Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by new man, May 8, 2003.
Check out the chart at the bottom of this linked article.
Words like "liberal" tend to be contemporary McCarthyist labels, rather than political descriptions.
I fail to see what point you are trying to make by the link provided.
That horse has been dead.
In the table at the bottom of the page look at the amounts given by self labeled political liberals compared to the amounts given by political conservatives.
I don't really see how that means much either. Being liberal certainly doesn't have everything to do with giving money.
Who said it did?
What it tells me is that in all gategories, more than half of a person's giving is going to a church. Not too shabby!!! In that light, looking at the variation by groups is an issue of splitting hairs.
Maybe it's a pun? Political liberals are/aren't liberal with the money they give to charity?
Sorry, this topic seems to be rather weak. Is there a point? This topic seems to be more of a comment than something that could be discussed.
Actually, it was just one example I wanted to use to begin discussion on whether Liberals are really liberal. I take the position that they are not.
Liberals are dogmatically rigid about obtruding their goofy, yet often dangerous ideologies on everyone else. Most Liberals share the same paradoxically small-minded traits: they labor to severely restrict or eliminate individual freedom in almost every realm. They continually preach tolerance, tolerance, tolerance, when in fact they have no tolerance at all for opposing thought. And their favorite weapon of mass obfuscation is a most un-liberal one: if you don’t believe as they do, they label you "morally bankrupt", "evil", or even worse, a "fundamentalist".
Strangely enough, Liberals have proven themselves most illiberal (and I might add, illogical) when it comes to free speech, the primary avenue of intellectual expression and debate one would think a real liberal would defend to the death. One example: Over the past decade, Liberal universities have mandated hyper restrictive speech codes in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance. Another example of their illiberal intolerance: Their attempt at denying the Boy Scouts their Constitutional right to freedom of association. Fortunately, the Supreme Court squelched that insanity.
The obvious question then becomes, given Liberals record of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, how do Liberals get away with calling themselves liberals?
Liberals may not value liberty when it comes to speech, school choice, economics, property rights, gun ownership, or the environment, but mention sex (especially homo sex), drugs, or abortion and you’ve suddenly got a band of wild eyed freedom fighters on your hands. Liberals will ardently defend and even promote sexual perversion, the use banned substances, and abortion on demand until the cows come home.
But if there’s one thing Liberals really are liberal about, it’s the right to hate America, the Military, the West, and the Judeo-Christian ideals they stand for.
The Liberal Syndrome
[ May 09, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: new man ]
Okay, read the statement again and replace the word "liberal" with "conservative" and you'll find nothing new. Most people are somewhere between moderately liberal to moderately conservative, and could hardly be defined by the above statement either way. While it may be true of liberal and conservative extremists, it hardly applies to mainstream liberals and conservatives in the general public.
Okay, now I see where you're coming from, and on many levels, I agree. I went to school with some of these people, and tried to impress on them that they had radical ideas that seemed to fit in with liberal ideology, but they were really conservative.
The trouble with such labels is that we've attached "liberal" and "conservative" to platforms, not ways of thinking. I've met some conservative liberals and liberal conservatives, based on 1) what they think and 2) how they think.
Politically, liberal doesn't usually refer to how one thinks, rather it usually refers to what one thinks.
Oooo... excellent analysis.
This is very true.
I disagree. New Man makes a very good point. Political liberals are generous with other people's money, not their own.
They demand that taxes be raised on the "rich" (usually defined as anyone who makes more than them) to give to various downtrodden classes. At the same time, they do not give their own money volutarily to accomplish the same end through organizations such as churches. Private charities in particular religious ones have proven to be many times more effective in helping people than government bureaucracy.
I think this underlies the misguided effort to merge the two positions through federal funding of "Faith based initiatives."
In summary, conservatives seem to do a better job of putting their money where their mouth is than do liberals.
This statement seems to me to be merely one of semantics. Don't we come to conclusions about what we think based on how we think? Could you clarify a little?
So, where do you put us socialists? We are neither liberal nor conservative, and we are talking about political ideology and not theology, of course.
Where do I put socialists? I tend to agree with Lagardelle who says:
I also think the fundamental principles of Socialism are diametrically opposed to the Christian doctrine of free will. This fact is well illustrated by its (Socialism's) attitude towards the three great institutions which have to date most strongly exemplified and protected that doctrine -- the Church, the Family, and private ownership. It is notorious that it is everywhere antagonistic, if not hostile, to Christianity. This is strikingly clear in many Socialist / Communist foreign countries, France being an excellent example, China another, and to a notable extent, the U.S. Democratic Party where Socialists are markedly anti-Christian both in profession and practice.
The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality among the masses, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. Socialism does all it can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men, it centers and concentrates all their interest on material accumulation, and then expects them to freely distribute their goods. Quite a paradox.
As you can see brother Jim, I'm no fan of socialism.
And greatly disillusioned as to what socialism is.
England has long had a socialist government in the Labour Party, and at the head of England is the Anglican Churc.
The Canadian socialist party, then the CCF and now the New Democratic Party, was founded by a Baptist minister and five other Christian ministers.
Tony Blair is a dedicated Christian and heads the current Labour Party in England. So, there must be some semblance of Christian thought in socialism, not to be confused with communism as practiced in China and the former Soviet Union.
We seek the biblical principle of selling what you have and giving to the poor, the principle being, government with social responsibility. What can be so wrong with sharing wealth? It far out weighs absolute greed as expressed in free enterprise. Where the workers are exploited and brought about the massive strikes in the mines, waterfronts and factories. Slave labour was never intended in a free society.
Well my brother, we disagree on this one.
Cheers to you too my good man,
Coming soon, Liberalism's attack on America. Stay tuned.