|
FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:57:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
......let me go through your sincere response point by point. Again, i'd like to reiterate i'm not trying to be contentious. Faith and the issues around it are highly personal things and i respect those who hold positions based on their faith even if i disagree.....
philo, since your "awakening", I have not seen, nor do I anticipate you positing anything but solid and truthfully inquiring questions, and I do not take offense at anything you have to say, nor any question you may care to advance. I believe you have a truly open and inquiring mind, and accept that we may disagree on some very basic beliefs, yet do so with good will.
Unfortunately, I do not have the same expectation of some of the others in this discussion.
But from you, my friend, I'm more than willing to calmly engage in any discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The problem is that it's a battle between two different belief systems, in which "lefties" try to use the "separation of church and state" as a tool to prevent people who have religious beliefs from acting their moral conscious in the public arena.
...probably, at least on occasion true. Though i am a little concerned at the blanket use of the word 'lefties' here. For myself, the reason i tend to oppose faith based politics is not because i don't think that those with faith ought not act on that faith. It's because i don't want them telling me to act on their faith too.
I have mentioned several times (over the years) that my definitions of "right" "left", "conservative", "liberal" and "lefties" all have different meanings than is often used in political discussions (especially here on CM).
Just to reiterate, I consider that the current American "liberal" and "conservative" values to have become inverted from historical understandings, and use the term "lefties" very specifically for the most ideologically driven groups on the "left". The ideologues and "fundamentalist" in the current American Liberal Belief System in other words.
I do not intend it to be an insulting word, but an aptly descriptive term, but it describes for me those who are unable and unwilling to bridge the gap of understanding between their beliefs, and any other set of beliefs.
For example, I would not classify you (now, anyway [:)] ) as a "lefty", although you generally espouse beliefs that fit in well in that area.
"Lefties" are the Sturmtruppen of the American Liberal Church. [:)]
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
In other words, since the "liberal" moral sense differs from the "Christian" moral sense, the goal is to defeat the political by marginalizing the religious, simply because the morality is based on a particular organized religion (Christianity).
....the reverse is also true. The highly contentious arena of abortion is a good example of this. Using the labels you have applied, 'liberals' tend to think that (within limits) the woman has a right to choose. 'Chrisitans' think that there is a moral or ethical over-ride of that choice. The current political compromise allows those who think there ought to be a choice to have a choice but (and i can't stress this highly enough) no-one is forced to have an abortion. It's not compulsory.
I find nothing in this paragraph with which to disagree. I believe I used the abortion issue, however, to make that point that neither side believes themselves to be "the devil" in that particularly situation. It's just that there are differing valid viewpoints about where the weight of "goodness" should fall.
Either side which demonizes or de-humanizes the other is guilty of the worst in ideological thinking.
However, it is just as valid for the pro-life side to lobby to get their opinion made into law, as it was for the pro-abortion side to get their opinion made into law.
IF we were engaging in an actual debate on the abortion issue (rather than using it as an example in a wider discussion), I would agree that "no-one is forced to have an abortion. It's not compulsory.", but highlight the inverse from the pro-life point of view: Every voluntary abortion is the murder of an innocent who has no say in the matter.
If you accept (which Christian's generally do) that life starts at conception, then "voluntary abortion" is "voluntary murder".
You do not have to agree with the position, to understand it, I think.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
It's a very socially destructive ad hominem attack.
......if you take an action of mine personally when i didn't intend it to be, is that an ad hominem attack?
My point is that trying to win the political argument by engaging in "character assassination" of a strong and widely-held belief system is dangerous. When you marginalize those groups and people who hold Christian beliefs, and a morality based on those beliefs, the blow-back for society will not be good.
The term "culture war" is widely used here. Currently, it is rarely an actual "blood and guts, shooting war", but once you alienate a large portion of your culture from the mainstream and your political access to power, you have a recipe for violent cultural upheaval.
What is so amazing is it is the very people who claim to be "multi-cultural" and accepting of all beliefs, and claim to believe in the freedom of speech for all are the very people who are attempting to destroy and marginalize all people of a major belief system. They seem to wish to prevent them from speaking or exercising their beliefs, and are the proximate cause of much of the animosity we see in political discussion today in the US.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
A "liberal" finds "acting in concert with one's conscience" a perfectly acceptable answer ... as long as the actions agree with their political agenda. Otherwise, you are a "fundie".
...i'm sure you can find examples of that. However i can easily find examples of the opposite too. Those who firebombed abortion clinics for example.
True. And I do not condone such actions, nor do I believe that the vast majority of Christian condone such actions.
Just as I would assume that - as a reasonable person from the left - that you do not condone making an entire group the guilty party for the actions of a few. (we have our "lefties" as well).
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
Separation of church and state is simply a red herring, and an excuse to carry out the attack.
...here i'm afraid i simply disagree. As i stated earlier, regardless of what country we're talking about i consider a seperation of church and state to be a mark of a civilised country. Those countries where that seperation does not exist are pretty much quintessentially fundamentally religious. This is not to say that those with faith can't hold office. But faith applies, at that level, only to ones own personal actions. To apply the ethics of a particular faith to an entire population seems to me to be wrong.
We do not disagree with the separation of church and state. I believe it is a requirement for "modern" nation and culture.
However, it seems I have not made clear: ones conscience and morality are based (or should be based) on their belief system. Christianity is a major belief system which espouses a particular moral code. Denying elected officials from using their Christian-based moral code is no different than a Christian denying a "liberal" the right to use their moral judgments in determining which laws to support.
It's hypocritical for either side.
However, most Christians are willing to listen to an official who operates on a "liberal" based moral code (otherwise, we wouldn't be to the point that we are). Many "liberals" (and all "lefties") totally deny any validity to a Christian point of view.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I'm afraid.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
Once again, i hope you take this reply in the spirit in which it was intended.....in the immortal words of the great Irish comedian Dave Allen, "may your God go with you".....
Not a problem. Good discussions are always welcome.
Firm
|
|
|
|
