• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the left becoming more and more authoritarian?

Is the American left becoming more and more authoritarian?


  • Total voters
    74
I've always been a live and let live type. If it doesn't effect me personally I could really care less what someone else does. Example: SSM. Yes according to the Bible it is a sin, but it's something that they have to answer for. My 52 year marriage was not effected in any way by it and I don't have to answer for their sins, they do. Same with abortion. I hate to see it happening but again I don't have to answer for it. If you read and believe the Bible then those that are trying to force someone else to do their bidding are also committing a sin that they will answer for. It's cold here and I'm off to feed the animals.
Just got through de-icing and feeding ours.

It's not wrong to rebuke sin. especially persistent sin. It's wrong to let sin flourish.

What Does the Bible Say About Rebuking?
 
... Take notice Unrepresented, when you reduce someone on DP to a two sentence statement you can rest assured that you've won the debate. Specially if the reply you received amounts to an anemic "nuh-uh" that avoids your point by point analysis of the poster's statements.
As far as I can tell, there wasn't a "debate" to win.:mrgreen:
 
If there's a thug under that hoodie.


Maybe we should ban trench coats while we're at it, eh? Ski masks? Nylon pantyhose? Bandanas? Dopemans or Chucks? Anything a 'thug' may wear, where do you draw the line?

There is no thug under my hoodie, so you better not try and take it away. How authoritarian.
 
Just got through de-icing and feeding ours.

It's not wrong to rebuke sin. especially persistent sin. It's wrong to let sin flourish.

What Does the Bible Say About Rebuking?

Hate the sin, love the sinner. there's nothing wrong with telling or trying to show someone that they are sinning, However that's where it ends. In the verses you quoted
where does it say anything about forcing someone to comply.



Matthew 18:15-17 ESV / 107 helpful votes

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
 
If there's a thug under that hoodie.

How would you know if it's a thug. It could be a teenager trying to stay warm while walking to school or a young adult walking to work. Not everyone that wears a hoodie is a thug. I wear one on cold mornings when I go feed the animals.
 
LOL it is the right that is becoming more and more authoritarian and has been for decades. Everything from denying rights to minorities to GITMO and the Patriot Act.. all acts by the American Taliban Right.

Hmmm....

-Obama has actively executed American citizens with out trial
-Obama has actively sought (but apparently not used) executive powers to suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus
-Obama has sought to end the long standing ministierial exception which prevents government involvement in internal church, temple and mosque matters (Obama lost 9-0 at the US Supreme Court).
-Obama has attempted to define "free" birth control from a specific source as a "right"- and then ordered churches to violate their own teaching by fullfilling this non existent "right".
-Obama appointed a justice to the US Supreme Court who claims that private ownership of weapons is not an individual right.
-Obama has attempted to merge the judicial and legislative branch into one via very broad use of executive orders.
 
Last edited:
Insightful, I'd consider myself towards the libertarian side. I think the left is certainly tripping over itself in its sprint towards authoritarianism.

Well, it's seems to be in character.

Consistently the left comes across as arrogant and appear to feel themselves to be the smartest people in the room, hence their judgement and ideas are far more valuable and important than anyone else's, so much so that they think are their 'good ideas' (*cough*) need to be mandatory. Definitely a more authoritarian attitude.

That's not to say that the same isn't being done by other groups for their agendas. The observation has been made that the government as a whole as become more authoritarian, and I'd have to agree.
 
I think you need to learn how to distinguish between "the left" and "a few nutters on the left" and even then, I don't even recall a few nutters on the left trying to "strictly regulate" anything you listed. I can't even imagine anyone trying to "strictly regulate" what people think given that we don't have the technology to even do that.

Ya huh. :roll:

The left also wants to strictly regulate what the average citizen is allowed to own,

Opposition to the Second Amendment ringing any bells?

how much money they're allowed to make (and subsequently keep)

Obsession with "progressive" taxation, and constant complaints whenever someone makes an amount they presume to be "too much?"

what they are allowed to spend that money on

Mandatory pay-ins?

what they're allowed to say in public

"Hate Speech" laws?

what they're allowed to think

"Political correctness," and the Left's desire in recent years to force corporate heads and other high-profile individuals out of their positions simply for privately holding political opinions which they find to be non-"politically correct?"

how they're allowed to educate their children (or whether they really even have a 'right' to their children in the first place)

Ask the average ideological Left Winger for their opinion on either Homeschooling or Private Schools. Many European Leftists find such ideas to be nothing less than unthinkable.

You'll also find that Left Wingers generally tend to defend services like CPS when they seize children from their families a lot more often than anyone on the Right as well.

and what they are allowed to eat and drink on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the kinds of laws states like New York and California have passed in these regards in recent years?
 
Ya huh. :roll:

Opposition to the Second Amendment ringing any bells?

Obsession with "progressive" taxation, and constant complaints whenever someone makes an amount they presume to be "too much?"

Mandatory pay-ins?

"Hate Speech" laws?

"Political correctness," and the Left's desire in recent years to force corporate heads and other high-profile individuals out of their positions simply for privately holding political opinions which they find to be non-"politically correct?"

Ask the average ideological Left Winger for their opinion on either Homeschooling or Private Schools. Many European Leftists find such ideas to be nothing less than unthinkable.

You'll also find that Left Wingers generally tend to defend services like CPS when they seize children from their families a lot more often than anyone on the Right as well.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the kinds of laws states like New York and California have passed in these regards in recent years?
1. I don't view the 2nd amendment the same way you do, but I can see how you would view that as "strict regulation", so I'll concede that one.

2. Only a few nutters actually want to legislate salary caps. Invalid example. Progressive taxation isn't a "strict regulation" and it isn't a new concept so it isn't an example of the left becoming "more" anything as this thread is arguing. Another invalid example.

3. If you're talking about payroll deductions, they don't regulate what people are allowed to spend money on. They regulate what people aren't allowed to avoid spending money on. And, like progressive taxation, it isn't new so it isn't an example of "more". Another invalid example.

4. Only a few nutters want to make hate speech laws. Another invalid example.

5. "Political correctness" is social, not legal, pressure. And the right participates in it as well (e.g. "enhanced interrogation" instead of "torture" or calling Americans who disagree with them "un-American"). People from the right have also tried to force pro-gay businesses to pull ads or otherwise stop expressing themselves. Another invalid example.

6. I know many people on the left - probably many more than you do. They don't want any more "strict regulations" on schooling than ever have, so that claim is invalid as well. As far as people on the left supporting CPS, I've seen more people on the right support actual eugenics so give me a break on that one. Another invalid example.

Your score is 1/6. You did not pass the class, but I'll let you get by with incomplete if you try again and get at least a 5/6.
 
Actually no, not at all. I tried to find the study done just before the 2012 election but can't find it now.



In NYC for a while I could buy 32oz of beer but only 12 oz of soda at yankee stadium. liberal new york is the largest nanny entity in the country.
 
Maybe we should ban trench coats while we're at it, eh? Ski masks? Nylon pantyhose? Bandanas? Dopemans or Chucks? Anything a 'thug' may wear, where do you draw the line?

There is no thug under my hoodie, so you better not try and take it away. How authoritarian.

I wear hoodies too but, that was a silly law that would correct no serious sin or crime.
 
Hate the sin, love the sinner. there's nothing wrong with telling or trying to show someone that they are sinning, However that's where it ends. In the verses you quoted
where does it say anything about forcing someone to comply.



Matthew 18:15-17 ESV / 107 helpful votes

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

IMO that means you shun them.

We can not as good people allow sin to run amuck if we want a decent society. It's like giving your children freedom to do anything they wanf.
 
How would you know if it's a thug. It could be a teenager trying to stay warm while walking to school or a young adult walking to work. Not everyone that wears a hoodie is a thug. I wear one on cold mornings when I go feed the animals.

I said if. Personally, that's a silly law
 
2. Only a few nutters actually want to legislate salary caps. Invalid example. Progressive taxation isn't a "strict regulation" and it isn't a new concept so it isn't an example of the left becoming "more" anything as this thread is arguing. Another invalid example.

Look at the crushing kinds of taxation that are commonplace in European nations at the present moment, and how many American Leftists are chomping at the bit to emulate them, and then come back to me and say that with a straight face.

Bottom line: If they perceive you as making "too much money," quite a few ideological Leftists will hold it against you, and try to "correct" that "problem."

3. If you're talking about payroll deductions, they don't regulate what people are allowed to spend money on. They regulate what people aren't allowed to avoid spending money on. And, like progressive taxation, it isn't new so it isn't an example of "more". Another invalid example.

Mandatory health insurance ringing any bells?

4. Only a few nutters want to make hate speech laws. Another invalid example.

Which is why the United States is basically the only nation in the modern Western World not to have them?

We're also the most "Right" leaning. That is not a coincidence.

As a matter of fact, basically the only organizations in favor of Hate Speech Laws in the US tend to be powerful Left Wing organizations like the SPLC, ADL, and ACLU. Hardly "a few" irrelevant "nutters."

5. "Political correctness" is social, not legal, pressure. And the right participates in it as well (e.g. "enhanced interrogation" instead of "torture" or calling Americans who disagree with them "un-American"). People from the right have also tried to force pro-gay businesses to pull ads or otherwise stop expressing themselves. Another invalid example.

The Left is far worse, far more influential, and tries to impose its "relabeling" on a much broader range of subjects.

6. I know many people on the left - probably many more than you do. They don't want any more "strict regulations" on schooling than ever have, so that claim is invalid as well. As far as people on the left supporting CPS, I've seen more people on the right support actual eugenics so give me a break on that one. Another invalid example.

The fact of the matter remains, that if you are going to see any opposition whatsoever against the idea of either Homeschooling or Private Schools (particularly of the religious variety), it is going to be coming from the Left, not the Right.

Again, beyond which, the other inescapable fact of the matter is that a great many overwhelmingly "Leftist" countries have already banned both of these practices outright.

It "takes a village to raise a child," remember? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Look at the crushing kinds of taxation that are commonplace in European nations at the present moment, and how many American Leftists are chomping at the bit to emulate them, and then come back to me and say that with a straight face.

Bottom line: If they perceive you as making "too much money," quite a few ideological Leftists will hold it against you, and try to "correct" that "problem."



Mandatory health insurance ringing any bells?



Which is why the United States is basically the only nation in the modern Western World not to have them?

We're also the most "Right" leaning. That is not a coincidence.

As a matter of fact, basically the only organizations in favor of Hate Speech Laws in the US tend to be powerful Left Wing organizations like the SPLC, ADL, and ACLU. Hardly "a few" irrelevant "nutters."



The Left is far worse, far more influential, and tries to impose its "relabeling" on a much broader range of subjects.



The fact of the matter remains, that if you are going to see any opposition whatsoever against the idea of either Homeschooling or Private Schools (particularly of the religious variety), it is going to be coming from the Left, not the Right.

Again, beyond which, the other inescapable fact of the matter is that a great many overwhelmingly "Leftist" countries have already banned both of these practices outright.

It "takes a village to raise a child," remember? :roll:

The ACLU is for "hate speech laws"?
 
LOL it is the right that is becoming more and more authoritarian and has been for decades. Everything from denying rights to minorities to GITMO and the Patriot Act.. all acts by the American Taliban Right.

'Nuff said. Case closed. Only a blind person can't see that.
 
The ACLU is for "hate speech laws"?

Upon further review, the ACLU does not support hate speech laws, at least not in an overt manner that I can easily find.

A great many other Leftist organizations, including the ones I mentioned, most certainly do, however. Such laws are also more or less ubiquitous in nations where the political Left holds a disproportionate amount of social and legislative power.

My original point still stands.
 
Last edited:
IMO that means you shun them.

We can not as good people allow sin to run amuck if we want a decent society. It's like giving your children freedom to do anything they wanf.

What you may consider "Amuck" others may not.

No where in the Bible that I know of, does it say anything about forcing people to believe the way you do. You can talk to them, you can read to them, you can "try" to convince them, but in the end it's their decision. It's called free will.
 
Back
Top Bottom