This is very funny but also very sad and I think it sums up the very difference in principled feelings that many have on this forum. No one can doubt that they have feelings and that they feel their feelings are important and no doubt they are but it does accurately point out how ridiculous it is to base one’s moral convictions and political beliefs on such “feelings.” Read on. The link is provided.
[quote]With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by G-d, the Bible and religion, great numbers
I suppose it would have been more accurate if the bumper sticker had said “War is not the answer except it certain situations” but somehow I think that sort of qualification might have detracted from the sticker’s rhetorical impact. In any event, “feeling” is the an essential element of our moral sense and should to a certain extent guide our actions. It is entirely possible to be both moral and an atheist. In fact these days it appears to be almost a requirement.
It’s also possible to be liberal and a Christian. I’m tired of people assuming that Christians are necessarily politically conservative. Christians are liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. And you certainly don’t need to be religious to be moral, or conservative.
Wow. Another “liberals are stupid and wrong and big dummies! Yay conservatism!” piece. I really do wish I could see the world in such black and white terms. It’d make life so much easier; I’d never have to think for myself again!
[quote=“fred smith”]
Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that “War is not the answer”? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. [/quote]
[quote=“spook”][quote=“fred smith”]
Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that “War is not the answer”? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. [/quote]
I am not entirely certain how to interpret your post maoman but please note that I made no assumption about the political leanings of Christians. I’ve known lots of Christians and in my experience they can be politically and socially either conservative or liberal. I think it has to be admitted though that western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance. I think it stems from the fact that their adherants believe that they have recieved the very word of God. This leads to absolutist attitudes in areas of life where perhaps a greater degree of flexibility would be preferable. That is what I meant when I said that aetheism appears to be almost a requirement for ethical conduct.
Not really comparable, IMO. Either of these statements, depending on the circumstances, could have been uttered by conservatives and or liberals at different times.
Not really comparable, IMO. Either of these statements, depending on the circumstances, could have been uttered by conservatives and or liberals at different times.[/quote]
Yes, they could have been said by both, but are primarily used by liberals and conservatives respectively.
I tend to think of them both as boneheaded expressions of ignorance.
I think Fred knows that the slogan “War is not the A.N.S.W.E.R.” was raised by the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and refers specifically to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq as not being the solution to international terrorism. I believe the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition encompasses both pacifists and non-pacifists, i.e. those who distinguish between just and unjust wars, opposing only the latter.
So while Saddam was killing 3 million, peace was the answer? While Milosevic and his Greater Serbia activists rampaged through the Balkans, Peace was the Answer? So while Hitler conquered Europe and killed tens of millions, Peace was the Answer, so when the North defeated the South in the American Civil War and ended slavery, Peace was the answer? So when the US overthrew the Taliban and ended the misery there that allowed 4 million refugees to return, Peace was the Answer? Help me out here I am confused.
As to Maoman: Many liberals are religious. No problem with that. But many liberals are also the dull end of the stick in my opinion. I have seen few ideas of any value come out of the Democrat party in recent years. I have seen the so-called Labour party of the UK adopt lock stock and barrel most of the conservative party’s ideas and principles, I have seen no one offer an alternative to the principles behind much of conservativism which have sought to tear down trade barriers and remove the state from people’s lives both economically and socially. Therefore, what exactly is a liberal idea of late that would in your opinion count as something worth “fighting” for? Just curious. I really do want to know.
Hey, we’ve all got opinions - they’re just opinions though. The thing is, if there were no more liberals left in the world, you would just redefine the border of people that you disagree with. Get rid of those people, and so on, and you’re just left with one person - yourself.
Liberals can and do exist outside of the U.S. and the U.K. Canada’s got free trade AND a liberal government…
Gay marriage, just off the top of my head. A woman’s right to choose, regarding abortion. Decriminalization (not necessarily legalization) of marijuana… These are the first things that come to mind.
[quote=“Maoman”]It’s also possible to be liberal and a Christian. I’m tired of people assuming that Christians are necessarily politically conservative. Christians are liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. And you certainly don’t need to be religious to be moral, or conservative.[/quote]Maoman -
A very good point. Much too often Christians are painted with a very wide brush classifying them with many false attributes. To me, this is more revealing of the agenda of the painter than the referred to ‘Christian.’
Of course, the open season license to libel, slander and harrangue any who profess their Christianity or religious beliefs in general has always confounded me.
All to often those who would profess to be the vanguard of “tolerance” and “diversity” are among the most intolerant and discriminatory.
Many times this license all to often extends into country of origin and race and sex.
But that another rant . (which seems to get removed from the threads when brought up)
I do not think that it is a question of getting rid of one group of people that you disagree with. I have had differences of opinion with sensible people and still respected them for their views. The question is as this article has mentioned is what do you do when the left has no values but only feelings? This becomes a quicksand approach to every issue and what is the fair and objective way of dealing with it. I believe that there are objective standards and I would say that many on the left do not. Therefore if Bush and Saddam are morally equivalent, how does one determine when and how to act? This is where I struggle to find even a grain of respect for the left and its adherents.
Fred do you actually believe that the war in Iraq will help to reduce the threat of terrorism? No, of course not. Not even you are quite that fanatical in your support of grinning mimby. So, considering what you learned from Juba’s post, what is it that you have against the “War is not the Answer” bumper sticker? That it doesn’t offer up a full and comprehensive analysis of the situation complete with historical perspective and commentary from those on both sides of the political spectrum? It is a bumper sticker for pete’s sake. Extrapolating from it to make a judgement about the left in general is just, well, stupid.
[quote=“bob”]I think it has to be admitted though that western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance. I think it stems from the fact that their adherants believe that they have recieved the very word of God. This leads to absolutist attitudes in areas of life where perhaps a greater degree of flexibility would be preferable. That is what I meant when I said that aetheism appears to be almost a requirement for ethical conduct.[/quote]Bob -
Interesting points.
I think that the “…Western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance.” is very debateable. I would question this in regards to the fundamental Christian teachings of acceptance, love and forgiveness for fellow man.
How would you compare the precepts of Christianity in rregards to “tolerance” to the tenets of Islam?
And, in regards to “absolutist attitudes”, do you opine that this view is one that leads to the justification and acceptance of the moral position known as “conditional morality” ? Do you think that conditional morality provides a firmer base for establishing the guidelines for ‘ethical conduct’?
I’m sure there are someon the left who might agree with that, but I’m not sure that they represent liberal ideology in the U.S. I’m sure no mainstream Democrat has ever gone on record as saying that the two are moral equivalents. But you can correct me if I’m wrong.
Tainan it was the moral sense in us that compelled us to invent God in the first place. Ethical conduct has at its base a love of life so it is essentially based on “feelings,” as ridiculous as that may sound to some people. The world can be a cold and brutal place sometimes though and a great deal of rationality is required to make of our love something substantial and life sustaining. Difficult dicisions need to be made. Wars fought. People killed. An absolutist position such as, thou shall not kill, simply doesn’t hold up in the real world because there are too many people with no respect for life or for the freedom of others. I haven’t enough knowledge of Islam to comment but having recently spent time in a (for the most part liberally) Islamic country I can tell you that there is “something” in it that is very attractive to me. It’s adherents seem to posses a calm that is lacking in most western people. Certainly from me.
I’m sure there are someon the left who might agree with that, but I’m not sure that they represent liberal ideology in the U.S. I’m sure no mainstream Democrat has ever gone on record as saying that the two are moral equivalents. But you can correct me if I’m wrong. [/quote]
During the presidential election, the Democrats ran 2 TV ads comparing Bush with Adolf Hitler.
Canada’s got free trade AND a liberal government…
