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.

 

Conservatism without religion?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSin
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


Glad to see someone understands the idea behind what I call Goldwater conservatism, an ideology that is about true sustainability and keeping members of said society self reliant instead of placing all their weight on government like some banana republic. Sadly, that's what we've now become and are going to continue towards until our fiat money system, of which the left has no issue destroying, completely crashes the entire world currency system.

The issue at hand that people don't understand is the father of liberalism was a philosopher named Hegel, who believed in strict rule by government and started the road towards the collective conscious. Marx was one of his fans as our current administration's ideology towards leading the country. Hegel was a fantastic speaker and caught people of guard with his incredible ability to make a sophisticated system of social engineering seem viable and sustainable. Like Kant, he steered away from religion and began the "people are the religion" so to speak. When people start claiming socialism and communism they seem to be two steps off from the true idea, hegelian principles are what we're seeing in actions today, coming with more authoritarian rule and less mobility for common citizen. More and more I recognize this in Obama and his gallery of misfit toys that seem almost out to avenge all those beating they withstood on the playground so many years ago.

One wonders what will be next, a further shirt to a radicalized right and theocracy or a more intolerant set of social rules that make Sharia Law look mild? One has to wonder.


I agree, but I wouldn't bestow upon Hegel the term "philosopher'. Snake-oil salesman, maybe. I'll give him credit though, he got many idiots to follow him.




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Not at all. I have never stormed into someone's church and demanded they stop believing. I just don't want their beliefs forced on me politically. It's fine with me if they believe this or that is amoral but they need to realize they live in a society with other people who don't believe the same things. Many of us out here are all for limited government and fiscal conservatism but they scare us off by not accepting our religious freedom (the right NOT to believe).


Ah, but you have a right to not believe, publicly, and no one telling you that you can't. Yet Christians are told they aren't supposed to show their beliefs in public, which is a gross violation of their rights.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Personally, I thought I was a liberal until Obama. Ever since, I get along better with conservatives (even religious conservatives) than I do with hardcore liberals.


That's quite interesting. Care to share specifics?


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Conservatives need to learn to play the game the way liberals do. And that is a game in which it doesn't really matter how you win as long as you win. This is the game the liberals are playing. Conservatives need atheists and gays and women and blacks and all the other minorities that liberals manage to keep under their tent by convincing them all conservatives hate them.


The thing is, it really does matter how you win. Plus, if a certain behavior goes against your core beliefs, you can't stay true to those beliefs if you pretend it doesn't matter.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Is it really a contradiction in your mind to enjoy and practice your own religion and let others do the same?


As long as they don't claim others have no right to do the same, or attack those that disagree, I have no issues with that. When they attack, or deny my rights, I have an issue. There are a few groups that don't think Christians have the same rights as everyone else. Expected, sure, but not right.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
If you really believe in freedom, you should believe (for example) other people have the right to watch pornography (as long as it's consenting adults) even if pornography is considered to be bad by your religious beliefs. You can't tell other people what they can and can't watch in their own homes or what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms and claim you believe in freedom.
edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)


That's a different issue. In that case, there is a lot of exploitation, and the behaviors taught are detrimental to society.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Ah, but you have a right to not believe, publicly, and no one telling you that you can't. Yet Christians are told they aren't supposed to show their beliefs in public, which is a gross violation of their rights.


I do agree to an extent. I don't have a problem with Christians expressing themselves. What bothers me is when they try to imbue their beliefs in laws that affect everyone.

I would not (for example) require a Christian health worker to participate in an abortion. However, I am not opposed to abortion. I would not interfere with someone's right to get one from a health facility in which the workers have no moral objections to it.

This is the problem. Too many Christians are too obsessed with running other people's lives. You cannot claim you're minding your own business when you're butting into other people's lives.





That's quite interesting. Care to share specifics?


Well, Obamacare, for example. Everything about it and the way it was rammed through while virtually all dissent was ignored. I was still angry about the Bush years and I was deluded enough to think the Democrats were the good guys. Once Obamacare turned me from just having blind faith in liberals, I started to question everything I had ever believed about them.


The thing is, it really does matter how you win. Plus, if a certain behavior goes against your core beliefs, you can't stay true to those beliefs if you pretend it doesn't matter.


The problem with that is that politics is an inherently dirty game. You will almost always lose if you don't play as dirty as the other guy.



That's a different issue. In that case, there is a lot of exploitation, and the behaviors taught are detrimental to society.


No. It isn't a different issue at all. It's the same thing. Behaviors are not taught to intelligent people. The behavior that we need to prevent is people refusing to think for themselves and blaming other people for everything. Example - Someone gets raped and we blame everyone except for the rapist.

Additionally, "exploitation" is a very broad and vague general term. I cannot really respond to that properly until you define it precisely.

Additional to that, you don't grant someone the right to free speech unless you deem it to be detrimental to society. We could ban socialistic literature on that excuse. Many people certainly feel that socialist propaganda is detrimental to society.

The First Amendment is not there to only protect "good" speech. It serves no purpose if it doesn't protect unpopular speech.

Why do you need a right to say "Good morning everyone! I love you all! Let's all have a nice day!"? Virtually no one is ever going to try to prevent you from saying that, are they?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I do agree to an extent. I don't have a problem with Christians expressing themselves. What bothers me is when they try to imbue their beliefs in laws that affect everyone.

I would not (for example) require a Christian health worker to participate in an abortion. However, I am not opposed to abortion. I would not interfere with someone's right to get one from a health facility in which the workers have no moral objections to it.

This is the problem. Too many Christians are too obsessed with running other people's lives. You cannot claim you're minding your own business when you're butting into other people's lives.


The thing with abortion is that it ends lives, of millions that never get a say. It's basically legalized genocide.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Well, Obamacare, for example. Everything about it and the way it was rammed through while virtually all dissent was ignored. I was still angry about the Bush years and I was deluded enough to think the Democrats were the good guys. Once Obamacare turned me from just having blind faith in liberals, I started to question everything I had ever believed about them.


Oh, I know the feeling! Last "election", every single person in the primaries basically blew it. Several stated they would not drop out till the convention, then proceeded to drop out. The entire thing was clearly a dog and pony show. We never had a choice.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
The problem with that is that politics is an inherently dirty game. You will almost always lose if you don't play as dirty as the other guy.


The system is broken. Unless and until the big money guys are out of it, things won't improve. That still doesn't excuse bad behavior.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders

No. It isn't a different issue at all. It's the same thing. Behaviors are not taught to intelligent people. The behavior that we need to prevent is people refusing to think for themselves and blaming other people for everything. Example - Someone gets raped and we blame everyone except for the rapist.


People do learn behavior, even intelligent people. Most, though, aren't all that intelligent. Porn has been shown to aggravate behaviors. Some of the worst offenders start with it, and work into something "live". Yes, they are still at fault, but why pour gasoline on a fire?


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Additionally, "exploitation" is a very broad and vague general term. I cannot really respond to that properly until you define it precisely.


In this case I mean all those exploited in the production. Women who are treated like objects, and even abused, children in the system, and there are many of those.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Additional to that, you don't grant someone the right to free speech unless you deem it to be detrimental to society. We could ban socialistic literature on that excuse. Many people certainly feel that socialist propaganda is detrimental to society.


There are restrictions. We don't have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We don't have the freedom to encourage others to commit crimes. This is because those actions would be harmful to others, and infringe on their rights. Socialist propaganda IS harmful, as the end result is a loss of rights across the board.


Originally posted by BrianFlanders
The First Amendment is not there to only protect "good" speech. It serves no purpose if it doesn't protect unpopular speech.


So, why do we have "hate speech" laws? Why are some opinions now not allowed? Not those promoting violence, as that's always been criminal, but those simply insulting some other group? That is a direct violation of free speech. Stating that Christians should keep their opinions out of the public square is also not respecting their rights.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The thing with abortion is that It's basically legalized genocide.


Maybe but frankly, if we're not prepared to force people to take responsibility for their actions, it's going to get really ugly really fast if we ever outlaw abortion completely. In real life, sometimes a little bit of ugliness cannot be avoided.


People do learn behavior, even intelligent people.


To a small extent but again, If you believe that people don't choose to do bad things and external forces are responsible for everything that a person does, maybe you should try teaching young kids the difference between a movie and real life. You might like to follow that up with teaching them what a fantasy is and why people have fantasies to begin with (because they are not realistic and would often have deleterious consequences in reality).

But you cannot stop people from having fantasies. This is going to happen. Nobody taught me to have fantasies. At various times in my youth, I did bad things (nothing drastic but things I shouldn't have done). Nobody taught me to do these things. In fact, every authority figure in my young life made every effort to deter me from doing bad things. These were things that came into my head out of nowhere and I CHOSE to do them.

Obviously, I was smart enough to blame it on other people and other things. You get caught doing something you aren't supposed to do, what are you going to do? Tell the truth? That it was all your idea? Of course not! If there's a convenient scapegoat, you're going to use it!


Porn has been shown to aggravate behaviors.


By whom? I am quite certain that if anyone sets out to "prove" something they have in their head, they are going to find a way to make the numbers match their prejudices. Wouldn't you say?

Now if you're an anti-porn crusader and you get it in your mind that you want to prove to the world that porn "aggravates behaviors", what's the first thing you think of?

Obviously, you need to find someone who has a "good reputation" for selling junk science to the masses. How hard is that? If you can find people who will put people in cages for smoking plants, you can certainly find people who will fix the numbers for you to make your opinions turn into facts.


Some of the worst offenders start with it, and work into something "live".


Really? You think these things never crossed their minds until they got their hands on some porn? Please.



Yes, they are still at fault, but why pour gasoline on a fire?


Porn is not gasoline and people are not fire. Otherwise, everyone would behave exactly the same way after exposure to it.


In this case I mean all those exploited in the production. Women who are treated like objects, and even abused


You cannot abuse someone who has a choice. It is not abuse. It is a script. Arnold never murdered anyone in the Terminator movies even if it looked like he did.


children in the system, and there are many of those.


There might be in some extreme fringe stuff but I'm talking about legitimate porn where all participants are consenting adults. You cannot attack everyone who enjoys sex by pointing out that children are sometimes molested. It's absurd.


There are restrictions. We don't have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


And this is a very extreme example, wouldn't you say? Porn is (basically) just people having sex in front of a camera. This is not exactly the same thing as inciting a panic in a confined space, is it?


We don't have the freedom to encourage others to commit crimes.


That depends on how you define it. Some people would say violent movies encourage people to be violent (I think it's hogwash but just an example). Obviously, if you go down that path, it leads to complete censorship. You have to stop letting them make excuses for censorship somewhere or it just keeps going forever. Where do you think the line is? If they can censor anything because they can make up some half-assed excuse that it's "harming people" in some way, nothing is going to be safe from censorship. And then you might as well throw the First Amendment away because it's not doing anything at all to limit government.


This is because those actions would be harmful to others, and infringe on their rights.


But of course, as we see, conceding to these (already dubious) points invariably opens a hole in free speech big enough to sail the Titanic through. Every time you compromise with people who want to end any given freedom, they're obviously going to be encouraged to keep going. Because you've just basically told them you'll back down if they push hard enough.


So, why do we have "hate speech" laws? Why are some opinions now not allowed?


Because people are falling for the exploits that have allowed the censors to get their foot in the door. Now we're dealing with ridiculous things like "hate speech" laws. Which is basically the end of free speech. They are very close to dropping all pretenses.


Stating that Christians should keep their opinions out of the public square is also not respecting their rights.


I have no problems with you saying what you believe. Just don't put it in a law. An obscenity law is an outright attack on my rights. It's different from all this "butterfly effect" indirect consequences thing. It's a direct action.
edit on 30-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join