Lighten up, Francis (koran burning content.)

The definition of words change/morph over time.

100 years ago to be a true Libertarian meant to be strongly pro-Anarchy, not the general "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" that most take it to mean today.

So leave the semantics out of it.

Jensenman wrote: Hmmm. Atheist with conservative small government leanings... man I must be a real rare bird.

As I said before i see a lot more agnostics there than atheists... but it likely depends how one defines one's self in those terms.

It's possible that what I perceive as a small government agnostic is actually a small government atheist... but not generally overtly anti-religious.

Jensenman wrote: Hmmm. Atheist with conservative small government leanings... man I must be a real rare bird.

There is the understatement of the year there boys.

Back you your regularly scheduled scrap.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

Good article on the history and origins of fascism as a political and economic movement.

I stand corrected (at least partially). This survey shows that the majority of "nones" (which would include both atheists and agnostics) declare themselves to be "independent". But nearly 3 times as many claim to be Dems as GOP.

Altogether an interesting chart.

Bill

z31maniac wrote: The definition of words change/morph over time. 100 years ago to be a true Libertarian meant to be strongly pro-Anarchy, not the general "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" that most take it to mean today. So leave the semantics out of it.

and facism used to describe a highly planned economic philosophy.

@ignorant and z31maniac The let's do it another way

Let's draw a line from liberty/capitalism to tyranny/socialism.

I am at the liberty/capitalism end.

You are not. ;-)

And the folks at the other end don't tend to like each other very much, but they are all at the other end together.

Wrong again, you desire tonpaint atheist into a certain corner has failed you yet again.

I can't speak for Iggy, but I am pro capitalism and against unnecesary regulation. I am a product of hard work and "moving up in the system" so to think I'm some "cause" loving leftist shows YOUR own inability to get past preconceived notions.

wcelliot wrote:

96DXCivic wrote: Yes there have been laws pasted by the left that restrict personal freedom but in general the people that are most willing to take away personal freedom are people that are religious in nature.This is solely based on personal observations and I was responding on a personal level not making wild statements about whole parties. Also "fascist" is generally considered to be on the far right. I think the word you were looking for is socialist.

The irony of your statement is wonderful. You admit that the left has actually been passing laws that take away personal freedom, but claim the right is more willing to. Not quite sure how you look at the data and arrive at that conclusion. ;-) No, fascism and socialism are both far left... philosophically and functionally more similar than dissimilar and the only real distinction bewteen them has been when they fight each other... and they are fighting for the same philosophical ground. Only the left (and those indoctrinated by the left) considers fascism to be at the opposite extreme... it gives them a straw man to fight against. Individual liberty/capitalism is at the other extreme from both.

Ok first of all I never said that the left wasn't willing to take away personal freedom. I believe both parties are more then willing to take away personal liberties.

Edit: I didn't finish that post before I pushed the add post button. Just because one party is wrong does not make the other one right. I was saying that in my experience atheist are less willing to take away personal freedoms then religious people. This is solely my personal experience. Also I know plenty of atheist who are republicans and plenty of christians who are democrats. Fascism does take ideas from both the left and the right however modern political scientist consider it to be on the far right.

wcelliot wrote: @ignorant and z31maniac The let's do it another way Let's draw a line from liberty/capitalism to tyranny/socialism. I am at the liberty/capitalism end. You are not. ;-) And the folks at the other end don't tend to like each other very much, but they are all at the other end together.

And this attitude is why I don't know who the berkeley I am going to vote in the next election.

wcelliot wrote: Lots of interesting discussions about atheists over the weekend. My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules. Just because they don't believe doesn't mean they've overcome the basic human nature to try and control others. Add to that their often arrogant opinion of their own intelligence and you end up with trouble. (This is a generalization... some atheists adhere to the principles of individual liberty and capitalism... but really I find more of them to be agnostics than "practicing" atheists) In religion, if something is bad, it's a sin. To too many atheists, if something is bad, it should be illegal (or heavily regulated).

I beg your pardon, sir! Atheists wishing for such things? Government regulation of homosexual marriage? Government regulation of the ladies' decisions about birth control? Government regulation of what shall be taught in a high school biology class? Government regulation of what day alcohol "should not be sold"? Sorry, dude..but I really have to disagree with you on these points.

wcelliot wrote: Dictators throughout history have either wanted to control the Church or displace it for this very reason.

I don't mean to be rude, but I ask you to consider the example of the medieval period in Europe, when "the Church" was actually the dictatorship.

Of course, you are correct about some of the early-to-mid 20th century dictators attempting to displace "the Church". Unfortunately, the behavior of those dictators appears on the surface to give evidence that the lies about Stalin, or Pol Pot, or whomever else attempted to gain personal power within their society by commiting their crimes "for the sake of atheism" might actually be "true".

All they wanted is power. Their public declaration (unfortunately, for those of us who live quite well without belief in gods) of atheism was not "for the sake of atheism", but an attempt to remove "the Church" as a competitior.

wcelliot wrote: Outside of a theoracy, I'm allowed to ignore your idea of "bad" until it becomes illegal... and that's why generally atheists are a more intrusive "religion" than the religion they so despise (most often for being intrusive). Your average US college campus (most typically run unopposed by atheists) is a much more intolerant (of alternative opinions), fascist place than the Vatican... and that's saying something.

I'm interested in the reasons why you say such a thing. And after spending some time over in my atheist forums debunking "creationist" nonsense again, I can't help but wonder what on Earth you mean by "alternative opinions".

Apologies in advance for being so suspicious..

SVreX wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote:

SVreX wrote: Freedom of speech is not defined by the desire of the recipient to hear the particular speech. It is defined by the speaker's desire to express it.

Agreed. No one has the "right" to not be offended. After all, it is the speech we disagree with the most that needs the most "protection".

So then, we are in agreement. The Constitution protects religious speech (which includes book burning, although I may not think it is a good idea).

Oh, agreed..but please remember that the right doesn't just include Pastor Jones' intent to burn a Qu'ran..but also my own temptation to burn a Christian bible.

I'm being facetious here. I'm not intending to burn any book. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still hope that allowing people to actually read something that I personally consider incorrect/hateful/offensive will allow other people to reconsider their own presupposed notions, and find an escape from them.

Apologies to everyone for not lying to everyone about my lack of belief in gods. Perhaps I'll just go eat boiled kittens, kill my enemies in cold blood, or cheat on my SWMBO, or whatever else (where's the "rolling eyes" icon?) the theists who don't understand what atheism actually is claim I will do without theism?

wcelliot wrote: @ignorant and z31maniac The let's do it another way Let's draw a line from liberty/capitalism to tyranny/socialism. I am at the liberty/capitalism end. You are not. ;-)

que?

why is capitalism the opposite of socialism? You guys like making up definitions.

friedgreencorrado wrote: Perhaps I'll just go eat boiled kittens, kill my enemies in cold blood, or cheat on my SWMBO, or whatever else (where's the "rolling eyes" icon?) the theists who don't understand what atheism actually *is* claim I will do without theism?

Now we are talkin'.

I am getting out my bone saw. I'll be right over!

friedgreencorrado wrote: Oh, agreed..but please remember that the right doesn't just include Pastor Jones' intent to burn a Qu'ran..but also my own temptation to burn a Christian bible.

I understand that.

friedgreencorrado wrote: I'm being facetious here. I'm not intending to burn *any* book. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still hope that allowing people to actually *read* something that I personally consider incorrect/hateful/offensive will allow other people to reconsider their own presupposed notions, and find an escape from them.

Burning books, in the modern age with printing presses, libraries, internet, etc., has NOTHING to do with eliminating distasteful reading material. It is a protest. Pure and simple. I defend this Pastor's right to protest (or the Imam in NY, or whoever).

Now, when Uthman ibn 'Affan did it in 650 AD, his goal was to eliminate ALL copies of the Qur'an except his own, in order to ensure the authenticity of his own. I guess that would make him somehow more important.

BTW- he was the 3rd Caliph of Islam after Muhammad. Oh, those terrible Christians!

friedgreencorrado wrote: Apologies to everyone for not lying to everyone about my lack of belief in gods. Perhaps I'll just go eat boiled kittens, kill my enemies in cold blood, or cheat on my SWMBO, or whatever else (where's the "rolling eyes" icon?) the theists who don't understand what atheism actually *is* claim I will do without theism?

This is so bizarrely idiotic that it certainly does not warrant a response. Nobody claimed you would do anything without theism.

I'm trying to take you seriously. You are making it difficult with posts like this.

Don't feel bad. There's a lot of idiocy (from varying perspectives) in this thread.

SVreX wrote: BTW- he was the 3rd Caliph of Islam after Muhammad. Oh, those terrible Christians!

What are you implying? That reads like "Muslims did bad things back then too, just like Christians did".

If that is the case then I will agree. Both were terrible, heinous manifestations of man's attempts to subjugate each other. Both responsible for misery on a scale that went unequaled until the 19th century brought mechanized war to the masses.

I wasn't implying anything. Just figured most posters here wouldn't know who he was, or that the FL pastor wasn't the only one who ever tried to burn a book.

This thread is the worst one that has EVER existed on GRM.

I'm not even sure I know who I AM anymore.

I have previously admired this community for the level of respect that they can bring to discussions of hot topics.

Not here.

This is as bad as any other internet drivell. You guys should be ashamed. I am. I apologize for my contribution to it.

SVreX wrote: This thread is the worst one that has EVER existed on GRM. I'm not even sure I know who I AM anymore. I have previously admired this community for the level of respect that they can bring to discussions of hot topics. Not here. This is as bad as any other internet drivell. You guys should be ashamed. I am. I apologize for my contribution to it.

LOL! You should know by now that any honest attempt at meaningful debate regarding religion, politics or any mix of same on the internet will result in epic floundering.

Embrace the flounder.

wcelliot wrote: Let's draw a line from liberty/capitalism to tyranny/socialism.

Let's try this. Draw a line from Freedom for all Americans regardless of religion or sexual orientation to tyranny and governmental control. Or a line from a robust public education system adequately funded so as to make America the greatest nation in the world to private only education which allows only the rich to progress creating an American Caste system. Or more along the lines of what you did above, a line from Liberal/freedom to Conservative/Satanic worship. You can’t just equate Socialism with tyranny just because you say so.

The veneer is pretty thin on these little games designed to pigeonhole one group or another. Don’t fall for that crap. It’s a rouse to make it acceptable for you to demonize people you disagree with. It makes it appear as if they’re not simply fellow Americans who have a different point of view, but actually a dangerous threat to the future of our nation. Both sides play this game. Bush was Hitler. Obama is Hitler. Damn, we sure do elect a lot of Hitlers. It’s a load of BS and its being used to try to pit American against American for the gain of some talking heads on television.

Besides, it makes you sound kinda kooky. You’re doing just what us Catholics want you to do. Hey, when private education is the only option, we’re in good shape. We’ve been building good schools for a long time. That’s part of our secret plan for world domination. Draw a line with liberals on one end and Catholics on the other. Which side are you on?

How about we draw a line between kooky nutjobs under 5' tall who wear toupes and militant Israeli women living in Uzbekistan with cats?

AARRGH!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You can’t just equate Socialism with tyranny just because you say so.

Actually I can.

Capitalism is the natural state of affairs in economics. It requires no Government regulations to work (though it does require some basic Government protections against fraud, etc to work well) and participation is purely optional.

Since it requires the least amount of Government to work, that aligns it with the political philosophy of natural/individual rights, which also require no Government to work (and the least amount of Government to work well).

Now at the other end, socialism requires activist Government involvement to work. Otherwise it "degrades" to the natural economic state of capitalism (also known as the black market in socialist systems). So the Government necessarily must have the power to force people to participate and to control the economy.

The further you go down the line (Communism and Fascism are the two of most extreme forms of socialist econonomies) the more powerful the Government has to be. (The further towards "pure socialism" that you move, the stronger the motivation for a black market. A "pure" socialist economy could not tolerate a black market, so must use the power of Government to stop it... you get the idea.)

For every step you take from "pure" capitalism to "pure" socialism (and government standards, regulations, taxes, etc, are all steps in that direction) you necessarily take away individual rights and give the Government more power. The fact that some socialist-leaning counties are very satisifed with this trade-off and willingly enter into the deal does not change the formula, but it does show that moderate socialism is not incompatible with democracy and that there can be balances acceptable to the population on the socialist/tyranny side of scale.

So what we're really arguing here is where we would prefer to be on this scale. There are valid arguments on both sides.

Political power here (unlike economics) is a zero sum gain... you can never increase both Government power and individual rights overall... one must necessaily take from the other.

(You can increase government power and grant certain individual additional rights, but in doing so you are taking away individual rights from others... not always a bad thing but still a zero sum gain)

I'm sorry that so many people are taking personal offense at this thread (and I've already accepted self correction by data on my basic premise of the majority of atheist also being leftist), but the laws of economics are pretty much a constant as are the competing philosophies of individual rights versus collective rights.

It's when you try to discuss these issues using specific terminiologies that tempers tend to flare... both sides have appropriated terms to "market" their politics/economies, but that doesn't change the underlying philosophical basis of the politics/economy.

Mainstream political scientists are pretty consistently hard left, so their "official" terminology tends to reflect those leanings. (PS is one of my degrees, so I've spent a lot of time with these folks.)

While I'm pretty hard over on individual rights versus Government power and capitalism versus socialism (which necessarily exist at each end of the economic scale... how could it be otherwise?), I readily admit that the extreme capitalism end of the scale I proposed would not be a nice place to live. Anarchy would rule. There are very necessary (but limited) functions of Government to have a stable civilization and a stable economy.

Our Founding Fathers also understood this, but wanted to grant the most intrusive functions of Government to the states so that they would have more accountability to the people. And they wanted to strictly limit the relatively unaccountable Federal government to very specific powers which the states were ill-equipped to handle. And they left in place an Amendment process to grant the federal Government additional powers as deemed necessary for unforeseen future cirmcumstances.

I happen to think they got it about right on the scale. YMMV.

And I strongly reccomend that you read the link I posted on the history and philosophy of fascism... it's a well written perspective you're not going to hear from "mainstream" political science and may also be of help in wondering why capitalists (whom the left has done a good job of equating with fascism) would dare to accuse leftists of being fascists.

I'll sign off this thread now because we're beating like the third dead horse in a row here. I really don't care what your personal political or economic opinions are, I just wanted to help you recognize where the various ones sit in political and economic philosophy despite the commonly held definitions of the terms used to describe them.

Bill

LOL! You should know by now that any honest attempt at meaningful debate regarding religion, politics or any mix of same on the internet will result in epic floundering. Embrace the flounder.

tr00f. WTF was I thinking? Sorry dudes.

wcelliot wrote: Our Founding Fathers also understood this, but wanted to grant the most intrusive functions of Government to the states so that they would have more accountability to the people. And they wanted to strictly limit the relatively unaccountable Federal government to very specific powers which the states were ill-equipped to handle. And they left in place an Amendment process to grant the federal Government additional powers as deemed necessary for unforeseen future cirmcumstances. I happen to think they got it about right on the scale. YMMV.

Re: The bolded-section............

This just about covers everything that is relevant to debates about the expansion of federal powers and state's rights.

Some will use the straw-man argument of employing the "General Welfare" clause to support Federal actions, but that puts the states into an ever-increasing subservient role to the feds - something that was never intended to happen unless the intentionally long and painful amendment process was employed.