There are elements within the current American population that are feverishly working to turn the United States into their version of a christian theocracy. If they had their way, drugs, movies above a PG rating, and songs with explicit lyrics would be BANNED in our society. This group also wants the teaching of creationism (though not all creationists agree with banning the other stuff, all people who want to ban the activities just mentioned do agree with creationists) in schools, along with other biblical stories about floods and human beings living inside of giant fish, and evolution completely out of the classroom. Lest we forget, sodomy was illegal in many states in our nation's glorious history.
Now, Russia is taking an action many of the conservative theocratic elements of American society fantasize they had the power to enforce here. They are attempting to ban any dissemination to minors of material related to homosexuality. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/21/r … ropaganda/
I just hope these fascistic elements never gain any sort of leverage in our political system.
I hear you. The surest way to prevent this is not to vote for any of these right wing wackjobs.
I agree. But YOUR side is doing the exact same thing. What the Christian right (which you are sort of washing over as all things conservative, but I'm letting that go for now) is trying to do to ruin America because of their strong emotional feelings, is EXACTLY the same thing the SAFETY left is doing.
The Christian right is trying to save the "moral fiber" of America, and they want to impose their beliefs in all their various manifestations on everyone else. They THINK it's for the good of EVERYONE.
The Safety left is trying to save the "physical fiber" of America, and they want to impost their beliefs in their various manifestations on everyone else. They THINK it's for the good of EVERYONE.
So, the Christians Crusaders are trying to tell people how to live, how they can have relationships, how they can behave in the privacy of their own homes, what drugs they can take (expensive pharmaceuticals, okay, cheap pot, etc. no), who they can marry, etc. The Safety Nazis are trying to tell people how to live, how they can arm themselves despite the Constitution, how they eat, what they can do in the privacy of their own homes, what drugs they must take (vaccinations), but, erm, what drugs they should be able to take (pot), but, well, erm, also what drugs they can't take, tobacco. Uh... anyway.
Until YOU PEOPLE stop trying to WIN SOME STUPID INTERNET FORUM ARGUMENT and look with your eyes and your brains at the fact that YOU are trying to take away the freedoms of others in the same breath you are trying to argue for your own freedoms, we are all screwed. You argue with half-truths and un-verified claims, quotes, and one-liners from your revered politicians for the freedoms you value but you are perfectly fine with taking freedoms away from others so long as those freedoms aren't anything you use or care about.
YOU are the problem. All of of you. Both "sides." All of US. We'll get what we deserve in the end. Maybe we'll see it, recognize our own selfishness. But, well, it sure doesn't seem like anyone is even interested in any self-examination these days. Finger pointing is easier, especially since for every prejudice and ignorant position, there is a pack of fellow-morons to support us in our insipidness and click LIKE on our moronic Facebook "shares."
Wow... consider me chastised.
I'm just not sure how we fix the problem of conflicting rights... how someone having a right automatically excludes others from having their right.
And how, exactly, does "someone having a right automatically exclude others from having their rights"?
For example: what rights would people lose if gay marriage were to be made legal in all 50 states?
It is complicated, I totally agree. That's why there are reams of philosophical arguments about this, not only from the founding fathers, but from the Greeks and other philosophers across time.
I think in the end, because we are humans, it must come down to the individual. Laws don't work anyway. As Plato purportedly pointed out 2,500 years ago or so, "Good people don't need laws to tell them how to act responsibly, and bad people will find away around those laws." It starts to get sticky when one group starts trying to define what acting "responsibly" means. So, since we all know how much fighting comes from trying to do it, I think we should always default to the first part and assume good people will act responsibly, even if we don't like what they do. Nobody gets to be the arbiter of "responsible" actions, and egregious violations of social norms, I said EGREGIOUS ones, will be obvious and can be dealt with case by case. Keep your religious feelings on acting responsibly to yourself. If you think there is a God, or several gods or whatever, then believe he will deal with "sinners" in heaven or hell, etc., just like the book says. Problem solved.
Freedom is one side of the coin. The other is discipline. What is discipline to you, Shadesbreath?
That's a pretty huge question, discipline, especially in the context in which you have asked it, where you are making it like the singular opposition to freedom, the one coin of civilization where "freedom" is on one side and "discipline" on the other. I'm not really sure how that "coin" exists in any real way. I don't see it at all. Moreover, I'm not sure how it relates in any way to the passage you quote from me prior to asking it. The question seems, and my answer to it for certain, would likely be a massive red herring without much, much more clarification. Perhaps you can explain what you are getting after in more detail, what you mean by "discipline" and how it relates to what I said, and how there is only freedom on one side and discipline on the other, etc. (For what it's worth, any time a conversation includes a binary opposition, "either or," it's almost always going to be empty and meaningless in any real world application, so I won't hold you to the whole coin metaphor. I'm mostly interested in your ideas about discipline and how they might somehow be a necessary opposition to freedom.)
For instance, the boundaries created by the Declaration of Independance that the government is required to follow, is an example of discipline. Without the discipline of following boundaries, our Freedoms are not possible. Thats all.
For example, since our government has already ignored its restraints, we now have over-regulated commerce and business, over-printing of money, the overstepping of federal concerns into state and local concerns and vote buying-presidents and congressional leaders. Our leaders have ignored the inherent discipline and in so doing have lessened our liberty.
(And our ability to survive.)
Ah, okay. You are calling "discipline" what I might call regulation. The term can mean a lot of things: hard work and purposeful dedication to a purpose; punishment; and of course the mediation of urges and desires, etc. That's why I couldn't respond and asked for clarification, thanks.
My opinion on "discipline" as you describe it is that less is more. Freedom is about being free. I recognize that there is a lot of room between Anarchy and complete and total Tyranny. In my opinion, we should always, always, always try NOT to tell people what they CAN'T do. Any time a law is saying, "These people CAN'T do this," we should, all of us, look very hard at it.
I say this all the time, everywhere, over and over: America is supposed to be the land of the free. But we have become the land of people who gather into little coalitions based on some particular fear or hatred of something. We get enough people who hate something or are afraid of something, we can make a law that takes away the freedom of some other group who has a freedom that scares us, or has the potential to be scary in certain situations.
This group doesn't value that freedom, and that freedom can cause harm if something goes wrong. Another group likes that freedom, but they don't like some other freedom that another group likes. That other freedom has no value so they are fine with taking it away from those guys.
America became great because it was based on WE the people. (Yes, when they said it, they were excluding people, but as time went by, the nation fought for We to mean every one. We still do .. .ala, gay marriage etc.). That said, when legislation is about "THEY can't do that thing they like" freedom is dying. THEY can't get married, because we don't like it. THEY can't have guns like the 2nd Amendment says because we are afraid. THEY can't get an abortion because our God says it's bad. THEY can't smoke because I don't like it. THEY can't vote because they have a vagina. THEY can't vote because look how dark their skin is. Etc.
Whenever you are arguing for what you think someone else shouldn't be able to do, and yet that thing is something you don't do, then YOU are the one who is probably destroying American liberty. It's actually less evil to deny someone a right that you already have than it is to deny them a right they have but you disapprove of. Sounds crazy, but it's like having to pick between being hanged or burning to death. Both are bad, but one is actually worse.
That's my position. Good people don't need laws to make them act responsibly. Bad people find ways around laws. - Plato
It's as true now, 2000+ later as it was back then. Every law we pass speeds us towards a police state, and, eventually, tyranny. The founding fathers knew it, and even said it was inevitable. History proves it. We are showing how quickly we can make it happen. It's all pretty goddamn sad, really, at least for those of us who read and value liberty all at the same time.
Thank you. Your viewpoints are very interesting.
I would add, we need to keep the Federal Government more out of the picture. It is too much in the people's business. I believe it is overstepping the Constitution over and over to the point we are getting used to it.
Q. How can we stop this assault on the future of the country?
For instance, why should the Federal Government be involved in Homosexual marriage???
We agree completely.
No clue, but I think we have to start by confronting our OWN parties, challenging those who would make arguments based in fallacy and emotional garbage, calling them out, pointing out that they make our sides look stupid and suck the marrow out of real conversations. We have to actually start making arguments not about what we desire, but first about the pursuit or honorable and truthful conversation. America is nowhere near the seeking of truth. We are about seeking to WIN .. regardless of how flawed our arguments are. All of us, on both sides. Not one person out there truly values the pursuit of truth and reasonable solutions over the WIN for their side.
They shouldn't. Neither should the states. Nobody should be telling anyone what other person they can love. It's ridiculous. The only role the Feds should take is to make it illegal for anyone one to tell someone else which person they can or can't love and marry.
We were talking about liberty, mainly. You can always check the thread title in the top portion of your screen, or, if you need to refresh, copy your current answer, hit the back button, and reread stuff, then reply again, just pasting in what you had written before. Hopefully you can resume your train of thought.
I'm not sure indoctrination had any part of the previous conversation, or at least not in any or my responses, so I'm not sure how to respond to this part of your reply.
I read a book called "The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He states that everybody has a moral matrix that is made of seven foundations: Care/Harm; Liberty/Oppression; Fairness/Cheating; Loyalty/ Betrayal; Authority/Subversion; and Sanctity/Degradation. Each one of those foundations can vary from one side to the other.
There is a moral matrix for liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Each has a most sacred value that they espouse to: In liberals it's care for victims of oppression; in libertarians it's individual liberty; and in conservatives, it's preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community.
I have a son that came out last year and introduced us to his partner. I must say, he couldn't be happier and neither can we. As far as creationism goes, I would say if you believe the world was created 3,000 years ago, then stop using fossils fuels.
I don't mind what others values and beliefs are, but I do mind when they try to impose them on me and others when it is so easy to disprove them. Group thinking can be very dangerous when everybody in the group thinks the same way and there is no influence from outside the group. That's what loyal listeners to talk shows are all about.
Thank-you peoplepower73 (every time I see your posted replies I want to check out your hubs and forget...not today) Sooner28 there is always going to be a political divide and having lived the last 10 years as a liberal/libertarian (as defined by this Haidt) myself and others have been squawking,protesting,brainstorming etc.about current issues i.e. gay right's,2nd amendment rights for years. The what/who/why of it really doesn't matter anymore. Freedom and liberty can be exploited and manipulated just as easily as a "tea party agenda!" Those participating at the Boston Tea Party didn't stand around talking about what to do...they threw the damn tea overboard which is what our society needs to do when it comes to old ideas. I've cancelled my trip to Siberia but the snowstorms the American people need to address are the flurry of false information and conspiracy theories riddling our society today. Below is a manipulation of our freedom of the press used by good ole Rush...everyone seems to have an agenda (MYSELF INCLUDED) with little compromise or ready solutions.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/r … -abortion/
by Friendlyword7 years ago
Soon, Uganda will start murdering it's Citizens, with the help from some of the worst of us here in the United States. Some people in the Christian Right and some Christian Evangelists (and one gay nut!) helped write a...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
December 19, 2009Gratitude: Looking Back Strength, Courage and Illumination: Looking Ahead Will We The People do What is Necessary to Save America? The Articles of Freedom: a Wake-up Call Dear Friends of We The People...
by bulldogrocks5 years ago
I am a former U.S Marine that served during Sept 11, 2001. I feel that kids today have it easy and should get a taste of what real civil service work is like. I think this country would be better off making...
by My Esoteric2 weeks ago
During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison made the following point during debate on the length of Senator's terms:"In framing a system which we wish to last the ages, we should not lose sight of the...
by ahorseback3 months ago
The obvious point in this question is -Will he ? Not that he'd become a dictator ! But I wonder where liberals would really stand if the draining the swamp truly became a political reality...
by rlaframboise6 years ago
Do you think Obama actually believes in the merit of the Constitution or do you think that he thinks that the chains i places on the Federal government are a bad thing?I for one think he would love to see a purely...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.