One Progressive’s View: What is the Conservative’s Mindset-Part III (2/19/2012)

Thinking about the fundamental differences between progressives and conservatives take me back to my last job that I held for 23 years. After speaking to many friends and hubbers across the ideological rainbow, I had to ponder just a bit. Well, I had a cubicle across from a workmate. He was notoriously conservative, while I was progressive. He had a portrait of Bush in his ‘cubie’ and I had one of Bill Clinton in mine.

During our lunch breaks, we oftentimes debated the issues of the day. We spoke about religion in public schools

Religion in Public Schools

We fought over this often, and I had trouble sorting through what were clear double standards in his reasoning. He said to me, did you not say to me that you were a Baptist? Aren’t the tenets of faith what your mom and dad taught you? I told him that I like to do my own thinking; whatever my parents taught me is not the sole determinant of what I believe or not believe, today.

Critical thinkers are independent thinkers and don’t necessarily adhere to a belief because someone had said that it was true. Of course, like most conservatives do, they reference the faith of the Founding Fathers and such. But, as they were men, inherently imperfect, I am not compelled to follow them or anyone without satisfying myself as to basis of their reasoning. When I asked him, what if I were a Buddhist, would I have a right to complain about teachers leading students in Christian prayer in my public school classroom? He replied, perhaps you should find another country in which to live. Well, bingo, we have cut to the chase. That is his great solution to religious diversity in America?

Anti-intellectualism

When we discussed the war in Iraq, his solution was that the inner city kids should sign up for military service so that they have an appreciation of their relative freedom in America. Funny thing, he did not see the need for his kid to go.

We discussed a program he listened to from a rightwing radio station. I believe that it was the Rush Limbaugh program, where this black man prominent in conservative circles, I believe that his last name was Williams was saying that African American slavery was a small price to pay for the privilege of living in the greatest nation on earth. When he asked my opinion about it, I told him that we had a lot of rightwing lackys and “uncle toms” spouting off these days. That does not make anything that they say true. I told him (his being white) that your ancestors were not slaves and you got the benefits associated with living in America, why would my ancestors be ‘grateful’ for the sacrifice, when you got it all without having to make it?

I listen to Santorum and Gingrich refer to the institutions of higher learning as hot beds of leftist dissent and indoctrination. What is that all about? I came into the university system at the point when the Vietnam Era protests were just beginning to die out. But, I certainly do remember some things from upper classmen that were present in the midst of it all. The political right is interested only in indoctrination, the very antithesis of what a college education is all about.

You come to learn, to think, to question and to explore possibilities, not to just think and do as you are told. Even in retrospect, the Vietnam War was a futile waste of lives and resources. Young adults knew it, we all knew it. What ‘authority’ was telling us all that we were unpatriotic and subversive for questioning the direction of our leadership? A free thinking and educated citizenry is fundamental in a democratic system, only the fascist and totalitarian regimes have a need to indoctrinate people in the official Government line.

What about the time that that darling of the right, Ann Coulter, made the statement in regards to celebrities that dare expressed a political opinion to just “shut up and sing”. I guess it is ok for the Limabaughs, Becks and Hannity’s to express their opinion, but Barbara Streisand and Danny Glover are to ‘shut up’. From where does that arrogance derive?

Then, there was the issue of global warming; he referred me to Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, who was of the belief that global warming was a falsehood. What is it about the right when 95% of the climatologists out there say that global warming is a reality, but because Rush Limbaugh, Michael Crichton, and Bush Administration believed otherwise that has to be the gospel?

To refer to the President as a Marxist, socialist and many other dumb things has to be anti-intellectual. The right seems to think that their ‘common sense’ is the equivalent of the learned and trained professional. They don’t need to support anything they say, it just is because they say so. The nonsense about the President’s birth certificate is a case in point. You ask the majority of right-wingers and they will probably believe that the moon is made of Swiss cheese because they simply discount the scientific method of inquiry and discovery. That process is inherent in the liberal plot to bring the country down.

Thinking and inquiring people naturally frightens the political right, thus their disdain over higher education.


Gay Marriage

I have to admit, he and I got into it over this one. He objected to term 'marriage' when describing couplings of the same gender. I told him what do you care what it is called? How is it when gays and lesbian call their consummated relationships 'marriage' it affects you and your relationship with your significant other? Who cares what they want to call it. It is merely a semantic exercise that was not worth the controversy. I had no problem with civil unions or the principle of two people having a relationship similar to marriage and they are of the same gender. As far as what kids in school are being taught, the fact is that the relationships exists and what moral implications are involved are best resolved through parents and their respective places of worship. Not mentioning this reality as my workmate suggested was just making the obvious more difficult.

Conclusion

I wanted to believe that there was a possible morph between conservative and progressive people politically. I don’t really know for sure as we are on ideologically opposite poles. I as a progressive may consider a conservative’s ‘pragmatic’ as ideological and partisan and I can say the reverse for the politically conservative individual in regards to my ‘pragmatic’. Because we are most likely to always remain at opposing loggerheads, we can only negotiate and come to compromise on contentious points in public policy. But as the opposing lines are drawn the electorate will have the opportunity to select from two different paths to the future. The outcome would be the only acceptable mandate to govern from one ideological pole as opposed to another.

More by this Author


49 comments

FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 4 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Credence, I've encountered people who resort to 'Shut Up, your opinion doesn't matter' as a discussion tactic on a number of occasions. I'd offer that resorting to that tactic is neither a conservative nor a progressive tendency. To me (and probably just me), resorting to that tactic is more an indication that the individual is not up to the task of expressing how their position ties into their own core principles, or that they do not yet understand themselves exactly why they want to take a particular position in an argument. Many of these folks are simply parroting what they were taught, with little thought or understanding.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

Just as homosexuals hijacked the word "gay" to describe themselves, liberals/socialists have hijacked the word "progressive" to describe themselves.

You see, way back in the early 1960s when I was a young stud, a "progressive" was a real cool-and-hip black dude who listened only to jazz, always wore very sharp clothes, always carried himself like a gentleman, and was deeply into his "blackness."

As a matter of fact, when I was in high school, all of the girls really did like me, because all of the other kids viewed me as being one of the "most progressive studs" on the campus.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Greatings, FJ, You are right, of course, in the heat of anger, one side will attempt to abruptly silence the other. The content of whatever he or she has to say, not withstanding. I would be dishonest if I did not acknowldege this as a failing on either side of the ideological divide. Sorry, but I do not care for AnnCoulter a great deal.. Thanks again for dropping by.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for your visit, Feenix. I guess we all have our labels, what is important, I guess, is what is in the box. I would define progressive as forward thinking, I have to get past the labels and look at the principles and policies that makes of the content of what is labeled in the box. Many social conservatives call themselves 'values voters', sounds good on the outside, but I don't know that I necessary like what is in the box.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

Well, I believe that it should be as simple as black and white.

Individuals who are opposed to such things as abortion-on-demand, gun-control, affirmative action, and reductions in military spending should merely be called "conservatives."

And individuals who are in favor of each of the things mentioned above should merely be called "liberals."

That way, no one will ever have to give much thought to the ways in which they describe themselves and others when it comes to socio-economics and politics.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

I hear you, feenix, but the difference between the right and left is while the right talks about black and white we progressives recognize that everything are shades of gray.

There are economic conservatives and social conservatives, sometimes they are both one in the same but often times they are not. If it were all cut and dry there would not be all the contention between Ronmey and Santorum in say Michigan. The Rockefeller GOP conservatives that are attracted to Romney could well not be as keen on the social issues. The blue collar, what was known once as Reagan Democrats, that are attracted to Santorum is different again.

Being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest is another level of conservatism when compared to Romney position of pro-life while accomodating the exception for rape and incest. There are many that vote for Romney for purely economic reasons but may well be socially liberal. The black community while relatively conservative on social issues, are not when it comes to economic parity issues.

I don't think that it is that easy put everybody in a category.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

Nothing in the world is "complicated." It is just that human beings -- because of their vast store of limitations -- cause things to be "complicated."

The truth is, it is as simple as black and white.

There is right and there is wrong, and there is good and there is evil.

It is just that human beings, whether they are "conservatives" or "progressives," are completely out of touch with reality -- and that is because we are incapable of perceiving what is actually real.

In fact, only fools believe that the way they see things is "the truth" -- and there are as many "progressive" fools as there are "conservative" ones.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

I understand, Feenix, but perception is the reality and we have deal with millions of different perceptions of what is good verses evil. Things cease being subjective and become objective only when God comes and makes it straight. It still remains complicated because this world is made of human beings, with any one's opinion no more valid than the other on the issues of morality in our time. Your point is well taken, but since we are all human who can rise above his or her perceptions of the world and can say definitively to others "You are wrong and I am right"?


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

All I know is that I do not know anything. I just have a whole lot of opinions, beliefs, points of view and impressions.

In fact, I am really working on myself. I am doing every thing I can to reach a point where I won't be so "damned smart."


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Feenix, it is the person that knows the most when they recognize how little they actually know. Nothing wrong with being smart, feenix, after you have been around for a while and seen alot come and go.

As with my nieces and nephews you resign yourself to the fact that greater life experience is not always recognized or appreciated. You cannot tell them anything, but they have to always learn the hard way.

Man's biggest failure is his inability to fail to learn from a mistake and to profit from it.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

Amen to everything you wrote in the comment above.

And I guess one of the reasons why I am so "smart" is I have made a whole hell of a lot of mistakes that I learned from. ;-)


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

I see the issue of religion in schools as an issue of religious liberty. There is an institutional separation of church and state that the founders intended. They didn't want the church leaders running the government or the government running the church.

The founders also knew that the state promotion of non-sectarion christianity was necessary if our form of government was to succeed. Washington himself said this in his farwell address:

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for your comment WBA108, I have not objections to establishment of religion in private schools, but I do in the public ones that require compulsory attendence and have students whose families could follow a wide variety of faiths. There are as many religious principles as stars in the heavens, who among us has the right to promote his or her faith in the public square over that of the next fellow. No establishment of religion means just that because of that reason.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

I considered secular humanism to be a religion of sorts and so did the Supreme Court in 1961. This is the worldview promoted in public schools today that is built upon atheism, moral relativism, naturalism and evolution.

There is a difference between non-establishment and separation in regards to church and state. Non-establishment of religion as applied to the federal government means that it cannot promote one Christian denomination or sect above others. The Strict Separation of church and state is what is promoted in communist countries and now by own government, that attempts to remove all religion from public life. This would have been strongly opposed by the founding generation.

What is promoted now in our public schools is strict separation but only in regards to Christianity. As I mentioned before other religions such as secular humanism, the new age religion, and even Islam at times is taught in the name of education. But a teacher can lose their job if they accidently leave a bible on their desk or answers a question about their Christian views or teach almost anything from the Bible.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Again, thanks for the response, WBA.I would like you to tell me how we avoid promoting religion verses non-religion or one faith over another in a public school short of a policy of not promoting anything outside mere academic reference?

You could call that secular humanism, I call it accomodation and respect to anyone of the wide variety of students that attend. Nothing gets my dander up more than the proselytizing of impressionable young children. I don't get it with cultural conservatives, why can't religious training be conducted properly by parent and church? Why should one group impose upon the other.

Secular humanism is basically a void of religious indoctrination and training in the classroom, not just for its own sake but to acknowlege and respect the variety of faiths or no faith represented.

The 1st amendment and i quote, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

That non-establishment did not specify that the concept was applicable only to the multitude of beliefs within Judeo-Christianity. So it applies to all religion. This position I take is not communist as I support the concept of 'free exercise thereof'. You can have your faith, whatever it may be but don't compel my children to have to adhere to it, be a captive audience, as I and my training for them may be otherwise.

Since the civil war it has been made clear that the smendments apply to the states as well.

You are free to worship and try to influence others with your example, but that cannot come from the faculty and staff of public schools.

I am curious, though, if you could have your wishes met in this matter, what is it that you would like to see. Maybe what you like to see and my concerns are not so far apart under examination.

The schools are there to teach ethics, without saying whose God is to be extolled over someone elses. The separation should apply to all religious tenents and as i said when they are to be discussed it should be in an academic setting. I don't see the need to consider Christians picked upon because their tenets as well as all the others are not to be preached from an inappropriate pulpit. I am being consistant, I will call out anybody and everybody that violates it. I think that a teacher leaving a bible on his or her desk and getting into trouble is a bit extreme. But I would be just as critical if a copy of the Koran was on the desk. The only thng that should be on the desk in the arithmetic book. The teacher as leader is not there to impose his or her values on other students. His or her personal affairs and interests are just that, the job is to teach arithmetic and not take advantage of their position to inappropriately influence children.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

You wrote, "...You are free to worship and try to influence others with your example, but that cannot come from the faculty and staff of public schools..."

Actually what you wrote cuts both ways.

If the faculty and staff of public schools should not be proselytizing about Christian doctrine to impressionable young children --- then that same faculty and staff should not be proselytizing to impressionable young chidren about such things as the "righteousness" of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sex outside of marriage.


Hated By Liberals profile image

Hated By Liberals 4 years ago from Eastern U.S.

Cred -

You are indeed correctly describing Progressives as unable to see things in black and white - but in different shades of gray. This IS the progressive mindset - the rejection of moral absolutes. When you reject axioms that have been proven true over and over again in history, by reversion to the old Gnosticism argument that "....What may be true for you, is not necessarily true for me..." you declare that you are not capable of rational thought. Wanna know why?

Because something cannot be true and untrue at the same time. This existential fact is the reality that you are either unable to face the truth, or unable to accept the truth, or worse - refuse to acknowledge that there are moral absolutes to take a stand on-THAT ARE True. When you take refuge in "shades of gray", you are perpetually wallowing in the abyssmal pit of anxiety. You cannot stand on any firm principles because no firm place to stand exists for you. You cannot find a place to stand because the 'gray shifting shadows' you live in are constantly in a state of flux, and nothing will cling to you, and you can grasp nothing to cling to. I pity such a languid existence. Nobody can pin you down with any presuppositions, and it is like trying to hold a jellyfish with boxing gloves.

Order in life demands structure and a skeleton to build experience on. You cannot build on the quicksand of experience, and the evidence of your folly is that if you really are as compassionate and open to change and multiple realities that you claim, how can you ever find your way home? How can you even understand the thesis and antithesis if you begin your thinking with synthesis? When most decent Americans know by now how much of the severe damage that liberals/progressives have done to America, family, traditional marriage, school, workplace and just about everything else, but this is an all time low even for America [maybe not] so you decide for yourselves:

DEMOCRATS with ACLU lawyers:

Democrats have relentlessly opposed Jessica's Law.

Democrats have worked tirelessly against Megan's Law.

Democrats have repeatedly undermined Adam's Law.

Democrats have argued in court that 12-year-olds have a constitutional right to have sex with grown men.

Democrats have tried to remove sex offender registration laws in every state.

Democrats have represented NAMBLA in courts across the country, free of charge, calling it "free speech" to coordinate child rape at conventions with their "Rape and Escape" manual. Still think this is the party of compassion? What would cause you - labelling yourself Progressive - to believe that any noble virtues are worthy of cognitive thought ?? Is your motive a world of constant change like evolutionists believe? Could it be that you are unable to identify any virtues except Narcissism and Hedonism?? Cred... it is a miserable existence for two reasons: (1) If you are the Captain of your own ship, and the Master of your own Fate, then the decay and deterioration built into your system is eating at you and the worm is consuming you and will result in another mutant in the gene pool. (2) You will have no map, no chart, and no destination - and absolutely no directions to get anywhere - so you continue to wallow in that pit, while all the while screaming with the progressive mantra "WHY DON'T THE GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING ??"

There really are moral absolutes and you can find them in the owner's manual - the same one that says: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

MY hope for you, Cred, is that you will find that the world does not revolve around you, and you will consider this question: "What will I do when God confronts me? What will I say when called to give account for my life?"

That is life He gave you - it is not your doing, lest you should boast. Here's the plan to give you a hope and a future....


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hey, feenix, you said:

"If the faculty and staff of public schools should not be proselytizing about Christian doctrine to impressionable young children --- then that same faculty and staff should not be proselytizing to impressionable young chidren about such things as the "righteousness" of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sex outside of marriage."

Hey, Feenix, your right, teachers should not be promoting and providing a moral and ethical foundation behind such things, they just are. The relationships merely exist no need to make a moral case one way or the other in regards to it. The appropriate moral stance on these sorts of issues are best left to the parents and their places of worship.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

HBL, thanks for commenting.

Ok, whose absolutes, what axioms have been proven true time and time again? The question is, are you the arbiter of “truth”, only God knows uncatagorically what is truth. That is if you happen to acknowledge that there is a God. Can you PROVE that your understanding of the truth is the only possible interpretation? If we all knew the answers there wouldn’t be more religions and sects than grains of sand on the beach. Why is your Judeo-Christian interpretation of the world truer than that of the Buddhist?

I am Judeo-Christian in my belief, so I am not morally bankrupt. I made my decision through years of self evaluation and study of the world around me. But, I have to allow my neighbor to come to see the truth in the same way as a matter of respect for their process of thought and realization, otherwise it does not mean a great deal to either man nor God. If they don’t it is not for me to put a gun to their head to compel them to do so which is the common approach of the rightwinger.

So who has the solution, the Crusades, Ireland, the current controversy with Islam? The tragedy of humanity is the endless bloodshed over “my God is better than your God and mine is right and yours is wrong”. Are you so confident in your ‘truth’

When God has the day of reckoning, it will all be made straight and perfectly clear without any doubt. I follow the tenets, but I leave my neighbor as God commanded in scripture, to ‘decide today who you will serve’. That is a choice that every man and woman has a right to make on their own, and as a man I have no right to take that away from them.

When rightwingers of faith behave like bullies, you are just insuring that people will resist your message and manner.

I am more concerned with outrages from the political right. I, just as you have, can cite numerous violations of decency and fairness from the right, which of course you would conveniently omit in you comments.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

The big problem is, nearly ever time someone mentions the names of "God" or "Jesus" in the public schools, or say blessings over their cafeteria lunches, all of the liberals in high places go "hog wild" and soundly admonish the ones who commit such "misdeeds."

On the other hand, however, when some public-school-educator teaches his/her students such things as "homosexuality is just another lifestyle" or "there is no such thing as God," hardly any of the folks in positions of authority utter a word in opposition to those kinds of teachings.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Feenix, it is ok, you can mention it. If the students want to lead themselves into prayer on their own time in cafeteria or lunchrooms or during recess among themselves, or anywhere privately of course, without teachers and administrators involved that is fine with me. Contrary to common belief, progressives are not against religion and faith.

Homosexuality is just another lifestyle, there are homosexuals in society, thats reality.

The statement about God is inappropriate and the teacher is clearly out of bounds, that is "establishment" his or her promoting their athestic viewpoint is just as much a violation.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

First, quite frequently, there are news stories about such things as high-school football teams and cheer leaders being banned from praying, all on their own, while on school grounds.

Additionally, just as many parents do not want their children to be taught about Christianity by teachers, many do not want their children to be taught about homosexuality by their teachers.

It is as plain as the day is long. There is presently a double standard in the public schools when it comes to expressions of Christianity and expressions of "pro-gayness" and "pro-atheism."

Expressions of the former are almost always squelched by public-school adminstrations and expressions of the latter are are almost aways permitted to happen by those administrations.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Feenix, I oppose restricting people from doing what their conscience requires that they do in this matter. If cheer leaders and football teams want to pray among themselves, no problem, but the principal nor the staff cannot lead it or be involved.

You can teach about the existence of Christianity, Islam or Buddhism in a clinical way in a social studies class. Thats not preaching the gospel. The same can apply to homosexuality, it has a definition and that is as far as it goes.

All expressions that indicate a 'right' or 'wrong' moral position from the Christians to the gays and atheists should be carefully avoided. That way we wont anger Christians, gays nor atheists as children representing each of those groups or have parents with set attitudes regarding the issues will not be offended.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

With all of the high-school kids who can barely read and write today, the public schools need to get away from doing so much "clinical teaching" about such things as the great religions of the world and homosexuality.

Almost all of the focus should be on teaching the "3 R's."


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Feenix, did you not take civics-social studies as part of the K-12 experience?

I can go back almost 50 years, it is difficult to teach geography, different political and economic systems of the world in middle school without some of this coming up. Reading, english grammar and such is just one class of many.

But, as you and the statistics say, we need to emphasize the basics. There is lots of room for improvement, no argument here. But there need not be any bias in favor or against the things we have been talking about as a result.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

Actually, the education that I received from K-to-12 was far better than many of today's four-year college educations.

In fact, because I received such a fine education in the public primary and secondary schools I attended, I qualified for Officer-Candidate School in the U.S. Army and went on to graduate third in my class.

And so far as the teachings I recieved in Social Studies and Civics, they were excellent.

For example, by the time I was about 10 years old, I knew the capital of every state in the Union, as well as the capitals of many of the nations of the world.

And opposite of what is the case among many, if not most, of today's youngsters, I could point out China, India, Brazil and all the other countries on a map or globe -- and most of my classmates could do the same thing.

And when it comes to Civics, by the time I was about 9 or 10 years old, I knew that the U.S. government is comprised by three branches -- the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

And as I am sure you are aware, many of today's 17-and-18-year-old high-school seniors are not even aware of that.

Similar to what I stated before, it is time for the public schools to get back to focusing on the basics.


Hated By Liberals profile image

Hated By Liberals 4 years ago from Eastern U.S.

Feenix is trying to let you in on some good concepts...

Cred- Your version of "the students can lead themselves" is tantamount to "the students can teach themselves" is another progressive cop out. There is no accountability for those in authority. The purpose of education is to TRANSMIT THE CULTURE to the next generation. Of course progressives will make sure students get a heavy dose of indoctrination in "alternative lifestyles" and challenging the moral absolutes. As your instructor, Alinsky, taught you, you not only question and challenge authority, YOU DEFY IT. It is a regression to the Biblical days where everyone did what was 'right in his own eyes' which is anarchy. Order and conformity is ignored and since the structure of the family unit is in disrepair, few examples of virtue will be found in the public schools. In fact, those who are principled enough to withstand the PC onslaught should receive combat pay to try to impart some education. Naturally, you progressives who have demonstrated your disability to discipline your own offspring will also object to discipline of any ilk in schools.

Hence, we now have the stellar record of academic achievement and dropout rates in the majority if public schools. Really something to boast about when it comes to multi-culturalism and tolerance - RIGHT? When it comes to things that are community standards, progressives ignore common sense which comes from community standards. Of course you would not know that because you are NOT LISTENING. You have your own standards of proselytizing into amoral and ignoble curricula chosen by - of course - haters of good and lovers of evil. Oops, I am not allowed to mention moral absolutes.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Yeah, feenix, I cannot complain, the training was pretty great because the expectations then were much higher than today. From the Dick and Jane primers all the way through. I did not realize that you were OCS and did so well.

Believe or not feenix, I still remember every state capital, every president, his life dates, term of office, etc. I had an interest in this early and you never really forget it. I had to refresh my memory for the last 4 or 5, but I am good. As bad as it is, I don't even think your average adult could identify China on a world map. sometimes I wonder if they could identify the U.S on a world map!

I am consider myself blessed to have been educated during bc, before computers. Today, Everybody can access easy answers and folks become intellectually lazy. How many folks do you think can do long division if they had to? They say the time will come soon when the damned computers and related machines will have processing capacity beyond the human brain. Once they get smart, they will know what to do with us in a microsecond. I just keep my hand on the AC outlet plug, just incase my "Hal 9000' gets out of line.

The computer for young children can have the effect of dicouraging them from experiencing the exhileration of solving problems on their own, using the grey matter between their ears.

Thanks again


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

HBL, when it comes to prayer since when do you need a Masters degree to make a prayer or lead others in one? Or do you think that they should learn that in public school as well?

Transmit the culture yes, but two things, this culture is quite diverse as it is presently and, second that has nothing to due with preaching from the lectern in a public school classroom.

What is it with this Alinsky, you get this from Gingrich, you take him seriously? He is a lunatic. I don’t like rightwingers generally and I am trying to restrain myself, SO BE NICE.

Well, HBL, I don’t see any of your rightwing buddies as exemplary examples of law abiding citizenry. Your people are not exactly the only people in the universe with halos over their heads, far from it. I told you before that not everyone subscribes to your Bible and Your interpretation of it.

You make sweeping generalizations that children of progressive parents are lacking in discipline, where is your evidence to substantiate this accusation, let’s see it

Rightwingers tend to be so obtuse about things, you blame the progressive ideological stance for decline in academic achievement. The truth is much more involved and discounts any one simplistic solution, which again reflect leaps of illogic on your part.

So what do you want to do, HBL, hogtie my children down force them to listen to and recite your phony prayers extracted from the mouths of innocent children through duress. All this while YOUR Christianity (as the rightwinger practices it) is as phony as a 3 dollar bill, riddled with double standards and hypocrisy. I am not interested in your assessment of these things. I will do my own thinking and want my kids in schools that I educate with my tax money to have the right to do the same.

You could stand a brisk refresher in civics, the 1st amendment applies to everybody, be they in Mayberry or New York City. That community standards argument is a red herring and goes nowhere. They say you people have gone nuts, as is made quite evident due to the constant stumble of the rightwinger in the social issues arena. We will have a chance to show it to you next fall, to be sure. So don't change that channel!

Then there is the question I asked you initially, surely you did not think that you were so clever that I would forget that I asked it, so as you could circumvent it.

In case you were not paying attention, and you weren’t, here it is again:

That is if you happen to acknowledge that there is a God. Can you PROVE that your understanding of the truth is the only possible interpretation?


Hated By Liberals profile image

Hated By Liberals 4 years ago from Eastern U.S.

Well Cred - - It appears from your question that you are not yet able to grasp the concept of the spiritual as contrasted with the physical. First to answer the second part of your question-many interpretations are possible with mankind, but only one true meaning is in the one who utters the pronouncement. He knows what He meant! From the purely pragmatic physical point, all creation testifies that there is a God, though we cannot see Him. In fact no physical eye has seen Him, because He is Spirit. The illumination of the physical man happens to be Spiritual - another dimension that you would appreciate should you desire it.

The transformation of a man who is dead in spirit, cannot be effected by himself, since he incapable of life produced by himself. It takes someone outside the 'self' - - just as your children were incapable of conceiving themselves.

I can only accept or deny the truth revealed from the creator - I cannot prove it to you, I am like DesCartes in this way - you know: Cogito Ergo Sum... The passing from spiritual death unto life became evidence to me when I received the capacity to think and understand spiritual truth as revealed in the Owner's manual (Bible)

Until that event, I could not understand spiritual truth. But let me pass on a historical quote that may help in your unbelief: The King of England in doubt asked someone, How do you know there is a God? The profound answer was: THE JEW, SIR....THE JEW...

as FAR AS TRUTH, YOU CAN BE LIKE PONTIUS PILATE AND ASK, WHAT IS TRUTH? AS IF IT WERE SOME RELATIVE TERM. The mortal man can increase in knowledge but cannot attain wisdom until he seeks to have a relationship with the source of it. You could, perhaps, desire to do so, but perhaps you will remain in your physical state until death, when it will become apparrent to you that YOU ARE A SOUL, BUT YOU HAVE A BODY. Don't let my testimony deter you from finding wisdom and truth because I confess that I am not yet fully Refined, Purified, and made spotless for eternity. But if your curiosity leads you to seek and search for God, He, Himself said: "You will come and pray to me, and seek me.If you seek with all your heart, you will find me and I will come to you" You can find that in Jeremiah Chap 29

I really hope that you can find true wisdom and peace because life is much more endurable when the certainty of a relationship with our creator is restored, and we see the measures he took to do so. Intellectual debate is stimulating, but temporary; truth is eternal. I value eternity more than time, only because my mind is transformed with the renewing of my spirit. Peace & Love


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

I still have my old slide rule, and I still know how to use it. ;-)


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Most interesting, HBL, here is my reply:

The problem is that you and millions of others debate what that ‘true meaning’ is. It is obvious with all the violence associated with religion that the true meaning has yet to be understood by the vast majority of mankind. If everybody knows what HE meant, why the controversy?

What you are doing here is preaching. There are plenty that would debate everything that you say here and question the existence of God Himself, that may be their loss, but it is their right. There are many that say life processes are natural and have nothing to do with deities. I don’t believe that but there are many that do, and that is their right.

You show it to me and it is just as I thought, you have no definitive proof to support your perspective as to why your God is the God. In the face of this, why should anybody let you tell them what to do, believe or think? Within Christianity alone, there are hundreds of sects, why the differences, where is this universal understanding?

You can’t discount Islam in an objective way, nor any of the other non-Christian faiths out there. Only God upon his reckoning with the earth will make it clear and set it straight, no man has the credibility to do that. There are many that say that their ‘owner manual” is the Koran, why is your manual better than theirs?

I said in an earlier comment that I subscribe to the Christian faith, even if it not perfectly, as no man is perfect. You don’t need to convince me. The point I make is that instead of letting your good example as a Christian move others to action, you would rather indoctrinate and compel others to adhere to your point of view. That is not going to work.

You said:

How do you know there is a God? The profound answer was: THE JEW, SIR....THE JEW...

There is no answer there and there is no common point of reference in the profound answer. Each individual have to ask and answer that question for themselves to their satisfaction, or your question and the ‘profound answer’ mean nothing.

The herd mentality the rightwinger has about religion and the church sullies the simple and beautiful message to the human family as shown in the scriptures. You take a beautiful thing and make it dirty, undesirable, violent and oppressive, that was not the intent of the author of the ‘owners manual”

Because of these things, the influence of Christianity around the world has not been positive but has been a source of misery for many. After all of this have been going on for centuries, today the rightwinger comes to us with the answer, compulsory adherence to their version of Christianity without question?

Your revelation as revealed in your comment is appreciated, but is still a sermon and fails to get to root of my question. Surely, you can see what it is that I am talking about.


Hated By Liberals profile image

Hated By Liberals 4 years ago from Eastern U.S.

Sure I do - You are talking about the free will of man to choose for himself whatever is relevant for him. I do not mean to preach, but to shed light, much like an educator shares knowledge. His students are free to reject any and all of his 'indoctrination' just as you are free to accept or reject any nudging or coercion of your thinking. Please do not equate debate with coercion, it is dispectful of the medium, and Socrates and Paul the Apostle would be displeased. Debate is fun. Arguments become legal, and intimidating. Coercion is the farthest from my mind, and is the core of Elitism. My agreement with your Libertarian ideal of 'everybody has a right to think whatever they choose' is unconditional agreement. I think you are correct. My departure only comes with the other oar of the boat with personal responsibility, and Divine Sovereignty. I believe God is in complete control of all creation, and will require accountability from His creatures-meaning me. I cannot believe that He has finished with this world/universe, and is off in some other realm to be busy, forgetting His own commands and laws, and willing to overlook the rebellion of mankind, and hold them blameless. I also do not believe that all of my noble deeds will suffice for one of my sins. But you and all the rest of creation is welcome to do whatever you want to, because I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for your thoughts and deeds, but I am responsible to speak out about righteousness because there are a few who are open to learning it. Those who are already The Captain of Their Own Ship and The Master Of Their Own Fate have charted their own course and destination. I choose to follow the Shepherd - not the flocks and herds.


mio cid profile image

mio cid 4 years ago from Uruguay

wrote that hub about relocating to south and central america if you have questions would gladly answer


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks, I will check it out, Cred2


mio cid profile image

mio cid 4 years ago from Uruguay

left answer for ecuador


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks, mio cid


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Credence- I have great respect for you and this was a reasonable, moderate, and useful articulation of your beliefs and values. I do not know how you maintain your balance, composure, and manners when addressing reactionary people from the right. Even when they are not, you remain civil. You have my admiration and support. SHARING


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Amen to phdast7's comments. Both sides have laundry lists of evils commited by the other side. I tend to hear more of a position when it's not being yelled at me.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks, phdast7, I have always tried to be the model of restraint as I am trying to understand the reasoning of the "other side". Can't do that very well if I chase them away. You gotta put them on the spot, but in a nic way. Thanks for taking the time to read and provide so insightful a comment.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Kathleen, thanks for dropping by and taking the time to read and comment. I would have like to have thought that there was middle ground between the ideological poles. However, things have been so contentious lately. I wonder, for instance, how can I compromise with those that promote religious intolerance?


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Credence - I know you are incredibly busy and have your hands full, but when you can spare ten minutes, you might want to check out some of Mark Monroe's Hubs. He has written some very detailed, well argued Hubs on social and political issues. :)


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for the tip, phdast7, I will certainly look into it...


adjkp25 profile image

adjkp25 4 years ago from Northern California

I stumbled upon this hub after I just did one about same sex marriage. I really enjoyed what you have put together here, very well done.

Voted up and interesting.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Adjkp25, I am most sorry, I just came upon your comment. I am glad that you enjoyed the article and certainly look forward to reading an interesting one that you have done on the aging process. Come and visit again, sometime.


AlexDrinkH2O profile image

AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

Two comments:

"The political right is interested only in indoctrination, the very antithesis of what a college education is all about." This is an amazing sentence and is so wrong it takes my breath away. Most of today's college campuses are hot beds of "progressive" philosophy to the point where conservatives need to keep a low profile or risk being shouted down and even see their grades suffer for their political views. Radical leftist speakers are invited to campus events on a regular basis but conservative speakers are routinely denied access. (If one does have the guts to show up, he/she is met by loud, obnoxious protestors and, in some cases, is physically attacked.) And the of course there are the speech codes, the First Amendment be damned.

Comment #2 - I was very interested in the comments by the Hubber called Hated by Liberals so I decided to check him out. This is what I found:

"Sorry, this user has been banned from HubPages."

Ah yes, the tolerance of the left displayed for all to see! The "progressive" ideology is totalitarian in every sense of the word and, in daily practice, is a lot closer to the ideology "progressives" supposedly hate so much: fascism.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

H20, thanks for your time to read and comment, forgive me for not getting to this sooner.....

So, why are most colleges hotbeds of progressive philosophy? Why are they not hotbeds of reactionary ideology? I think that you exaggerate in regards to the idea that students having a more conservative political philosophy are attacked on campus. So who are the advocates of the right? White, male, senior and geographically from the south. Not too many college students fit that demographic. Can you document your broad brush statements regarding the tendency of universities to deny conservative speakers a forum?

Has it ever occurred to you that the hubber that was banned probably was banned not for his political views but for boorish behavior? Hubbers on either side of the ideological divide are not protected from such a fate in the face of such violations. I dunno, but intolerence seems to be a far bigger problem from your side of the divide than from mine, in almost all aspects of life. You guys blame the press, higher education, Hollywood and just about every influence in society that has any kind of following. So what make you right and so many wrong?


AlexDrinkH2O profile image

AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

"So, why are most colleges hotbeds of progressive philosophy?" Because the faculty at most colleges is made up of unreconstructed lefties from the 1960s. I have experienced this myself when I went to college and actually had some grades lowered by left-wing professors who disagreed with positions I took (I was a political science major).

"Can you document your broad brush statements regarding the tendency of universities to deny conservative speakers a forum?"

Early this year - Spanish River High School of Boca Raton, Florida Conservative author Bradlee Dean evicted from the campus by the principal after showing up to address the students.

New York - "The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security."

California - "Last February at San Francisco State University, former liberal activist-author turned conservative activist-author David Horowitz had his entire speech shouted down by a group of protesters. Composed primarily of students and other members of the Spartacus Youth Club, a Trotskyist organization, the group stood in the back of the room shouting slogans and comments at every turn."

In 2004, UC Berkeley became the locus for bullying behavior during a speech by Islam scholar Daniel Pipes. . . Members of the Muslim Student Association and other protesters formed a disruptive group in the audience, shouting, jeering and chanting continually. They booed loudly throughout and called Pipes everything from "racist" and "Zionist" (which in their minds is an insult) to "racist Jew" -- all because Pipes had the audacity to propose that moderate Muslims distance themselves from extremist elements in their midst; that in tackling terrorism authorities take into account the preponderance of Muslim perpetrators and that Israel has a right to exist peacefully among its neighbors.

University of North Carolina: "Congressman Tom Tancredo, the former representative for Colorado's 6th congressional district, had been invited to the college to practice his first amendment rights by speaking out in opposition to the "DREAM Act," a piece of legislation that would make it easier for illegal aliens to obtain in-state tuition and other benefits at state colleges and universities.

Outside, there were groups who had assembled to express their disapproval of Representative Tancredo's opinion on the subject, a practice that is totally within their free speech rights, but then they decided to move their protest inside the building, causing a dangerous confrontation. Still, objections were being held outside of the room where the congressman was going to speak, but when a portion of that group took their objections inside the room where Mr. Tancredo was about to speak, causing a major disruption to those who wanted to hear his views, they stepped over the line of acceptable behavior in an attempt to stifle his free speech rights."

Last November - (this one's a beaut) -"After effectively barring conservative columnist Ann Coulter from speaking on campus last week, the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals."

WANT MORE?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Well, Alex, you have made your point and I will say that if it is as serious as you indicate, it is not acceptable in my eyes. I say that when the tenets of the right are exposed for what they are they will be discredited. But, that determination can only be made within a fair and open forum, where everyone gets an opportunity to hear and evaluate both sides.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working