philosophy
Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
|
...lots of quotations here.....if i screw up the html please bear with me.......
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
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.
...thanks for that. When i first started posting here i had a tendency to lose my temper. Something i try to work on. i actually did lose my temper a bit with Alumbrado the other day, but there i'd claim extreme provocation....lol
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
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).
{on lefties}
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.
"Lefties" are the Sturmtruppen of the American Liberal Church. 
.......i howled with laughter at that last line........as it happens, in my youth i was banned from my local chapter of the Labour Party young Socialists for laughing, so i do recognise the group to which you refer. i would only note that your use of the term 'lefties' (while i do understand how you use it) doesn't make a distinction between those sturmtruppen and more reasonable left-leaning types......a minor semantic criticism, no more.
quote:
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.
.....a very important point. Despite the stormtroopers on both sides, these debates are mostly between well meaning people who simply differ on how best to serve the greater good.
quote:
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.
.......this is a much more tricky point. i think we can both agree that the current state of play, at least in the US, is a compromise between the two possible extremes ie abortion on demand and a carpet ban on it. i think we have to posit a third side to the debate.....those who support a limited legalisation of abortion.
quote:
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.
...absolutely, i do see where that position comes from. However, in an unweighted scale it is one of the extremes. What we have now is nearer the middle ground than either of those extremes. If abortion is utterly banned, then one extreme position wins. If abortion on demand comes into law, the opposite extreme wins. Either way, one of two mutually exclusive ideologies ends up dictating how everyone has to act within the law. i'm uncomfortable with either side winning. To those who want abortion on demand i'd say 'you have to live with the idea that society as a whole hasn't come to a consensus on this'.......i also have to say the same to those who argue against abortion in its entirety.
{on ad hom attacks}
quote:
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.
..agreed, but ditto for those who continually characterise 'liberal' beliefs in the same way.
quote:
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.
..again, agreed. But once again its sauce for the goose etc.....
quote:
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.
....yup, i've come across those veggie-facists before......they are the counterpart of people like Anne Coulter. Both types of people turn what is properly a tricky ethical debate into a war.
{on church and state}
quote:
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.
....this is an area where my experience differs from yours. Not wholly, i recognise those who deny Christians their voice, but i've come across just as many from the opposite side who try to shut people like me up. i'm going to suggest that if one has a position one notices those who oppose it more than those who support it.
once again.....i enjoy our debates nowadays, hope this finds you and yours well.....
|
RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. - 
Profile
). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread