How does the absence of a deity

[lily]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm taking a stab at this.... But I think what F&L may be trying to say (correct me if I'm way off, F&L) is that many on the left, namely the ones who don't lean to the libertarian side, are a lot like the religious right who want to use the force of law to push through a certain agenda.

I don't think it was necessary to call liberalism or atheism a "religion" - maybe what he meant was that some are almost "religious" (in a different sense of the word, more like zealous or dogmatic) when it comes to their worldview, and using the law to change society.

Just wanted to try to get somewhere here, because all I can see is a lot of bickering.

[GanjaFreebird]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm taking a stab at this.... But I think what F&L may be trying to say (correct me if I'm way off, F&L) is that many on the left, namely the ones who don't lean to the libertarian side, are a lot like the religious right who want to use the force of law to push through a certain agenda.

I don't think it was necessary to call liberalism or atheism a "religion" - maybe what he meant was that some are almost "religious" (in a different sense of the word, more like zealous or dogmatic) when it comes to their worldview, and using the law to change society.

Just wanted to try to get somewhere here, because all I can see is a lot of bickering.

Forcing greedy rich assholes to pay taxes and provide the old, sick, disabled, single mothers and children from poor familes with basic needs isn't a religion, but a part of our survival as a civilized society.

The sun will still be shining and America will still be just fine if we legalize gay marriage, marijuana, pornography, if children couldn't pray in public schools and if we enforced the separation of church and state, while the same couldn't be said if we'd turn to pure capitalism, as too many people would suffer and die, that's the difference.

[lily]

Forcing greedy rich assholes to pay taxes and provide the old, sick, disabled, single mothers and children from poor familes with basic needs isn't a religion, but a part of our survival as a civilized society.

The sun will still be shining and America will still be just fine if we legalize gay marriage, marijuana, pornography, if children couldn't pray in public schools and if we enforced the separation of church and state, while the same couldn't be said if we'd turn to pure capitalism, as too many people would suffer and die, that's the difference.

1. I didn't say it was a religion, in fact I said that F&L shouldn't have put it that way.

2. There's a lot more to this than just taxes or the things you mentioned. When people think of zealous lefties, they think of those who want to subvert our entire country, and turn it something that it was never supposed to be. What also comes to mind is social issues and judicial activism, or using liberal judges in order to push an agenda. And things like re-interpreting the 1st amendment in order to turn us into an atheistic country, instead of one that merely doesn't have an official religion that everyone must practice.

[lily]

So to sum it up, maybe what he was trying to say is that people often criticize "the religious right" (people like Santorum) for using laws to try to shape society in a certain way.... but many on the left do the same thing, just in the other direction. They want laws to shape society into THEIR idea of "utopia" - even if it means things like forcing people to pay for abortion (which over half the country considers to be homicide) or attacking the first amendment, the second amendment, etc, etc.

Recently I've been becoming more libertarian.... I'm so fed up with the neocons on one side, and the neoliberal on the other, and both sides are part of the problem. So I think the solution is to throw out any politicians who clearly don't care about freedom and the constitution, and support someone who will restore our liberties... before it's too late.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Forcing greedy rich assholes to pay taxes and provide the old, sick, disabled, single mothers and children from poor familes with basic needs isn't a religion

Religion would never do that. But fascist liberals do.

[antiquity]

Forcing greedy rich assholes to pay taxes and provide the old, sick, disabled, single mothers and children from poor familes with basic needs isn't a religion, but a part of our survival as a civilized society.

Tell us Ganja without revealing your total income (don't want to embarrass you) what percentage of your income went to pay your taxes? The majority of those rich greedy assholes you complain about pay about 96% of all federal income taxes and you greedy liberals want them to pay more? I want you to pay your fair share and quit the class warfare.

The sun will still be shining and America will still be just fine if we legalize gay marriage, marijuana, pornography, if children couldn't pray in public schools and if we enforced the separation of church and state, while the same couldn't be said if we'd turn to pure capitalism, as too many people would suffer and die, that's the difference.

And low and behold the sun will still shine if we didn't legalize pot, gay marriage and etc......

[GanjaFreebird]

Tell us Ganja without revealing your total income (don't want to embarrass you) what percentage of your income went to pay your taxes?

Whatever the gov't requires me to pay. Why does it matter anyways?

The majority of those rich greedy assholes you complain about pay about 96% of all federal income taxes and you greedy liberals want them to pay more? I want you to pay your fair share and quit the class warfare.

I pay my fair share, and so do other liberals, and no, the greedy rich assholes aren't paying NEARLY as much as they used to pay 40-50 years ago...obviously spoiling those kids wasn't a good idea. The point is, people who aren't physically able to work for living should still get their basic needs, no questions about it, regardless of how much anybody pays in taxes.

And low and behold the sun will still shine if we didn't legalize pot, gay marriage and etc

Why not legalize it though? If religious people are offended by it, they always have the right to not marry a gay person and to not smoke pot.

[GanjaFreebird]

Religion would never do that. But fascist liberals do.

And it's a good thing that they do.

[GanjaFreebird]

1. I didn't say it was a religion, in fact I said that F&L shouldn't have put it that way.

2. There's a lot more to this than just taxes or the things you mentioned. When people think of zealous lefties, they think of those who want to subvert our entire country, and turn it something that it was never supposed to be. What also comes to mind is social issues and judicial activism, or using liberal judges in order to push an agenda. And things like re-interpreting the 1st amendment in order to turn us into an atheistic country, instead of one that merely doesn't have an official religion that everyone must practice.

To me, all of the above are great things!! And no, nobody is forcing you to be an atheist in America, I'm not an atheist and I'm completely fine with the separation of church and state.

[GanjaFreebird]

So to sum it up, maybe what he was trying to say is that people often criticize "the religious right" (people like Santorum) for using laws to try to shape society in a certain way.... but many on the left do the same thing, just in the other direction. They want laws to shape society into THEIR idea of "utopia" - even if it means things like forcing people to pay for abortion (which over half the country considers to be homicide) or attacking the first amendment, the second amendment, etc, etc.

1. As long as we pay for their wars and religious celebrations, they better pay for our abortions, that's only fair.

2. The first amendment is attacked by social conservatives, not social liberals, actually. We are the ones who actually want to enforce that amendment.

3. The second amendment does NOT give the right to all Americans to own guns (let alone any kind of guns), but nevertheless, I'm mostly with the right-wingers on gun rights, not because their view is supported by the constitution, but because making guns illegal would fail just like making drugs illegal did.

Recently I've been becoming more libertarian.... I'm so fed up with the neocons on one side,

Why?

and the neoliberal on the other, and both sides are part of the problem. So I think the solution is to throw out any politicians who clearly don't care about freedom and the constitution,

And allow Ron Paul to be our dictator?

and support someone who will restore our liberties... before it's too late.

It is "too late".

[Zordar]

What the fuck is this?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Ganja being an ass.

[BooRadley]

Just FYI: I don't know anyone who wants America to be an atheist country. We want it to be a free country. You're free to be a Christian, I'm free to be an atheist, other people are free to be Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Scientologies, or whatever. "We" don't have to be anything but free. We're each free to pick what we are, beyond that.

It's the conservatives who have this collective mind that "we" need to be a Christian country, so they try to force Christianity through the law . . . for example school prayers and gay marriages. They're always trying to use the government to promote "family" (redefined to mean fundamentalist Christian) "values" (redefined to mean religious law). I just want them to go live by their religion and let me live by mine. "We" don't need to have a set of values defined for us by the government. "You" need "yours", and "I" need "mine" -- so long as they don't infringe on one another.

With abortion, that is a little sticky. Fundi's don't want to pay for it. But, at the same time, a lot of us didn't want to pay for the Iraq War -- and for a lot of people including Quakers, Muslims and a lot of Christians, that was a violation of religious law. Sadly, we can't opt-out of that.

Anyway, all we want is freedom. We don't want to force anyone else to be atheist. We just want conservative Christians to stop their Jihad on the Constitution and learn that the Congress isn't a house of worship and we're not a theocracy.

[optimus]

Ganja being an ass.

No, it's you being clueless. But that's par for the course for you.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Anyway, all we want is freedom.

I want freedom too. I want the freedom to do what I think is right, I want the freedom to receive my entire paycheck. I want the freedom to plan for my retirement without government interference. I want the freedom to choose to have healthcare. I want the freedom to decide what my kid will eat for lunch. I want the freedom to choose how much water my toilet tank will hold, I want the freedom to decide if, when and who I'm going to give my money to, etc.

[BooRadley]

I want freedom too. I want the freedom to do what I think is right, I want the freedom to receive my entire paycheck. I want the freedom to plan for my retirement without government interference. I want the freedom to choose to have healthcare. I want the freedom to decide what my kid will eat for lunch. I want the freedom to choose how much water my toilet tank will hold, I want the freedom to decide if, when and who I'm going to give my money to, etc.

So for you, freedom is only about money and you don't really care if the government micro-manages your life, tells you what to think, what to value, who to pray to, who to have sex with, and how, what to drink, whether or not to smoke, what prayers you must say, and to what god . . . so long as they keep their mits off your cash?

Mmmm. Okay. I guess we understand each other, now. Just FYI, though: The GOP spends even more of your money that the DNC does, so you ought to watch out for that.

[9ball8]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm taking a stab at this.... But I think what F&L may be trying to say (correct me if I'm way off, F&L) is that many on the left, namely the ones who don't lean to the libertarian side, are a lot like the religious right who want to use the force of law to push through a certain agenda.

I don't think it was necessary to call liberalism or atheism a "religion" - maybe what he meant was that some are almost "religious" (in a different sense of the word, more like zealous or dogmatic) when it comes to their worldview, and using the law to change society.
....

When you see the left trying to put a Ferrari in every garage on the gov't dime, let us know. Or when us lefties want to hand out pot to school kids... I think you get my drift, hyperboly and all. Let me dial it down a bit. As a member of the "loyal opposition", conservatives can -and should- get traction in two cases: When liberal programs are too far out there (see above). The other case is when our realistic programs fail to meet their objectives. So, if our "war on poverty" actually increased poverty and unemployment, present your case. But be so kind as to present the case using facts and after a trial. What seems to have happened instead, is lumping the entire liberal platform into the "crazy" category, while ignoring the need to argue a rational case against particular programs. Naturally, liberals' responsibility as the loyal opposition is exactly the same, if we honor the foundations of a Republic. Remembering the last time "loyal opposition" was taken seriously as a concept, I don't see a lot of people expressing interest in preserving the Republic.

There is a big difference between trying to change society at the individual level and changing society at the civil level. Please re-check your libertarian values: will society do better if we do away with tax-subsidized education? Who will pay the cost of educating poor children? If they are not educated, we will all pay a much higher cost down the road.

[Freedom&Liberty]

So for you, freedom is only about money and you don't really care if the government micro-manages your life, tells you what to think, what to value, who to pray to, who to have sex with, and how, what to drink, whether or not to smoke, what prayers you must say, and to what god

Dictating how much water a toilet can flush, what a kid can have for lunch and what light bulbs we have to buy are examples of micro management. When did government create laws that force you to do any of the things on your list?

Mmmm. Okay. I guess we understand each other, now. Just FYI, though: The GOP spends even more of your money that the DNC does, so you ought to watch out for that.

That is absolutely false, Social programs cost 2.1 trillion per year and rising.

[antiquity]

Whatever the gov't requires me to pay. Why does it matter anyways?

I find it amusing that lower income people complain about real tax paying citizens. But I didn't ask you to reveal your taxable income only your percentage you pay in income tax.

I pay my fair share, and so do other liberals, and no, the greedy rich assholes aren't paying NEARLY as much as they used to pay 40-50 years ago...obviously spoiling those kids wasn't a good idea. The point is, people who aren't physically able to work for living should still get their basic needs, no questions about it, regardless of how much anybody pays in taxes.

So 96% of federal taxes paid by the wealthy is not nearly enough for you, but 4% by the not so wealthy like you is okay. Got it. Since you have a medical marijuana card, does that mean you are one of those physical unable to work?

Why not legalize it though? If religious people are offended by it, they always have the right to not marry a gay person and to not smoke pot.

Are you a closet gay pot smoker?

[BooRadley]

So 96% of federal taxes paid by the wealthy

Exactly how are you defining wealthy to get this magical number?