefs. They're caught in a web of power-politics. I think most prominant politicans, despite being driven people, try to appeal to mass opinions, even if they're at odds with their own beliefs but are vital for securing influence.
What i'm saying about faith is that you can ask someone what they believe about different moral issues seperate of faith.
For me, that question about whether or not he believes in Christ as the saviour etc...
(a) pertains to loads of different values/interpretations/beliefs, so doesn't prove anything.
and therefore
(b) is a loaded religious question which doesn't advance political debate/clarity, but merely has a voter-influencing effect.
Agreed. However, I've made the case in the past (and would be glad to do so again) that, even if an Atheist is what most would call a moral person, they have no logical reason to do anything other than that which benefits them. Based on their own denial of a higher standard, their moral structure must then be either a) based on instinct alone, rather than reason, b) indicative of a belief, concious or otherwise, that some absolute morality really does exist, or c) arbitrary.
You forgot option (d)...
d) indicative of a belief (rational, instinctive, or both) that humans should create systems that govern best practice.
There's plenty of logical and instinctive reasons to form such moralities, and they don't have to be based around absolute morality you talk of per se. I think the instinctive aspects of such non-religious moralities might be based around perceptions of constants and balances in life. And the rational aspects can be based around direct observation of the same.
It's this old my-morality-is-better-than-yours-coz-its-based-on-god's-absolute-truths arguement again.
Honestly :rolleyes:
(altho we should really go into it on the thread where it's dangling :) :blush: )
You forgot option (d)...
d) indicative of a belief (rational, instinctive, or both) that humans should create systems that govern best practice.That's apples and oranges. I'm pointing out that a materialist's so-called morality, assuming they really believe what they say they do, is either instinctive or arbitrary. What their morality is indicative of is a seperate matter which does not conflict with what I'm saying.
I'd also note that saying you support what is "best" isn't really saying anything at all.
There's plenty of logical and instinctive reasons to form such moralities, and they don't have to be based around absolute morality you talk of per se. I think the instinctive aspects of such non-religious moralities might be based around perceptions of constants and balances in life. And the rational aspects can be based around direct observation of the same.How? Give me one logical reason -- without appealing to any moral standard, no matter how basic and widely held -- as to why a person should care about the human race in general anymore than in ways in which it benefits his or her own survival and comfort.
It's this old my-morality-is-better-than-yours-coz-its-based-on-god's-absolute-truths arguement again.I never said anything about which is superior. What I have said, however, is that a morality rooted in God is at least internally consistent, whereas a materialist who tries to champion a moral structure with any kind of ambition is shooting themselves in the foot.
(altho we should really go into it on the thread where it's dangling :) :blush: )Yeah, I know. My bad.
That's apples and oranges. I'm pointing out that a materialist's so-called morality, assuming they really believe what they say they do, is either instinctive or arbitrary. What their morality is indicative of is a seperate matter which does not conflict with what I'm saying.
I don't see it that way. What you seem to be "pointing out" is that it's got to be done under your definitions or not at all :rolleyes: - which is why this is probably just going to swamp the thread as we try and bash our frames of reference together until we can find a logical set of definitons for debate. As it is, to me, you always seem to have your pat little theory sorted out, and won't let any revisions take place.
One big problem is that i could happily categorise your gods-absolutes-based-morality as arbitary coz i don't think such a thing exists. I do however believe a very comparable thing, that the "material" world holds constants that can inform "best" practice (i.e. best for all where possible) - but that's coz i must be a mystic-materialist ;). my belief :)]
Ok - but let's try and stick to this logical-reasons argument you want to follow, and leave potential belief-within-materialism and instinctiveness alone.
How? Give me one logical reason -- without appealing to any moral standard, no matter how basic and widely held -- as to why a person should care about the human race in general anymore than in ways in which it benefits his or her own survival and comfort.
Logical reasons for "materialists" to embrace a moral codes:
(which are indeed selfish, but are also altruisitic at the same time)
-"Don't take more than you need" - people are less likely to then take what you need. (or that of others as it happens)
-"Don't **** up the planet" - the planet's less likely to be ****ed up for you to live in (and others as it happens)
-"Don't murder people except in self-defence" - you're less likely to get murdered. (or for others to be murdered as it happens)
etcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetc
Sure all of these things, and hundreds of other ideals, are selfish ultimately, but they are also altruistic in that, if enforced, they attempt to affect all equally.
They're just logical constructs for making the world the best place it can be. Perfectly logical. And they equate to a religious morality. The difference is that we can argue on the details of the trickier ones, and refer to mass-experience (historical and current). There's no just-don't-work-on-sunday-and-that's-that. That kind of flexibility is pretty logical too ;) :p
And, as you've pointed out b4, both believers and "materialists" are instinctive a lot of the time. And indeed, not purely "logical" ;). (thank god ;)).
So there's plenty of "illogical" reasons to follow moral systems. I don't want my friends/family/"innocent"-strangers to be murdered, done over, surrounded by genome-mutating plants etc (;)). You could say i don't have a pure logical non-selfish reason for that, and you're right. But that doesn't make it arbitary, or selfish in the way that you seem to want to define it. Lots of people happen to get happiness out of making others happy. That's selfish too, and not always logical (i.e. is often detrimental to our own comfort/profit etc). But who cares? We still do it. Irrational? Hell yes. Arbitary? Hell no. We do it for a reason. There's thought of a kind behind it all. (and indeed, the influence of religious social constructs in there too - which may well have been generated in the same way originally :) :p)
I never said anything about which is superior. What I have said, however, is that a morality rooted in God is at least internally consistent, whereas a materialist who tries to champion a moral structure with any kind of ambition is shooting themselves in the foot.
What gets my goat (*baaaah*) is that:
(a) it's internally consistant coz of an apparently arbitary, made-up idea being run through everything.
(b) it allows the more dogmatic type of christian to apply that idea of absolute truth to their interpretations of the bible, and act in an inflexible and damaging way (coz of the psychological attractiveness of knowing "the truth"/feeling certain they're right etc. And yes, i still like that phrase ;) :p)
You may not have stated superiority then (altho many do), but i seem to recall, on the thread about the ten commandments being outside a law court, you basically overrode some attempts at discussion of moral details by going on about this type of thing (and i seem to remember your conclusions were kind of - what's the problem - God's law is cool. It's the source of all law anyway). Which is pointless. You think "materialists" morality is based on shakey ground. We think the same about religious people who insist on their God's truth being the underlying cause of their morality.
So tell you what. Let's stop discussing it ultimately, and just discuss the details/outcomes of "moral" decisions as far as we can assess them (logically, instinctively, and in that funny state of being in the middle which we so often use when following both dictates of "heart" and "mind").
All this arguing is my fault too - but on this point i don't think any "materialist" or believer is ever going to change the others rational or instinctive beliefs it seems, so let's just discuss the practicalities in future eh? We can explain each others position more on the other thread. But we ain't gonna reach a "logical" consensus
EDIT: Sorry if my ranting belittling of your belief in God's absolute morals is offensive, and i'm sure it was. But to me it's unproveable, and therefore infuriating when used in a logical argument. Even if i haven't been completely logical in my response :rolleyes: :blush:
I'd recommend hitting the "Preview Post" button. That way, even if it goes forward, and you go back, and you get that odd form error message, refreshing should allow you to re-post the form data, thus saving all you'd written since the last time you hit the button.
Cool thanks :)
The correcting mechanism is the exact same one used by people without a written moral structure: their own common sense. Ultimately, that's what everyone's correcting mechanism is, no matter what they believe. Religion is not unique in this regard.
If common sense wasn't such a rarity, I would find this fact comforting. Other methods of belief and research have other error correcting mechanisms as well, such as the scientific method. Errors exist here as well, to be sure, but I feel that the constant scrutiny of ideas by peers helps to remove most of the errors, while many religions dictate people follow the mandates without question, and other religions consider questioning the religion a sin. Any statement or collection of statements that dictate I should believe what they say, but never question them, put up warning flags for me.
In my mind, all this shows us is that religion is potent. But so is love. It can drive a man to valiantly fight for his homeland and family, or kill an innocent person in a fit of jealousy. But surely you would not say love is a bad thing based on those instances of abuse or overzealousness?
I am not seeing the correlation here. Misuse of religion appears to have a much greater effect on the planet's population if recent events are any indicator. The events you mention seem relatively miniscule when compared to the country-wide, no I am sorry, absolutely devastating Worldwide upheaval that was caused by the recent and aforementioned problems with the local Catholic Diocese here in Boston. Many communities in the area are still struggling now. So yes, I completely agree that religion is incredibly potent, persuasive, and powerful in many ways. This is precisely the reason it shouldn't be used to construct loaded religious questions ;)
Why is it unfair? If the question is one the American people are interested in, then it's perfectly fair, because they are the voters, and these people are vying for their votes. If the question is one the American people are not interested in, then being asked the question won't likely harm them. So, if you believe the situation is unfair, you essentially have to blame the American electorate for caring about the issue.
This is all true, but again, the religious questions weren't relevant to any of the political issues they were discussing in the interview and a question that basically states "Do you believe in God" is a loaded question with the intent to throw the interviewee off. This is a good reporting technique if the question has relevance to the issues at hand. For instance if this was an interview with a man attempting to become a priest, I would think this question of the utmost relevance to whether or not they should become a priest or not. Do you consider asking this man if he is a republican or a democrat relevant to him gaining priesthood?
How? A reporter asking a candidate about their religious affiliation in no way constitutes a government endorsement of religion, as far as I can see.
This is correct.
It sounds like your gripe is not with the reporter, then, or with the government, but with the American people. The reporter's job in that situation is essentially to ask the questions that the voters want the answers to.
Freedom of the press grants them this right, yes, but I still feel the question was in poor taste for the forum.
With that established, I'd like to address the gripe itself: if I am understanding you correctly, you believe political issues and religious issues to be seperate, and therefore you believe that a person's religion should be left out of the political arena completely. But wouldn't this belief require that you also believe that the candidate's religion had no effect on their character or policies whatsoever? Aren't you contradicting yourself in the same way I believe Golgot might be when you express concern over the pitfalls and ramifications of religion, yet simultaneously claim it should be irrelevant in the eyes of the electorate?
The character of a politician is a carefully constructed marketing project, and there are to many variables that can affect it behind the scenes. Therefore, for me personally, I have to look at what the person has stated they will do professionally. I can at no time advocate or defame a person's character without meeting them first, unless presented with overwhelming evidence that I should lean one way or another, usually determined by that person's actions. Any other information I get is second hand, and I will look at it skeptically. I look at the professional issues (this is the man's job after all) first for this reason. I believe the person's character has much to do with how they will conduct themselves in office, so past conduct should also be scrutinized, but current personal belief in a diety should have no relevance on the political issues at hand in my mind. (Crap, I have a hand in my mind???)
Agreed. However, I've made the case in the past (and would be glad to do so again) that, even if an Atheist is what most would call a moral person, they have no logical reason to do anything other than that which benefits them. Based on their own denial of a higher standard, their moral structure must then be either a) based on instinct alone, rather than reason, b) indicative of a belief, concious or otherwise, that some absolute morality really does exist, or c) arbitrary.
Got some issues with this one, as it's almost personal, but I know you don't mean it that way ;) I have a slew of reasons I don't live like this, and which standard is the truely high standard again? You're falling into the trap I do many times, assuming your view is the correct and absolute. Some of the other things that inspire me to live for others are art, music, love, friendship, family, a general caring for mankind and our environment.
I believe any person can have high moral standards and even learn them from the same sources (the bible) and still not hold any belief in a diety. I can still understand the concepts/metaphor/lessons that these passages in the bible cover, and still be a skeptic about some all powerful diety figure. Remember that I have the utmost respect for many of the concepts taught in religion, my main problem is with the use of religion by humans for bad purposes. To tell you the truth, these conversations have awakened my every-10-year-or-so-interest in reading the bible, and I think I'll do so again soon. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you people and I think for me to better participate in these discussions I should become better associated with the tenets and facts supporting the opposition. I could also probably stand to learn a thing or two from the reading....
I think we're talking about different things. I didn't say that a religious man is necessarily a good man, or that a non-religious man is necessarily a bad one. I am merely making the case that a person's stance in regards to religion -- which is, if not the largest issue for most people, at least nearly so -- DOES speak to their character in some way. In what way depends on the circumstances...but I see no merit in the idea that where a person comes down on such a massive issue does not tell us anything about them.
Agreed. I think we agree here but are coming from different angles. Both the statements we made about this last concept are correct but cover some different aspects of the debate. I just get nervous if the fact that the candidate is religious is as far as some people get. I would NEVER disregard a candidate for being either religious or not religious, and I would hope that religious folks would look at the other issues concerning the public and the world as well, which I am pretty sure you do at this point in my getting to know you better (which has been a pleasure, btw).
Wow
Great debate and I am having a blast....
Cheers folks :)
Mike
I am spiritual, just not into organized religion :yup:
Bow down and worship me! ;)
Yes Sir http://www.kurts-smilies.de/anbet.gif
Piddzilla
01-27-04, 09:38 AM
How does it hold our social change back? And how does a firm belief in the realness of morality divide our "social classes"?
Because it's the ruling classes who decides who's good and who's evil. Simple as that.
I agree with pretty much all of this. America offers genuine freedom of religion, but it is not the only country to do so. Its population remains voluntarily religious overall, however, and as such wholly secular candidates have an uphill fight from the get-go.
It is true that religion has a bigger place in society in America then in most other countries in the west. Secular candidates have an uphill fight because the religion is constantly being put high up on the agenda by the conservative actors on the media and political scenes. Religion is also a deciding factor since, as I stated in my previous post, a lot of the most important potential voters put religion high up on their lists. Just because the working class believes that social unjustice is more important than religion doesn't mean that they aren't religious. But when "their" candidate moves focus from social issues to religious ones he moves closer to the conservative candidate and loses the interest of the lower classes.
Not only is this false, but I've even demonstated its falsity to you in the past. You made this claim before (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=116399&postcount=39), and I debunked it the very next day (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=116536&postcount=46). Here's a quote:
As I said in the past, it has in no way been "proved" that our system of government leads to fewer people voting. All we know is that turnouts have been dropping; that in no way speaks to the cause of the drop. And given the fact that we've had plenty of high turnouts before, under what was virtually the same system, I see no statistical grounds whatsoever for the belief that our system is conducive to low turnouts.
I knew you were going to misunderstand this. You think that I am talking of the proportional system as something uniquely american which I am not. It is not a fact that the american elections since the beginning of time have had fewer voters attending than say all swedish elections. It is a fact, however, that if you put the truly democratic countries with proportional election system next to the truly democratic countries with majority election system you will see that the countries with proportional systems have lesser percentage of the voters attending in the election than the countries with majority systems. And USA is certainly not an exception to the rule.
Which issues are you referring to? And if the majority of American people so badly want a third-party candidate, why do they so rarely vote for them? I don't know if you're aware, but in America, our two-party system is perfectly capable of fluctuating. If people want an alternative, it'll show in their support. And if another party gets enough support, it is capable of actually supplanting one of the existing parties. This has actually happened in the past; it wasn't always Democrats and Republicans.
If you had the majority system you would see that new parties would have a lot easier making their voices heard. The smaller american parties know that they have no chance in winning an expensive campaigne so they end up backing one of the two big ones. And it does show in their support only you choose to ignore it. The fact that not even 50% of the voters bother with the presidential election is enough evidence.
And which 3rd party candidate? Ross Perot?
In the end, the power is still completely in the hands of the people. Change in America just requires a more long-term, sustained desire. A fair number of the quirks in American government seem to echo this. Simply put, the American system allows what people want, but requires that they want it enough to stand by it for a reasonable period of time.
You talk about what people have the freedom to do in theory, not what they are in fact able to do in reality. The american system is the system of those allready in power or those with enormous amounts of money.
I don't see it that way. What you seem to be "pointing out" is that it's got to be done under your definitions or not at all :rolleyes: - which is why this is probably just going to swamp the thread as we try and bash our frames of reference together until we can find a logical set of definitons for debate. As it is, to me, you always seem to have your pat little theory sorted out, and won't let any revisions take place.This is not about definitions, this is about straight-up logic. If I say your morality is either instinctive or arbitrary, trying to explain why you have it does not contradict that in anyway whatsoever. And pointing out that it does not contradict that is not forcing my own personal definitions on anyone, either.
If you go on about your desire to preserve the world, that only begs the same question on another level: why is that your desire? Keep asking "why?" and eventually the answer is "just because," making your desire either instinctual or arbitrary.
This is something most materialists just can't seem to stand, for whatever reason. If you're going to take the view that we're just another creature on this planet, there's no reason to believe our actions have some kind of higher purpose or meaning than the less intelligent creatures. Hell, in a materialist world, by definition, we have to assume that our actions are predetermined, anyway.
One big problem is that i could happily categorise your gods-absolutes-based-morality as arbitary coz i don't think such a thing exists. I do however believe a very comparable thing, that the "material" world holds constants that can inform "best" practice (i.e. best for all where possible) - but that's coz i must be a mystic-materialist ;). my belief :)]Ah, but calling my belief in God arbitrary then leads us to discuss whether or not God is real. If God is real, then my statement is perfectly legit. If not, it's not. My point is that I've come to this conclusion based on my conclusion to the question of God. It's consistent...it does not contradict itself. But what you're describing cannot even potentially line up in the same way. Saying that you think we should support best practices does not tell us WHY you've chosen that as your standard. IE: for instinctual or arbitrary reasons.
Ok - but let's try and stick to this logical-reasons argument you want to follow, and leave potential belief-within-materialism and instinctiveness alone.I'd rather not. I think it's an important part of this discussion. It doesn't disprove materialism, but it's extraordinary how reluctant most materialists are to concede the inevitable conclusions that must go hand-in-hand with their beliefs.
Logical reasons for "materialists" to embrace a moral codes:
(which are indeed selfish, but are also altruisitic at the same time)
-"Don't take more than you need" - people are less likely to then take what you need. (or that of others as it happens)
-"Don't **** up the planet" - the planet's less likely to be ****ed up for you to live in (and others as it happens)
-"Don't murder people except in self-defence" - you're less likely to get murdered. (or for others to be murdered as it happens)#2 doesn't fit, unless you were to come to the conclusion that one man, say, littering (or even dumping toxic waste all over the place) would f**k up the planet enough to adversely effect him as an individual during his lifetime. Not likely, in my opinion.
Concerning the others: you're just making my point for me. That is, a person doing these things insofar as they benefit from them. Tell me...from a materialist's point of view, is there any logical reason to care about what happens to the world, his friends, or his family after he dies?
Sure all of these things, and hundreds of other ideals, are selfish ultimately, but they are also altruistic in that, if enforced, they attempt to affect all equally.
They're just logical constructs for making the world the best place it can be. Perfectly logical. And they equate to a religious morality. The difference is that we can argue on the details of the trickier ones, and refer to mass-experience (historical and current). There's no just-don't-work-on-sunday-and-that's-that. That kind of flexibility is pretty logical too ;) :pOh, I'm not saying moral structures are not logical, or that making the world the best place it can be is not a sensible goal. Just that a great many people go around saying one thing, while doing something which "says" the opposite.
And, as you've pointed out b4, both believers and "materialists" are instinctive a lot of the time. And indeed, not purely "logical" ;). (thank god ;)).
So there's plenty of "illogical" reasons to follow moral systems. I don't want my friends/family/"innocent"-strangers to be murdered, done over, surrounded by genome-mutating plants etc (;)). You could say i don't have a pure logical non-selfish reason for that, and you're right. But that doesn't make it arbitary, or selfish in the way that you seem to want to define it. Lots of people happen to get happiness out of making others happy. That's selfish too, and not always logical (i.e. is often detrimental to our own comfort/profit etc). But who cares? We still do it. Irrational? Hell yes. Arbitary? Hell no. We do it for a reason. There's thought of a kind behind it all. (and indeed, the influence of religious social constructs in there too - which may well have been generated in the same way originally :) :p)I don't recall defining it as selfish at all. And if you admit some of this is illogical, why do you do it? Why don't you fight it? What is its purpose? In the materialist worldview, your
What gets my goat (*baaaah*) is that:
(a) it's internally consistant coz of an apparently arbitary, made-up idea being run through everything.As I said before, this accusation hinges on whether or not it's real, meaning, if real, God is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The religious view or morality is reasonable if right. The materialist worldview in regards to morality is inconsistent EVEN IF IT'S RIGHT. That's the difference. Assume the truth of God, and every claim I've made about morality lines up. Assume the truth about materialism, and my point wouldn't change at all.
(b) it allows the more dogmatic type of christian to apply that idea of absolute truth to their interpretations of the bible, and act in an inflexible and damaging way (coz of the psychological attractiveness of knowing "the truth"/feeling certain they're right etc. And yes, i still like that phrase ;) :p)People do not need religion to feel they are right. If they want to be zealous about something, I do not hesitate to believe that they will likely find a way. People have blown up SUVs using a standard of "the world" and other such things not unlike your beliefs. The only beliefs which cannot be abused are those too impotent to do anything worthwhile, either. Despite your claims, I don't think it is anything more than religion's size which causes it to sometimes appear conducive to close-mindedness. It's got a lot of people...which means more bad ones than it'd have otherwise.
You may not have stated superiority then (altho many do), but i seem to recall, on the thread about the ten commandments being outside a law court, you basically overrode some attempts at discussion of moral details by going on about this type of thing (and i seem to remember your conclusions were kind of - what's the problem - God's law is cool. It's the source of all law anyway). Which is pointless. You think "materialists" morality is based on shakey ground. We think the same about religious people who insist on their God's truth being the underlying cause of their morality.See above for the difference between the two. You'd have to quote me on the Ten Commandments thread, because I don't remember overriding anyone, depending on what you mean.
So tell you what. Let's stop discussing it ultimately, and just discuss the details/outcomes of "moral" decisions as far as we can assess them (logically, instinctively, and in that funny state of being in the middle which we so often use when following both dictates of "heart" and "mind").
All this arguing is my fault too - but on this point i don't think any "materialist" or believer is ever going to change the others rational or instinctive beliefs it seems, so let's just discuss the practicalities in future eh? We can explain each others position more on the other thread. But we ain't gonna reach a "logical" consensus
EDIT: Sorry if my ranting belittling of your belief in God's absolute morals is offensive, and i'm sure it was. But to me it's unproveable, and therefore infuriating when used in a logical argument. Even if i haven't been completely logical in my response :rolleyes: :blush:I'm not offended. But I cannot agree with the sentiment that we should drop this subject. :nope: If you don't wish to continue, however, they'll be no hard feelings, and no questions asked.
If common sense wasn't such a rarity, I would find this fact comforting. Other methods of belief and research have other error correcting mechanisms as well, such as the scientific method. Errors exist here as well, to be sure, but I feel that the constant scrutiny of ideas by peers helps to remove most of the errors, while many religions dictate people follow the mandates without question, and other religions consider questioning the religion a sin. Any statement or collection of statements that dictate I should believe what they say, but never question them, put up warning flags for me.But who says they are never to be questioned? I'm sure most people can produce an anecdote illustrating the close-mindedness of a religious person they once came across, but in general, I don't often -- if ever -- see people discourage from questioning their religion. Perhaps I'm just fortunate to have grown up in a household where that kind of thing is encouraged.
And following religion steadfastly is rather the point. I believe the idea is that you do most of your questioning when deciding whether to accept it.
Concerning common sense: fair point, but as I said, that correcting mechanism applies across the board. Science, admittedly, is a little different (though you'll notice we've got loads of unsubstantiated "theories" being passed off as fact these days...so even science is not immune), but in terms of most other beliefs...like, say, yours...you've got the same correcting mechanism as The Pope, when you get down to it.
I am not seeing the correlation here. Misuse of religion appears to have a much greater effect on the planet's population if recent events are any indicator. The events you mention seem relatively miniscule when compared to the country-wide, no I am sorry, absolutely devastating Worldwide upheaval that was caused by the recent and aforementioned problems with the local Catholic Diocese here in Boston. Many communities in the area are still struggling now.Well, the example of love is on a smaller scale, sure, but I think it makes the point, which is simply this: the more wonderful something is, the more horrible it can be to see it abused. It's a triumphant, glorious, proud moment for a city or a country when it builds a skyscraper. And it's shameful and miserable when someone flies a plane into it. If we'd all lived in huts, it wouldn't have even been an issue. With great things comes the potential for great failure...but all of the progress of mankind has ultimately depended on people trying to do great things anyway.
So yes, I completely agree that religion is incredibly potent, persuasive, and powerful in many ways. This is precisely the reason it shouldn't be used to construct loaded religious questions So, because religion is powerful, reporters should not ask questions which American voters clearly would like the answers to?
This is all true, but again, the religious questions weren't relevant to any of the political issues they were discussing in the interview and a question that basically states "Do you believe in God" is a loaded question with the intent to throw the interviewee off.I don't think we can speak to the interviewer's intent. If the reporter had a bias and was trying to trip Dean up, I suppose that's a tad shameful (though, honestly, all the candidates have to deal with that at times...they know what they're getting into), but I've been addressing just the validity of the question itself, and not any underlying intent or purpose, since it's generally hard to determine those things.
This is a good reporting technique if the question has relevance to the issues at hand. For instance if this was an interview with a man attempting to become a priest, I would think this question of the utmost relevance to whether or not they should become a priest or not. Do you consider asking this man if he is a republican or a democrat relevant to him gaining priesthood?Good point. But I do believe that the question has relevance. Imagine, for a moment, that you believe in God. Surely, this is a momentous part of your life, in one way or another. You believe that you're following mankind's savior. Wouldn't it be important to you that the person leading your nation has also chosen to follow what you believe to be mankind's savior?
Or, in other words: the question looks irrelevant, so long as you assume the falsity of Christianity. Assuming it's true, it suddenly makes an awful lot of sense, which is why the reporter, I suspect, asked it. Because to a lot of people, it's a good question to ask.
Freedom of the press grants them this right, yes, but I still feel the question was in poor taste for the forum.But can't the reporter be said to simply be acting on the behalf of the American electorate?
The character of a politician is a carefully constructed marketing project, and there are to many variables that can affect it behind the scenes. Therefore, for me personally, I have to look at what the person has stated they will do professionally. I can at no time advocate or defame a person's character without meeting them first, unless presented with overwhelming evidence that I should lean one way or another, usually determined by that person's actions. Any other information I get is second hand, and I will look at it skeptically. I look at the professional issues (this is the man's job after all) first for this reason. I believe the person's character has much to do with how they will conduct themselves in office, so past conduct should also be scrutinized, but current personal belief in a diety should have no relevance on the political issues at hand in my mind. (Crap, I have a hand in my mind???)That's an excellent point...it's very hard to determine a person's character from afar like that, especially when they know people will be trying to do so. Focus on their policies, therefore, is a very good way to get around that frustrating fact. And I basically agree with you. I think I would probably elect an Atheist with a sound economic policy over a devout Christian intent on wealth redistribution. However, I still do not believe the question to be out of line or irrelevant. Just not AS relevant, perhaps, as more issues-oriented questions.
The American people care about it. I think they generally care about the right things. Wouldn't say much about my faith in Democracy if I didn't. :)
Got some issues with this one, as it's almost personal, but I know you don't mean it that way I have a slew of reasons I don't live like this, and which standard is the truely high standard again? You're falling into the trap I do many times, assuming your view is the correct and absolute. Some of the other things that inspire me to live for others are art, music, love, friendship, family, a general caring for mankind and our environment.I don't mean for it to be personal, no. I mean for it to be objective, and of course, arguments are welcome.
I don't believe I am assuming my view is correct...my argument applies even when presupposing materialism. Your list of life inspirations is one I quite agree with, and are all things reasonable men care about, but the inevitable question, as I said to Gol, is why you care about them. That's what I mean when I say a materialist's morality must either be instinctual or arbitrary. Listing the things they care about is another matter altogether...it does nothing to tell us WHY they care about them, which was the question I was addressing.
I believe any person can have high moral standards and even learn them from the same sources (the bible) and still not hold any belief in a diety. I can still understand the concepts/metaphor/lessons that these passages in the bible cover, and still be a skeptic about some all powerful diety figure. Remember that I have the utmost respect for many of the concepts taught in religion, my main problem is with the use of religion by humans for bad purposes. To tell you the truth, these conversations have awakened my every-10-year-or-so-interest in reading the bible, and I think I'll do so again soon. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you people and I think for me to better participate in these discussions I should become better associated with the tenets and facts supporting the opposition. I could also probably stand to learn a thing or two from the reading....That's perfectly true; an Atheist does not need to believe in God to believe in the moral lessons often taught in God's name. I do not dispute that. But how do they decide what is moral? From a materialist/evolutionist's worldview, they would presumably believe that what we know as morality is innately embedded into us for survival purposes, making it a wholly instinctual thing.
Agreed. I think we agree here but are coming from different angles. Both the statements we made about this last concept are correct but cover some different aspects of the debate. I just get nervous if the fact that the candidate is religious is as far as some people get. I would NEVER disregard a candidate for being either religious or not religious, and I would hope that religious folks would look at the other issues concerning the public and the world as well, which I am pretty sure you do at this point in my getting to know you better (which has been a pleasure, btw).In that case, I think we agree. It is not the deciding issue for me (though I daresay I most definitely take note of it), either.
It's a pleasure on this end, as well. :)
I am spiritual, just not into organized religionThat's the new rage, it seems. :)
If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by "spiritual"? I only ask because I was under the impression you were basically an Atheist, and therefore presumed that, like most Atheists, you did not believe in anything supernatural.
Because it's the ruling classes who decides who's good and who's evil. Simple as that.Are you referring to politicians? If so, the middle and lower classes of America are the ones who elect them. They are only a "ruling class" in the sense that the working classes choose others to govern them.
You make it sound as if Americans are living in some sort masked oppression. It wouldn't sound out of place if you substited "ruling class" for "bourgeoisie" and "working class" for "proletariat."
It is true that religion has a bigger place in society in America then in most other countries in the west. Secular candidates have an uphill fight because the religion is constantly being put high up on the agenda by the conservative actors on the media and political scenes. Religion is also a deciding factor since, as I stated in my previous post, a lot of the most important potential voters put religion high up on their lists.The media is not pushing religion as an important issue; it is an important issue, and media merely reflects that. It's important to the public, so it's important to the politicians and commentators.
Just because the working class believes that social unjustice is more important than religion doesn't mean that they aren't religious. But when "their" candidate moves focus from social issues to religious ones he moves closer to the conservative candidate and loses the interest of the lower classes.This paragraph seems so littered with assumptions and claims that I barely know where to begin. Who is "their" candidate and on what are you basing the assumption that the working class "loses interest" when the candidate discusses a religious issue? And when you say he "moves closer to the conservative candidate," are you implying that the lower classes are primarily liberal? And if so, what are you basing that on?
I knew you were going to misunderstand this. You think that I am talking of the proportional system as something uniquely american which I am not. It is not a fact that the american elections since the beginning of time have had fewer voters attending than say all swedish elections. It is a fact, however, that if you put the truly democratic countries with proportional election system next to the truly democratic countries with majority election system you will see that the countries with proportional systems have lesser percentage of the voters attending in the election than the countries with majority systems. And USA is certainly not an exception to the rule.Which truly democratic countries are you referring to?
If you had the majority system you would see that new parties would have a lot easier making their voices heard. The smaller american parties know that they have no chance in winning an expensive campaigne so they end up backing one of the two big ones.I don't know what you're basing this on, either. There are plenty of very dedicated, very vehement third-parties. The voters just don't like them much. So, they don't do very well. You don't get much more Democratic than that.
And it does show in their support only you choose to ignore it. The fact that not even 50% of the voters bother with the presidential election is enough evidence.I fail to see how a low voter turnout in any way demonstrates that third-party candidates are receiving support.
And which 3rd party candidate? Ross Perot?I don't understand what you're asking. My point is quite simple: your complaints about the two-party system imply that it is unfair in some way. But ultimately, people can vote for anyone they want to, including anyone from an independent or third party. But they DON'T. The fact that the American voter does not like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader does not illustrate a weaknesses in the system...just their dislike of third-party candidates.
You're confusing the idea that we cannot elect a third-party candidate with the idea that we simply do not want to. The former would be cause for concern. The latter is reality.
You talk about what people have the freedom to do in theory, not what they are in fact able to do in reality.No, I talk about what people can do in theory and reality. They simply choose not to. And that's what Democracy's all about; letting the people do what they want. If they want to elect someone this November, they will, plain and simple. Nothing's stopping them, except the fact that they don't want to.
The american system is the system of those allready in power or those with enormous amounts of money.I don't generally like to appeal to my status as an American in such discussions, but you're awfully opinionated about my country for someone who does not live there. When citing statistics this is quite understandable, but when you start telling me about the social dynamics of a country I live in, which you've never visited (to my memory), I've got to raise an eyebrow.
America is a very wealthy country. Our politicians are wealthy. But they're still accountable for their decisions. People do not inherent power in this country. With few exceptions, they have to earn it.
A few centuries ago, the irony inherent in this statement would have been completely overlooked and its author would have been burned at the stake for heresy:
What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.
What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness.
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.
Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness (Renaissance virtue, virtu, virtue that is moraline-free).
The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance.
What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak: Christianity.
- Friederich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ
This is not about definitions, this is about straight-up logic. If I say your morality is either instinctive or arbitrary, trying to explain why you have it does not contradict that in anyway whatsoever. And pointing out that it does not contradict that is not forcing my own personal definitions on anyone, either.
You insist on framing the debate in these exact definitions - coz they make sense to you. First off: they make no sense to me coz i know you're using them thinking you're in an extra category entitled "consistant and justified coz of God's absolutes".
This isn't a logical debate by any means, coz you can't prove God's absolutes exist, therefore you should fit inside these categories too (but personally i think the categories/definitions are flawed/too limited anyway - hence my brief, and flawed, attempt to "contradict" them)
If you go on about your desire to preserve the world, that only begs the same question on another level: why is that your desire? Keep asking "why?" and eventually the answer is "just because," making your desire either instinctual or arbitrary.
Yes, and your answer is "just because" too - i.e. "just because God's absolutes exist".
I do keep asking "why" Yods. All my life. The difference is that I don't expect there to be an answer at the heart of it than can be fully explained in rational terms (and neither do you within your god's-absolutes answer - but you do have to tie in things like the bible as guides for understanding these unknowable central "absolutes" - whereas i have the freedom to interpret what might underly what we can percieve from a greater source of information, without fear of it contradicting one that i hold up to be a truer reflection of those absolutes come what may).
That doesn't mean my actions or beliefs are arbitary per se. You seem to be mistaking accepting-the-unknowable for "illogical" when applied to secularist/"materialist" thought.
And while you're on the deterministic materialism...
This is something most materialists just can't seem to stand, for whatever reason. If you're going to take the view that we're just another creature on this planet, there's no reason to believe our actions have some kind of higher purpose or meaning than the less intelligent creatures. Hell, in a materialist world, by definition, we have to assume that our actions are predetermined, anyway.
(a) Correct on the first bit. I don't necessarily believe our actions have a god-given higher purpose. But I do believe we have a greater ability to affect the world, deliberately and accidently, than any other animal, and so therefore should be careful how we apply that power (and also that the interaction of flora and fauna on this world are vital to the vitality of what surrounds us. This is taken from both scientific/rational and instinctual sources. And means that i still respect what surrounds me, even though, taken as individual cases, they appear as "lesser" "creations" that i can do what i like too with impunity)
(b) Things are theoretically predetermined to an extent. But they also change on many levels. And, to be honest, there are various ways in which we've exerted our "power" to alter things that would have been different otherwise, so the expression of apparent constants in the world is no guarantee of a "predetermined" outcome.
The point is that people like me accept that there's no "one" guiding the boat other than constant interactions (EDIT: that cause multiple emergant constants [long and short] and are built on previous emergant constants in kind. Micro and macro. Long-term and short. The "longest" constants don't even have to be "absolute", in the sense of eternal, as far as i'm concerned). And those interactions can form a cumulative effect that can be "better" or "worse" for the majority (i.e. the "whole", that we can conveniently term the Earth for our purposes).
Ah, but calling my belief in God arbitrary then leads us to discuss whether or not God is real. If God is real, then my statement is perfectly legit. If not, it's not. My point is that I've come to this conclusion based on my conclusion to the question of God. It's consistent...it does not contradict itself. But what you're describing cannot even potentially line up in the same way. Saying that you think we should support best practices does not tell us WHY you've chosen that as your standard. IE: for instinctual or arbitrary reasons.
We are the same mate. We are the same. Except that I don't think there IS an ultimate "why". You're just pandering to your desire for there to be one.
The consistancies that run through my beliefs are drawn from a different book, and not centered around an overly-anthropomorphised idea of what might guide things. It's the one whose type is printed in both the feel of a fern-frond on my cheek and the books made by the bubbling brooks of biology called humanity. We are very very similar.
But unfortunately, your logical concepts of God get in the way.
I'd rather not. I think it's an important part of this discussion. It doesn't disprove materialism, but it's extraordinary how reluctant most materialists are to concede the inevitable conclusions that must go hand-in-hand with their beliefs.
I don't want to dismiss instinctiveness from the argument either. And i also think it's extraodinary how reluctant you are to realise there's no point trying to use this "logical" argument on someone who doesn't believe in your God's absolutes - coz to us, it's not logical.
#2 doesn't fit, unless you were to come to the conclusion that one man, say, littering (or even dumping toxic waste all over the place) would f**k up the planet enough to adversely effect him as an individual during his lifetime. Not likely, in my opinion.
See, now, why do you think this? (in face of all the facts) I'm always tempted to think there's a religious aspect to this (i know you recognise man can do wrong [i.e. sin, be flawed etc etc], but i think possibly the idea of the earth being God's creation - and therefore impervious to our deliberate or accidental influences on it - might be what makes you conclude this)
"Littering" and pollution are already starting to have an effect (and they are serious long term problems, and i care about the next generations, as much as how things might be in our later days). Persistant Organic Pollutants, Flame-retardant Brominates, the 80,000 artifical chemicals free in the world, non-biodegradable plastics (with no place to put them, adverse effect on "nature"/ecosystems etc) are all already having adverse effects. And with such a profundity of options, it only takes a few of them to be truly virilantly damaging, or so widespread as to be equaly damaging despite benign appearances.
EDIT: Look at depleting fish stocks (through over-fishing, coral-destruction, and also...), global temperature change (a delicate system that we almost certainly have influenced), soil erosion (through over-intensive farming practices and deforestation), biodiversity reduction through P.O.P.s (DDT for example - and biodivirsity has been shown to be both fragile and the source of wider "strength/virility"), cancers demonstrably caused by novel chemicals etc etc etc.
Wake up. Some of the things we've created are so novel as to constitute a complete re-ordering of the "predestined" route life on this planet may take. Yes it can survive many things. The first question is though: can we?
Concerning the others: you're just making my point for me. That is, a person doing these things insofar as they benefit from them. Tell me...from a materialist's point of view, is there any logical reason to care about what happens to the world, his friends, or his family after he dies?
Absolutely. On a selfish level I could talk about the idea of continuation through bloodline. Even my happiness at the idea that they would continue etc etc. My personal mystic-materialism take on things is that I am part of a larger whole (one that benefits me more and more the "healthier" it is, and vice-versa).
But on a less selfish, but related, level - i care about "the whole". I prefer to see time not so much as a straight line projecting into the future, but more as a continuum where we float at a specific point, yes, but the past and future wash back to us in certain ways. It's just a perspective (And one that can be formulated from logical observational premises [if required ;)]. i.e. signs of slight ****ed-up-ness in the present foretell of greater ****ed-up-ness in the future. Look after your future and you look after your present too. Alright, hell, it comes back to selfish principles again. But so long as you recognise that your "best" benefit is gained by finding your "best" interaction with the world that surrounds you, shapes you and sustains you - you've turned a potentially "negative" thing like selfishness into a practical and all-benefitting thing, balanced against the other negative of "complete selflessness" in this case). (That was the short version ;)).
To be honest, that after-you-die-who-cares perspective has always been alien to me (despite being brought up in a non-religious environment - although the thought structures of my parents relgious upbringing surely intermingled with their later beliefs in science/progress/formative-humanity, and for that i'm greatful. They're all good mindsets, especially in balance).
I've got a good friend who thinks like that, and I've argued with him constantly about it throughout the 10 or so years we've known each other. And yes, in his "logical" materialistic extremes, he's religiously-scientific (i.e. a "pure" scientist who hates religion ;) - without realising he's under the sway of a religion of sorts. Coz religions are all in the mind as far as i'm concerned).
Oh, I'm not saying moral structures are not logical, or that making the world the best place it can be is not a sensible goal. Just that a great many people go around saying one thing, while doing something which "says" the opposite.
Like religious people that murder? ;) So what, materialists, believers, it's all the same. It's the mindset that's important, and recognising it for what it is (a psychological imperative - an imperfect structure, which, with flexibility, can still give us the consistancy and "understandability" we crave, while allowing us some access to that which lies beyond).
I don't recall defining it as selfish at all. And if you admit some of this is illogical, why do you do it? Why don't you fight it? What is its purpose? In the materialist worldview, your
(some of this was missing)
On the selfish thing: i can't be bothered to check back - wasn't this about saying materialists only do things that provide gain or comfort? And i agree, but also assert that many altruistic things can flow from this survivalistic trait, if we only recognise how interlinked with everything we are.
And on the "logic" thing: Heheheheheheheh. Coz i don't expect life to be logical for a start. And i also think that if everything makes sense then we're missing out on something ;). Not that i don't enjoy it when i think i've got a handle on something. :)
As I said before, this accusation hinges on whether or not it's real, meaning, if real, God is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The religious view or morality is reasonable if right. The materialist worldview in regards to morality is inconsistent EVEN IF IT'S RIGHT. That's the difference. Assume the truth of God, and every claim I've made about morality lines up. Assume the truth about materialism, and my point wouldn't change at all.
Oh good. We're inconsistant. Maybe that's a sign we're lining about with the complex changing consistancies of life? ;) (when we get lucky :)).
My question to you is: How do you know your worldview isn't just internally consistant? That's no guarantee that it lines up with the "consistancies" of "universal absolutes".
It can be "logically" consistant but nothing more (while relying on an "illogical" premise i might add ;))
People do not need religion to feel they are right. If they want to be zealous about something, I do not hesitate to believe that they will likely find a way. People have blown up SUVs using a standard of "the world" and other such things not unlike your beliefs. The only beliefs which cannot be abused are those too impotent to do anything worthwhile, either. Despite your claims, I don't think it is anything more than religion's size which causes it to sometimes appear conducive to close-mindedness. It's got a lot of people...which means more bad ones than it'd have otherwise.
Absolutely. Which is why i always try and avoid dogma, and try to recognise the mindsets that imprint more strongly on my beliefs/actions, so i can attempt to counteract them when they go too far. I recognise, for example, that i'm a full-on "Green" and "Liberal", and have to constantly try and check the foundations of the various mindsets that make up those perspectives, and therefore check all the other available views too (which means i have to argue with the dogmatic Greens and Liberals too etc. Dogmatic green-activists. Violent-socialists. Django. You name it. ;)) But my beliefs still sit within their parameters, coz it turns out that the rational (fact-checking) and instinctive ("logic"-releasing) lessons i've learned often side with those aspects as being the best use of my time.
On the big-scale thing: If the whole world was toooo Green, and toooooo Liberal, i'd like to think i'd be arguing the other side (while still seeing the good things in mindsets etc that contradicted mine) - coz i see myself as one of life's stop-valves. Put on this earth to be a pain in the arse and puncture holes in movements that refuse to see their own flaws, and happily act destructively thinking they can't be anything but good. I think my one natural "gift" is seeing exceptions where many people seize on consistancy - but that's by the by.
Some doggy-bag points that i carry around and gnaw on occasionally at times like these when trying to capture the world-breeze are: good-n-bad in everything, no human idea is 100% right, consistancy-and-change are needed to create that equilibrium that sees that the "whole" gets the feeding it needs to stay bright. (i've said these to you b4, right? ;))
EDIT: And i told you it was gonna be emotional-n-scatty too yeah? ;)
See above for the difference between the two. You'd have to quote me on the Ten Commandments thread, because I don't remember overriding anyone, depending on what you mean.
I'm not offended. But I cannot agree with the sentiment that we should drop this subject. :nope: If you don't wish to continue, however, they'll be no hard feelings, and no questions asked.
On the ten commandments - we can go back and have a look later yeah? It's late.
Looks like i did wish to continue ;) - and i suspect this won't be the end by any means. (our perspectives and approaches [reflecting underlying beliefs that are still marvellously, humanly, similar in many ways], are so diverse that i'll be pleasantly surprised if we can resolve many of them through the "logical" filter of a forum)
Heigh ho ;)
Piddzilla
01-28-04, 07:56 AM
Are you referring to politicians? If so, the middle and lower classes of America are the ones who elect them. They are only a "ruling class" in the sense that the working classes choose others to govern them.
"Today you can have whatever you want for dinner. We have bread and then we have bread."
You still ignore the fact that they choose to show their discontent by not voting at all.
What do you think of the rule that many countries have that an election result isn't valid if 50% (sometimes higher) of the voters don't vote?
[edit] Of course I meant if more than 50% of the voters don't vote.
You make it sound as if Americans are living in some sort masked oppression. It wouldn't sound out of place if you substited "ruling class" for "bourgeoisie" and "working class" for "proletariat."
We could do that if you want. It works fine with me.
The media is not pushing religion as an important issue; it is an important issue, and media merely reflects that. It's important to the public, so it's important to the politicians and commentators.
Was it the media or a politician who asked Dean the question? Again you refer to media as a reflection of society, which it is not. We talked a lot about this in the Michael Moore thread as you might remember.
This paragraph seems so littered with assumptions and claims that I barely know where to begin. Who is "their" candidate and on what are you basing the assumption that the working class "loses interest" when the candidate discusses a religious issue? And when you say he "moves closer to the conservative candidate," are you implying that the lower classes are primarily liberal? And if so, what are you basing that on?
Not at all. Judging from the fact that they don't vote, I would say that they are neither conservative nor liberal, wouldn't you agree?
"Their" candidate is simply the candidate that fights for the working class' interests. Traditionally, this is the Democrat who does this, right? But since politics are all about moving focus from the things that you don't like to talk about to the things you love to talk about, the one candidate's supporters will work hard to focus on things that will make their candidate look good and the other one look bad. So the conservatives bring out the religion card when they need to move focus from the social issues debate and they tone it down when they need to appear as a little more "compassionate". As you know, there are some groups of voters that would gain more on voting Democratic finacially speaking and speaking of "life quality". Groups like the white southern working class, but for various reason they might as well vote republican. It might be because of religious reasons or for patriotic reasons (Bush's homeland security/preventive strike politics and so on). This particular group is very important in every election and in order to gain popularity candidates like Dean do idiotic stuff like he just did. When he does this he loses a lot of credibility in other potential, but not that likely to vote, groups. Groups possibly with strong faith and religious views, but that don't connect their faith with politics and that consider social issues to be a lot more important than religious issues. I'm talking about perhaps ethnic minorities, young voters in the cities, minimum wage workers etc. People that need a break to get to the next level in life and who lose hope (again) when guys like Dean apparantly abandon the issues that are really important to them so he will look good in the eyes of the godfearing voters.
Which truly democratic countries are you referring to?
The members of the European Union, North America, Australia, a few others...
I don't know what you're basing this on, either. There are plenty of very dedicated, very vehement third-parties. The voters just don't like them much. So, they don't do very well. You don't get much more Democratic than that.
But for god's sake.... If Coca Cola and Pepsi were the two candidates. Do you honestly think my mom would lose with her homemade currant lemonade because the voters didn't like her much???
I fail to see how a low voter turnout in any way demonstrates that third-party candidates are receiving support.
Me too. It demonstrates that there is a void on the american political stage.
I don't understand what you're asking. My point is quite simple: your complaints about the two-party system imply that it is unfair in some way. But ultimately, people can vote for anyone they want to, including anyone from an independent or third party. But they DON'T. The fact that the American voter does not like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader does not illustrate a weaknesses in the system...just their dislike of third-party candidates.
No, it illustrates that they didn't like those two particular candidates. Understandable.
Yes, I know that they can vote for anyone they want to. But you imply that there is a smorgasbord to choose from in every election, that there are a lot of different alternatives only that all alternatives just happen to be worse than the two big ones year after year after year.
How come that in many countries where they have some kind of majority election system so called green parties has become a reliable factor on the political stage? I know that the environmental movement in USA is big and strong in some areas. Why do you think this is not reflected in national politics in USA? It is reflected in national politics in several european countries but not in USA. What do you think is the reason to why smaller parties but with a devoted following aren't visible in american national politics? If I tell you that you are not allowed to say "because the people choose to have it this way", is there any other reason you could think of?
You're confusing the idea that we cannot elect a third-party candidate with the idea that we simply do not want to. The former would be cause for concern. The latter is reality.
No, I am not confusing anything. There just aren't any serious alternatives that can challenge the campaignes of the big ones.
No, I talk about what people can do in theory and reality. They simply choose not to. And that's what Democracy's all about; letting the people do what they want. If they want to elect someone this November, they will, plain and simple. Nothing's stopping them, except the fact that they don't want to.
Democracy is not at all about "letting people do what they want". But it's a question of interpretation, I guess, and you're free to have your own...
Yeah... I know that Bush has allready won. The lower the turnout, the bigger the victory for him. This time he will probably get the majority of the votes as well!
I don't generally like to appeal to my status as an American in such discussions, but you're awfully opinionated about my country for someone who does not live there. When citing statistics this is quite understandable, but when you start telling me about the social dynamics of a country I live in, which you've never visited (to my memory), I've got to raise an eyebrow.
Cheap shot. Have you ever been in Iraq? America is awfully opinonated on just about any country in the world today and since you're the biggest defender of Bush's conservatism on this board I choose to discuss it with you. You are basically telling me to mind my own business, only this is my business. Do I get to vote in your elections? Ok then. You don't have to listen but you can't tell me I can't have an opinion on the only superpower in the world.
America is a very wealthy country. Our politicians are wealthy. But they're still accountable for their decisions. People do not inherent power in this country. With few exceptions, they have to earn it.
Yes, your politicians are wealthy = the wealthy people rule America.
Now. If majority elections would guarantee the turnout in the elections to go up (over a period of time), would that be enough for a switch from proportional system to majority system? Or are there other reasons to why you think a high turnout is worth sacrifying in favour of keeping the proportional system?
Do you see any advantages of keeping status quo amongst the different "voting groups"? Do you think USA benefits from 50-70% of the voters (depending on what kind of election) not voting as opposed to if those numbers were closer to 20-40%?
If I claim that the conservative side of american politics benefits enormously from this situation as opposed to a large turnout, would you agree? If not, explain to me why you disagree.
"Today you can have whatever you want for dinner. We have bread and then we have bread."
You still ignore the fact that they choose to show their discontent by not voting at all.I hope you mean "possibility" and not "fact." Unless you've got some definitive proof that those not voting do so out of protest. I'm sure some people abstain out of protest, but I'm quite certain they're in the minority, because I've yet to really run into any of them. If America's increasingly lower turnouts over the last decade or two were reflective of a concious, deliberate protest, it'd be obvious by now.
What do you think of the rule that many countries have that an election result isn't valid if 50% (sometimes higher) of the voters don't vote?
[edit]Of course I meant if more than 50% of the voters don't vote.I think it's a pretty reasonable rule, but I hardly think we're lost without it.
We could do that if you want. It works fine with me.I can't tell if you missed what I was getting at, or not. I was using Marxist terminology to illustrate that you sound as if you're trying to paint a picture of an oppressive society which simply does not exist here.
Was it the media or a politician who asked Dean the question? Again you refer to media as a reflection of society, which it is not. We talked a lot about this in the Michael Moore thread as you might remember.I think media is most defiinitely a reflection of a society. And based on your words, one would think you do, too. You said that the media is primarily concerned with ratings. So which is it? Are they simply showing people what they want to watch, or are do they have their own societal agenda that they pursue even when it hurts their viewership?
Not at all. Judging from the fact that they don't vote, I would say that they are neither conservative nor liberal, wouldn't you agree?Absolutely not. I would not cease to be conservative if I refrained from voting next election. The fact that someone may not choose to quantify their political opinions into a tangible vote in no way demonstrates that they do not, in fact, hold political opinions.
"Their" candidate is simply the candidate that fights for the working class' interests. Traditionally, this is the Democrat who does this, right?I certainly don't think so. That's the outdated cliche, however. Republican = big business, Democrat = the little guy. Both are silly. Neither party has a monopoly on corporate interests or empathy for the working class. The fiscal Democrats, in a nutshell, believe we need a vast array of social programs to help your average Joe. The fiscal Republicans, on the other hand, tend to believe that opening the market and letting people keep most of what they make (self-reliance), with a minimum of social programs, produces a better standard of living for the majority of citizens.
The idea that the parties are big business .vs. the everyman is little more than a stereotype fit only for made-for-TV movies.
But since politics are all about moving focus from the things that you don't like to talk about to the things you love to talk about, the one candidate's supporters will work hard to focus on things that will make their candidate look good and the other one look bad. So the conservatives bring out the religion card when they need to move focus from the social issues debate and they tone it down when they need to appear as a little more "compassionate". As you know, there are some groups of voters that would gain more on voting Democratic finacially speaking and speaking of "life quality". Groups like the white southern working class, but for various reason they might as well vote republican. It might be because of religious reasons or for patriotic reasons (Bush's homeland security/preventive strike politics and so on). This particular group is very important in every election and in order to gain popularity candidates like Dean do idiotic stuff like he just did. When he does this he loses a lot of credibility in other potential, but not that likely to vote, groups. Groups possibly with strong faith and religious views, but that don't connect their faith with politics and that consider social issues to be a lot more important than religious issues. I'm talking about perhaps ethnic minorities, young voters in the cities, minimum wage workers etc. People that need a break to get to the next level in life and who lose hope (again) when guys like Dean apparantly abandon the issues that are really important to them so he will look good in the eyes of the godfearing voters.I'm not sure what you're getting at here, exactly, but if you're saying that politicans often pander to potential voters, I'd certainly agree.
The members of the European Union, North America, Australia, a few others...North America? I think things are getting a tad jumbled. You were saying that "truly" democratic countries have higher voter participation than systems like the one used in the United States. So are you referring to Canada? Mexico?
But for god's sake.... If Coca Cola and Pepsi were the two candidates. Do you honestly think my mom would lose with her homemade currant lemonade because the voters didn't like her much???That depends. If she sells it on a stand on the corner, no. But if hers is a genuinely superior product, and she's smart enough to go out and get it tasted by the right people, there's no reason her homemade product cannot grow into a global corporation. This happens all the time here. Michael Dell started building computers with customized specs single-handedly out of his dorm room. His idea was sound and his service was strong, so it was only a matter of time.
The same goes for good ideas. You can hold them back, but you cannot stop them. The two-party system perfectly reflects the principle I mentioned in my last post: change in America is not always quick (and therefore, not as whimsical or reckless as it might be under another form of government), but if people genuinely want it, it always comes. This, in my mind, clearly works to our advantage, as we generally only implement the changes that have enjoyed consistent and sustained support. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child they can eat whatever they want for dinner, but first they have to spend 10 minutes thinking about it. It emphasizes consistent, thought out decisions.
Me too. It demonstrates that there is a void on the american political stage.I'd say it demonstrates that the American people are smart enough not to vote for those candidates, most of which are proposing very radical changes.
Yes, I know that they can vote for anyone they want to. But you imply that there is a smorgasbord to choose from in every election, that there are a lot of different alternatives only that all alternatives just happen to be worse than the two big ones year after year after year.Well, there are a few things to consider:
1 - We do have a smorgasbord, even within the two parties. There are a vast number of differing ideals from one Republican to the next, and one Democrat to the next. There are Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers on both sides. There are fiscal conservatives in the Democratic camp, and more compassionate supporters of various social programs on the Republican side. The parties only define basic ideals. Within each party, there are a great number of very markedly different views. So saying we only have two choices is more than a little misleading.
Case in point: a number of Democrats are vying for their party's nomination in the upcoming Presidential election. They're attacking Bush, of course (whom each hopes will be his eventual opponent), but they're also attacking each other. Why? Well, for one, they've got very different policies on some matters. Dean, to my memory, has pledged to repeal Bush's tax cuts, and perhaps even raise taxes. Kerry and Edwards, I believe, have both expressed their support of Bush's tax policies, and stated that their intention is to leave most, if not all, of his measures in place. These are all candidates in the same party, but represent a number of different ideologies.
2 - It's not that the best ones just "happen" to be coming from the same two camps, but rather, that those who the public like are generally smart enough to align themselves with a major party to help their chances.
3 - Independents do win sometimes, even in modern politics. Jesse Ventura, an outspoken independent and former professional wrstler, was elected Governor of Minnesota just several years back. He did this simply by getting out there, and running a solid campaign. He was not, to my knowledge, particularly well-connected or as wealthy as most of his opponents. But he had a message that people approved of.
I think you've got the cart before the horse. It's not as if the Republican and Democratic parties rose to power arbitrarily, and therefore just "happen" to put forth the candidates that people want to vote for. It's the other way around; they came to power because they put forth those kinds of candidates. And still do.
Granted, some people are fed up with politics in general. But an indictment of the two-party system is not generally encompassed by their complaints, from what I've seen. It's more often just a distaste for the pandering nature of politics in general that causes some people to abstain from voting for reasons other than apathy.
How come that in many countries where they have some kind of majority election system so called green parties has become a reliable factor on the political stage? I know that the environmental movement in USA is big and strong in some areas. Why do you think this is not reflected in national politics in USA? It is reflected in national politics in several european countries but not in USA.I think it is reflected in national politics. But it's reflected by raising the issue itself, and not by name in an additional party. The Green Party here gets little attention, but Presidential candidates are invariably asked about their stances on various environmental issues. It's not as if the Green Party is the only party allowed to take a stand on the environment.
What do you think is the reason to why smaller parties but with a devoted following aren't visible in american national politics? If I tell you that you are not allowed to say "because the people choose to have it this way", is there any other reason you could think of?Well, if it's true, why can't I say it?
Aside from the fact that people here are not enamored with most alternative political parties, I'd readily admit that publicity plays a part. But only temporarily. Ultimately, you can't keep the truly good ideas down. That's one of the bedrock principles of Democracy.
No, I am not confusing anything. There just aren't any serious alternatives that can challenge the campaignes of the big ones.That's true. The issue, however, is whether or not this is indicative of a flaw in our system. I don't think it is. Saying there aren't any serious challengers to the two major parties is like complaining that their aren't any serious challengers to Major League Baseball. Surely there are some decent players who might not get noticed, but all in all the best players generally end up on a level consistent with their abilities, and most of the better ones choose to participate within the organization's framework -- a framework which allows enough flexibility to accomodate just about anyone who can garner public support. The same goes for politicians.
Democracy is not at all about "letting people do what they want". But it's a question of interpretation, I guess, and you're free to have your own...Well, it's about a lot more than that, but ultimately Democracy is about giving the people to collectively do what they believe they should do. And I think the American system is consistent with that.
Yeah... I know that Bush has allready won. The lower the turnout, the bigger the victory for him. This time he will probably get the majority of the votes as well!He hasn't already won, but he's certainly the favorite. I don't think a lower turnout will help him, however. Bush has more supporters than detractors, but his detractors are generally more rabid than his supporters. They hate him with an often unreasonable passion, and will turn up to vote against him (no matter the opponent, most likely, which goes to show you how blinded some are by their hatred) no matter what. So I'd say a low turnout would be bad for Bush. I suspect he'd win nonetheless, however.
Cheap shot. Have you ever been in Iraq? America is awfully opinonated on just about any country in the world today and since you're the biggest defender of Bush's conservatism on this board I choose to discuss it with you. You are basically telling me to mind my own business, only this is my business. Do I get to vote in your elections? Ok then. You don't have to listen but you can't tell me I can't have an opinion on the only superpower in the world.That was not a cheap shot, and I didn't even come close to saying you cannot have an opinion. You can, and you do, and I welcome it. I even went out of my way to state that I do not wish to use my status as a citizen of America to try and offhandedly dismiss any arguments brought against this country. However, it's not as if you're citing statistics or any kind of verifiable data. You're offering a subjective interpretation of the kind of social dynamics which would be nearly impossible to even begin to measure if you did not live here.
I am not asking you to bow out of the discussion, or telling you to mind your own business. I am simply questioning your ability to comment on these particular matters (let alone in such an opinionated manner!) without some sort of verifiable data. It'd be reasonable of me to make certain judgements of Sweden based on things like its voter turnout or the political ideologies of its elected leaders...but I think it'd be unreasonable of me to try advance elaborate, speculative theories to you about your homeland if I did not have something firm and objective to go on.
Yes, your politicians are wealthy = the wealthy people rule America.The voters rule America. They elect the politicians. What's more, they even have a significant amount of control over who becomes wealthy. The wealthy and powerful alike in this country are absolutely nothing without the voters and consumers to actively support them. That single fact, in my mind, does a fairly admirable job of refuting any claim that we are being oppressed or "ruled," rather than merely governed.
Now. If majority elections would guarantee the turnout in the elections to go up (over a period of time), would that be enough for a switch from proportional system to majority system? Or are there other reasons to why you think a high turnout is worth sacrifying in favour of keeping the proportional system?I think you could make a strong case that it is worth the lower turnout, but you don't really have to, because the two are not mutually exclusive. We've shown ourselves able to achieve high turnouts under this system. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your question.
Do you see any advantages of keeping status quo amongst the different "voting groups"? Do you think USA benefits from 50-70% of the voters (depending on what kind of election) not voting as opposed to if those numbers were closer to 20-40%? Benefits? No. I'd rather more people vote. I'm just not aghast over it.
If I claim that the conservative side of american politics benefits enormously from this situation as opposed to a large turnout, would you agree? If not, explain to me why you disagree.I do disagree, in part because the country is pretty evenly split between the conservative and liberal ideologies. The majority vote in the last election was very close, and Congress is pretty evenly split between the two major parties, too. So I'm really not sure which party, if any, would benefit from a low turnout. Whichever has more die-hard supporters, I suppose, as opposed to casual ones, who might not be bothered to vote.
The voters rule America. They elect the politicians. What's more, they even have a significant amount of control over who becomes wealthy. The wealthy and powerful alike in this country are absolutely nothing without the voters and consumers to actively support them. That single fact, in my mind, does a fairly admirable job of refuting any claim that we are being oppressed or "ruled," rather than merely governed.
Ironic, isn't it, that George W. Bush lost the majority vote in the last election and was elected amid a major controversy concerning the disputed Florida electorate--a state governed by his brother Jeb Bush. And since he has been elected, he has done everything in his power to enrich the wealthy minority of America even further and to further impoverish the already impoverished masses. Thanks to connections in the White House, the likes of Ken Lay get away with murder while the less fortunate get laid off from work or get killed fighting in Iraq. So much for your quote that we are being "merely governed"!
Ironic, isn't it, that George W. Bush lost the majority vote in the last election and was elected amid a major controversy in the disputed state of Florida, governed by his brother Jeb Bush. And since he has been elected, he has done everything in his power to enrich the wealthy minority of America even further and to further impoverish the already impoverished masses. Thanks to connections in the White House, the likes of Ken Lay get away with murder while the less fortunate get laid off from work or get killed fighting in Iraq. So much for your quote that we are being "merely governed"!
Please explain what this has to do with this religion thread....
_S
If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by "spiritual"? I only ask because I was under the impression you were basically an Atheist, and therefore presumed that, like most Atheists, you did not believe in anything supernatural.
Hmmmm, been thinking about this one for a couple days. I wouldn't call myself an Atheist, as I think they firmly believe that God does not exist, as some sort of certainty, which I don't follow along with. I believe nothing is certain, and nothing is impossible, therefore I recognize that there very well could be a God, I lean heavily towards not. Some might see this as a cop out, where I see it as a healthy attitude to have towards any subject really. Another example would be dark matter, a scientific idea I find interesting, but the empirical evidence that has been presented in it's favor so far is less than convincing for me. The Big Bang on the other hand; I have done a fair amount of reading/researching into the subject and many of the theories and supporting evidence appear solid and well tested to me, so I tend to follow that line of thinking. I will say however that I feel (like some others, Stephen Hawking amoungst them), that the possibility of a singularity existing at one point, with infinite density, is kind of a stretch and is where the theory starts to lose cohesion for me.
I guess my point is that I question everything, try to be very skeptical and incredulous when presented with new information, but I also recognize the importance of faith, intuition, hope, and other such concepts I find it difficult or foolish to try and quantify. I mean, I think what I am trying to say is I don't think religion is the answer to all problems, and I don't think science is either. Thinking about it these past few days, I would have to say I put a lot of faith in finding balance in all things, an eastern concept to be sure, as here we seem obsessed with the biggest and smallest of things. I also try to achieve meditative states through the repetition of sounds. I am pretty sure there are a couple of Buddhist sectors that base themselves around this concept, but I haven't studied them really at all, and the channels I persue to do this are shall we say, quite different from the buddhist methods.
I am finding difficulty explaining exactly how I persue the great beyond in my mind and heart, as even though I want to share it with you, I cannot find the words to articulate it properly, I guess it is just something I understand extremely well on a personal level, but trying to frame a way of communicating it to another is escaping me.
Cheers :)
Sedai
PS: Next time I ship a post out with as many spelling errors as this one had, someone should clock my in the forehead with a ball-peen hammer.
Please explain what this has to do with this religion thread....
_S
I was only commenting on Yoda's remark, which I quoted in my post--especially on the irony of the remark in light of Yoda's political leanings.
Sir Toose
01-29-04, 06:47 PM
PS: Next time I ship a post out with as many spelling errors as this one had, someone should clock my in the forehead with a ball-peen hammer.
I'm your huckleberry....
Piddzilla
01-29-04, 07:41 PM
I hope you mean "possibility" and not "fact." Unless you've got some definitive proof that those not voting do so out of protest. I'm sure some people abstain out of protest, but I'm quite certain they're in the minority, because I've yet to really run into any of them. If America's increasingly lower turnouts over the last decade or two were reflective of a concious, deliberate protest, it'd be obvious by now.
I don't follow your reasoing here. If they are not voting because they are dissatisfied with the candidates, then why aren't they voting? If it doesn't matter to them who wins, that would mean that I am right when I am claiming that the two candidates stand for more or less the same politics (especially since they are not even voting for the "defending champion" or his heir). If they are simply not interested in politics at all, that would mean that american politicians have failed since they are obviously not capable in influencing or changing things in these people's lives. I.e., the people elected by the people aren't doing their job. So, even if they are not protesting in an active way (politically interested people that give up their vote in protest), it is very obvious that the majority of the american people feel that the presidential election don't concern them, or is at least not in their power to influence. A third (and fourth and fifth) big party wouldn't necessarily change this. The problem is however connected to the fact that USA apply the proportional model which leads to that votes are basically thrown away if they aren't on the state's winning side.
I think it's a pretty reasonable rule, but I hardly think we're lost without it.
No, apparently you aren't. The reason to why I asked you about it is that the fact that a lot of countries have this rule is to make sure that every election is in reality anchored to the majority of the people. That way speculations about the government/president not having the mandate of the people are automatically eliminated. It can also work against the apathy and indifference that some people feel about elections, since they are theoretically forced to vote until a majority of the people have had their say. This encourage people to engage in the politic debate more since they want to know who's the best candidate if they now have to pick one of them. This in turn increases the political awareness which in the end leads to better politicians.
I can't tell if you missed what I was getting at, or not. I was using Marxist terminology to illustrate that you sound as if you're trying to paint a picture of an oppressive society which simply does not exist here.
I am familiar, no expert though, with Marxism and its terminology. Acknowledging the existence of upper and lower classes hardly makes me a marxist. And I wouldn't go as far as calling the american society "oppressive" (even though several others [not necessarily marxist, or even leftists] would), but I believe there are a few groups (the upper class) in the american society that benefit more from how USA is structured politically than some other groups (the lower class).
I think media is most defiinitely a reflection of a society. And based on your words, one would think you do, too. You said that the media is primarily concerned with ratings. So which is it? Are they simply showing people what they want to watch, or are do they have their own societal agenda that they pursue even when it hurts their viewership?
You are interpreting my gospel incorrectly. I think that some tv channels, the commrecial ones in particular, are primarily concered with ratings - which they should be expected to be since they are commercial (they would be kind of stupid otherwise). And just because I don't think all media is a reflection of society, like there is an equal sign between "media" and "society, that doesn't mean that some media can't be if not a reflection then at least a fair depiction of society. To put it in a very simple way: Don't believe everything you read in the paper or see on tv. And of course there are for example conservative or liberal newspapers who would rather see a republican respectively a democrat in the White House. And if these newspapers acted entirely objective in the political debate, well, then they would be independent rather then conservative or liberal.
Absolutely not. I would not cease to be conservative if I refrained from voting next election. The fact that someone may not choose to quantify their political opinions into a tangible vote in no way demonstrates that they do not, in fact, hold political opinions.
And I am certainly not saying that they are not holding political opinions. But your reasoning is rather simplistic and implies that a person is either conservative and if she is not then she must by definition be liberal. You are conservative. Ok. If you asked me I wouldn't know what to say. I have voted for three different parties in three different elections so far. When discussing swedish politics I would define myself as a social liberal somewhere on the middle of the political left-or-right scale. But discussing american politics with you pushes me further to the left towards pure "social democracy" (socialism through reforms as opposed to communism,revolution and dictatorship). Ok, getting sidetracked....
The point I was making was that I believe that a large bulk of those skipping the elections are neither liberal nor conservative, but have views that are not represented by neither the republican nor the democratic candidate. And a lot of people aren't interested enough in politics to know which ideology they belong to. They are interested in factual matters, not ideologies. And my point is that the factual matters they care about aren't covered by the candidates' agendas, and that's why they don't vote.
I certainly don't think so. That's the outdated cliche, however. Republican = big business, Democrat = the little guy. Both are silly. Neither party has a monopoly on corporate interests or empathy for the working class. The fiscal Democrats, in a nutshell, believe we need a vast array of social programs to help your average Joe. The fiscal Republicans, on the other hand, tend to believe that opening the market and letting people keep most of what they make (self-reliance), with a minimum of social programs, produces a better standard of living for the majority of citizens.
hmmm... To me it's more like: Democrats = Free market/big business and tolerance. In short, liberalism. Republican = Few but strong and powerful corporations/capitalistic monopoly and christian values. In short, conservatism.
Anyway, of course I didn't expect you to admit that conservatism is bad for the working class. But traditionally, in the eyes of the bystanders so to speak, wouldn't you agree that the Democrats are more associated with social reforms (= giving the working class and the minorities a hand), while the Republicans are more core family/middle class oriented with tax cuts as returning favourite issues?
The idea that the parties are big business .vs. the everyman is little more than a stereotype fit only for made-for-TV movies.
Can't say that I have ever believed things to be that way.
North America? I think things are getting a tad jumbled. You were saying that "truly" democratic countries have higher voter participation than systems like the one used in the United States. So are you referring to Canada? Mexico?
Chris, that wasn't what I said. I compared so called truly democratic countries with proportional system to truly democratic countries with majority system, and I included USA in the "proportional group". I have never said that USA is not democratic.
That depends. If she sells it on a stand on the corner, no. But if hers is a genuinely superior product, and she's smart enough to go out and get it tasted by the right people, there's no reason her homemade product cannot grow into a global corporation. This happens all the time here. Michael Dell started building computers with customized specs single-handedly out of his dorm room. His idea was sound and his service was strong, so it was only a matter of time.
The same goes for good ideas. You can hold them back, but you cannot stop them. The two-party system perfectly reflects the principle I mentioned in my last post: change in America is not always quick (and therefore, not as whimsical or reckless as it might be under another form of government), but if people genuinely want it, it always comes. This, in my mind, clearly works to our advantage, as we generally only implement the changes that have enjoyed consistent and sustained support. It's the equivalent of a parent telling a child they can eat whatever they want for dinner, but first they have to spend 10 minutes thinking about it. It emphasizes consistent, thought out decisions.
Are you sure the Reps' symbol is an elephant and not an ent? My idea of political progress, as you might have guessed.
What I believe is perhaps happening in american politics is that new political ideas are incorporated with the two big parties. Then the ideas are often too radical for a presidential candidate that is supposed to represent the entire party and the politics are watered-down. Like if my mom would sell her product to Coca Cola or Pepsi to get things going faster.
I'd say it demonstrates that the American people are smart enough not to vote for those candidates, most of which are proposing very radical changes.
Hmmmm.. Just how does a low turnout demonstrate that?
Well, there are a few things to consider:
1 - We do have a smorgasbord, even within the two parties. There are a vast number of differing ideals from one Republican to the next, and one Democrat to the next. There are Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers on both sides. There are fiscal conservatives in the Democratic camp, and more compassionate supporters of various social programs on the Republican side. The parties only define basic ideals. Within each party, there are a great number of very markedly different views. So saying we only have two choices is more than a little misleading.
I agree. And this demonstrates why I think that theoretically it would be a great idea for the right wing democrats to join forces with the left wing republicans since it seems they have so similar political ideas. Then you would a new more radical democratic party on the left and a new more truly conservative party on the right.
Case in point: a number of Democrats are vying for their party's nomination in the upcoming Presidential election. They're attacking Bush, of course (whom each hopes will be his eventual opponent), but they're also attacking each other. Why? Well, for one, they've got very different policies on some matters. Dean, to my memory, has pledged to repeal Bush's tax cuts, and perhaps even raise taxes. Kerry and Edwards, I believe, have both expressed their support of Bush's tax policies, and stated that their intention is to leave most, if not all, of his measures in place. These are all candidates in the same party, but represent a number of different ideologies.
Yes, another evidence of the need for at least one more party.
2 - It's not that the best ones just "happen" to be coming from the same two camps, but rather, that those who the public like are generally smart enough to align themselves with a major party to help their chances.
Exactly! They are not dumb! They know that the wheels are turning really slow and if they want to be a part of the political process they better just join one of the big ones, even if it means compromising when it comes to personal political views.
3 - Independents do win sometimes, even in modern politics. Jesse Ventura, an outspoken independent and former professional wrstler, was elected Governor of Minnesota just several years back. He did this simply by getting out there, and running a solid campaign. He was not, to my knowledge, particularly well-connected or as wealthy as most of his opponents. But he had a message that people approved of.
Yes, I've seen a little bit of him. But he is not running for president, is he?
I think you've got the cart before the horse. It's not as if the Republican and Democratic parties rose to power arbitrarily, and therefore just "happen" to put forth the candidates that people want to vote for. It's the other way around; they came to power because they put forth those kinds of candidates. And still do.
I think it is more complex than that. Political parties are people with similar ideas organizing to be more effective in making their ideas happen. And according to democratic tradition they have candidates that represent their party. The fact that there are two important candidates doesn't mean that there couldn't be a third important candidate. It simply means that there are only two political parties of significance on the political scene.
Granted, some people are fed up with politics in general. But an indictment of the two-party system is not generally encompassed by their complaints, from what I've seen. It's more often just a distaste for the pandering nature of politics in general that causes some people to abstain from voting for reasons other than apathy.
Yes, but if there is a distaste for politics then I think it is the bloody duty of the politicians to do something about that distaste, or else they are misusing the trust granted from the people that a politician has. So politicians have to ask themselves what this distaste comes from. Is perhaps something missing?
I think it is reflected in national politics. But it's reflected by raising the issue itself, and not by name in an additional party. The Green Party here gets little attention, but Presidential candidates are invariably asked about their stances on various environmental issues. It's not as if the Green Party is the only party allowed to take a stand on the environment.
Of course not. But maybe there are people who would like to vote for a candidate who puts the environment higher on the list than the Democrats and the Republicans.
Well, if it's true, why can't I say it?
I just wondered if you have any other reasons to your opinion.
Aside from the fact that people here are not enamored with most alternative political parties, I'd readily admit that publicity plays a part. But only temporarily. Ultimately, you can't keep the truly good ideas down. That's one of the bedrock principles of Democracy.
So what you are saying is that conservatism is about holding new ideas back, which can't be wrong since the new ideas will ultimately not allow themselves to be held down?
That's true. The issue, however, is whether or not this is indicative of a flaw in our system. I don't think it is. Saying there aren't any serious challengers to the two major parties is like complaining that their aren't any serious challengers to Major League Baseball. Surely there are some decent players who might not get noticed, but all in all the best players generally end up on a level consistent with their abilities, and most of the better ones choose to participate within the organization's framework -- a framework which allows enough flexibility to accomodate just about anyone who can garner public support. The same goes for politicians.
If there was two teams in the Major League I would see the parallell. I'm too tired now anyway...
Well, it's about a lot more than that, but ultimately Democracy is about giving the people to collectively do what they believe they should do. And I think the American system is consistent with that.
Ok
He hasn't already won, but he's certainly the favorite. I don't think a lower turnout will help him, however. Bush has more supporters than detractors, but his detractors are generally more rabid than his supporters. They hate him with an often unreasonable passion, and will turn up to vote against him (no matter the opponent, most likely, which goes to show you how blinded some are by their hatred) no matter what. So I'd say a low turnout would be bad for Bush. I suspect he'd win nonetheless, however.
I think Bush has a number of advantages compared to his opponent, whoever he will be, and I think they will compensate for these so called rabid detractors.
Anyway, you are saying that statistically there are more people supporting Bush than hating him and if that statistics are correct, then, if people don't change their minds before the election, Bush will win no doubt about it. That is a promise...
That was not a cheap shot, and I didn't even come close to saying you cannot have an opinion. You can, and you do, and I welcome it. I even went out of my way to state that I do not wish to use my status as a citizen of America to try and offhandedly dismiss any arguments brought against this country. However, it's not as if you're citing statistics or any kind of verifiable data. You're offering a subjective interpretation of the kind of social dynamics which would be nearly impossible to even begin to measure if you did not live here.
I am not asking you to bow out of the discussion, or telling you to mind your own business. I am simply questioning your ability to comment on these particular matters (let alone in such an opinionated manner!) without some sort of verifiable data. It'd be reasonable of me to make certain judgements of Sweden based on things like its voter turnout or the political ideologies of its elected leaders...but I think it'd be unreasonable of me to try advance elaborate, speculative theories to you about your homeland if I did not have something firm and objective to go on.
Ok. I take back the "is" and replace it with the phrase "it seems to me".
The voters rule America. They elect the politicians. What's more, they even have a significant amount of control over who becomes wealthy. The wealthy and powerful alike in this country are absolutely nothing without the voters and consumers to actively support them. That single fact, in my mind, does a fairly admirable job of refuting any claim that we are being oppressed or "ruled," rather than merely governed.
I think you could make a strong case that it is worth the lower turnout, but you don't really have to, because the two are not mutually exclusive. We've shown ourselves able to achieve high turnouts under this system. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your question.
Benefits? No. I'd rather more people vote. I'm just not aghast over it.
I do disagree, in part because the country is pretty evenly split between the conservative and liberal ideologies. The majority vote in the last election was very close, and Congress is pretty evenly split between the two major parties, too. So I'm really not sure which party, if any, would benefit from a low turnout. Whichever has more die-hard supporters, I suppose, as opposed to casual ones, who might not be bothered to vote.
I have to wrap this up.. I'm very tired and has to get up at six tomorrow morning.
Last thing:
I think that politically America is split pretty even between conservatism and liberalism. That doesn't mean that the american people are split even between these two ideologies. The way I see it there is one right middle/right wing party and one right wing party. There isn't a real left wing alternative and the low turnouts in the elections has a lot to do with this together with the proportional system.
Piddzilla
01-29-04, 07:46 PM
Man... Yods. I think this is my last post on the subject... I am getting old and tired. :(
Man... Yods. I think this is my last post on the subject... I am getting old and tired. :(
Surely there's some Yoda-shaped jelly-sweet we can eat that provides fat-chewing gumption. Something with lots of preservatives :) (or should i say conservatives? ;))
Then this dance can go on for ever :rolleyes: ;)
Surely there's some Yoda-shaped jelly-sweet we can eat that provides fat-chewing gumption. Something with lots of preservatives :) (or should i say conservatives? ;))
Then this dance can go on for ever :rolleyes: ;)
Gollygosh has lost his longest post crown, to equal winners, Piddz & Yods :king:
I'm your huckleberry....
You gonna draw, Ringo?
Love that flick ;)
Gollygosh has lost his longest post crown, to equal winners, Piddz & Yods :king:
I'll be back :cool:
;)
Piddzilla
01-30-04, 12:39 PM
Gollygosh has lost his longest post crown, to equal winners, Piddz & Yods :king:
I hate it when the posts end up looking like that... I wouldn't read them myself.. :sick:
Do you have a new avatar again??
Do you have a new avatar again??
Yes sorry :blush: I am having therapy to stop the urge to change so often, I think it is working, at least today ;)
A few centuries ago, the irony inherent in this statement would have been completely overlooked and its author would have been burned at the stake for heresy:
Just a follow-up note on my post quoting Nietzsche above...
In no way do I subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the citation. I was merely quoting Nietzsche, primarily to bring attention to the irony in that statement. I.e. Nietzsche equates good with power and evil with weakness, in a book entitled The Anti-Christ, going on to decry Christianity as the ultimate evil. The book is largely a tract on the supposed evils of Christianity.
But, for the record, here is my own personal concept of good and evil...
I take my concept of good and evil from the Bible, being a baptized Christian myself.
The Bible says that God is good and that God is love. If God is the ultimate manifestation of goodness and if God's primary characteristic is love, then it must follow that:
What is good? Love.
Basically, it seems to me that love is warm, heartfelt, charitable, merciful and life-inducing... the ultimate goodness.
Being logical, therefore, it follows that if evil is the opposite of good and if hatred is the opposite of love, then:
What is evil? Hatred.
And, basically, it seems to me that hatred is cold, heartless, unforgiving, merciless and destructive of life... the basic evil.
So, in simple terms, love is the ultimate good and hatred is the ultimate evil.
So it's kind of ironic how some people do so much to spread hatred and violence in the name of God, violently condemning a few as evil and attacking them with hatred and anger... is that something God would approve of? I'm not sure that God would approve of perpetuating hatred and violence in his name... in fact, being a Christian myself, I'm pretty sure that God would be severely disappointed!
Essentially, it's ironic (again) that if we hate the devil... we end up becoming like the devil ourselves... hateful and malevolent. On the other hand, of course, by loving God, we become for loving and God-like ourselves. I guess that's why the Bible... Christianity... says "love your enemy"... Just my take on the subject, for what it's worth!
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.