It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Democrat?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well, morality isn't governed by the heart, so... I don't see morality and intelligence as being exclusive of each other. That said, I don't see "saving the world from its own stupidity and bad choices" as being part of morality, either. Decisions have consequences and letting natural consequences happen is arguably a moral course of action. It is, after all, how a species grows and strengthens, the culling of the weakest is necessary in all species for the good of the whole.


We don't need to quibble over the semantics of 'heart' or 'morality'. Let me posit this another way;

For those who believe in (or are familiar with) Jesus's teachings, which way is more representative of the way he directed us to live? Did Jesus emphasize intelligence over heart(which I read as synonymous with love), or love over intelligence?

I can totally see where you're coming from insomuch as intelligence properly applied can in fact be used to achieve a very positive moral direction for a society (and I've heard versions of this argument many times before). Do you think intelligence left to its own devices naturally achieves some kind of moral equilibrium or is said equilibrium a byproduct that can (by chance) manifest among intelligently focused beings?
edit on 30pm18fpmTue, 24 Jul 2018 14:02:39 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 24 Jul 2018 14:02:39 -0500 by Wayfarer because: grammar




posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that the moral thing to do is, sometimes, not saving people from themselves. If the majority is harmed by their continued existence, then the moral thing to do is to allow nature to take its course and remove the harm from the equation. That would seem to be the antithesis of the liberal definition of morality.

ETA: I won't entertain the convenient inclusion of Jesus into this conversation. We've been told time after time that religion has no place in political discussions, so I fail to see why anyone should allow the artificial inclusion of it when it conveniently serves a specific narrative.
edit on 24-7-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
At one time I was, even voted for Obama the first term. I have learned my lesson and never again.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that the moral thing to do is, sometimes, not saving people from themselves. If the majority is harmed by their continued existence, then the moral thing to do is to allow nature to take its course and remove the harm from the equation. That would seem to be the antithesis of the liberal definition of morality.

ETA: I won't entertain the convenient inclusion of Jesus into this conversation. We've been told time after time that religion has no place in political discussions, so I fail to see why anyone should allow the artificial inclusion of it when it conveniently serves a specific narrative.



I used the example after noticing you even mention the guy in your signature.....

Do you say that because your political stances clash with your religious ones?



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I used the example after noticing you even mention the guy in your signature.....

Do you say that because your political stances clash with your religious ones?


It's a song lyric from an old country tune by Bobby Bare.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Kicking over moneychangers tables. Sell your cloak to buy a sword. I think he gets along alright. Even the Sermon on the Mount mentions an eye for eye, but not blind retribution. To turn the other cheek to see if they strike it as well. To verify that it wasn’t an accident but purposeful for those that transgress against you before they are an enemy. But still you are to love them and hate the sin but not the sinner.

One could argue the oft repeated message of JFK about the rising tide lifting all boats was along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount (Mark chapter 5) but it would seem that the Progressive message since has been if you are not on board, to get off the boat. Which is quite the opposite of the Love thy Neighbor part which specifically mentions that if you only greet your own people, what are doing more than others. Ironically the rising tide has been compared to Reagan’s tax cuts in trickle down economics, that Bush called Voodoo Economics.

While considerably different, politics and religion are very entwined.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I am a registered Democrat - only bc I used to live in big cities and wanted to be able to vote- always voted republican except 2008- no one to vot for! My wife always had probs in the city bc registered republican- her voter registration was always invalid or addresses didn’t match. I don’t think she was able to vote even once when we lived in a large city. Go figure...

a reply to: Ahabstar




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join