Where am I politically?
 

As many of you have noticed (I hope :rolleyes:), I've been gone for some time. I've not been idle. Other than the usual drama that seems to permeate my life (which I may post on the Philosphy thread, since it deals with that topic and I'd like a fresh set of outside opinion), I've found a sense of "where do I stand on ____?" happening.

[background]
For those of you that don't know me, I started out 5 years ago as an evolutionist, and a former Wiccan Priestess. I was exploring different religions in a "search for truth". If evolution was true, why have religion at all, since Gods (in any form) were merely human created reasons to exist?

I went through a dark time, and really needed to believe in something better, something higher than myself. The Mormon elders showed up. I was baptised a Mormon in Jan 2003, then they told me a bunch of stuff AFTER I was baptised (and I learned a bunch of stuff they still hadn't told me), and I freaked out and left the church in July 2003.

Met my husband at that time, a staunch Christian, and avid creationist. There were heated discussions. Intellectually, I couldn't get past evolution. Through some websites and some scientists who are creationists, I finally "got it", and now I am also a creationist, and also a literalist Christian. (Non-denominational) It's kind of convoluted, since I know as a Wiccan Priestess that Wicca as a practice works, but I've managed to include that in my Christianity.
[/background]

Lately (last 6 months or so), I've become more political than ever. Not as in activist, but as in "finding out what is out there", and trying to identify myself with a political group. I've taken the test but that doesn't tell me "what party I am". I wish they had a test like beliefnet.

My first thought was Libertarian, since I'm really down with the whole idea of going back to the Constitution and stripping the rest of the crap away, but I know that isn't going to happen, and I do not agree with their views on abortion.

I read the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (edited by Edwin Meese) and nearly cried. This is not how things are supposed to be.

So I thought, well, from a religious standpoint, I'm most like a Republican, since they are against abortion, gay marriage, and using dead babies for stem cell research. (Which I have alot to say about but not here.) But their leader is a freaking idjit, and it really pisses me off that he thinks he's in place due to divine providence. Um, in a word, no.

I am in the Crossings book club (Christian stuff) and got an advert for American Compass, which seemed like a good place to start. I got 4 books free, and picked the Heritage Guide, Godless (Ann Coulter), and a couple of financial books.

Godless blew me away. I still don't know what I am politically but it fueled the fire. I'm currently reading The Enemy at Home (Dinesh D'Souza) and I have ALOT of the indroduction highlighted already.

I'm pretty much an isolationist, I know that. I'm a Libertarian in the sense of "we HAVE to get back to the Constitution if we're going to make it", I'm Republican in the sense of their platform on social issues. BUT I truly believe in free will, and (from a legal standpoint) I don't want to ban abortion or force my religious belief (or moral code) on people. (My husband has a different view on this.)

Is there a party out there that encompases these ideas or do I just lump myself in with the party the most closely matches my beliefs? Would that be Libertarian or Republican? Some other party I haven't heard of?

Oh, and it's good to be back in the fray.... :worried: For now....

Hey, OnyxCougar! Welcome back!

Hey sweetie! I'm gonna go post some more drama in the "Seriousness" thread. You're gonna be .... insert emotion here ... when you read it. :p

Well OnyxCougar, I'm battling the same argument that you've been facing too. I think we all do to some degree. I consider myself and independent as I have very liberal views on some issues and very conservative ones on others. As an American, I believe it to be our responsibility to speak out on that which we disagree upon with respect to our government, but we must also support the decisions our government makes even though we may disagree with them initially. I know this is contradictory in some respects. We select these people to lead us and should support the decisions they make based on the information they have and we don't.
Sorry I'm rambling, but I think to answer your question of which party to align yourself with, you should either choose the party where you feel you have the most in common, or stay an independent.

Democrat.

Indirepublicratian

Seriously, Onyxcougar, don't get hung up on labels, vote for a candidate who has the same goals/philosophy/values that you do. Then, when (s)he breaks all his/her campaign promises, work to impeach him/her.

Heh. How sadly true.

I guess I should prioritze my goals/philosophy/values since I seem to be across the spectrum. Is abortion more important than foreign policy? Is taxation higher up than gay marriage?

Ugh. This political awareness crap can get on your nerve.

I'm way off over there somewhere, wandering between a goat and a scraggly willow tree.

I always vote for the plaid candidate, I say. They taste like turkey and dressing, and smell like daisies.

Did you try this test? It's from a Libertarian group.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Way too far right for me.


But seriously, if you are for or against something is politically irrelevant. It's whether or not you support LEGISLATING it.
For example, I think the world would be a MUCH better place if everyone was buddhist. But that does not mean in any way shape or form that I believe that it should be MANDATORY for everyone to be.

If you feel more strongly towards freedom than totalitarianism, go libertarian or democrat. If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.

Ibram, you constantly amaze me with many of your comments and I am surprised at your maturity for someone who is 15. However, that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.

Personally, I don't see the relevance of your religion on your political views. They should remain entirely apart. If you are a "literalist Christian" as you claim, you should take the words of Jesus of Nazareth literally when he says judgment is reserved for god. Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.

If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.

These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them. This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things. After all, who are you or anyone else to force your own religious morality down the throats of others through legislation?

And make no mistake, force IS involved. If you do these things, men with guns show up and tell you to stop or they'll take away your freedom.

Clearly libertarianism is not for you, but you do seem to support some small government. This means the Republican and Democratic parties are also not for you. These parties are responsible for our moving so far away from the Constitution in the first place, and both grow government at faster and faster rates while violating our rights.

If anything, I'd say you fit into the Constitution/American Independent Party.

You should take a moment to check them out.

Here is their platform in PDF format.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/doc...CPPlatform.pdf

Or you can just visit their website...

http://www.constitutionparty.com

Welcome back, Onyx! If you really want to know where you stand politically, why not try the infamous Political Compass test ... It's actually a fairly good measure of where you stand.

Agreed, their are many versions of it as well.

The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?

I agree with Ibram. Yesman065 is a poopy head.

First, on what grounds is it inaccurate? Republicans have felt the backlash of their heavy-handed attempt to legislate morality, it hit them hard. So the statement stands as an accurate description of reality if you equate "going republican" with "supporting the observable actions of republicans, and endorsing more of the same." Next, as it is demonstrated to be accurate, on what grounds is it immature? How is it immature to make an observation of this type? Is it immature because you disagree with it? Please elaborate.

He won't 'cause he's a poopy head.

No one thinks that they are killing anyone. It's just opinion on when the fetus actually becomes life.

I think the important question is when life (under some minimal definition) becomes life worth protecting.

Now we can examine the assumption that life is somehow sacred!

Is it?

I think it's a good idea to treat it that way. But who can know if it's true? Nobody I know.

(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.

It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality." It is an immature view based on the reality that it not tru. A more mature individual would understand, perhaps not agree with, but still understand there is a whole lot more than that one issue which constitutes a republican. Its like saying anything that flies is a bird therefore insects are birds. Its equally as ridiculous.

Yesman is right but I'm almost positive Ibram said that as a joke.

Both Republicans and Democrats push their agenda on others, it just depends on what side you face that determines which side will be pushing you. Though, as unbias as possible, I have to say the Republicans are a bit more pushy than the Democrats right now.

But to tell you the truth, the guy who is seeing through all the DC bullshit politics right now is a Republican, presenting Chuck Hagel.

Not in a hard-line party system there isn't. You run with the pack or you get left in the dust. You can "feel" like there is more to it, but what actually counts is: what they do with your vote when they get in power.

You may as well vote Republican. Appease the hubby anyway. You really sound like you're more spiritually attuned. Work on the spirituality and ditch the politics. You'll find it more satisfying.

The good thing about living where you do is that you don't have to get involved in the political process if you don't want to. Lucky you!

It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.

But you can give the same argument for democrats because of welfare, enviormental regulations, and increase in minimum wage. It all depends on which view you take.

Wrong. This is only the way Karl Rove decided Bush would build his power base knowing full well they'd have to find a different angle for the next candidate. After eight years even the staunch fundies would figure out they'd been had.

Don't forget the first time bush ran, there was no war, there was no terrorist threat. What other Republican President, or even candidate for President carrying their banner, has run on this morality bullshit?

The traditional Republican unfulfilled campaign promise is lower taxes/smaller government. That's been their basic battle cry forever, the main plank in every platform, the big lie in every election. :2cents:

So we should just let everyone do whatever they want Ibram?

Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it. That flag represents a lot of my family members who gave their fuckin lives so that you can live within the freedoms you have. Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.

It seems to be a world-wide problem. The younger generations think the same down here, and I also in Europe. They did not have fathers, grandfathers, uncles etc who fought for our safety. To them it was an eon ago. They are simply not interested. They seem to think that war is some stupid game that men go into for "fun". They have no concept of fighting for freedom, because it has been handed to them on a silver plate.

Anarchy is the perfect human society but like every perfect society (communism), it is unrealistic due to norms and humans nature.

It depends on why you are burning the flag. If you are doing it out of hatred or you are a "rebel" (stress the "quotes") teenager and think your tough, I will agree that they should get their ass kicked. But, if they are doing it to prove a point about America's wrong doings (major), then it is justified by all means.

This scares me the most. I am of this generation and whenever I speak out about an issue, people just reply that they don't care about politics. They don't care if you take away your freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to bear arms, it's quite pathetic and I am ashamed of my generation in this, and many other ways.

I don't care what the republicans will be, were, should be, can be... What they ARE, right now, in this era, in this country, in this regime, are the morality police. The society that the republicans, at least the most vocal ones, the ones in power, want to create, is in my eyes no better, or at least not much, than the sharia law in afghanistan and saudi arabia. Not every republican is like that, but the ones that arent would be better off leaving the party or kicking the ones that are like that out.

"They" - as in Bush and Cheney.

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

I agree completely. And it's all powered by the fundamentalist Christian "business."

Ok, then.

I have a couple questions since the above is still escaping me to some degree.

What's this good indication?

So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.

And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."

I'm really confused now, which is why I stay out of these threads. It's good to be confused from time to time, but this is one of those questions that's out of my philosophical depth and interest.

(pardon any brain-slips, my blood sugar is in the negative numbers post-gym)

Did I somehow imply that I don't?

Can you provide scripture references for this please?

..scroll up..
The unborn child didn't asked to be made, nor is it "willing" to be killed via acid, saw or knife. This is where my fundamental views and yours differ. (Nor do I wish to start an abortion debate here.)

"We the people" are the ones that make laws. Or, excuse me, that's how it's supposed to work. "We the people" DON'T make laws anymore, nor do our elected representatives vote on laws according to their constituency's majority view, nor does the Electoral College vote the way the people in their states do.

The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this.

I don't think Libertarianism is "not for me", I think that like the rest of the parties perviously discussed, there are some things I like, and fewer things I don't.
Thanks, I'll look into that.


edit: after reading in a few pages, I'm so far agreeing with most of this Contitution Party Platform. :) Thanks, radar!

Points of disagreement: that women connot be in combat.

Try here.

Footnotes:

I meant it as a sign or evidence (of suitability, in this case).

What “problems” do you see?

I used “advance” to mean “nurture and raise” as I was focused on the individual organism. Hopefully, there is more interest from mom than a “let it live” attitude, although, this may be sufficient if arrangements have been made for post-birth nurture (for example, through adoption).

I agree that life is more interesting than death. And it is best when well managed, beginning to end. Management requires choice. No “shoulds” there.

Typically, the Democratic agenda is *permissive* where the repubican agenda is *restrictive*. It's hard to think of Democrats as pushing their values on people when their agenda is more "sure you should be able to marry someone of the same sex if you want" and "sure you can have an abortion if you want". This is where MaggieL will point out the atypical Democratic position "sure you shouldn't have a handgun to shoot people with".

UT, if democrats are cats and republicans are dogs, what are Libertarians? Toads?

Where did you find this? I can't make out the dot com.

http://www.kirktoons.com/

(499!)

Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"

I wold say that the NOT is the key there wolf. Therefore the same would hold true of your statement
Democrat does NOT="Everyone following your version of immorality?

Republicans tend to favor more civil control and less economic control. Democrats will tend to favor more economic control and less civil control. Either way you still get an agenda pushed on you. The only way to avoid it is to go Libertarian or Anarchist.

You mean rights like being able turn burn the American flag?

BTW, if you try to kick ass, (A) yours may be the one to get kicked or you may get set on fire with a burning flag, and (B) that's called assault and battery, and is illegal, where flag burning is not. Did someone fight for the right to kick the ass of someone who is not beaking the law?

No, no, no, no, no, absolutely no. That's what makes us, and U.S., different from every other country.
The Bill Of Rights was specifically written to prevent the "prevailing view" being passed into law and forced on people with a minority view. I'm allowed to worship square manhole covers. I'm allowed to not turn on the lights after dark(except in the car for safety). I'm allowed to be different. :flycatch:
Majority rules, may work with Robert's Rules of Order, but it's as unamerican as Borscht.

There are no "unborn children". Birth is a requirement in order to be a child. Before birth, you're merely a fetus.

Note: I'm saying this while my wife is pregnant with the fetus that she will hopefully allow become my child. Abortion is not murder. In fact the only human lives who have ever been lost due to abortion are those of women who got back alley abortions with rusty tools from butchers when one group tried to force their religious beliefs onto others by making abortions illegal.

We each have sole dominion over our body and all the organisms within that body. We alone choose life or death for any of those organisms regardless of what they are or how they got there. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our body and our decisions are not to be questioned by any other person or group of people regardless of their number.

Let's not make this an abortion thread. She asked where her views were politically, and I told her. She has thanked me because I was correct and pointed her in the right direction based on her expressed beliefs.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com


There is no such thing as an unborn child anymore than their is an unbaked cake. It doesn't become a cake until it's baked. Before that it's just batter. You don't have a baby until it's born. Before that it's a fetus and a POTENTIAL baby just like the fetus inside my wife right now.

We the people do make the laws, and which laws we the people can make are limited. We the people don't have the authority to make any laws we wish over the lives of other people.

While the powers of government are derived from "We the people", those powers are limited by what powers we have as individuals to grant to that government. It's good to keep in mind that "We the people" are individuals, not a collective. We are each born with unalienable rights. For instance the right to defend ourselves when attacked. We are not born with the right to tell other people what foods they will or won't eat, what medicines or medical procedures they will or won't have, or what they can or can't do with their own body or property.

This means we can grant legitimate power to government to protect us, but we may not legitimately grant power to government to prevent or punish abortions, make drugs illegal, etc.

How can you give a power to government that you don't have as an individual? If you personally don't have such a power, neither do a million of you, or a hundred million of you.

If you were on an island of people without a government, you would have absolutely no legitimate right to prevent someone else on the island from getting an abortion. This means you can't grant this power to a government.

Majority rule is mob rule. Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right. There are some things that are not up for a vote, and not up for a debate. The rights of a single person are more important than the desires of millions.



Trust me, libertarianism is not for you.



I figured you'd fit like a glove. If that's the only area you've found where you disagree, I'd say this is the party for you.

A commentary by Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School at The Great Pumpkin Goes to Washington Is it a sin? I don't care and have no opinion because it is his sin; not mine. However when he uses his definition of sin to attack or manipulate me - that is civil war (or a trip to the courts).

Why does a discussion that started on religion then move to politics? Is life sacred? That only applies to you and your god - no one else. Is it legal to kill? That is a question asked and answered completely devoid of religion.

Religion is a relationship between you and your god. Even your church is nothing more than a consultant. Your church can advise. But only you own your religion. And that religion is never imposed on another. Even the Great Pumpkin did not condemn Charlie Brown's friends for not believing.

Actually, I think this discussion started on politics and moved to religion. Which makes perfect sense, because politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, so much so that I dare say they are virtually the same thing.

Religion is about control. Politics is about control. Law is often born from religion and politics, and not from a genuine desire to protect.

roger that

I daresay that when religion (that is fully based only in emotional perceptions) is intertwined with politics, then we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and "Mission Accomplished". In each case, nothing logical and nothing based in what religion is supposed to be, instead, resulted in an adverse conclusion.

Politics is a relationship of the many. Religion is a relationship between one man and his god(s). Where do these two intertwine? They don't and they must not. Once these two do intertwine, then the naive start thinking in terms of 'good and evil'. As George Jr demonstrated - as has been repeatedly proven in history - when conclusions are made in 'black and white'; 'good and evil'; 'them and us' ... then we get racism, ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, 11 September, the 30 Years War, Vietnam, and "Mission Accomplished".

At what point do we learn from history; learn using logic rather than do things for the glory of god?

When religion becomes more than a relationship between one and his gods, then (if you believe in 'good and evil') evil abounds. The 'good' therefore become the 'evil'. Anytime religion becomes intertwined with politics or religion is used to justify actions against another, then the purpose of religion has been perverted.

Religion can only serve its strategic objective when it remains a relationship between one man and his gods. To intertwine religion with politics only perverts and destroys what religion was created to promote. Scary are those who cannot keep religion where it belongs for they are the ones who have made the world so dangerous for all Americans.

I disagree. What you have described is belief. Religion is when two or more people feel they have the same relationship with the same God(s), ie belief and want to band together for mutual whatever.

I think too many people don't know the difference, because the look to the religion to tell them what their belief should be, rather than having their belief dictate what religion they should be.

I don't want to get into a semantics thing, just make a distinction between the two situations. The belief that I described will most certainly enter into an individuals political bent, but his religion should not. :2cents:

I think Bruce is correct in that the word religion suggests some form of fellowship with like-minded others.