State of the union address, 2004

[denoir 0]

Ah, there we come to it. The argument of Black and White.  The truth of the matter is we dont really live in a world where we have to be for one or for the other idealogical point of view exclusively.

True, but in the end you generally put yourself in a category. And since society is a collective, the real results are always a set of compromises. That doesn't however change the more or less coherent ideology you choose to subscribe to. And there are clear differences between the ideologies that can't simply be integrated. In the end more often than not you make a choice of where the focus will be. Will you be giving lectures on safe sex or will you be insisting on abstinence and so on.

Quote[/b] ]You used the example of the American Revolution earlier as a shining example of liberal ideals.  And it was, but you left out that the people that participated in it where devotely religious and subscribed to very strict familial standards concerned with decency, morality, etc.etc.

Not really. I gave it as an example of where liberal ideas were important. It doesn't mean that the American revolution was even adequate from a liberal point of view. You still had some serious flaws (from a secular liberal humanist point of view): slavery and strict devotion to religion, to mention two of them. It was however a big step for those times. Over time slavery was removed, women got the right to vote etc. There still remain many things that should be removed, but that are not, thanks to conservative efforts. Religious interference in secular matters for instance.

Quote[/b] ]You can support the theory of evolution and yet maintain belief in a supreme being, it just requires and adjustment of understanding.

If you are set on being a strong believer then you believe that god created the world in six days and that premarital sex is immoral. And you will support politcs that support that. Basically it leads to indirect religious oppression, which is generally shown by history bad for progress.

Quote[/b] ]You can be concerned with the well being of humans all over the world but take more interest in those in your own country.  It just an expansion of the idea of family.  Most of us care more for our family than strangers.

But in the end you make a decision to either say work with the UN or ignore everybody else because you only care about your own country. Compare Clinton's and Bush's international policies and you'll see how decisive ideology is in the end.

Quote[/b] ]-"You don't have to work 12 hours per day in the field to have food on your table."

I had to read this one again, lol.  Thank your lucky stars that you or your countrymen don't, but in the U.S. this is not uncommon.  And its no just those that work in the field.  I know quite a few people in white collar and blue collar jobs that work 50-60 hour weeks.  

Yes, you have the concepts of laissez faire very integrated in your system. And for 19th century ideals, that's not bad. It's when you come to the realization that you instead of 40 hours per week can work for 30 hours while maintaining the same material standard.

Quote[/b] ]-We in the industrialized world are going to a point where people won't have to work at all to make a living. And with such a reality, you can't very well cling on to your antiquated values of "a honest day's work" etc etc

Wow, talk a utopian fantasies   .  That ignores two facts, increasing populations and finite resources, you do the math.  

If its that good in Sweden, enjoy it while it lasts.

Both facts are solved through technology. For now the third world are lagging so much behind that resources are not really a problem. It will become a problem in the future, but I'm confident we'll solve it somehow. In reality for the western world neither overpopulation nor lack of resources are a problem.

For now it is still utopian, but it's closer than you might think. We've been seeing a lot of that development within the EU the last decade. Germany and France are in the economic dire straits right now because they don't know how to handle increased automated production and a saturated market. For example: what do you do when your fully robotic car factory can produce ten times more cars than people want to buy. You might say: lower the prices and they'll buy more. But lo and behold - they're still not buying more. America has still not reached that point but Europe is already there in many cases - oversaturated markets. And then you have to revise your whole economic basis. That's why you see a lot of socialist tendencies in Europe. Pure capitalism has one fatal flaw: it assumes an unlimited market. That was the case in the 19th century, but not today. What do you do when producing more isn't necessarily better?

Quote[/b] ]For all that we have "evolved" through our social progress it seems humanity is plagued by the same maladies; wars, famines, crime, greed, sloth, murder, etc, etc, etc. are all still with us and somehow I dont believe our new crop of liberals are anywhere near solving these issues. So much for enlightenment!

I disagree. For instance Sweden has not been at war for 200 years now. Thanks to liberalism, humanism (and a stronger Russia ). In the western world you don't have famines any more. As for crime, greed etc.. well, we are very far from solving those (if ever), but I don't see why it should prevent us from trying..

[ericz 0]

Your argument assumes that there is always a critical juncture where one's idealogy is put to the test so to speak. But it's not really.

I cited your example of the American Revolution, because previously you made a statement that conservatives were regressive. By your definition of conservative, the American revolutionaries would have fit nicely in that category, yet they brought about progressive change while maintaining core values ( and I am not speaking of slavery).

You also ignore the fact that the impetus for change in venue from Europe to America was brought on by religious conviction. So it can be argued that religion created the United States indirectly and even directly. That it was later the most progressive country in the world, technologically, socially and materially did not occur in spite of religion but because some of the values espoused by religion, honesty, work ethic, etc drove that change and tempered it as well.

We have been referring to the tenets of Christianity but there are many other religions as well in the U.S. that hold similar values if not the same doctrines.

One can support diplomatic institutions such as the U.N and allow for reasonable expectations of resolution. However, diplomacy that yields no results is essentially useless. You only need to note how hard it is to find a consensus on this board over any issue and then you can begin to appreciate how hard it would be arrive at a mutually acceptable solution by over a hundred countries on anything.

Especially when economic interests are involved as in Iraq. Which country gets the oil contracts? Who gets to rebuild Iraq? Ex. Did French companies already have discussions with Iraqi oil counterparts to do business in the event of sanction lifting? (prior to OIF) If so, it would not be in France's interest to support a war led by the U.S. that would change that economic dynamic.

In the end its entirely unclear that Clinton would not have precipated the War on Terrorism. We can debate this issue but its pointless as we will never really know, he wasnt Pres. at the time.

Well, I am all for having more time to spend with my family and improving my quality of life, so less hours at work is appealing. Send us your economists so we can work on that.

Although in some areas we may be close to market saturation, we have a burgeoning immigrant population settling here so we are guaranteed a base of demand for quite a while yet.

I am glad you are optimistic about solving the enormous problems coming our way with overpopulation. I am less inclined to be so optimistic, I guess well just have to see.

The problem with the bright picture you paint it that most of the wars and famines occur in the "3rd world". The exact same group that is going to face increasing pressures do to limited resources and overpopulation. The belief that we will somehow remain above it all, due to our technology our "social enlightenment" ignores history and current events.

-"As for crime, greed etc.. well, we are very far from solving those (if ever), but I don't see why it should prevent us from trying.."

Its unlikely that we solve these in the near future, but I take comfort in the fact that conservative values focus on these issues and moral conservatives have a better track record than liberals in addressing them.

[denoir 0]

Your argument assumes that there is always a critical juncture where one's idealogy is put to the test so to speak.  But it's not really.

I cited your example of the American Revolution, because previously you made a statement that conservatives were regressive.  By your definition of conservative, the American revolutionaries would have fit nicely in that category, yet they brought about progressive change while maintaining core values ( and I am not speaking of slavery).  

Ah, but you are making a critical mistake in your analysis: you are comparing today's liberal values with what was liberal back then. It is not at all the same thing. As a matter of fact, today's conservatives are actually yesterday's liberals. The big liberal point back then was that the values of the colonists did not equal the values of their European masters.

Everybody was religious back then, liberals as well as conservatives. That was never the issue. The liberal approach that America had was to allow various Christian sects, without imposing a state-religion upon them. That was the liberal part.

Quote[/b] ]You also ignore the fact that the impetus for change in venue from Europe to America was brought on by religious conviction. So it can be argued that religion created the United States indirectly and even directly.

Indeed it did, but it was not the official Lutheran or Catholic church but various sects. And that exactly was one of the big liberal points: Going from a state-controlled and dictated relgion to making room for individual beliefs. Make no mistake though, they were still all Christians who had Christian values.

Quote[/b] ]That it was later the most progressive country in the world, technologically, socially and materially did not occur in spite of religion but because some of the values espoused by religion, honesty, work ethic, etc drove that change and tempered it as well.

That can be very much debated.

Quote[/b] ]Its unlikely that we solve these in the near future, but I take comfort in the fact that conservative values focus on these issues and moral conservatives have a better track record than liberals in addressing them.

..by sweeping it under the rug. Almost 1% of the US population is in prison, thanks to your "punishment" rather than "rehabilitation" approach. Hell, if you could summarily execute people suspected of crime right on the spot, you'd have even less problems with crime. But is that a society that you would like to live in?

[ericz 0]

Regardless of the political situation of the day, the moral values that conservatives today espouse such as morality, family standards, accountability, responsiblity, work ethic etc. are the same values espoused by moral conservatives in the past.

Its important to note that many religions hold these same values. Most of these religions including Chrisitianity pre-date the American Revolution and the French Revolution. They are part and parcel to every major human civilization.

The reason that these values born in religion continue are that they are essential to the sustainability of human civilization. Discarding moral values in exchange for a promise of a better tommorrow has been tried in 60's and ended in failure.

-"That can be very much debated"

Yes it can, but I believe you would have a hard time explaining that devout religionists were actually liberals in disguise and since they are the ones that founded the U.S.....

If you are referring to my claim about the U.S. being the most advanced technologically, socially and materially, well all I can say is, Who's the world's only Superpower??? Come on you can say it..USA! USA! USA!

-..by sweeping it under the rug. Almost 1% of the US population is in prison, thanks to your "punishment" rather than "rehabilitation" approach. Hell, if you could summarily execute people suspected of crime right on the spot, you'd have even less problems with crime. But is that a society that you would like to live in?

Thanks to the liberals and their championed child psychologists, your claim of about 1% maybe true...

Tell little johnny he can be whatever he wants to be without telling him about the sacrifice, hard work and discipline he'll need to make his dreams come true and you'll end up with a very expectant and pissed off little johnny.

We are fearful of "traumatizing" little johnny by forcing him to confront his failures and take responsibility for them, so that he cruises through life expecting success to be given to him. If they don't get it, they become upset over the seeming unfair nature of their experience. Some resort to selling drugs, some resort to robbery, some resort to finding anyway they can to scam the system that they feel owes them a Lincoln Navigator, name-brand clothing etc.

They want to "live large" without effort.

No, I would NOT advocate execution without legal procedure and I WOULD like to see Johnny rehabilitated. But I would only give him a few chances to get his act straight. If he couldn't keep it together, I think I'd be content to live in a society which executed him instead of locking him up in prison for the rest of his life at my expense.

This will be my last post for the while (no really) But I'll be back tommorrow, hope to discuss other issues as well. Thanks.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Enjoy

dishonest duya

Please FS Pilot, dont feel insulted. This thing is just funny, dont take it too seriously.

[toadlife 3]

If he couldn't keep it together, I think I'd be content to live in a society which executed him instead of locking him up in prison for the rest of his life at my expense.

Executing people in the U.S. is on average 7 times more expensive than locking them up for life.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It is not the first time I hear this but it sounds unlogical to me. What makes an execution so expensive? Okay, you might get quite a big electricity bill at the end of the month but thats about it.

Prisons however need to be build and maintained. There is tons of Human Resources involved. And dont forget about food,clothes, hygiene products, medications... Now that to me sounds pretty expensive!

[Billabong81 0]

Execution is so expensive now becuase we have to be humane about it now.  We use this shot now that kills you quickly so you do not feel it that much.  Who knows how much it costs, but I'm sure a bullet is a lot less expensive

NOTE: I do respect people's lives, just not people who kill others with no reason (ie, cereal killers if that is speeled correctly)

[EiZei 0]

If he couldn't keep it together, I think I'd be content to live in a society which executed him instead of locking him up in prison for the rest of his life at my expense.

Executing people in the U.S. is on average 7 times more expensive than locking them up for life.

Well, of course the process can be sped up considerably but I dont think there is a need to explain the bad sides of this.

Good thing that EU banned death penalty in every respect though.

Quote[/b] ]NOTE: I do respect people's lives, just not people who kill others with no reason (ie, cereal killers if that is speeled correctly)

What about those who are wrongfully accused?

[toadlife 3]

It is not the first time I hear this but it sounds unlogical to me. What makes an execution so expensive? Okay, you might get quite a big electricity bill at the end of the month but thats about it.

Prisons however need to be build and maintained. There is tons of Human Resources involved. And dont forget about food,clothes, hygiene products, medications... Now that to me sounds pretty expensive!

It's simple. People who are sentenced to death in the U.S. are of course allowed to appeal their sentence and their case. Since many, many people in the U.S. are completely against the death penalty, these death row inmates frequently enjoy free counsel by private lawyers, and thier cases are somtimes financially supported by anti death penalty organizations who donate their time and money to try and get death row inmates' sentence converted to life in prison. As they have high quality lawyers defending them, and financial backing for private investigations into their case, they usually manage to score many, many appeals. This is helped along by most states' (excluding Texas of course) paranoia of not wanting to put an innocent man to death - they generally grant appeals and delay sentences to make extra sure they aren't putting an innocent man to death. As a result, their execution is delayed over and over and over again pending their appeals. A typical appeal can cost the state large sums of money - sometimes one million dollars or more. Adding to the cost, is the fact that people that are on death row are kept in special "supermax" prisons, which cost way more than normal prisons. For a meduim-high security prison each inmate will cost around $40,000 per year to house, but in a supermax prison, the cost of housing a single inmate rises to around $70,000-$80,000.

Say an inmate managed to score 6 appeals to their case, but finally runs out of luck after 10 years on death row and bites the bullet. BTW some inmates have been on death row for 20 or more years in the U.S. before they get executed.

Also, lets say that the appeals cost an average of $800,000.

6 appeals x $800,000 = $4,800,000

$4,800,000 / 40,000 = 120 years in a regular prison

For the cost of the appeals alone, the state could have put the inmate in prison for 120 years in a medium/high security prison.

Now factor in the extra cost of being housed on Death Row.

15 * $40,000 = $600,000 for 15 years in a regular prison

15 * $70,000 = $1,050,000

That's $450,000 extra just to house the inmate while he sucks away $4,800,000 in appeals from the state.

Add it all up and do some division and it cost 8.75 times more to put my 'example inmate' to death.

[denoir 0]

Discarding moral values in exchange for a promise of a better tommorrow has been tried in 60's and ended in failure.

It ended in failure because the conservative forces were too strong. What happened in the 60's happend too fast for the conservative American public. In other parts of the world it made a deep impact however. In Sweden for instance the basics of the modern liberal views that we have today were founded. Change was absorbed slightly slower than the hippies of 60's wanted and in a more sober manner, but nevertheless a lot of things changed for the better. This happened in most of Europe.

And thanks to that we are more socially evolved today than America who failed to really embrace the changes that were proposed in the 60's. It's coming now in small steps, hidden under expressions such as "compassionate conservativism". Changes in that direction are inevitable and while the conservatives can obstruct and slow down the progress, it will still happen.

Quote[/b] ]Yes it can, but I believe you would have a hard time explaining that devout religionists were actually liberals in disguise and since they are the ones that founded the U.S.....

Not at all. As I said, you fail to take into account that the ideals that constitute conservativism and liberalism change over time. Those that founded the US were liberals and devout religionists. There is no contradiction that. The conservatives at that time advocated British rule, support for the king, one state religion etc It's very simple to identify conservatives in history. Just find the people who whined about the society losing its core values. You'll find it in every step. And those "core values" were simply things that they were used to for one thing or another. When there was a debate about slavery, conservatives appealed to "core values" such as the superiority of the white race etc etc. We view today on such position with contempt, the same way we will view many of today's "core values" that the conservatives are trying to defend. And conservatives in the future will be whining about protecting the "core values" that today's liberals are advocating.

Quote[/b] ]If you are referring to my claim about the U.S. being the most advanced technologically, socially and materially, well all I can say is, Who's the world's only Superpower??? Come on you can say it..USA! USA! USA!

militarily - cerainly

technologically - possibly, it depends on your definition. If you are refering to industrial power, then yes. If you are refering to leading the avantgarde of technology, then probably not.

materially - no. Not even in absolute terms. There are other countries in the world who have higher GDP/capita. Furthermore if you remove the top 1% richest in the USA and do the same in the EU, the US GDP/capita will be on the level of one of the poorer EU countries.

socially - hell no! It was in the 1790's, but today it's an antiquated rusty old system. It pathetically lags behind most other western countries.

Quote[/b] ]They want to "live large" without effort.

If it's possible, then why not? Your industrial capacity is not going to be reduced over time. Is helping the very rich getting even richer a more noble goal to you? As I said earlier, incentive basted economic systems assume an unlimited market and limited production means. When your production outgrows the market, you have to start thinking in other terms. It's nothing new.

A few hundred years ago poor people died of hunger. Today, in the western world, they don't. Why? Because of our huge agricultural system that has the production capacity of feeding the entire population. And when that happened, you had conservatives whining about how now the lazy bastards would not work at all and how it would be the end of the world.

And today's equivalent of those conservatives are whining about state welfare and how it corrupts the society.

[Pipski 0]

And sorry if I'm missing something, but why would you suddenly change the pill-usage to men, would it be more effective than women on pills or what?

Not all women can take the pill, depots or implants (for medical reasons). Some get very ill if they try. This leaves their only options as more intrusive devices. They'd, I'm sure, be glad if their blokes could take the pills. Oh, and condoms aren't safe as an exclusive birth control measure. Safest defence against knobrot but should be combined with additional contraception if preventing pregnancy is a serious concern. The failure rates are low, but even at less than 1% you'd still only need to use 100 for the likelihood to get worrying.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

You people list up so many things that you consider important but for me only one thing realy counts: America shall not turn into a BIG-BROTHER-IS-WATCHING-YOU and I dont mean for us europeans but for the americans themselves. The land of the free turns more and more into a "everyone is suspicious". Data is being stored, investigations are being carried out without CLEAR legislative support...kind of scarry.

Der Spiegel

Now to a german a police-force with such a power (and growing) is kind of scarry. This new trend of citizens to spy out each other, this brutal way of investigating and the agressions against opposers is a dangerous step to take. Seen that twice during the last century. It works in facism, communism and trust me it can even work in democracy. You better watch out! Hell it is YOUR country.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Its important to note that many religions hold these same values. Most of these religions including Chrisitianity pre-date the American Revolution and the French Revolution. They are part and parcel to every major human civilization.

Liberal = amenable to change

Conservative = doesn't like change.

That is ALL that the words mean.

Morality and values are part of civilisation, and not religion. Religions like to incorporate them, but they are independent of religion.

Quote[/b] ]

The reason that these values born in religion continue are that they are essential to the sustainability of human civilization.

They aren't born in religion.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes it can, but I believe you would have a hard time explaining that devout religionists were actually liberals in disguise and since they are the ones that founded the U.S.....

'liberal' doesn't nessesarily mean that someone is irreligious, it means they are amenable to change. In a highly religious population, those who wanted change would still be religious.

Quote[/b] ]

This will be my last post for the while (no really) But I'll be back tommorrow, hope to discuss other issues as well. Thanks.

Try to get your facts straight tomorrow then.

[ericz 0]

Denoir

-"This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family."

-" this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism."

I list the above so that we can establish some continuity in the discussion.

B.Rumbo

-"Morality and values are part of civilisation, and not religion. Religions like to incorporate them, but they are independent of religion."

Explain the tranformation of Roman civilization when Christianity was adopted. Religion many times is the force that gives a particular culture its values. In any case read the above quotes as these definitions of conservative and liberal ideals are being discussed. Follow the thread next time.

@Denoir

-"It ended in failure because the conservative forces were too strong. What happened in the 60's happend too fast for the conservative American public"

Debatable. It ended in failure because many of the "progressive" changes espoused such as "free love" were morally corrupt and in fact not a serious effort for social change. The only thing of any value to come out of that time period were the social changes made by Civil Rights Movement not the hippie movement.

-Denoir

"It's coming now in small steps, hidden under expressions such as "compassionate conservativism"

The term "compassionate conservative" implies that at some point conservatives weren't compassionate and that's incredibly simple minded thinking. It was and is largely believed thanks to the liberal media that conservatives do not care about the poor or dispossesed because they have for many years been advocates against the irresponsible management of programs such as Welfare.

-"When there was a debate about slavery, conservatives appealed to "core values" such as the superiority of the white race etc etc. We view today on such position with contempt, the same way we will view many of today's "core values" that the conservatives are trying to defend. And conservatives in the future will be whining about protecting the "core values" that today's liberals are advocating.

The belief in the superiority of the white race is not a value that fits into your above definition of conservative ideals. In fact it was due to this, that it is irreconcilable with the tenets of Christianity and slavery was discarded.

They want to "live large" without effort.

-If it's possible, then why not?

Are you advocating that participating in crimes and scams to get what you want is acceptable? If that is the case your not liberal, your just a degenerate.

-"When your production outgrows the market, you have to start thinking in other terms. It's nothing new.

Its not new, because it HAS NOT happened yet in the USA.

-A few hundred years ago poor people died of hunger.

Today, in the western world, they don't.

NEWSFLASH. They still do. BTW, define Western world.

-"Why? Because of our huge agricultural system that has the production capacity of feeding the entire population.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble bud, but our current agricultural system requires more resources than it produces. Which means at some point it will have a hard time keeping up with demand, maybe. As an aside, the most effective method of farming (sustainable and ecological) is the swidden model which is also one of the oldest methods.

- "And when that happened, you had conservatives whining about how now the lazy bastards would not work at all and how it would be the end of the world."

Sorry, I missed that meeting. I dont know of that which you speak.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Explain the tranformation of Roman civilization when Christianity was adopted. Religion many times is the force that gives a particular culture its values.

Certainly. Almost immediately after the widespread adoption of Xianity, the Roman Empire fell.

Do you think that there were no rules before the adoption of one make-believe sky fairy instead of several?

Quote[/b] ]In any case read the above quotes as these definitions of conservative and liberal ideals are being discussed. Follow the thread next time.

In any case, realise that if the entire population is religious, liberal means 'differentlt religious' or 'amenable to changing the religion slightly' or 'Not quite as intent on burning people alive because their book differs by one punctuation mark on page 502'

Follow the facts next time.

Quote[/b] ]The belief in the superiority of the white race is not a value that fits into your above definition of conservative ideals. In fact it was due to this, that it is irreconcilable with the tenets of Christianity and slavery was discarded.

Despite the fact that the christian bible condones slavery in numerous places, even going so far as to lay out a system of relatives worths for different slaves and suggested methods of punishment.... your ignorace astounds me. The bible was one of the chief defences of the slave owners, claiming 'well the bible says it's ok'

If you want references, I'll give you them, but then I'd have to assume you haven't actually read the book yourself and are just taking it to say what you think it does... like thats rare..

[ericz 0]

@B.Rumbo

-"Certainly. Almost immediately after the widespread adoption of Xianity, the Roman Empire fell."

I take it here you are implying that Christanity was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, now that's ignorant.

I suggest you read a number of available texts on the subject, that is in case your interested in real reasons and not quick retorts. There were inumerable factors involved in the decline of Roman civlization.

-"In any case, realise that if the entire population is religious, liberal means 'differentlt religious' or 'amenable to changing the religion slightly' or 'Not quite as intent on burning people alive because their book differs by one punctuation mark on page 502'

Follow the facts next time."

I know quite well what liberal means. I pointed you to Denoir's list of liberal and conservative ideals to you show you the basis of this discussion. If you are interested in repeating the definition of the word "liberal" and your interpretation of its application in this discussion like a parrot, at least present the definition in its entirety.

-Despite the fact that the christian bible condones slavery in numerous places, even going so far as to lay out a system of relatives worths for different slaves and suggested methods of punishment.... your ignorace astounds me. The bible was one of the chief defences of the slave owners, claiming 'well the bible says it's ok'

My "ignorace" may astound you but your ignorance may astound us all. I take it that you are making references to the Old Testament. There is another part of the bible referred to as the New Testament that changes (whew, that's progressive) many things including new ideas such as treat others as you would want to be treated, Love shall be the whole of the law,etc. The slave owners that used the bible as a defense for slavery often refered to slaves as being the descendants of Cain. Not a lot of credibility there.

Please do, list your references.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I take it here you are implying that Christanity was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, now that's ignorant.

I suggest you read a number of available texts on the subject, that is in case your interested in real reasons and not quick retorts. There were inumerable factors involved in the decline of Roman civlization.

One of which was the widespread adoption of Xianity. Of course there were other factors.

Amazingly off-topic, however, given that you brought that up as some sort of defence to your laughable statement that religion is the sole cause of morality. Which it is not.

Quote[/b] ]

I know quite well what liberal means.

No, I do not think that you do. I know what Denoir's definitions are and I totally agree with them.. I'd be interested in what your definitions are, because if you think 'liberal' = not religious (as you seem to) then you are mistaken.

Read a dictionary. Although not always correct, they are valuable.

Quote[/b] ]

Liberal :

# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded

Quote[/b] ]

I pointed you to Denoir's list of liberal and conservative ideals to you show you the basis of this discussion. If you are interested in repeating the definition of the word "liberal" and your interpretation of its application in this discussion like a parrot, at least present the definition in its entirety.

I posted the definition in it's entirety as it pertains to the discussion in a previous post. Did you miss that?

Quote[/b] ]

My "ignorace" may astound you but your ignorance may astound us all. I take it that you are making references to the Old Testament. There is another part of the bible referred to as the New Testament that changes (whew, that's progressive) many things including new ideas such as treat others as you would want to be treated, Love shall be the whole of the law,etc. The slave owners that used the bible as a defense for slavery often refered to slaves as being the descendants of Cain. Not a lot of credibility there.

Please do, list your references.

So you don't know where the references are from. I thought as much. Yet another 'believer' who does not know his own book.

As this is not a bible discussion, I'll not comment on the OT/ NT thing apart from registering surprise that a perfect, omniscient, etc etc god ... changed his mind... - and that your favourite fictional character, Jesus himself, would disagree with you - claiming many times that he WAS NOT changing the old testament laws.

So here are some references to people who used the bible to 'justify' slavery, just to show you.

[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry

Here are some passages from the New Testament

People still being sold into slavery in NT times...

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Priests owning slaves...

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

In the King James Version of the bible, the meaning of the greek word 'Doulos' - meaning 'slaves' was changed to 'servants' - one of the many huge changes that were implemented in this version, so as to please the King (who I'm sorry to say was Scottish)

Jesus regards slave ownership as normal and does not speak against it...

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

St Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters as they should obey Christ...

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

I think that's about enough for just now. Remember, these are all New Testament references. Its obvious that slave ownership was not looked down on at all by the characters in the story (Jesus et al) and was regarded as normal.

There might be spelling errors in this post too: I type quickly. Don't get your panties in a twist about it.

[EiZei 0]

Not to mention slavery and old testament..

http://www.thereverend.com/brick_t....2a.html

[Winters 1]

Blah Blah Blah, the same old crap he has been saying for 4 years now.

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ]One of which was the widespread adoption of Xianity.  Of course there were other factors.

Amazingly off-topic, however, given that you brought that up as some sort of defence to your laughable statement that religion is the sole cause of morality.  Which it is not.

The adoption of Christianity by Roman civilization wasn't a significant factor in its decline, do some research before you make ridiculous statements.  I never stated that religion is the SOLE cause of morality.

Quote[/b] ]I know what Denoir's definitions are and I totally agree with them

Quote[/b] ]Denoir

-"This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family."

-" this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism."

I didn't find religion in the "centre of liberal ideals" as stated by Denoir.  Personally, I do think that a liberal can be religious.  If you READ through the previous posts, I stated that many of the values stated by Denoir are not mutually exclusive.

Thanks for contributing part of the definition, but I'll continue where you left off;

c.Of, relating to liberalism. d.Liberal. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, esp. in Great Britain and Canada.

Word of advice, if you are going to use a dictionary to support your position, its not a good idea to invalidate it in the same sentence by stating that its inaccurate.

Quote[/b] ]I posted the definition in it's entirety as it pertains to the discussion in a previous post.  Did you miss that?

I just read it and No you didnt. I just asked you to post the definition of "liberal" as in the dictionary as it pertains to your argument.

The discussion in a "previous post" was related to Denoirs list of liberal and conservative ideals and the values they represent and not the definition of liberal and conservative as per the dictionary.  That was your contribution.

As far the NT, slavery, condoning, not condoning etc. please read

Quote[/b] ]

Why does the Bible seem to tolerate the institution of slavery?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time ( Exodus 21:20-27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ).

In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and they were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. 1 Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery’s existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave ( Ephesians 6:5-9 ; Colossians 3:2 ; 4:1 ; 1 Timothy 6:2 ; Philemon 1:10-21 ). At the same time, it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people ( Galatians 3:28 ; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 ; Colossians 3:11 ). 2

The gospel first had the practical effect of doing away with slavery within the community of the early church. 3 It also carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.

The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible’s approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races. 4

Only under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln did an American government bring an end to the nightmare of slavery that had long blighted the American conscience. The cost was incalculable. Nowhere in the world has more “brothers’ blood†been shed over the issue of slavery than in America. (Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War.) As President Lincoln said:

Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.â€

The writer of the “Battle Hymn Of The Republic,†popularized during the Civil War, expressed the views of millions who participated in the suffering of that era when she wrote:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, He has trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible, swift sword, His truth is marching on.

Today the Christian message of the spiritual equality of all men under God has spread throughout the world, and it is rapidly becoming the standard by which the human values of all nations are measured.

Written by: Dan Vander Lugt

Quote[/b] ]So you don't know where the references are from.  I thought as much.  Yet another 'believer' who does not know his own book.

Actually, while I have read the bible on a few occasions, I am not able to cite verses off the top of my head, so I was genuinely interested at gaining an insight into your argument.  It is unfortunate that you found that as an opportunity to ridicule me.  

But none the less, since you took the time to post the biblical verses, I will take some time out today and have a look.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't just pull these from a search on the internet and that you understand the context in which these verses were written.

Quote[/b] ]There might be spelling errors in this post too: I type quickly.  Don't get your panties in a twist about it.

I just thought it was ironic that you accused me of being ignorant and yet mispelled the word.  BTW, conservatives don't wear panties only liberals and women do.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Denoir

-"This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family."

-" this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism."

I didn't find religion in the "centre of liberal ideals" as stated by Denoir.

I wish you started reading my posts. Those are the current liberal ideals. A couple of hundred years ago more or less everybody was religious, conservatives as well as liberals.

It's today's enlightened people that are not religious. Today's true liberals are secularists as opposed to the conservatives who still enjoy ritualistic mysticism.

Quote[/b] ]The adoption of Christianity by Roman civilization wasn't a significant factor in its decline, do some research before you make ridiculous statements.  I never stated that religion is the SOLE cause of morality.

It was not the cause of it's decline but it was a part of it's final decadency. The arts of science and engineering were abandoned in favour of mindless ritualism. Scientists and scholars were persecuted and heretics were burnt. While Christianity isn't responsible for the decay of the Roman civilization, it was certainly responsible for the dark ages. It was first when during the renaissance, when people started to question the church that our civilization got back on its tracks and started to make social and technological progress again. The Christian church wasted about a millenium of our time. Imagine where we would be today, had rational minds prevailed and if scientific progress had continued during that age!

[canukausiuka 1]

Well, apart from this discussion being quite off the posted topic, I am enjoying thoroughly, with one exception. There is no need to be condescending or downright inflammatory with comments regarding a person's beliefs. I understand that you may disagree with them, but that is not reason to insult them. It just seems unnecessarily hostile.

As far as Bush's speech, it was nothing outstanding really. Winters got it right, its about the same stuff he's been saying the whole time. Just wondering, how many of you watched it live?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The adoption of Christianity by Roman civilization wasn't a significant factor in its decline, do some research before you make ridiculous statements. I never stated that religion is the SOLE cause of morality.

You certainly implied that. If religion isn't nessesary for morality (which it's not, by your own admission) - why is religion so necessary?

Quote[/b] ]

c.Of, relating to liberalism. d.Liberal. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, esp. in Great Britain and Canada.

Word of advice, if you are going to use a dictionary to support your position, its not a good idea to invalidate it in the same sentence by stating that its inaccurate.

Word of advice, If you're going to argue, try not to post things that agree with what the other person said.

Dictionaries are not 100% perfect (especially ones created by fundamentalists like Webster, an extreme christian who changed the meaning of many words, whose main project was his own version of the bible) - but in the main they are fine.

Quote[/b] ]

I just read it and No you didnt. I just asked you to post the definition of "liberal" as in the dictionary as it pertains to your argument.

Which I've given. Now post your definition of 'liberal' as I already asked, and 'Conservative' since that will probably be wrong as well.

Quote[/b] ]

The discussion in a "previous post" was related to Denoirs list of liberal and conservative ideals and the values they represent and not the definition of liberal and conservative as per the dictionary. That was your contribution.

The values that liberal ideals represent are exactly those that I posted. What part of this is not getting through to you?

Quote[/b] ]Huge cut and paste lifted from the first few google results

Which is nonsense. This is not the place for discussing irrational beliefs. Go to a religious debate board (and PM me the link if you really want to continue it).

Quote[/b] ]

Actually, while I have read the bible on a few occasions, I am not able to cite verses off the top of my head, so I was genuinely interested at gaining an insight into your argument. It is unfortunate that you found that as an opportunity to ridicule me.

I don't expect anyone to be able to cite verses of the top of their head. What I would expect from someone who has read their own book is that they know the basic content of the book, the basic message conveyed in each part; in short, a rough knowledge of the book. Which you don't.

People like to claim the bible is nothing but sweetness and light, but the truth is there is a lot of disgusting, violent, hate-filled nonsense in there. (yes, in the NT too.) If you don't know that, you haven't read it very well, because its very apparent.

Quote[/b] ]

I just thought it was ironic that you accused me of being ignorant and yet mispelled the word. BTW, conservatives don't wear panties only liberals and women do.

Theres a chance of misspelling almost any word. I frequently mispel the as 'teh' but that doesn't mean I don't know how it's spelled.

[HotShot 0]

This is a factual based political commentary compiled by myself by quite a few different sources mostly from Independent Digital, an independent newspaper based in the UK.

232: Number of US combat deaths since George W. Bush (referred to hereforth, affectionately, as "GWB") declared the war "over".

505: Number of US combat deaths total- up to this week.

ZERO: Number of funerals or memorials that GWB has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq.

100: Number of fund-raisers attended by GWB or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003.

29,000: Number of American troops - which is close to the total of a whole army division - to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to Pentagon released statistics.

10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting a world record for largest simulataneous protest.

2: Number of nations that GWB has attacked and taken over.

9.2: Average number of US troops wounded everyday in Iraq.

1.6: Average number of US troops killed everyday in Iraq.

16,000: Estimated number of Iraqi soldiers killed since war began.

10,000: Estimated number of Iraqi citizens killed since war began.

9: Number of members of GWB's defense policy board who ALSO sit on the corporate board of, or advise, at least one defense contractor.

45%: Percentage of Americans who believed at the start of the war that Saddam Hussein or Iraqis were involved in the September 11th attacks on the US. (None of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq...15 of 19 confirmed hijackers were Saudi Arabian).

To read the rest of the statistics, click below......

$100 Billion dollars: Estimated cost of the war at end of 2003.

$13 Billion dollars: Amount other countries have committed to rebuilding Iraq.

$127 Billion dollars: Amount of US budget SURPLUS the year GWB became president.

$374 Billion dollars: Amount of US budget DEFICIT for fiscal year 2003.

$1.58 Billion dollars: Average amount the deficit increases every day.

$23,920 dollars: Each Americans share of the deficit. Thats each...me and you.

1st place prize: Highest deficit in US History.

1st place prize: Highest number of bankruptcies, 1.57 million to be exact, filed in a single year (2002).

$113 Million dollars: Record-setting amount of money raised for FIRST ELECTION by Bush-Cheney in 2000, mostly from corporate and special interest groups.

$130 Million dollars: The "to-be" record-setting amount of money raised for RE-ELECTION by Bush-Cheney up to this point ALREADY, mostly from corporate and special interest groups.

$40 Million dollars: The amount raised by Howard Dean, the leading Democratic nominee in most dollars earned for campaign.

28 days: Number of days vacation that GWB took last AUGUST alone.

13 days: Number of average days vacation the average American worker gets a YEAR.

2.4 MILLION: Number of Americans that lost their jobs since Bush took office three years ago.

9 Million: Number of US workers unemployed in September 2003.

80%: Percentage of Iraqi workforce now unemployed.

55%: Percentage of Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war.

43.6 Million: Number of Americans without health insurance in 2002.

0: Number of other industrialized countries that don't focus on giving their citizens some kind of health care plan or option.

130: Number of countries that have American military presence there TODAY.

40%: Percentage of the whole worlds spending on the military, for which the US is responsible.

$10.9 Million dollars: Average wealth of the 16 original members of GWB's Cabinet. (GWB's personally chosen advisors, called the "Cabinet" in American politics).

88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save LESS than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of GWB's cut in capital gains and dividends taxes that GWB made sound so nice for ME AND YOU.

$42,000 dollars: Average savings that members of GWB's cabinet are expected to get this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.

$42,228 dollars: Average household income in 2001.

$116,000 dollars: Amount that Cheney will save EACH YEAR in tax breaks ALONE.

700: Number of people around the world that the US has imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without due process trials.

1st: GWB became the first American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to US-held prisoners of war.

54%: Percentage of Americans who believe GWB was "legitimately" elected.

1st: GWB is first president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by the states now and not at federal level.

3: Number of children (under 18) convicted of capital offenses to be executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children.

1st: As Governor of Texas, GWB executed more prisoners, 152 to be exact, than any governor in modern US history.

35: Number of countries to which US has suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

$300 million dollars: Amount cut from the federal program that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes.

$1 BILLION dollars: Amount of new US military aid promised to Israel in April 2003 to offset the "burdens" of the US war on Iraq.

58 million: Number of acres of public lands GWB has opened to road building, logging and drilling, despite constant pressure of environmentalist groups that opening such properties will create hardships in the future years (ie. landslides due to erosion from overlogging).

200: Number of public-health and environmental laws GWB has attempted to downgrade or weaken.

90%: Percentage of American citizens who said they approved of the way GWB was handling his job as president when asked on September 26, 2001, recently after the 9/11 attacks.

53%: Percentage of American citizens who said they approved of the way GWB was handling his job as president when asked on January, 16, 2004, recently after the loss of the 500th US combat soldier.

Source: @WAR