Why do conservatives...

[Londo_Jowo]

But there's no such thing as a moderate liberal, right?

I see many conservatives post here every day with as a broad a brush as he's using. Where are you when that happens?

It could be that the subject of the given thread doesn't interest me so I don't bother reading it??

 

[Vic]

Hayabusa, you can see those wackos every day on FB. Go look at the Phil Robertsons page. These people want genuine theocracy and I wouldn't call them small groups.

 

[Matt1970]

Your original statement was offensive enough to me that I make an effort to confound and befuddle you by providing just enough information to make you curious but not enough to give you any real personal details, so fuck you and your stupid point of view.

Whatever you need to say to cover your lie.

 

[ThinClient]

Whatever you need to say to cover your lie.

Whatever you need to believe to prevent yourself from being educated.

 

[Vic]

It could be that the subject of the given thread doesn't interest me so I don't bother reading it??

Heh I know. . I was just using one of Nehalem and Incorruptible s favorite arguments.

 

[BUnit1701]

This is correct. Same goes for prayer in schools -it wasn't removed, it's simply unconstitutional to do it as a whole, thereby forcing non-religious people to participate in something that they oppose.

I think it's personally offensive if I see a cross or 10 commandments hanging in a court room, but I wouldn't demand someone take them down. I'd probably bitch a little bit, because fuck them, but I'd let it go pretty quickly.

You still haven't explained how we go from not forcing those who don't want to, to actively prohibiting those who do.

 

[ThinClient]

How many job training outreach programs do liberals and atheist do for homeless or other needy people?

I don't know, you're going to have to work harder at not using blanket statements. At this point, I'm not sure that you're capable of making a single post without some sort of partisan statement or blanket statement.

Maybe do like some cities and just offer free bus tickets to the next town?

What does this even mean.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Heh I know. . I was just using one of Nehalem and Incorruptible s favorite arguments.

I have disagreed with both several times though it does fall on deaf ears.

 

[BUnit1701]

...



What does this even mean.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Several-cit...ne-way-bus-tickets-to-Portland-230134681.html

California cities are infamous for busing their homeless somewhere else so they dont have to deal with them.

 

[Vic]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Several-cit...ne-way-bus-tickets-to-Portland-230134681.html

California cities are infamous for busing their homeless somewhere else so they dont have to deal with them.

Nevada does it too.

http://www.katu.com/news/investiga...ients-in-Oregon-receipts-show-227487281.html

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So Portland's number one import is now crazy hobos? That's good news.

 

[Texashiker]

What does this even mean.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/30/local/me-buspass30

Go be homeless somewhere else.

 

[Vic]

So Portland's number one import is now crazy hobos? That's good news.

It's unfortunately nothing new. When Reagan cut funding to the mental hospitals, it seemed like he gave everyone one of them a one way ticket here.

 

[ThinClient]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/30/local/me-buspass30

Go be homeless somewhere else.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy and you've found us out! We atheists have been conspiring to flood portland with hobos.

 

[Moonbeam]

I googled "atheist groups" and the first one that popped up asked for donations...but not for hospitals or our poor and needy...they want your money so they can sue the IRS for giving special treatment to churches who actually do support hospitals and our poor and needy...imagine that!

http://www.atheists.org/

Not hard to do. Not all Christian donate to Christian charities. People that join groups and pursue causes are defined more by their mission than their affiliation. I would call myself a holder of unusual beliefs that separate me from believers mad doubters alike, so for some believers I might be called an atheist and by them a believer. but I give to religious grouts and to secular one, but never to what you have in your link. I see such a cause as absurd.

It's not my issue but surely you can see there are many fundamentalist organizations that abuse the tax code. For the glory of God of course, which makes it ok.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Aren't all laws a type of morality?

Eh, the difficulty here is that anything can be reworded into a moral stricture. Any desire can be reworded into the language of morality with no deleterious effect if worded specifically enough:

I'm sitting here enjoying a cup of coffee. "It is immoral for DominionSeraph to not be drinking coffee at this moment." Hey, look at that, moral validation of my behavior with no attending requirements. (Just like far-right Christianity!)

But I'd say no, because most laws are pragmatic, with logical connections between resulting world state and personal one, meaning there's a clear difference from a priori morality. ("God sez")
Do we insist that milk be pasteurized because raw milk exists in some immoral state? Or is it that there's a connection between a breeding ground for bacteria, consumption of said medium, and sickness, and being sick is something we want to avoid for some pretty solid reasons. Hard to say that that's governing morality, it's just strictly humans governing humans. (You could reword that into moral language: "It is immoral for others to make me ill," but that loses the actual connection. We're not regulating "meanness" out of the system, we're regulating the pathway of disease. You can be the nicest person in the world and never want to hurt a fly, but Mother Nature exists separately and she doesn't give a damn what a person believes or what they want, and that can be addressed separately from the moral status of the person. For the mass of humanity to simply face Mother Nature on her terms is not something I would refer to as "morality.") And we don't have to say that that humanocentric perspective is in some state of absolute moral virtue and try to externally validate it into existence -- human government is simply the expression of humans governing humans, so the ingroup perspective is the only one that can have meaning in that context.

 

[OutHouse]

I know more democrat who are religious nutjobs than republican. Are they conservative or liberal?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not hard to do. Not all Christian donate to Christian charities. People that join groups and pursue causes are defined more by their mission than their affiliation. I would call myself a holder of unusual beliefs that separate me from believers mad doubters alike, so for some believers I might be called an atheist and by them a believer. but I give to religious grouts and to secular one, but never to what you have in your link. I see such a cause as absurd.

I'm a "heretic" as well.

It's not my issue but surely you can see there are many fundamentalist organizations that abuse the tax code. For the glory of God of course, which makes it ok.

Actually, I don't see that there are many fundamentalist organizations that abuse the tax code...but I'm not looking for it either. I also find it hard to imagine what this tax abuse looks like. However, I'm also sure there are others who have a much better imagination than I do.

 

[Ruptga]

Why do people such as yourself paint with such a wide brush? Moderate conservatives don't support or push any of your "issues"

What do you mean by "you people?"

As I posted later in the thread:

I have an entire extended family that absolutely thinks and talks as described in the OP, not to mention most of the people in every church my folks have ever attended. Some of those people do have quibbles with this or that, but in the end their positions all come out about the same. If any of you think I'm bullshitting, I dare you to spend a few weeks in a small town in a red state.

Also note that the OP generalized conservatives, not Christians. Around my neck of the woods that can be a subtle distinction, but I know it isn't universally so.

Also, we are in P&N, moderates in here are inconceivable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Also, we are in P&N, moderates in here are inconceivable.

If you're a "moderate" as you imply, then your OP betrays you. Moderates tend to be more even-handed in my opinion and most would never make ridiculously broad generalizations as you have.

 

[ThinClient]

You still haven't explained how we go from not forcing those who don't want to, to actively prohibiting those who do.

You're forcing those who don't want to stay single into staying single simply because you don't like the way their brains are wired for love.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa, you can see those wackos every day on FB. Go look at the Phil Robertsons page. These people want genuine theocracy and I wouldn't call them small groups.

Obviously I don't have personal knowledge of how many would support doing away with democracy and the Constitution to install... well I don't know who. I'm not denying a desire to change things away from a religion neutral government, but I can't think of a widespread conspiracy aimed at doing what has been done in ME nations. If you can provide some data contrary I'd be only too glad to look at it. To someone such as myself who is comfortable with both those who are religious and who are not, there seems to be a tendency on the part of some to attribute qualities that they wish others had, not that a particular behavior is dominant. I think this "theocracy" claim would not withstand close scrutiny any more than atheists want to seize children and indoctrinate them against their parents in favor of the state, and yes I've heard things to that effect.

My belief is that every identifiable large group has crazy people who would do harm, but the vast majority really don't have the time nor inclination to do half the evil attributed to them. That's why I don't get aboard the Muslim bashing wagon. Yes many abroad support theocratic governments, however that is very much their business, not ours, as long as they live peacefully with their neighbors. No, that does not mean I approve of everything that is done, quite the contrary, however I don't believe I have the right to go blow people up to save them. Getting back to Christians in this country, if a significant portion of them wanted a theocracy this wouldn't even have been discussed. It would be a thing done long ago. Consider the numbers involved, and that's precisely the argument I use when I hear "those Muslims want us all dead". If they wanted that it would already happen due to sheer numbers.

I'm more concerned about other things which affect us every day but most don't even seem to notice, such as the shifts in income and wealth distribution coupled with decreasing opportunity. That's going to haunt us long before fears stated on these boards about the religious, or atheists for that matter, become a real problem.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's unfortunately nothing new. When Reagan cut funding to the mental hospitals, it seemed like he gave everyone one of them a one way ticket here.

I never did like Reagan, however this isn't quite how things went. What happened was that the horrors which was the mental health care system came to light, and the fact that many people were institutionalized not because of need but because it was a place we could put our "unclean" and not have to look at them. What should have happened was a systematic reform, but the Democrats just wanted to "free" them and indeed the Republicans did not want to fund. But why have those who aren't partisan participate in reforms when the all knowing parties are the source of all wisdom?

 

[nehalem256]

You're forcing those who don't want to stay single into staying single simply because you don't like the way their brains are wired for love.

Wrong. They can have whatever relationships they want. Society(government) just won't recognize them.

You really cannot possibly be so stupid as to think people are incapable of forming relationships without the government recognizing them.

 

[Ruptga]

If you're a "moderate" as you imply, then your OP betrays you. Moderates tend to be more even-handed in my opinion and most would never make ridiculously broad generalizations as you have.

I imply all sorts of things; it's fun, and it gets people talking. Plus I'm not about to write a proper thoroughly accurate essay on just the hope that it gets more than five replies before disappearing.

Hayabusa is right, of course. Not many people will say they want an Iranian-style theocracy, but there are a shitton who want the US to move away from a "religion neutral government," as he so tactfully put it. I would argue that there is a sizable and extremely vocal minority that would love for Murrica to disenfranchise and/or run off all the muslims, gays, blacks, the poor, and so on, until nobody is left except for honest god-fearing red-blooded Murricans. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit, they wouldn't run off the poor because then they'd have to leave too.

So go on, shoot the messenger, or at least my provocative style, you know you want to. But you have to admit that I'm right; Tea Party types typically don't want a secular and unbiased government, and that should disturb us.