An unchanging view of right and wrong. Unchanging in the face of time, science, and technology.
Can a meme thousands of years old really dictate accurately to people today how to live their lives?
Itchy_turd - 3/16/2005 02:07:00 AM
Ok. It was obviously the Bible that you were referring to as the "unbudging ethics" earlier. I didn't need elaboration on that.
Maybe the way I should have asked it was: What specific ethical situation are you most politically opposed to in "Issues with 'The Man' " that you would like to discuss further?
Because there is really no reason for us to deviate into a Christianity vs. Secularism forum.
Please respond, I'm hoping I won't need to make an intervention with the aid Mr. T again. He gets paid by the appearance.
:)
Gibson - 3/16/2005 04:58:00 PM
Here's the deal.. whoever has the most people (or can at least make you believe they have the most people, as has been seen throughout history), or exchange the people part for resources or weapons or whatever... gets to set the social precedent. Unfortunately the hypocrite, holier-than-thou, I watch TBN (blue hair psycho bitch channel) and will tell everyone how to live their lives regardless of how I live mine.. which is usually by fucking everyone I can possibly fuck over and smiling at them.. segment of this country seems to be handily in charge. Better that than those damned pagans.. I hate having to sacrifice virgins and such..
Itchy_turd - 3/16/2005 08:50:00 PM
Gibson= premier guitar brand= must be your brother
Hello, big D! Did you ever get the resume in?
:)
But again Chuck, your OP started with you having issues with "The Man" and feeling that you needed to watch more C-SPAN. But as I'm trying to uncover what you feel you are missing out on in the political process, I'm just getting cultural- and religious-based responses.
Do you have anything to post besides complaining that you hate Christians and the GOP? Because I can't really add anything to those types of topics. There really is no back-and-forth we can have there.
Chuck - 3/16/2005 11:12:00 PM
I appreciate your concern Itchy Turd.
I feel like no leader in this country gives a damn about my opinion. Which I find odd, because it's really not too off-beat (when I'm being serious) or radical.
I don't know what you're voting on, Mr. Representative, and I don't know how to tell you I'm Mr. Constituent and I want you to vote this way for this reason. Or have you ever thought about things this way Mr. Representative? What about some dialog?
Itchy_turd - 3/17/2005 03:17:00 AM
Vote. The individual and the party will let you know in advance what to expect. Then hope that person wins.
Then it's party auto-pilot. Don't expect a back-and-forth dialog unless it's election season.
:(
They may give you dialog, as in making an appearance on a TV or radio news/political talk show, explaining why they are taking such-and-such position, but that's about it in between elections.
Now, keep in mind, they probably know or have been advised as to what their constituents want to have done (such as positions that they feel got them elected, or what the party feels should be done to maintain that public position next election).
I don't think you are going to like hearing this, but you said yourself between the choices of the 2 major parties, you lean more Democrat, and guess what: you live in a red state, and you have a red executive and legislative branch right now. Watching C-SPAN isn't going to satisfy you.
"I feel like no leader in this country gives a damn about my opinion."
Yes, leaders do. I'm sure you, like most people, have a wide range of viewpoints, and no single political party shares them all with you. Unforetunately, by your own admission, between the 2 parties you lean more Democrat, and they are a loser party right now. So that means your not likely to be jumping up and down with what will be going on politically until the next election. Tuff, live with it. In the political marketplace, your opinions apparantly didn't sell. They will have to take a backseat for now. Try to find something that you feel is positive from the current political climate.
It seems to be just an anti-Christian anti-GOP anger that you are venting.
*shrug*
d. everett swift - 3/17/2005 06:58:00 PM
okay,ive worked way too hard and way too long for the last week to really think very hard and really take in what youre saying,but since you mentioned in a comment to my last journal update that you want to draw me into this, i figured id make some sort of reply..
and i dont know about memes that are thousands of years old, or the bible, or even if thats really what youre saying,all i know is that my left thigh is still warm like im still sitting by the wood stove heater at work outside in the snow early this morning. wait. back up. i am jacks raw desire for something better. well, all i can think to say is that, my livejournal is now like..i think 4 or 5 years old, and it dictates my every thought/action. yes. its true. i find myself thinking many times throughout the course of a normal day "my,this will make an excellent post for my livejournal" how lame. how sad and lifeless i am. but hey, at least my journal is fun to read,right? uhh..sure.
and one of my favorite pasttimes is to read my journal in its entirety...and remember all the good times....ahhh..that always brightens my day.
Chuck - 3/18/2005 12:20:00 AM
Yeah, I know "my party" isn't in the wins now, but that's not even really it. Maybe I just came of political age in the wrong era. Maybe I should just wait for my chance to be a voice that is heard. Or maybe I understand that it could be better, see how it could be better, and wonder why it isn't.
Itchy_turd - 3/18/2005 01:58:00 AM
Out of all your posts, you have yet to define "better". You point out stuff you don't like, anyone could find something in our gov't they don't like.
Define "better", and tell me how it would be possible to make it "better" (since you see it and wonder why it isn't).
Chuck - 3/18/2005 03:16:00 PM
Most obviously, the current system was setup using a now outdated model of communication.
This begs the question, what is outdated about it? Or what the hell are you talking about?
Once upon a time it took a year to send a letter across the USA. It took a year to get word a battle had ended half a world away.
These lags in communication couldn't allow for a country of 293,027,571 people to be able to vote individually for anything. Therefore a represenative system was used. It's an outdated model.
Now our lags in communication are measured in milliseconds, and the measurement even has a name: ping.
Old and busted: Represenative
New Hotness: Technocracy
Itchy_turd - 3/18/2005 09:14:00 PM
Unforetunately, your message is not consistent.
The discussion started as you were lamenting your lack of not even keeping up in the political process:
"Frankly, the only issue with the government that I have is it's distance from the average citazen. This isn't necessarily the governments fault, it's really my fault. I work 40 hours a week, and when it's all said and done, I have almost no time to endulge in CSPANing."
There will always be an representative executive branch in any form of government. The Technocracy you propose could potentially eliminate a representative federal legislative branch, where all federal legislation would be via popular vote.
But even if a valid form of Technocracy were possible, why would you think it would be more convenient or efficient? I don't think it would be, and I could find no way to better illustrate why than pointing out your statement above.
"Most obviously, the current system was setup using a now outdated model of communication."
What are you talking about? You're Technocracy would not change how the government communicates with it's citizens. It would change how the government functions. We would still be communicating through the mediums we have now. But why would 293,027,571 constantly voting for every single solitary piece of legislation constantly be more desirable than 293,027,571 voting periodically on representatives? And there is no way you could argue that such a systemwould be more efficient; maybe in the future, but not now. I do see merit in a very limited use of the idea you propose. Possibly that annually that one or two issues that were suited for a national vote take place. But changing to that form of government? Get realistic.
Now you've drifted from your secular rant against Christianity, to the wish for some hippy, pseudo-futuristic form of government I would except from any typical blogger, while still excluding any discussion on valid current political issues, which I find also typical of bloggers. In fact, I find that typical of most people I speak with. If you are not capable of even identifying an actual issue in today's political climate worth discussing, why would I see fit to endorse a change to the form of government you propose?
Chuck - 3/19/2005 07:17:00 AM
A technocracy would change the way it communicates with its citizens. Ideally, one would have to know what they were placing a vote for, and you're told through your voting medium. I certainly won't detail any specific possibilities here as that's not what you want to read.
"If you are not capable of even identifying an actual issue in today's political climate worth discussing, why would I see fit to endorse a change to the form of government you propose?"
Well I could care less if you want to change that form. Clearly that form is amorphous and still being shaped by the much greater minds out there. However, this discussion was spawned from one "actual issue." Since you're so fond of returned to the origins and quoting, here you go:
President Bush's continuing efforts to direct our tax money to religiously affiliated groups.
To which you rebutted:
"And likely the Democrat would be spending more..."
On various other projects, yes. But for a means to forcefully spread ideology? This is wrong.
Now, about the abortions, I only said, "Abortions would save the taxpayers more money in the long run." You said that "Actually, between abstinence (what your article was referring to) and abortions, successful abstinence behavior would save more money..." Which is true, however, in ALL cases, deterring masses from sex (whatever your means, including W's religious programs) is ineffective and is giving it to people I don't want to have it.
The issue is really seperation of Church and State. This is a Christianity Vs. Secularism forum (which I tried to deviate from). It burns me up that someone who thinks they are so righteous is so hypocritial.
Itchy_turd - 3/19/2005 08:54:00 PM
Actually, my rebuttal to "President Bush's continuing efforts to direct our tax money to religiously affiliated groups" was "We could have a Republican directing gov't funds to faith-based groups promoting abstinence, or a Democrat using gov't funds for abortions." Since it may not be clear from your mis-quote earlier, one should come to the conclusion that that was my rebuttal by observing that it was the first sentence on my response to your OP.
Next was your balk: "But for a means to forcefully spread ideology? This is wrong."
Who's being forced? Are you telling me that citizens are being forced to comply with some life-style regimen that's dictated by a faith-based organization?
Next: "Which is true, however, in ALL cases, deterring masses from sex (whatever your means, including W's religious programs) is ineffective..."
Really? You mean all those programs have no note-worthy effect on reducing unwanted pregnancies (which is obviously the reason for an abortion)? Could you cite a source on that? Because then I would need to let these people know:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda04-07.cfm
"and is giving it to people I don't want to have it."
That's all your rants boil down to.
Also, you mentioned earlier you voted for Kerry. May I point out a few things about our man, Kerry? Let's look at the 2nd presidential debate (the first was solely on home-land security).
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
In a rebuttal to a question first posed to Bush about the Bush administration's record on the environment, Kerry said:
"Let me just say to you, number one, don't throw the labels around. Labels don't mean anything." Then, his third example of this he pointed out was: "I've been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives of young children for years."
Hmm. Really? Is he making that up, has he really held that position before he stated that on his first nationwide forum on the subject?
http://www.christianindex.org/528.article
Later in the debate he even mentions that Teresa has spoken publically about abstinence.
And be honest, did you even watch the debates?
Man, I guess that's a real downer. Both sides actually agree on something, and it's the issue you feel so strongly against...
What does that tell you? I would conclude that your opinion is not shared by the majority of Americans, and not the polical position of the majority of politicians. Mostly just your radical blogger peers.
Itchy_turd - 3/19/2005 08:55:00 PM
And have a nice day!
:)
Chuck - 3/20/2005 11:18:00 PM
Technocracy, abstinance, the reason I voted for Kerry, CSPAN, fallacies in argument, and anything else you like will be covered in a thread later.
Religious groups don't deserve government money, it's seperation of church and state. I don't want religious institutions taxed either because they don't need to have a role in the state.
So, with all that stated, the only thing you need to tell me is do you really think that a faith based organization won't guilt-trip, suggest, use peer influence, or any of their subtly machinery to convince people to join their religion? Or in other words, while using tax money, will they restrain from the most one of the most important parts of their faith, spreading it?
Itchy_turd - 3/21/2005 02:52:00 PM
Your last post and your new topic are more precise, as to what you are stating and what you wish for me to respond to (as opposed to a meandering thought). I find those alot better in contributing to the back-and-forth. Thank you.
:)
On the legality of separation of Church and State in the First Amendment:
U.S. Supreme Court
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING
(1947)
Mr. Justice Black:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1
-or-
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html
Now to answer your question, first note that I feel we have adequately established the role religious-based abstinance organizations have. So, if such an organization is, in essense, properly using the funds allocated to them (as in, not using the funds for any purpose outside of why they were given the funds), yet also passively promoting their faith (as opposed to asserting it), then I see no wrong.
Contrast that with this use of gov't funds. This was the #1 "spending outrage" of 2003, from the Libertarian Party (them again):
Giving $170 million to a pornographer who wants to hand out condoms around the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development awarded the grant to Population Services International, or PSI, a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to curb sexually transmitted diseases. PSI was founded in 1971 by Philip Harvey, who runs a massive mail-order pornography firm called Adam and Eve.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32044
So, as long as he is using the gov't funds allocated to him solely to purchase and distribute condoms, is the rest relevant (outside of being used for political spin)?
Boy, this comment log is getting long!
Itchy_turd - 3/21/2005 03:54:00 PM
I would like to add that a religious organization providing a legitimate municipal service meeting the criteria of what I used to judge whether or not I feel a program is valid, is also in compliance with the First Amendment based upon the U.S. Supreme Court's statement in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing.
Do you feel that my personal litmus test, and/or the Supreme Court's judgement are too liberal?
(Liberal, as in the literal sense of being possibly too inclusive for religious organizations?)
:)
Chuck - 3/22/2005 10:54:00 PM
So, if such an organization is, in essense, properly using the funds allocated to them (as in, not using the funds for any purpose outside of why they were given the funds), yet also passively promoting their faith (as opposed to asserting it), then I see no wrong.
-VS-
Giving $170 million to a pornographer who wants to hand out condoms around the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development awarded the grant to Population Services International, or PSI, a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to curb sexually transmitted diseases...
It seems that there to be an issue of policing when comparing these two.
Who will police how the religious institutions deal with the money?
The pornographer would be subject to policing by the IRS. I don't know, would the church be audited, or checked at any point by either the IRS, or another government institution?
Itchy_turd - 3/23/2005 06:04:00 PM
I believe you are wrong on that Chuck. Even though the Interal Revenue Service would be auditing Adam and Eve's book-keeping, I believe it would be a different government agency that determines whether non-profit organizations such as the regilious based organizations or Population Services International are properly using the funds given to them (since in the case of non-prfit organizations, there isn't a revenue or taxes to be paid to audit whether they were apid properly, the purpose of the IRS). I wish I knew specifically right off the top of my head what government agency performed those functions.
Or are you asking whether there is an agency that makes sure religious based organizations using government funds are doing so in a manner in compliance with the First Amendment, under the terms determined by the Supreme Court?
Again, I imagine there would be, I just do not know the agency that performs such a function off the top of my head.
Chuck - 3/23/2005 09:07:00 PM
Or are you asking whether there is an agency that makes sure religious based organizations using government funds are doing so in a manner in compliance with the First Amendment, under the terms determined by the Supreme Court?Yes. I'll look and see if I can find anything.
Chuck - 3/24/2005 12:14:00 AM
I've been unable to find anything reguarding policing of faith based initiatives.
Also who determines which groups gets money?
While policing may be easily resolved, the fund division issues are likely to create more problems (ie- people gripeing about this group being alotted this much money while their group got less). It seems to me like too much trouble when you can just keep religion out of it. Do we really need or want (should it already exist) another governmental department to oversee faith based initiatives?
|
|
