a question for the atheists

[Gipper]

Well, let's try this again!
I started answering (reluctantly, as I know you will only take my answer as another way to spin my words and to prolong a discussion that you will NEVER open your mind to and reflect on) and I got interrupted by an oversea skype phone call and I lost it all. . .so I guess I'll try it again. . .although I know it will be a waste of my time!

- Abortion is okay: Not always. The current abortion laws, however are very fair, and I DO BELIEVE that women's choice is primordial.

- Income redistribution is okay: NO. . .the redistribution of income that has been going on for the last 30 years is NOT okay, as it has INCREASED the gap between the "poor and middle class and the wealthy." I do not believe this is sustainable (or moral, or good for our economy) and that trend needs to be stopped. To stop that trend, and to SHRINK the gap in wealth between the middle class and the wealthy, we need to have government assistance (through taxes that are progressive instead of regressive) for the wealthiest among us.

- Gun control is okay. Obviously it is okay, not only okay, but NECESSARY! And, by the way, SOME gun control laws have been in place at least until 1993 (Brady), without the Constitution having been voided! But I think those gun control laws have to be rethought, and reworked, and made more stringent and more efficient. I do NOT believe that our forefather EVER planned on EVER giving the right to any dummies or gun lovers in this country to free access to 20th, 21st or . . .(God forbid) 22nd century killing machines. . and if we don't do something about it, that's exactly what's going to happen! Face it, when people can turn in not one but TWO ROCKET LAUNCHERS in exchange for "credit cards," it is obvious that this "right to bear arms" has gone terribly wrong! And if you think that your semi-automatic and your high capacity mags will keep you safe from the mini probes, chemical carrying cartridge, and mini nuclear head weapons that are on their way. . .I feel sorry for you!

- The Constitution should be flexible to meet the time: DUH! Obviously! That is, if the Constitution is to remain meaningful over this century, and the next, and the next. . .it HAS to be a LIVING document! In fact, if you just look at my signature, you will see that THAT was the REAL intent of the founders. NO ONE with half a mind believes that we can be govern today on the LITERAL words of the Constitution. . .and our forefathers were no dummies. . . they were visionaries, and they already knew that in 1776, and they did everything they could to allow the Constitution to REMAIN A LIVING DOCUMENT.

- The welfare state is okay. Duh. . obviously it is okay! What else would you want? As a "wealthy country," a "developed" country, I bet you wouldn't like it if about 20 to 25% of our population lived under a bridge and saw their children die in infancy! The welfare state is even more necessary when the income gap is INCREASING. . .and the welfare state will become LESS necessary if we succeed in stopping, then shrinking the income/wealth gap! So. . .if you don't like the "welfare state," why don't you work in REDUCING THE NEED for a welfare state. OR. . .the other solution is to just accept that your home may become surrounded with children begging to get a few pennies from you to buy a loaf of bread! Or elderly people walking the street in their nightgowns and dying on a bench near a playground, where your children or grandchildren go to play. . .you may want to get rid of the "welfare state," but I hope you will include the "Corporate welfare!

- Liberalism/Socialism works: Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Liberalism," and if you insist in mislabeling "Socialism" with "Communism," we just can't find a way to discuss this logically! However, I am willing to give you what I see as a HEALTHY form of Socialism. . . Socialist democracy (or Democratic socialism, as some name, or even better "responsible social capitalism") Yes, I believe it works. In fact, it has been working for over 50 years in Europe and, although Europe is without a doubt experiencing growing pains (partially due to the huge recession provoked by our "run away capitalism" and the policies of GW Bush), they are STILL doing better than we are. . .and yet, they have had all those "programs" that you fear so much ("untitlement programs" and universal health care, child benefits, low cost higher education, labor laws, unions, MUCH lower income gap between the wealthy and the middle class, shorter work hours, better infrastructure, and higher taxes, including inheritance taxes) for a very long time! Still, in spite of their difficulties in coming together as an UNION, they are ahead of us in terms of just about everything, including GDP, and the value of the Euro, and life expectancy, lower crime rate, and quality of life. So. . .obviously I believe it works! Maybe if you had the chance of LIVING in one of those country, you may have a better idea of the reality of this!

-W was the worse president. . .Are you talking about GW Bush? Well, I don't know if he was THE WORST, but he sure was bad enough! But I don't think it was all his fault, I believe he may even be a pretty nice guy, just not very smart, and very easily manipulated by his evil vice president, Cheney. But I do credit him (or at least his weakness to resist Cheney's push) for the horrible Iraq war, the unecessary and very damaging Bush tax cuts which were Very progressive and benefited the wealthy a lot more than the middle class, and for just giving in to the lobbyists and handing our nation to Wall Street. Whether that makes him the worst President ever. . .I don't know, as I haven't studied the Presidency of all our presidents. . .but it sure makes him the worse of the last 4 or 5 Presidents!

-Obama is a good President: ABSOLUTELY! He has been handed down a terrible deal, and in addition he has NEVER been given a chance by the right (and the racists, which is not necessarely the same, but certainly has some cross over). And yet, President Obama has managed to pull this country, slowly but steadily, out of the total MESS left by Bush. . .in spite of all the hatred he has had to face, in spite of the stated goal (first priority) of the GOP to "make him fail, and make him a one term President), and. . .HE WON HIS SECOND TERM by a very convincing edge, both in popular and in electoral votes. And with all that, he has been able to accomplish a LOT of his original agenda, and has moved this country forward into the 21st century. . .not bad for a "Kenyan, Muslim, AntiChrist, puppet!" And with all that, he manages to STAY HUMAN and have a heart and a social conscience! Kudos for President Obama. I don't know if he will be known as one of the best President (only time will tell,) but he sure will be known as the FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SERVED TWO TERMS! I love it!

- Our debt is not a major problem: Our debt is a problem. . .a major one. . .I'm not convinced of it! After all, although our debts is higher than those "socialist countries" in Europe (85% of GDP versus 103% of GDP), our debt is MUCH lower than Japan has been in years (230% of GDP). . .and we are still getting VERY advantageous credit rates from just about all over the world. . .so that may mean that WE (or rather the GOP . . .who by the way never bothered to look at our debt in the past. . .even when GW BUSH BORROWED all the money for his ridiculous war in Iraq from China) seem to be a lot more worried about it than the rest of the world! In fact, it seems that it is OUR WORRY about the debt, and the silly politics being played around it that worries the world the most! If we did get off the cliff, it would have pretty much crashed the world economy. . .and if we renege on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling. . .that is what will conclude our demise in the financial world!
I do believe we need to work in REDUCING the trend of increasing our debt . . .but we have been doing that in the last 3 years at least. . .and, no matter what, we will not get rid of our deficit in 5 or even 10 years. . .and we don't need to! In fact, what we need to do is stop the INCREASE in spending. . .and assure that we keep getting low interest rate to repay our debt. . .because, face it, sometime it is a LOT BETTER (actually, some investor are working on that philosophy) to BORROW money at a low rate and then use it to make profits (like investing in infrastructure, which would boost our economic growth, lower unemployment, and bring our country back from behind in this area) then to use our cash which can be "more costly" than the interest rate we are currently paying to other nations.

You essentially confirm that you believe the statements I made about the left. Yet your initial responses to my post were these two:

Openmind 1
And I would say that anyone who takes this list of ridiculous "criteria" seriously. . .can't be too smart!
But, you have the right to your opinion as I have mine!

Openmind2
You are wrong in EVERYONE of your statements. You are just using circular thinking and bad faith,so, since one can't argue with bad faith ( notice, I didn't say what I really wanted to say, because I didn't want to insult you. . . ) I let you play your games with your bright, like minded friends!

Why did you choose to deny that you believe the statements and then later confirm that you do?

 

[Openmind]

You essentially confirm that you believe the statements I made about the left. Yet your initial responses to my post were these two:




Why did you choose to deny that you believe the statements and then later confirm that you do?

Just look at your first statements, and then look at my responses.

Then crawl back in the dark hole that is your created by your fixation on negativity and hatred of what you consider as "liberal."

You may be the most negative person I have ever encountered in a forum, one of the most obsessive, also.

You insisted in getting my answers, badgering me because I had no interest in satisfying what I thought was your dishonest curiosity (dishonest, because I already had answered all those questions, one by one, at different times in this forum, as Posted on different subjects), but you were not interested at all in my answers, not even in debating or reacting to the content of my answer. . .

ALL you were interested in, in your sick obsession, was to try to prove that I had lied!

And even though I never lie (why should I, I am comfortable, proud even of my positions on all these issues), you, once again, twist what I say to fit your sick obsession!

Get off my back. . .the hole you have been sliding in since you lost the election is taking too much of your reasoning capability, and I am not in this forum in the capacity of a social worker or a mental health professional, therefore I have no interest in reading your rants or helping you reach back to life.

You are non-existant to me at this point.

 

[TheJPRD]

You essentially confirm that you believe the statements I made about the left. Yet your initial responses to my post were these two: Why did you choose to deny that you believe the statements and then later confirm that you do?

It's a shame that we Conservartives are so "sick" and "obsessed", and "sliding" in holes" all the time isn't it? I suppose if it wasn't for all those sleazy, personal characteristics we're told we posses, liberals might accept the truth when they hear it from us?? Nah, probably not.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your unhappiness with the Supreme Court isn't for the same reason as my unhappiness nor Jefferson's unhappiness with it. ....

Right. As I said before: Compromise can be defined as everyone being equally unhappy.

I'm surprised that you consider many liberals to be "realists". For the 10 years when I was a liberal (1969-1979), I was very much an "idealist". I saw things like racism, poverty, etc. as unacceptable, and I went out and tried to change things by word and deed. I became a Conservative in 1979, and the change was due to life-experience and education. On becoming a Conservative, I remained an "idealist", and I remain one to this day.

Yes, I and many of my liberal friends had the same concerns about poverty, racism, etc. I don't consider that as being idealism in the way that I was referring to earlier. What you are now referring to is more like actively righting social wrongs. The idealism I was referring to was the strict constitutionalism.

I know that our nation's greatest problem these days is a lack of good-character in many of our citizens, leading to crime, immorality, and a culture of dependance. As a lifelong idealist, I am now doing what little I can do in words and deeds to correct the mistakes of the past 40 years that have so weakened our Republic. If "realism" means accepting the corruption of our Republic by those who'd destroy it through ignorance or purposeful intent, then I thank God I'm an idealistic Conservative.

Yes, we talked about good character before, where I was much more comfortable with Taoism than Christianity. Of course, that dialog never went further.

And if Amendments cannot get the necessary support to pass them, then Justices shouldn't pass them via Activism? If that's what you mean we are sympatico. Certainly the Executive and the Legislative will always try to exert powers they don't Constitutionally possess. Hence the need for a concrete Constitution, not a fluid one, and a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who rule solely on the basis of "Original Intent". You're correct that both the left and the right will be unhappy with some rulings made by such a Court. However, both sides will understand WHY the Court made the ruling it did, and the reason won't be politics!

The last amendment was ratified 21 years ago. The one previous to that was 42 years ago. That is not very fluid in keeping up with the exponential social, and economic changes. Obviously I am not squeamish about pushing faster than the sluggish pace of constitutional amendments. That is one aspect of what I refer to as realism.

 

[TheJPRD]

Right. As I said before: Compromise can be defined as everyone being equally unhappy.

If you're suggesting that "compromise" on our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and upon governmental limitations is luadable, I strongly disagree. I doubt you'd take that position if the Court was comprised of 9 Constitutional Conservatives?

Yes, I and many of my liberal friends had the same concerns about poverty, racism, etc. I don't consider that as being idealism in the way that I was referring to earlier. What you are now referring to is more like actively righting social wrongs. The idealism I was referring to was the strict constitutionalism.

Idealism and Realism can go hand-in-hand. I believe they do in my political philosophy. One begins with Idealistic goals and obejctives. One then must Realistically assess whether those goals and objectives can be obtained in some manner, and determine the ways and means by which to achieve each. I suspect that my definition of "social wrongs" is far more comprehensive than your's. I see "dependance" as a "social wrong", a detriment to good-character in our citizenry, and a destructive force upon every human being. I see "moral-equivalency" as a "social wrong", a destructive means by which citizens justify virtually any behavior that pleases them, usually to the detriment of others. I see "Judicial Activism" as a "social wrong", for it's a statement that "truth is anything that our Leaders tell us it is". I see most "abortions" as "social wrongs", for the practice diminishes the value of individual life, and justifies "personal convenience" as a legitimate reason for taking lives. "Strict Constitutionalism" would have prevented many of the social abuses I listed here. Instead, using one example only, we encountered a Court that ruled that our stated National principle, the God-given Right to Life, doesn't apply to unborn children! Diminishing the value of one life, diminishes the value of ALL life.

Yes, we talked about good character before, where I was much more comfortable with Taoism than Christianity. Of course, that dialog never went further.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that there are several "religions" other than Judaism and Christianity in which I've found kernels of truth that I've adopted as part of my overall philosophy. I'm inclined to look at individual, religious and philosophical beliefs, and reject or adopt them on the basis of "merit".

The last amendment was ratified 21 years ago. The one previous to that was 42 years ago. That is not very fluid in keeping up with the exponential social, and economic changes. Obviously I am not squeamish about pushing faster than the sluggish pace of constitutional amendments. That is one aspect of what I refer to as realism.

IF "fluidity" is your suggested means of hastening the Amendment process, we've once again hit a philosophical roadblock. I'm unwilling to embrace the possibility of a leftwing Judge making "fluid" rulings! I suspect you'd be uncomfortable with a Judge holding My political beliefs making "fluid" rulings on the Court? "Luck" should never be the basis of determining individual Rights and governmental limitations of power!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Founding Fathers wanted Slavery...so I guess we should all as well.

Founding Fathers where Free Masons...so I guess the US should Follow Free mason Law!

I also have to say I love when people say the Founding Fathers Belived....when the fact is the best you could say on most is, some of them did...as oddly there was lots of disagreement with them. But just pick the one who said something you like, grab some lube and have some keep repeating it like its the word of God. It gets rid of the whole having to think for yourlself...Just say a dead guy said it, and belives what you want him to...and you don't need to do any work

 

[cashmcall]

The Founding Fathers wanted Slavery...so I guess we should all as well.

Founding Fathers where Free Masons...so I guess the US should Follow Free mason Law!

I also have to say I love when people say the Founding Fathers Belived....when the fact is the best you could say on most is, some of them did...as oddly there was lots of disagreement with them. But just pick the one who said something you like, grab some lube and have some keep repeating it like its the word of God. It gets rid of the whole having to think for yourlself...Just say a dead guy said it, and belives what you want him to...and you don't need to do any work

And did you work real hard to come up with this GEM of a post?

 

[TheJPRD]

The Founding Fathers wanted Slavery...so I guess we should all as well.

Please read the post at https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/a-question-for-the-atheists.16314/page-12#post-206983. You'll see that your comments are irrelevant to the debate of this subject. Of course the founders disagreed on various aspects of the Constitution when it's creation was in process. Such disagreement was encouraged in order to determine its best and final form. The relevant potion of the post linked above is: "We Conservatives here have taken the exact position that Washington himself expressed in both of his above quotes! We Conservatives have never argued that the Constitution is “perfect”. We have argued, and rightfully so, that when any part of our Constitution is determined to be “imperfect”, the change MUST be implemented legally via the Amendment process. If you recall your history, you know that slavery was Constitutional at the time it was adopted. Future generations didn't appoint a Justice who RULED that slavery was un-Constitutional. We fought a Civil War, and in accordance with our Constitutional law, we then AMENDED the Constitution to prohibit slavery!" Disagreements among the founders became moot upon adoption of our Constitution. Understand now?

Founding Fathers where Free Masons...so I guess the US should Follow Free mason Law!

WHAT? Please provide examples of "Free-Mason Law" that were included within the Constitution. IF you can find any, explain WHY the inclusion was a bad idea!

I also have to say I love when people say the Founding Fathers Belived....when the fact is the best you could say on most is, some of them did...as oddly there was lots of disagreement with them. But just pick the one

I love it when people discard ALL of those beliefs in attempt to discredit the Constitution simply because disagreements occurred during its writing. Once the final form of the Constitution was approved, earlier disagreements among the founders become moot.

who said something you like, grab some lube and have some keep repeating it like its the word of God. It gets rid of the whole having to think for yourlself...Just say a dead guy said it, and belives what you want him to...and you don't need to do any work

Your position seems to be that because the founders disagreed on some things, the Constitution they approved should be ignored?? IF you think that another source should be used for our Nation's laws, please tell us WHAT that source is, and justify WHY you believe so!

 

[Gipper]

The Founding Fathers wanted Slavery...so I guess we should all as well.

Founding Fathers where Free Masons...so I guess the US should Follow Free mason Law!

I also have to say I love when people say the Founding Fathers Belived....when the fact is the best you could say on most is, some of them did...as oddly there was lots of disagreement with them. But just pick the one who said something you like, grab some lube and have some keep repeating it like its the word of God. It gets rid of the whole having to think for yourlself...Just say a dead guy said it, and belives what you want him to...and you don't need to do any work

Denigrate the Founders, but venerate liberalism. You must have learned that in the p-schools....or should I say you were indoctrinated.

Oh my my...how the world has turned upside down....

 

[cashmcall]

Was Confucius a conservative?I think he was! The following saying would seem to reflect good conservative caution: "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved."

 

[Lagboltz]

Was Confucius a conservative?I think he was! The following saying would seem to reflect good conservative caution: "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved."

Seems to be more caution than conservative. To me conservatism is clinging to the past, and to the authorities of the past and the status quo. Yeah, I think both parties should take heed of Confucius.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Let's not forget the generous treatment of the native Americans following their help to your ancestors

Oh and then there are the Salem witch trials

Slavery

The KKK

Oh and yes, until only a few years ago some good old fashioned apartheid

Institutional racism

Capital punishment Murdering hundreds of innocent people ( but mostly black so it doesn't matter)

Macarthyism

Etc

Yes I can see why the US needs small government and the retention of conservative values

Like the ones above

 

[cashmcall]

Seems to be more caution than conservative. To me conservatism is clinging to the past, and to the authorities of the past and the status quo. Yeah, I think both parties should take heed of Confucius.

Not all conservatives cling to the past..

Ronald Reagan famously observed that the status quo is Latin for “the mess we’re in.” So much for the Liberal claim that conservatives are simply defenders of the status quo. ​

I'm ​

not sure we have had a real Conservative sense..​

​

​

 

[cashmcall]

Seems to be more caution than conservative. To me conservatism is clinging to the past, and to the authorities of the past and the status quo. Yeah, I think both parties should take heed of Confucius.

Not all conservatives cling to the past..Ronald Reagan famously observed that the stas quo is Latin for "the mess we'er in"..So much for the claim that Conservatives are simply the defenders of the stas quo..I'm not sure we have had a real conservative sense...

 

[Lagboltz]

Not all conservatives cling to the past..Ronald Reagan famously observed that the stas quo is Latin for "the mess we'er in"..So much for the claim that Conservatives are simply the defenders of the stas quo..I'm not sure we have had a real conservative sense...

OK, let's try this: All conservatives want small government, don't believe in global warming, and are Christians. I would accept that Confucius believed the first two, but I sure he wasn't aware of the third.