LGP Political Discussion Thread

[PensFanInDC]

Gotta go actually do some work for a change

I love this discussion and want it to continue but if some would prefer I would be more then happy to continue this via PM or email

guitarslinger87@gmail.com

[HomerPenguin]

To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief.

The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

In light of this, it is scientifically untenable to assert that human evolution is a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the god of the gaps really the god you're worshipping?

[Troy Loney]

To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief.

The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

In light of this, it is scientifically untenable to assert that human evolution is a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the god of the gaps really the god you're worshipping?

The Gap?

[HomerPenguin]

Is the god of the gaps really the god you're worshipping?

The Gap?

Does that make Eddie Bauer the Antichrist?

[dagny]

Are we only allowed to discuss what is in the title of the thread?

Of course not. I think you may need to re-read my posts. I believe I've been very clear.

I saw a slippery slope starting, it's my job to head that off.

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

(and, fyi, i do not agree with most of his views, but I have the utmost respect for his devotion to them. "Protecting" him has nothing to do with being in agreement. At some point, I told people not to gang up on doublem, too. If that doesn't show my impartiality, I don't know what does. )

[HomerPenguin]

Yet another liberal...conservative supply-side mastermind, blaming Bush for everything:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... rage/full/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.

Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins.

...

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

...

Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves.

In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

[Corvidae]

Ah man... I actually like Red Stripe...

[dagny]

ugh... I am sooooo sick of this dem. vs rep., CRAP!

All this infighting gets our country NOWHERE! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE.

[HomerPenguin]

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

Can't the faithful be respectfully challenged on their beliefs? Why would an honest discussion of religion be off limits?

[dagny]

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

Can't the faithful be respectfully challenged on their beliefs? Why would an honest discussion of religion be off limits?

Doooood.... re- read my posts.

[HomerPenguin]

ugh... I am sooooo sick of this dem. vs rep., CRAP!

All this infighting gets our country NOWHERE! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE.

We are? Wouldn't that assume that everybody thought the same thing?

I agree, Democrat vs. Republican is largely becoming a worthless distinction, but that's because both parties are slaves to our corporate masters, not because I don't think there are genuine and consequential differences of opinion as to how this country ought to be.

[dagny]

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

Can't the faithful be respectfully challenged on their beliefs? Why would an honest discussion of religion be off limits?

Also, I've already had private discussion with him regarding this, and being respectful to others. As you can see, he puts great effort into that.

[HomerPenguin]

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

Can't the faithful be respectfully challenged on their beliefs? Why would an honest discussion of religion be off limits?

Also, I've already had private discussion with him regarding this, and being respectful to others. As you can see, he puts great effort into that.

Right, I'm not questioning PFIDC's level of respect toward others. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between what kind of religious discussion we're allowed to have here and what kind is not allowed. I think respectfully having a frank conversation about religion is something we do too little of as a society because somehow it's considered not right to talk about religious faith in a critical way.

[shafnutz05]

Also, I've already had private discussion with him regarding this, and being respectful to others. As you can see, he puts great effort into that.

PFiDC is by far the most patient, open-minded, and intelligent Christian I have ever "spoken" with. A lot of our brethren would do well to live by that philosophy.

[dagny]

ugh... I am sooooo sick of this dem. vs rep., CRAP!

All this infighting gets our country NOWHERE! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE.

We are? Wouldn't that assume that everybody thought the same thing?

I agree, Democrat vs. Republican is largely becoming a worthless distinction, but that's because both parties are slaves to our corporate masters, not because I don't think there are genuine and consequential differences of opinion as to how this country ought to be.

My point is that the focus is on dem. vs rep., instead of what is best for OUR country. But, you already knew that. I've said it a million times.

The power struggle is the forefront of issues, keeping any progress/reform from happening.

Perhaps if people got over the "us" vs "them", we might start focusing on the actual issues.

[dagny]

Right, I'm not questioning PFIDC's level of respect toward others. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between what kind of religious discussion we're allowed to have here and what kind is not allowed. I think respectfully having a frank conversation about religion is something we do too little of as a society because somehow it's considered not right to talk about religious faith in a critical way.

Which is why, if you read my last "mod" post, you'll notice I said as long as everyone is comfortable with it, the discussion may continue.

Like I said, you guys have done a fantastic job. I'm actually proud.

[HomerPenguin]

My point is that the focus is on dem. vs rep., instead of what is best for OUR country. But, you already knew that. I've said it a million times.

The power struggle is the forefront of issues, keeping any progress/reform from happening.

Perhaps if people got over the "us" vs "them", we might start focusing on the actual issues.

I guess my point is, on most significant issues there's always going to be at least an "us" and one "them," unless everybody is in agreement. Call "us" and "them" whatever you want, but it's still there. The problem with Democrat vs. Republican is that it's not an "us" vs. "them" battle anymore; it's "them" vs. "them," and the rest of "us" can go rot unless we've got enough payola to buy some influence. The power struggle would actually matter if either of the two sides in that struggle still represented anything beyond their own incumbency and greed (i.e., if they stood for competing ideologies regarding what was best for the country). Take health care. There are real differences of opinion about how best to reform the system, if it needs to be reformed at all. "Us" vs. a few "thems." But you're right, in Democrat vs. Republican land, they're going to pass a bill that does nothing other than forcibly shunt people toward big insurance companies why shoveling billions and billions of dollars every year toward those companies. Nobody outside of government and the insurance lobby seems to think that would solve anything.

[cs6687]

There's a simple way to help get things done, though it'll never happen: Term limits for senators.

[Kraftster]

Can't the faithful be respectfully challenged on their beliefs? Why would an honest discussion of religion be off limits?

Also, I've already had private discussion with him regarding this, and being respectful to others. As you can see, he puts great effort into that.

Right, I'm not questioning PFIDC's level of respect toward others. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between what kind of religious discussion we're allowed to have here and what kind is not allowed. I think respectfully having a frank conversation about religion is something we do too little of as a society because somehow it's considered not right to talk about religious faith in a critical way.

See Richard Dawkins. He often times discusses his opinion that the treatment of atheists (not hard atheists, individuals willing to admit that God may exist in the same way that fairies may exist) in the United States is shocking and unfortunate. We have one of the highest percentage of theists in the educated world. He believes this is because "closet atheists" feel that its impossible to have a reasonable discussion about religion. He actually goes so far as to liken the current situation for atheists to the situation for homosexuals in the past decades. He's an interesting guy worth checking out if you are not familiar.

[PensFanInDC]

Right, I'm not questioning PFIDC's level of respect toward others. I'm trying to figure out where the line is between what kind of religious discussion we're allowed to have here and what kind is not allowed. I think respectfully having a frank conversation about religion is something we do too little of as a society because somehow it's considered not right to talk about religious faith in a critical way.

We disagree on most issues but this has got to be one of the best things I have ever heard you say.

Our church teaches us to check EVERYTHING we hear about religion or God against the facts. Even the stuff that they preach in their sermons. We're always told to double check, make sure what they are saying is Truth. Our facts come from The Bible. This is something (again) we disagree on but critical conversation about faith is needed. Critical does not always mean bad.

That being said, I once heard someone say "Spread the Gospel! Use words if necessary." I let my life and actions speak for God as much if not more then my words.

[shafnutz05]

I have read some of Dawkins' stuff...to compare the atheist movement to the gay rights movement, IMO, is ridiculous. The gay rights movement has been compared to the struggle for civil rights by blacks in the 1960s...are we going to compare it to that too?

As far as I have seen, I don't think atheists are treated oppressively or harshly in any way here in America. In the Middle East? Absolutely. But there are PLENTY of open agnostics and atheists that I know and they have never even suggested that they felt slighted, oppressed, or unjustly treated in any way. And they are open about their belief.

Richard Dawkins is a known militant atheist....for him to criticize the way atheists are treated is hilarious. He is downright nasty when it comes to criticizing believers out there. I know, respect, and am friends with plenty of nonbelievers who are respectful as I am. Dawkins is a militant whos entire message is "Christians, Jews, and Muslims are stupid".

[shafnutz05]

On a side note, have you seen the way Christians are treated in the media these days? If Hollywood isn't making movies lampooning them/making them look like a cult/portraying the Catholic church as a worldwide conspiracy, the media is airing stories that try and show the most whacko, fundamentalist side of Christianity and portray it as the norm. It is not "cool" to be Christian in high school/college....I would hardly say open and devout Christians have it easy in our modern world either.

[MWB]

Are we only allowed to discuss what is in the title of the thread?

Of course not. I think you may need to re-read my posts. I believe I've been very clear.

I saw a slippery slope starting, it's my job to head that off.

PFIDC had no input, he mistakenly thought that I was directing my "be respectful" post AT him, when it was really placed where it was to protect him from being ganged up on.

(and, fyi, i do not agree with most of his views, but I have the utmost respect for his devotion to them. "Protecting" him has nothing to do with being in agreement. At some point, I told people not to gang up on doublem, too. If that doesn't show my impartiality, I don't know what does. )

Yes, I read your post a couple times. However, when you say this:

As long as everyone is comfortable discussing this, feel free to continue, but let's not turn this into a debate about whether or not god exists. We each have our religious beliefs, and this is a political thread.

it makes it seem as if we shouldn't debate the existence of God and that we should be keeping this in political terms, since it's a political thread. In one part you say keep discussing it, in the next breath you say what shouldn't be discussed.

[PensFanInDC]

If a Christian puts down anyone for any reason they are not following the example set by God.

John 13:34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

I've said before that I love all of you no matter what you believe or what you think of God. I will never tell anyone that they are going to hell for doing this or that. That isn't my decision.

I think some Christians have given a bad name to the rest of us. I know that the congregation that I attend accepts ALL people regardless of belief, sexual preference or past experiences. God's Word it taught at our congregation. If we turn all sinners away, the sanctuary would be empty.

Romans 3:23-26
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

God needed justice for the sin of the world and He sacrificed His only son for that justice.

[Kraftster]

Well that's an interesting reading of Dawkins. I certainly will acknowledge the fact that Dawkins comes off pretty strongly and that he is quite inflammatory. Sometimes its a shame how pejorative he is in many of his comments because he's a skilled logical thinker/philosopher. Militant is an interesting way of putting it, although I think I'd have to respectfully disagree.

I think you have to understand a bit about Dawkins' social/political philosophy for his pro-atheist rants to be something a bit more palatable. I don't mean to suggest that you are unfamiliar, I don't know whether you are or not. I'm by no means a Dawkins expert, but, I think his secular-based philosophies (if accepted) bring the "atheists' struggle" (as he'd probably put it) a lot closer to the struggle of gay rights/civil rights issues. And I mean no disrespect and don't intend to step on any toes by saying that.

In certain areas of the country I think its certainly possible that an atheist/agnostic individual may feel shunned. Dawkins is probably right that an openly atheistic political candidate would struggle to obtain support. He often points to the lack of a secular voice in government as evidence that atheism is shunned by the American society. I think even he would admit that it is less overt than the civil rights/gay rights parallels, but, I think for him, the covert nature of things makes it even more pugnacious.