all I know is somehow, I'm not the one argueing. This is new for me.....I'm not sure I like it.
all I know is somehow, I'm not the one argueing. This is new for me.....I'm not sure I like it.
You could be a teabagging John, ammoral atheist for all I care and I'll vote for you if you run a tight fiscal ship that gets government out of my private life.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
I would have no problem voting for an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist. I don't care about the religious views of politicians as long as they don't mess them up with their politics.
The poor complain; they always do
But thatís just idle chatter
Our system brings reward to all
At least all those who matter.
Whether religious or atheist, I always check the sleeves to make sure that they are bare.
D0GBREATH, DOES THIS INAUGURAL GOWN MAKE MY ASS LOOK BIG?The jokes write themselves!
Fiscal conservatism, low tax policy, frugality, pro-life, strong defense, states rights, etc etc. Most of the things that I see conservatives list off when you ask them what it means to be conservative have nothing to do with religion, besides maybe pro-life, which one can reach that conclusion without any religion.
I think my main argument here is that if you alter what being conservative means into what the religious right has, essentially then requiring the person be religious, then yes, atheism would be very opposed to that view in most or all cases. But the religious right certainly doesn't own conservatism.
Read my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
However anti-religion I am, it doesn't really sway me for/ against someone when it comes to the world of politics.
My father's a minister - yet he's quite logical and reasonable, very solid and has a good sense of values, direction, understands debt, the value or order and law and respects other people's opinions but asserts his own . . . thus, while I feel his beliefs are ridiculous and sometimes akin to brainwashing - these other qualities override the nature of his religious beliefs.
I think it's dangerous to suggest, also, that someone who's atheist might automatically be more worthy of a Presidential-type position.
the only politician who is overtly religious - who disturbs me BECAUSE of this - is Mike Huckabee. He's excessively religious and the majority of his views ALL err on the side of religion in a "WWJD?" type way - which does NOT a good politician make.
So - I did vote "yes" but only because religious-beliefs aren't a factor unless they're excessive.
Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-24-10 at 09:59 AM.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Of course moral absolutism is low on the list for many republicans. The republican party has a wide net and is supported by a variety of groups. The larger and more influential groups under that net are the hard religious right and libertarians. These two groups have separate but common goals including less government intervention in the social as well as the financial. The hard religious right has a social steak in small government they want creationism taught in schools as though it was a legitimate science. Control over sex education and a greater focus on ďtraditional familiesĒ .. no sex before marriage on and on, social intervention on behalf of the religious aspect of the republicans. This is all achievable with weak federal government intervention they donít care so much about the libertarian aspect as long as they can foster growth of their faith. They really shouldnít have common ground with libertarian politics though but they donít have any other way to preserve themselves and roll back the clock on social evolution. Really the religious right and libertarians share the philosophy of self governing individuals. But for entirely deferent reasons.
Fiscal conservatism, low taxation, frugality and decentralization of federal powers are centrist in general even deregulation has been a bi partisan effort but they are libertarian. These policies though have really not served the public well you can see a weaker hand with regards to the center left particularly on deregulation. Ironically many republicans are calling for regulation and government intervention. I find many politicians are not familiar with the political spectrum and republicans and democrats are bouncing around the center unknowingly supporting policies that are actually diametrically opposed to party lines. Again Iíve spent time with very liberal minded people.. who vote for republicans just because that is what everyone else is doing or thatís what dad voted. Itís the same with the right. Most of the time, they really havenít looked into news coverage etc to even know what this party is implementing.
The right and the left can flesh out their political bias using the collectivism vs individualism debate. This philosophical debate is not settled one side cancels out the other, you canít have one without the other. Sometimes what is appropriate at a given time and place is no longer appropriate at another time and place whether it is collectivist or individualist it does not matter what matters is a positive outcome. This is a real tricky balancing act to be on the right side of the argument depending on time and place. The far right is represented in actuality by anarchy. The far left is communism. The religious right is interested in collective morality etc and it is ironic that they support libertarianism which is basically summed up with ďlive and let liveĒ. Libertarianism is also supported by big business that does not want political pressure, regulation, taxes and so on. So you can see that indeed the democratic party is a real centrist party while the republican party is supported by extremes.
I personally think that when 10% of the American population owns 50% of the wealth I see it as individualism gone to far. It is gross and disgusting accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few and lends your nation to oligarchy. With a debt climbing to insane levels your going to be forced someday to pay that deficit down. Taxes are coming regardless of who is in power. The problem for the left is that the money has been spent on foreign wars which beef up weapons manufacturing business and welfaring out wall street and tax cuts for the rich and not on positive collective social programs like healthcare. I do find it ironic that libertarians support military spending.
Libertarians should be socially liberal (live and let live)and they should indeed have major infighting within the republican party when the christians implement social agenda but they donít. So instead of a bastion for individualism they only boost the religious rights social agenda by giving them a political philosophy that enables them to be active in government. As it is libertarians only protect the wealthy and the religious. I have thought in the last couple years libertarianism should be removed from the table as something legitimate in terms of current government policy. The complete failure of the markets due to unregulated banking, the miserable state of privatized healthcare and unregulated big business spilling hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.. thousands of unregulated and unknown chemicals used in the consumer market on and on. Clearly deregulation has not been an unmitigated success, which is a knock out punch to libertarianism from a philosophical perspective. However the right has nothing else to cling to.. I suppose they could start going to them fringe groups in the tent.. and the religious right waving the bible. But libertarianism is quite nearly indefensible in light of recent events.
My definition of what it means to be republican is more then religious but you should realize that this party panders to religion for easy votes and when they win power they throw the religious a few social policy bones meanwhile libertarians are taking over. The fact that libertarianism has recently failed in such massive ways has yet to be realized it seems. But big business and big money can buy ignorance. Democrats are going to have to differentiate themselves in some way, err they should. I donít stand for communism or anarchy. But both ideals have legitimate policy that depending on time and place is more appropriate. For example it maybe that deregulation of the oil industry in deep sea drilling would be appropriate.. after they have shown themselves to be able to deal with potential ecological disasters such as in the gulf. Or maybe the banking industry be allowed to trade derivatives when they show it can be done without destroying the global economy. The dogmatic mentality that no government leads to a utopia is insanity.. look at Somalia no government over there must be a libertarian and religious dream land. . Imagine libertarians hooking up with Islam, theocracy anyone? Libertarians are mostly concerned with the fiscal aspect of government since that the branch that taxes and regulates business. If they can get a government that controls society via religion thatís just fine by them it appears. With the libertarian glass jaw exposed.. dems should go for it.
Essentially it does not matter that religion doesnít ďown conservatismĒ anymore only that it is allowed to operate from within the ranks of libertarianism. These are two unlikely partners and strange bedfellows without a doubt. The enemy of my enemy is my friend should be the republican party motto.
Submit or die.a Muslim
Life is suffering and the only way to overcome suffering is engage in actions which are sure to bring about exponentially more suffering IE abolition of killing any living thing including animals for food and disease spreading insects and rodents.or a Buddhist.
That's like saying that you don't care that a politician still believes in Santa Claus. A persons religious philosophy(especially a person who chooses their own religion) tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the person, for example Obama is a liberation theologian which tells me he is a radical leftist who believes in class warfare, Bush was a member of the evangelical right which tells me that he will be against equal rights for gay people, and promote a greater influence for Christianity in government.I don't care about the religious views of politicians as long as they don't mess them up with their politics.