Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[Jenn! 918]

and do athiests tend to be more liberal or conservative?

and why do "conservatives" "hate" (I think fear is a better term) "liberals" b/c it is a direct attack on absolute Truth.

I suggest you read the article I posted in this thread (post #19). I think you'll find it eye-opening.

I agree with that. I think the labels are wrong. That is why I asked the direct question on what are a persons own beliefs--not what they think of the label.

Did you read the article or just the title? It goes into misunderstandings that people have about religion and politics. I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about the statement you made about atheists.

[ace13 0]

BTW, it is easier to speak of specifics instead of broad generalizations. What is your definition of a liberal or conservative. What are you and your beliefs and where would that put you in the broad spectrum of things?

when I say "you" I say all of you that are getting all excited.

and don't say what the other is or isn't--because it isn't helpful. What are your beliefs and absolutes?

That could be a thread on it's own. I don't adhere to any rigid ideology - I don't look at some book that says what a liberal is suppose to believe in. I try to follow logic and reason to arrive at my opinions. My sense of morality is also a rooted in logic and reason. I was raised Catholic, but I would never be comfortable to say something is immoral simply because I'm told it is. You better have a logically reason that is convincing in order for me to agree with you on that. I volunteered for a Teen Life program at my local church once and in one of the sessions, the teenagers discussed sin. I was taken back by how many of them couldn't articulate why something was a sin other than saying that because God said so, or the Bible says it is. That to me is dogmatism and in my opinion counter to Christ's message. He kept demonstrating with the Pharisees that simply following rules doesn't cut it. I'm sure to the Pharisees, Jesus was quite the 'Moral Relativist' because He often did things that broke from Jewish law and tradition.

ahhh, I believe the point is missed. Following WITHOUT believing is the issue. Going by the rules-as you put it-but not believing it to be TRUTH is the issue. Jesus was not a moral relativist again, quite quite the opposite.

I was playing with the term - of course I don't believe Jesus was a moral relativist. My point and if you read the Gospels closely you'll see that time and time again, Jesus admonished the Pharisees for following the letter of the law, rather than the heart. He was asked if he would rescue a donkey that has fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath since work is forbidden, and He showed them what jackasses they were to not use reason and logic. I see a great parallel going on today in this country with people who believe they have the moral high ground because they believe they are adhering to their interpretation of biblical morality but in reality, they're as foolish as the Pharisees.

Why do you call me foolish? the pharisees where used in the Bible to exemplify human nature. If God condemned everyone who was ever honestly mistaken in a belief or teaching, there would be no one left for salvation. Honest mistakes can be forgiven if repented of when the time comes (that's why Jesus Christ came the first time, to save sinners - and anyone who says that they're not a sinner is calling God a liar! i.e. 1 John 1:10), but deliberate, knowing, defiant rejection of the Truth, and deliberate, knowing, defiant teaching of lies will not. Like the Pharisees did in Matthew 12:23-24 RSV

and do athiests tend to be more liberal or conservative?

and why do "conservatives" "hate" (I think fear is a better term) "liberals" b/c it is a direct attack on absolute Truth.

I suggest you read the article I posted in this thread (post #19). I think you'll find it eye-opening.

I agree with that. I think the labels are wrong. That is why I asked the direct question on what are a persons own beliefs--not what they think of the label.

Did you read the article or just the title? It goes into misunderstandings that people have about religion and politics. I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about the statement you made about atheists.

Reread my posts-what exact statement did I make? I think it agrees with your article.

Not because atheists don't have morals-quite the opposite--but because they do not believe in absolute truth of any kind.

is this the quote you are questioning

and then reread what is "absolute Truth" to me above...

where did i go wrong in your opinion?

[Jenn! 918]

and do athiests tend to be more liberal or conservative?

and why do "conservatives" "hate" (I think fear is a better term) "liberals" b/c it is a direct attack on absolute Truth.

I suggest you read the article I posted in this thread (post #19). I think you'll find it eye-opening.

I agree with that. I think the labels are wrong. That is why I asked the direct question on what are a persons own beliefs--not what they think of the label.

Did you read the article or just the title? It goes into misunderstandings that people have about religion and politics. I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about the statement you made about atheists.

Reread my posts-what exact statement did I make? I think it agrees with your article.

Not because atheists don't have morals-quite the opposite--but because they do not believe in absolute truth of any kind.

is this the quote you are questioning

and then reread what is "absolute Truth" to me above...

where did i go wrong in your opinion?

I guess I was mistaken. I got the impression from your posts that you see liberals as athiests with no morals, which is certainly not true.

[ace13 0]

and do athiests tend to be more liberal or conservative?

and why do "conservatives" "hate" (I think fear is a better term) "liberals" b/c it is a direct attack on absolute Truth.

I suggest you read the article I posted in this thread (post #19). I think you'll find it eye-opening.

I agree with that. I think the labels are wrong. That is why I asked the direct question on what are a persons own beliefs--not what they think of the label.

Did you read the article or just the title? It goes into misunderstandings that people have about religion and politics. I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about the statement you made about atheists.

Reread my posts-what exact statement did I make? I think it agrees with your article.

Not because atheists don't have morals-quite the opposite--but because they do not believe in absolute truth of any kind.

is this the quote you are questioning

and then reread what is "absolute Truth" to me above...

where did i go wrong in your opinion?

I guess I was mistaken. I got the impression from your posts that you see liberals as athiests with no morals, which is certainly not true.

no. I am on the same page as you on this one.

[chri'stina 190]

BTW, it is easier to speak of specifics instead of broad generalizations. What is your definition of a liberal or conservative. What are you and your beliefs and where would that put you in the broad spectrum of things?

when I say "you" I say all of you that are getting all excited.

and don't say what the other is or isn't--because it isn't helpful. What are your beliefs and absolutes?

That could be a thread on it's own. I don't adhere to any rigid ideology - I don't look at some book that says what a liberal is suppose to believe in. I try to follow logic and reason to arrive at my opinions. My sense of morality is also a rooted in logic and reason. I was raised Catholic, but I would never be comfortable to say something is immoral simply because I'm told it is. You better have a logically reason that is convincing in order for me to agree with you on that. I volunteered for a Teen Life program at my local church once and in one of the sessions, the teenagers discussed sin. I was taken back by how many of them couldn't articulate why something was a sin other than saying that because God said so, or the Bible says it is. That to me is dogmatism and in my opinion counter to Christ's message. He kept demonstrating with the Pharisees that simply following rules doesn't cut it. I'm sure to the Pharisees, Jesus was quite the 'Moral Relativist' because He often did things that broke from Jewish law and tradition.

ahhh, I believe the point is missed. Following WITHOUT believing is the issue. Going by the rules-as you put it-but not believing it to be TRUTH is the issue. Jesus was not a moral relativist again, quite quite the opposite.

I was playing with the term - of course I don't believe Jesus was a moral relativist. My point and if you read the Gospels closely you'll see that time and time again, Jesus admonished the Pharisees for following the letter of the law, rather than the heart. He was asked if he would rescue a donkey that has fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath since work is forbidden, and He showed them what jackasses they were to not use reason and logic. I see a great parallel going on today in this country with people who believe they have the moral high ground because they believe they are adhering to their interpretation of biblical morality but in reality, they're as foolish as the Pharisees.

I just wanted to say...Jesus did not admonish the Pharisees for following the letter of the law. He was unhappy with them for being hypocrites. For saying one thing, and doing another. If they truly were trying to follow the Law, they wouldn't have been the uptight hypocrites that they were. One of Jesus' major problems with them is that they put on a facade. If they truly in their hearts were doing and following the law out of love for the law instead of trying to look good while doing it, Jesus wouldn't have been so vocal against them. It wasn't just about logic and reason, it was about hypocricy that was rampant in the religious leaders of that day.

The Pharisees would make a big deal about doing something on the Sabbath, while they were doing other equally wrong things like being greedy and proud or lying.

Jesus wants people to follow what He said, and the way the bible says to live. He doesn't want people to be hypocrites, and he doesn't want people to be "people pleasers", and He doesn't want people to comform to this world's way of thinking. (that's all right in the New Testament) He wants you to live a certain way out of love for God, not for the sake of following rules alone, which I agree with you. But still the rules are supposed to be followed, but the attitude of following them is what matters. Are you resentfully following them which basically makes them worthless, or are you doing it because you truly want to honor God.

It goes back to the whole thing of "Praising God with the same lips you curse your brethren..." Someone can say they love God or follow rules all day long. But if their heart is not changed then it means nothing.

Edited September 26, 2006 by stina&suj

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

Interesting that you don't say why not...

Now is that because it really isn't, or because it goes against specific party politics that you adhere to?

[ace13 0]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

Interesting that you don't say why not...

Now is that because it really isn't, or because it goes against specific party politics that you adhere to?

no.no.no did you read about the ####### example

[mawilson 2,133]

Jesus... blah blah

It's very disappointing to see a political debate degenerate into a discussion of Jesus and his minions.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Jesus... blah blah

It's very disappointing to see a political debate degenerate into a discussion of Jesus and his minions.

agreed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

Interesting that you don't say why not...

Now is that because it really isn't, or because it goes against specific party politics that you adhere to?

no.no.no did you read about the ####### example

Yes I did. And I'm not about to relativise that For the same reason I don't think murder is justifiable in any circumstance.

With regards to torture and detention without trial (as it pertains to this discussion) some clearly see a justification for tactics that are not only break/bend/subvert existing laws, justifying it by continually referencing the need for those tactics not only to 9/11, but to WW2 and the Cold War. I fail to see how that isn't relativistic...

I should also add that one of the most influential political/philosophical figures in the US political system was Leo Strauss, who was himself a proponent of moral relativism.

Edited September 26, 2006 by erekose

[ace13 0]

Jesus... blah blah

It's very disappointing to see a political debate degenerate into a discussion of Jesus and his minions.

agreed

Proud minion here

sorry, you just can't seperate it. that is like talking about the war on terror with out mentioning islam

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Here's something interesting...

True Conservatives Should Take A Stand

by Robert Steinback

Conservatism in America, as I once understood it, is dead.

...

Excellent article, Steve. Unfortunately it's true - the guys in power are about as

conservative as the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.

“Conservatism — disposition in politics to preserve what is established; a political

philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions,

and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; the tendency to prefer an

existing or traditional situation to change.”

“Conservative — tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions or

institutions: traditional; marked by moderation or caution … relating to traditional

norms of taste, elegance, style or manners; one who adheres to traditional methods

or views; a cautious or discreet person.”

There's nothing "conservative" about:

• indiscriminately waging war and harming people and the environment
  
• trying to kill social security
  
• irresponsible taxation and wasteful government spending which transformed a
  budget surplus into a record (and still expanding!) deficit
  

The right wing of the Democrat party seems more "conservative" to me (in the

traditional sense of the word) than the lunatics like Ann Coulter who call themselves

conservative.

Right on!

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

Interesting that you don't say why not...

Now is that because it really isn't, or because it goes against specific party politics that you adhere to?

no.no.no did you read about the ####### example

Yes I did. And I'm not about to relativise that For the same reason I don't think murder is justifiable in any circumstance.

With regards to torture and detention without trial (as it pertains to this discussion) some clearly see a justification for tactics that are not only break/bend/subvert existing laws, justifying it by continually referencing the need for those tactics not only to 9/11, but to WW2 and the Cold War. I fail to see how that isn't relativistic...

I should also add that one of the most influential political/philosophical figures in the US political system was Leo Strauss, who was himself a proponent of moral relativism.

But "conservatives" have morals and thus can't be moral relativists. What about that is not clear?

That said I think the whole US-government today is full of moral relativists who bend the laws defending on their own understanding of what the laws should be and who feel perfectly justified in applying different rules to different people at the same time. Ace13's example of justifying torture (which it is not according to our chief moral relativists who would clamor with indignation if US-troops were being detained in a similar manner) by pointing at the "enemy" in Iraq who has most likely no relationship to the people in Guantanamo is another example of moral relativism because it assumes that whatever happens to Americans in Iraq is incomparaably worse than what happens to Muslims in Gitmo. If you have a clear ethical standard then you should be willing to apply it regardless of the circumstance or the people involved because otherwise you are corrupting your moral or ethical standard.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, it is easier to speak of specifics instead of broad generalizations. What is your definition of a liberal or conservative. What are you and your beliefs and where would that put you in the broad spectrum of things?

when I say "you" I say all of you that are getting all excited.

and don't say what the other is or isn't--because it isn't helpful. What are your beliefs and absolutes?

That could be a thread on it's own. I don't adhere to any rigid ideology - I don't look at some book that says what a liberal is suppose to believe in. I try to follow logic and reason to arrive at my opinions. My sense of morality is also a rooted in logic and reason. I was raised Catholic, but I would never be comfortable to say something is immoral simply because I'm told it is. You better have a logically reason that is convincing in order for me to agree with you on that. I volunteered for a Teen Life program at my local church once and in one of the sessions, the teenagers discussed sin. I was taken back by how many of them couldn't articulate why something was a sin other than saying that because God said so, or the Bible says it is. That to me is dogmatism and in my opinion counter to Christ's message. He kept demonstrating with the Pharisees that simply following rules doesn't cut it. I'm sure to the Pharisees, Jesus was quite the 'Moral Relativist' because He often did things that broke from Jewish law and tradition.

ahhh, I believe the point is missed. Following WITHOUT believing is the issue. Going by the rules-as you put it-but not believing it to be TRUTH is the issue. Jesus was not a moral relativist again, quite quite the opposite.

I was playing with the term - of course I don't believe Jesus was a moral relativist. My point and if you read the Gospels closely you'll see that time and time again, Jesus admonished the Pharisees for following the letter of the law, rather than the heart. He was asked if he would rescue a donkey that has fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath since work is forbidden, and He showed them what jackasses they were to not use reason and logic. I see a great parallel going on today in this country with people who believe they have the moral high ground because they believe they are adhering to their interpretation of biblical morality but in reality, they're as foolish as the Pharisees.

Why do you call me foolish? the pharisees where used in the Bible to exemplify human nature. If God condemned everyone who was ever honestly mistaken in a belief or teaching, there would be no one left for salvation. Honest mistakes can be forgiven if repented of when the time comes (that's why Jesus Christ came the first time, to save sinners - and anyone who says that they're not a sinner is calling God a liar! i.e. 1 John 1:10), but deliberate, knowing, defiant rejection of the Truth, and deliberate, knowing, defiant teaching of lies will not. Like the Pharisees did in Matthew 12:23-24 RSV

The Pharisees were used to exemplify human nature? Huh? What about everyone else? That's too broad. Exemplifying human nature - look at the story of King David, or Job. Everyone in the Bible exemplfies human nature. What was it specific with Pharisees that caused them to constantly butt heads with Jesus? I don't want to steer this too much into biblical references, but my point was that it is clear to me from reading the Gospels that Jesus' interraction with the Pharisees demonstrates that simply following rules/laws with regard to morality is not necessarily being moral. It's a conviction of the heart (love) - and sometimes that can't equate to tangibles - doesn't always fit so neatly into our understanding of morality.

[Lewis 0]

Why do people hate labels so much?

They are quite useful, especially at Safeway.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Similarly how would the rhetorical statements about "fighting them over here, so we don't have to here" be reasonably applied to Iraq EXCEPT in a manner that is relativist? Revisionist too I might add...

Another common misunderstanding is that ethics and morality are one and the same - but that might be taking the discussion off on a tangent.