Liberals Toss Away Religion So They Can Reign

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1410398' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:58 AM']First of all, I just want to say that i dont agree with how you are coming to some of these conclusions. It almost seems as though you are confusing conservativism with liberalism on a few things. For example, you say that liberals speak of free press then overwhelm the press with total liberalism. Then you conclude that is what makes open-mindness impossible. This to me makes no sense. Correct me if im wrong here, but when we talk about conservativism, we are talking about conforming to a universal belief (which would be quite the opposite of open-mindedness or individuality). This can be good, but at the same time it can be dangerous. You would have to assume that everything that the conservative belief style preaches is correct. Then you would have to look at how the majority of conservatives live their lives.[/quote]

This is about very "liberal" liberals and its more or less true...products of a "free" religionless society which would be the product of absolute liberalism

[quote]I feel like i am being painted as a liberal, and it might be right, but at the same time, I agree with moral issues that conservatives stand for. Yet I see things that I dont like as well. For example, conservatives preach about how homosexuality is wrong. This is a good thing to preach, but at the same time, conservatives are usually the first ones to call someone a fag for being a homosexual...etc. This on the other hand is hypocritical. Those people are engaging in sin themselves by treating someone else unfairly or unjustly for their sins. I see conservativism much like a do catholicism in a way that there is a very high standard, and nobody can fully live up to that.[/quote]

I'm not talking about conservitives, hello, this was the "pick on liberals" thread.
Nobody? huh, thats wierd. And strange since Catholocism is actually accepting of homosexual's, though not the sex-outside-of marriage behaviour. And thats for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[quote]Liberalism is a good thing in a way to when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Liberals, like you said, dont take much of a moral stance on different issues. But, what they are trying to tell people is....homosexuals should be accepted just like anyone else. That doesnt necessarily mean that homosexuality as a sin should be accepted. It means more like the individual should be accepted for who that person is. I totally agree with this method of thinking. Perhaps conservatives should conform to this way of thinking. Personally I would prolly grow more as a conservative if this were possible.[/quote]

Maybe you're still not getting what I'm saying...it IS About the actions

[quote]I also dont see how you think it is wrong that liberals raise taxes in order to give to the poor...they must do it for a reason...Am I right? Maybe not enough people who have money are giving money to the poor, and liberals recognize that they should be. THEY SHOULD BE!!![/quote]

Raising taxes takes money from the poorer. See someome else's post above I don't need to repeat it. That and having everything "provided" for the poor discourages charity. For instance, I'm ineligable for many government free programs yet I make less than 8k a year I've found generousity, but many people just tell me to look to the government. I need help, I'll take help but I can't get by on what the goverment sees fit. Yet many people think they did their job helping me becuase they pay taxes.

[quote]So long as the Declaration of Independance exists, no liberal or conservative will ever be able to take religion away from anybody. Religion and freedom of thought are rights that are gauranteed to all individuals who reside in the United States of America. Lets not go into the whole Liberal=communist thing again. That is a misguided thought that conservatives put into peoples heads.[/quote]

And we have a right TO religion, and to use morals to guide us...liberalim tries to use subjective morals that change with the time...its not communist, just unwise

[quote]I dont have much to say about the your statement about liberals and ecology. What they say is possible. And yes we prolly shouldnt let polution for corporations destroy the earth. Cant say its much of a worry for myself, but for the future it is important.[/quote]

Of course they are right about the environment! But many of the richest and most vocal have energy consuming mansions and vehicles...they ride on personal jets...etc. They run companies in which money is more imporant than a product thats environmentally safe

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rachael' post='1410383' date='Oct 27 2007, 10:42 PM']So what if I am? Any way I go someone is going to tell me I am wrong... [/quote]
We could start a club...? I think we should.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1410680' date='Oct 28 2007, 03:43 PM'][quote]QUOTE(rachael @ Oct 27 2007, 10:42 PM)
So what if I am? Any way I go someone is going to tell me I am wrong...[/quote]

We could start a club...? I think we should.
[/quote]


I think telling someone they are wrong is the idea of debating...if you were right all the time you'd be God, not rachel

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1410382' date='Oct 28 2007, 12:39 AM']
Improverished doesn't mean homeless or living in a tin shed. And I'm in no way required to tell you squat about my life experiences.

Yes...cause clearly having the internet is something only rich people have....

Way to make a fool of yourself again Winchester...lets try keep that to a 2 day minimum eh buddy![/quote]
You mean just on here, or everywhere?

Are you asserting that there are only the rich or the impoverished? I certainly don't believe that, since I occupy neither category. They're rather fluid concepts, but anyone with the time and equipment (owned or borrowed) to communicate around the world probably is not impoverished. Unless you've gone on a mission or done some kind of peace corps type work, you've probably not encountered any significant population of the impoverished. The poor? Certainly. I've been close to poor, but never there. According to my definition. Always had food and a roof. Always worked, too. What does impoverished mean to you, S)(N?

I never asked you to explain your situation. I didn't need you to. You clearly have access to the internet. The turtle fat candle? It's the only thing I could imagine that woul make you so irritable. Turtle fat? Yuck!

[Socrates]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1410398' date='Oct 27 2007, 11:58 PM']Liberalism is a good thing in a way to when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Liberals, like you said, dont take much of a moral stance on different issues. But, what they are trying to tell people is....homosexuals should be accepted just like anyone else. [b]That doesnt necessarily mean that homosexuality as a sin should be accepted.[/b] It means more like the individual should be accepted for who that person is. I totally agree with this method of thinking. Perhaps conservatives should conform to this way of thinking. Personally I would prolly grow more as a conservative if this were possible.[/quote]
The fact is, liberals do indeed want homosexuality as a sin to be accepted - and to be given the same benefits legally as marriage, and to be taught in public schools as being normal and good and just the same as "straight" marriage, and to make speaking against it illegal (so much for "free speech"!) [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74133&pid=1410868&st=0&#entry1410868"]See the thread in open mic about the English government refusing to let Christian foster homes adopt because they won't condone homosexuality[/url], as just one example. Or the laws forcing schools to promote homosexuality in CA and MA.

[quote]I also dont see how you think it is wrong that liberals raise taxes in order to give to the poor...they must do it for a reason...Am I right? Maybe not enough people who have money are giving money to the poor, and liberals recognize that they should be. THEY SHOULD BE!!![/quote]
A welfare state that breeds dependence on government and helps perpetuate poverty does not help the poor.
If liberals care so much about the poor, they can personally give their own money to help the poor, rather than just pressing for more socialist government tax-and-spend programs.
And it is a documented fact that on average conservatives give significantly more of their incomes to charity than do liberals. This is documented in the new book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216"][i]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism[/i], by Arthur C. Brooks[/url].

[quote]So long as the Declaration of Independance exists, no liberal or conservative will ever be able to take religion away from anybody. Religion and freedom of thought are rights that are gauranteed to all individuals who reside in the United States of America. Lets not go into the whole Liberal=communist thing again. That is a misguided thought that conservatives put into peoples heads.[/quote]
Liberals aren't known for letting a piece of paper such as the Declaration of Independance (nor the Constitution) get in the way of their agenda.
Liberal federal judges have done such unconstitutional things as ordered the Ten Commandments be removed from a state courtroom, and ban prayer in public schools.

Again, you don't provide anything factual to back you up, just spout out your own opinions.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Socrates

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1410116' date='Oct 27 2007, 02:02 PM']The other thread became much too convoluted for me to go through to make the point that liberals use escape from religion to set themselves up as a sort of diety.

The social welfare programs take people's money as taxes and give it to the poor as they see fit. Genorisity is not necessary.
The they run on fumes of moral-less ideals, such as homosexual living, sex outside of marriage, accepted infidelity and lower ages of sexual consent. This makes self-control not necessary, and familys bothor.
They want all schooling to be free so they can control it. This makes free thought impossible.
They speak of free press but then overwhelm the press with total liberalism. This makes open-mindness impossible.
They speak of our impending ecological doom, expect others to change, but do nothing themselves. It encourages the divide between the rich and the poor.

The people then become dependant on the government...there is no religion but to self...and no duty but to government.[/quote]


"Free press" as long as we like it... i.e. "Fairness" Law = the unfairness law
"Freedom of speech" as long as we like it, or we will sue you.
"We claim democracy but most people don't want what we want so we sue and twist the law and find idiot judges to rule"... i.e. abortion, same sex marriage, euthenasia
"We'll tell you what you want to hear, then do whatever we want"


God Bless!
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1410398' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:58 AM']First of all, I just want to say that i dont agree with how you are coming to some of these conclusions. It almost seems as though you are confusing conservativism with liberalism on a few things. For example, you say that liberals speak of free press then overwhelm the press with total liberalism. Then you conclude that is what makes open-mindness impossible. This to me makes no sense. Correct me if im wrong here, but when we talk about conservativism, we are talking about conforming to a universal belief (which would be quite the opposite of open-mindedness or individuality). This can be good, but at the same time it can be dangerous. You would have to assume that everything that the conservative belief style preaches is correct. Then you would have to look at how the majority of conservatives live their lives. I feel like i am being painted as a liberal, and it might be right, but at the same time, I agree with moral issues that conservatives stand for. Yet I see things that I dont like as well. For example, conservatives preach about how homosexuality is wrong. This is a good thing to preach, but at the same time, conservatives are usually the first ones to call someone a fag for being a homosexual...etc. This on the other hand is hypocritical. Those people are engaging in sin themselves by treating someone else unfairly or unjustly for their sins. I see conservativism much like a do catholicism in a way that there is a very high standard, and nobody can fully live up to that. Morality is really the only thing that I will agree with a conservative on. When it comes to the economy I will never side with a conservative (at least I think). Liberalism is a good thing in a way to when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Liberals, like you said, dont take much of a moral stance on different issues. But, what they are trying to tell people is....homosexuals should be accepted just like anyone else. That doesnt necessarily mean that homosexuality as a sin should be accepted. It means more like the individual should be accepted for who that person is. I totally agree with this method of thinking. Perhaps conservatives should conform to this way of thinking. Personally I would prolly grow more as a conservative if this were possible.

I also dont see how you think it is wrong that liberals raise taxes in order to give to the poor...they must do it for a reason...Am I right? Maybe not enough people who have money are giving money to the poor, and liberals recognize that they should be. THEY SHOULD BE!!!

So long as the Declaration of Independance exists, no liberal or conservative will ever be able to take religion away from anybody. Religion and freedom of thought are rights that are gauranteed to all individuals who reside in the United States of America. Lets not go into the whole Liberal=communist thing again. That is a misguided thought that conservatives put into peoples heads.

I dont have much to say about the your statement about liberals and ecology. What they say is possible. And yes we prolly shouldnt let polution for corporations destroy the earth. Cant say its much of a worry for myself, but for the future it is important.[/quote]

Being open minded is when people accept that they could be wrong, they are open to new ideas and arguments.... when in debate type situations with self or others they seek out all points of view and make educated decisions.

Many people mistake right mindedness and conservative to mean the same thing. I think because of ignorant journalist misusing terms.

People need to actually study economics and economic history instead of arguing from guesses or what they've heard others talk about on the bias news.

The dems have been taking religion away from people little by little for over 60 years. Study history.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1410436' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:35 AM']What rich person do you know has ever been evicted from their home, had their car repossessed, or lost anything because of taxes? It's the poor, the people who are just scraping by paying their bills, that suffer from them.

Being "rich" isn't all about having money in the bank(although ideally it should be, IMO). It's also a lifestyle. Many rich people don't want to see formerly poor people move up the class chain and into their neighborhoods. These people are willing to pay a little extra money to the government for social programs like welfare that 9 times out of 10 provide incentive for the poor to live off the government and not work thereby keeping them in the lower-class neighborhoods.[/quote]

This is certainly possible, but at the same time, those who are raised poor are more likely to be poor when they reach adulthood. Those who are raised rich are subject to much more opportunity and have a taste for nice things. Im not saying at all that if you grow up poor you will always be poor. Im saying that this is all about opportunity. The welfare thing is certainly true, but wasnt it Pres. Clinton who passed the law restricting how long a family can remain on welfare?

[Justin86]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1411029' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:49 PM']This is certainly possible, but at the same time, those who are raised poor are more likely to be poor when they reach adulthood. Those who are raised rich are subject to much more opportunity and have a taste for nice things. Im not saying at all that if you grow up poor you will always be poor. Im saying that this is all about opportunity. The welfare thing is certainly true, but wasnt it Pres. Clinton who passed the law restricting how long a family can remain on welfare?[/quote]
The measure came before his desk multiple times by the Republican-led Congress and he vetoed it all but once, when the Republicans finally threatened to make it an election issue and Clinton knew he would lose the White House unless he signed it.

The Republicans got us off welfare, not Clinton.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1410852' date='Oct 28 2007, 08:29 PM']Liberals aren't known for letting a piece of paper such as the Declaration of Independance (nor the Constitution) get in the way of their agenda.[/quote]

Liberals do not have a patent on this form of manipulation. habeas corpus? illegal spying?

Who is the pot and who is the kettle? I can't tell them apart.

This article: [b]Manipulating Emotional Issues to Obtain Votes[/b] "[url="http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/manipulating-emotional-issues-to-obtain-votes.html"]http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/man...tain-votes.html[/url]" highlights some interesting questions.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1410116' date='Oct 27 2007, 01:02 PM']The other thread became much too convoluted for me to go through to make the point that liberals use escape from religion to set themselves up as a sort of diety.

The social welfare programs take people's money as taxes and give it to the poor as they see fit. Genorisity is not necessary.
The they run on fumes of moral-less ideals, such as homosexual living, sex outside of marriage, accepted infidelity and lower ages of sexual consent. This makes self-control not necessary, and familys bothor.
They want all schooling to be free so they can control it. This makes free thought impossible.
They speak of free press but then overwhelm the press with total liberalism. This makes open-mindness impossible.
They speak of our impending ecological doom, expect others to change, but do nothing themselves. It encourages the divide between the rich and the poor.

The people then become dependant on the government...there is no religion but to self...and no duty but to government.[/quote]

Yeah, pretty much.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1411031' date='Oct 29 2007, 07:53 AM']Liberals do not have a patent on this form of manipulation. habeas corpus? illegal spying?

Who is the pot and who is the kettle? I can't tell them apart.

This article: [b]Manipulating Emotional Issues to Obtain Votes[/b] "[url="http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/manipulating-emotional-issues-to-obtain-votes.html"]http://www.acriticaldecision.org/links/man...tain-votes.html[/url]" highlights some interesting questions.[/quote]
Again, I don't equate George W. Bush with conservatism (nor vice-versa), nor will I defend every single thing he does.
But, as was pointed out, this is the pick-on-liberals thread, not the pick-on-conservatives thread.

The article you linked was essentially a lot of leftist blatherskyte (yes, that's a word - blatherskyte), and I honestly wasn't much impressed. In fact, I'd have to disagree with about everything stated there. It wasn't so much interesting, as a rather predictable far-left diatribe (pro-"choice", pro-contraception, pro-gun-control, pro welfare-state, etc.)
I've debated against similar arguments on most of the issues listed there numerous times here in the past (just run a search on here on "abortion" or "gay marriage", etc.).
Abortion and other moral issues are not just "emotional issues" as they are often dismissed by liberals. As I've said many times before, if the law does not protect human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.
Here's an old poll/thread of mine on the issue: [url="http://Catholics/Christians%20and%20Law/Government,%20(Laws%20on%20abortion,%20homosexuality,%20etc.)"]Catholics/Christians and Law/Government, (Laws on abortion, homosexuality, etc.)[/url]

And, while you've claimed to lean libertarian, the article you linked to basically preaches extreme leftism, and takes quite a few positions quite at odds with libertarianism, such as its support of gun control, strict government restrictions on "environmentally unfriendly" technologies, and the welfare state.
In fact, the article basically dismisses as "emotional" any stance which opposes an amoral left-wing socialist state, and thus is a bit hard to take seriously.
If you want to be more convincing, you might try linking to something which isn't so blatantly leftist.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Socrates

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']Again, I don't equate George W. Bush with conservatism (nor vice-versa), nor will I defend every single thing he does.
But, as was pointed out, this is the pick-on-liberals thread, not the pick-on-conservatives thread.[/quote]

My bad. Still learning the rules here. Please forgive me.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']The article you linked was essentially a lot of leftist blatherskyte (yes, that's a word - blatherskyte), and I honestly wasn't much impressed. In fact, I'd have to disagree with about everything stated there. It wasn't so much interesting, as a rather predictable far-left diatribe (pro-"choice", pro-contraception, pro-gun-control, pro welfare-state, etc.)
I've debated against similar arguments on most of the issues listed there numerous times here in the past (just run a search on here on "abortion" or "gay marriage", etc.).
Abortion and other moral issues are not just "emotional issues" as they are often dismissed by liberals. As I've said many times before, if the law does not protect human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.
Here's an old poll/thread of mine on the issue: [url="http://Catholics/Christians%20and%20Law/Government,%20(Laws%20on%20abortion,%20homosexuality,%20etc.)"]Catholics/Christians and Law/Government, (Laws on abortion, homosexuality, etc.)[/url][/quote]
I did not intend to imply that I support the items in the article. I actually thought that it pointed out issues facing both Dems and Reps... not so much elevating one party over the other.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411325' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:03 PM']And, while you've claimed to lean libertarian, the article you linked to basically preaches extreme leftism, and takes quite a few positions quite at odds with libertarianism, such as its support of gun control, strict government restrictions on "environmentally unfriendly" technologies, and the welfare state.
In fact, the article basically dismisses as "emotional" any stance which opposes an amoral left-wing socialist state, and thus is a bit hard to take seriously.
If you want to be more convincing, you might try linking to something which isn't so blatantly leftist.[/quote]

I do lean Libertarian on economic issues. There's no question about that. I didn't link to a Libertarian article because we're not talking about Libertarian policies. But since you brought it up, wouldn't it be great the the government stopped telling us what to do with the money we earn? a girl can dream...

Edited October 30, 2007 by tgoldson

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1411361' date='Oct 29 2007, 10:50 PM']My bad. Still learning the rules here. Please forgive me.[/quote]
You're forgiven. . . . just this once.
[quote]I did not intend to imply that I support the items in the article. I actually thought that it pointed out issues facing both Dems and Reps... not so much elevating one party over the other.[/quote]
I just thought the article was a poor example to make the point - it basically thought neither party was left-wing enough (while I of course believe the opposite).
And I take issue with the common liberal accusation that issues like abortion, gun-control and whatnot are simply trivial "emotional issues" which distract from the important stuff, like government redistribution of wealth, or banning fossil fuels, or whatever socialistic schemes that clown's advocating.

There are plenty of people on the right (Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan come to mind) who are disgusted with both major parties, and make a much better case than that guy.

Btw - just found out my link in my last post to the Law/Morality thread was screwed-up. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49261&hl="]This link should work: Catholics/Christians and Law/Morality[/url].

[quote]I do lean Libertarian on economic issues. There's no question about that. I didn't link to a Libertarian article because we're not talking about Libertarian policies. But since you brought it up, wouldn't it be great the the government stopped telling us what to do with the money we earn? a girl can dream...[/quote]
Can't disagree with you there . . .

[little2add]

On 10/27/2007 at 1:02 PM, Autumn Dusk said:

The people then become dependant on the government...there is no religion but to self...and no duty but to government.

words truer now, more than ever.  

Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Majority Leader, has vowed to push through $2,000 stimulus checks after President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

if it sounds like a bribe, smells like a bribe, looks like a bribe.  I must be a bribe.