Liberal Agenda

[Melchisedec]

What is this so-called 'Liberal agenda'. Whats its aim? Who are leading it? Who founded this movement? Whats the movement in oppose to this agenda?

[Socrates]

It might be helpful to give a context. Terms like "liberal agenda" (or "conservative agenda") can be pretty vague, to tell the truth. Usually socially (as would probably be used most often on this board), it refers to support of abortion, "gay rights," feminism, etc. Economically, it supports tax-and-spend solutions to problems, welfare, and big government.

Again, different people would proabably use the term to refer to different things - it's just a shorthand for a general polical/social mindset.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 22 2005, 03:24 PM'] It might be helpful to give a context. Terms like "liberal agenda" (or "conservative agenda") can be pretty vague, to tell the truth. Usually socially (as would probably be used most often on this board), it refers to support of abortion, "gay rights," feminism, etc. Economically, it supports tax-and-spend solutions to problems, welfare, and big government.

Again, different people would proabably use the term to refer to different things - it's just a shorthand for a general polical/social mindset. [/quote]
Well i dont know myself Socrates. I hear this often and really dont understand what all it encompasses. But your answer provided alot of info .Thanks.

[argent_paladin]

One of the clearest and most formal mainfestos of the liberal movement is the "humanist manifesto".
You can see all three versions here:
[url="http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html"]http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html[/url]

You can see the prominent signitories there as well. At its core, it is extremely anti-relgious.
There are two separate, additional strands of thought that are often considered part of the liberal agenda: Marxism and sexual liberation. The origins of Marxism are obvious. The origins of sexual liberation are as old as sex.

[curtins]

yeah basically the "libral agenda" would probably be anything that the democratic party stands for- big govt, big tax, abortion, gay marriage, taking "Under God" out of the pledge, starving a disabled woman to death, calling our brave soldiers baby killing murderous animals, oposing every single thing bush proposes, oposing the war in Iraq, and in many cases the war in Afganistan, calling bush a liar, saying he planned 911, being a bunch of hypocrytes by saying social security needs reform but when bush proposes reform, opposing it, to the extreme sence it could be anti american, communist, socialst etc. and last but not least- getting up onto a podium and screaming your lungs off like a little baby.

If bush said the world was round, librals would say it was flat.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 03:09 PM'] Whats the movement in oppose to this agenda? [/quote]
The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 22 2005, 09:57 PM'] One of the clearest and most formal mainfestos of the liberal movement is the "humanist manifesto".
You can see all three versions here:
[url="http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html"]http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html[/url]

You can see the prominent signitories there as well. At its core, it is extremely anti-relgious.
There are two separate, additional strands of thought that are often considered part of the liberal agenda: Marxism and sexual liberation. The origins of Marxism are obvious. The origins of sexual liberation are as old as sex. [/quote]
I though there were humanist who are still religious, how can this be if humanism is opposed to religion?

[desertwoman]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:03 AM'] The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe [/quote]
What would you say to majority black churches/congregations that are democratic?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 23 2005, 10:49 AM'] What would you say to majority black churches/congregations that are democratic? [/quote]
Good question. It seems anyone painted liberal is deomonized. While the opposition to liberalism is without flaws. But I hear this liberal this and that everso increasingly and I just dont see it. I see alot of conservatives in positions of power. I really dont see this liberal conspiracy around me and Im just trying to really discover what it all entails.

[Socrates]

Obviously, not all liberals are opposed to religion per se.
There are some on this phatmass who consider themselves liberals and good Catholics. Some of these are mostly economic liberals (think government programs are the best solution for helping the poor, as opposed to free-market economy and private charity).

However, there is a strain in liberalism ("social liberalism") which is adamently opposed to traditional religious (particular Christian) values, and is aggressively secularist. This has been increasingly the face of liberalism - most who consider themselves "liberal" are pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights," against public displays of religion, religous influence in policy, etc.

Many "religious liberals" stand against the traditional Christian positions on many moral issues such as abortion, sexuality, etc., adopting the secularist positions on these issues while maintaining that they have religious faith.

Again, words like "liberal" and "conservative" do not have clear fixed meanings and are often thrown about loosely. Thus, it is important to define the issues and positions clearly in a debate.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='curtins' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:08 PM'] yeah basically the "libral agenda" would probably be anything that the democratic party stands for- big govt, big tax, abortion, gay marriage, taking "Under God" out of the pledge, starving a disabled woman to death, calling our brave soldiers baby killing murderous animals, oposing every single thing bush proposes, oposing the war in Iraq, and in many cases the war in Afganistan, calling bush a liar, saying he planned 911, being a bunch of hypocrytes by saying social security needs reform but when bush proposes reform, opposing it, to the extreme sence it could be anti american, communist, socialst etc. and last but not least- getting up onto a podium and screaming your lungs off like a little baby.

If bush said the world was round, librals would say it was flat. [/quote]
That's the biggest load of bull-plop that I've ever seen come pouring from another person's fingers.

Your statement boils down to: liberals=demons, conservatives=angels. How constructive and useful.

And, if you think the democratic party is pro-marriage-equality you need to pull your head out of Fox News' hind end. Nor does the democratic party explicitly support the removal of "under god" from the pledge.

But, to directly address your issues: "big gov't" means what? big tax means what? Liberals are not necessarily pro-abortion, but they are generally pro-choice. It's an important distinction, learn how to make it. Some liberals are for marriage equality, others are not. It's a very mixed issue on all fronts. Much in the same way that some liberals are pro-euthanasia and others aren't. You'll find fewer and fewer who say that they are pro-euthanasia these days, though. However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to determine the course of Mrs. Schiavo's medical treatment. He's her husband and the one to whom she made her wished known. Some liberals are pacifists, thus all soldiers are murderers. We have seen that some of "our brave soldiers" are animals who torture prisoners, though. Liberals just aren't afraid to admit that. Generally what Bush proposes is the opposite of what liberals want -- thus their opposition. See, Bush is conservative, the opposite of liberal. What I love is that you make this statement as though it's a bad thing to oppose what the President wants. There are conservatives who oppose the war in Iraq as well. That's a sentiment that is not clear cut. Liberals can be more vocal about it because they don't have to appear to support a conservative. As an aside, one can oppose the war while still supporting the troops. Some do oppose the war in Afghanistan, some don't. Mixed bag issue. It's easy to someone a liar when they lie. It's mostly crazies who say that Bush planned "911" (by which I can only assume that you mean the attacks on NYC that happened on September 11, 2001). That Social Security needs reform can be seen by anyone with eyes to see. That Bush's plan is not the best can also be seen. Just because one feels that reform is needed doesn't mean that that person need accept the first plan for reform that comes before zir. Your last assertion is the most laughable of them all. You realize that the conservatives are made up of a lot of christians, right? Moreover there are a lot of fundamentalist/evangelical christans. They are notorious for gettin up on a podium and screaming their lungs out.

If Bush said the world was round, liberals would laugh at his ignorance because the world is spheroid.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:03 AM'] The Catholic Church, primarily. Christianity in general . . . and any conservative religious force is in direct opposition, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Peace,
Joe [/quote]
How would buddhism be in opposition to liberalism?

[Socrates]

It annoys me when liberals call President Bush a "right-wing extremist" and the like, or identify "conservatism" with whatever Bush's policies are.

While Bush may be conservative in some respects, in many ways his policies are not conservative at all (notably his embrace of big-government and his big federal spending). These are not traditionally the policies of conservatism.
Many hard-core "paleoconservatives" are not happy with this, and there is even a conservative case against the Iraq war.
Many of Bush's policies are influenced by the "neoconservatives," who in fact have little in common with traditional "paleo" conservatives.

But all this just goes to prove my point that words like "conservative" and "liberal" have different meanings for different people.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 03:29 PM'] However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to determine the course of Mrs. Schiavo's medical treatment. [/quote]
However, liberals are for self-determination, which is why they support Mr. Schiavo's right to starve Mrs. Schiavo to death. Let's cut the euphemistic carp for once, and tell it like it is. You speak of deliberately starving someone to death as if it was choosing which medicine to take.

If liberals are so much for freedom and "self-determination," I suppose this explains why they are against gun-owner's rights, property-owner's rights, the choice to give a religious message in public, or any other individual liberties that happen to oppose their agenda.
For the most part, liberals seem to only be for "self-determination" when it involves sex or the taking of another human life.

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm[/url]

Sums things up pretty well.