| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2012 10:21:05 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That was directly taken from Wikipedia. |
Yes it was, and the concepts match up with Iran, etc. perfectly. You must be so proud. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 10:22:52 AM · #27 |
Left wing politics
"Religion
The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]"
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 10:29:54. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 10:26:32 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
It would be like me saying that George Soros, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, Reverand Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are policy-making kingmakers of the left. |
Democratic candidates do not make it a point to pander to the people you listed or worry about what their followers will think. Hence, they aren't kingmakers. |
Surely you jest.
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 10:41:57. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 10:33:13 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
That was directly taken from Wikipedia. |
Yes it was, and the concepts match up with Iran, etc. perfectly. You must be so proud. |
So there were no spelling errors as you claimed, only your wantoness to smear US conservatives. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 10:52:19 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Democratic candidates do not make it a point to pander to the people you listed or worry about what their followers will think. Hence, they aren't kingmakers. |
Surely you jest. |
Hardly. News like THIS is common for conservatives because such people are associated with the Republican leadership (i.e.- kingmakers). You'd be hard pressed to find the entire field of Democratic or Independent candidates trying to distance/associate themselves with the journalists and comedians you listed.
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 10:52:36. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 10:54:11 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"Religion
The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]" |
This isn't France, etc. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:01:15 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So there were no spelling errors as you claimed, only your wantoness to smear US conservatives. |
I take it you don't comprehend the parallels. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 12:03:09 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
"Religion
The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]" |
This isn't France, etc. |
May not be France but your posts mirror the sentiment. I take it you don't comprehend the parallels. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 12:25:48 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just think you're wrong about the motivation of the author of these articles. I'm quite sure that his retirement would have been much more lucrative had he remained loyal to the Republican Party. Might it be the case that he is truly horrified by what his party has become and feels compelled to warn the general public?
Concerning your examples of "attacks" on religion, perhaps you ought to really think about whether those prohibitions prevent you in any way, shape, or form from practicing your religion. Do you think the government ought to afford your belief system privileged status? |
Perhaps I am wrong regarding the authors motivation. Maybe he is truly horrified at what his former party has become. Should I then give more credibility to the writings and discourse of Dick Morris?
I do not think that the government should afford my belief system "privileged status". I was attempting to show "why" some right of center conservatives feel the way they do. Conservatives (generally) want things to remain "as they were".
"Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[99] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. [i]Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[100] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[101] Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration.[102] Most U.S. conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy and a strong military.[/i]" From Wikipedia |
You didn't answer my question, though, about whether you have been prevented in any way from practicing your religion. It's one thing to say you want "things to remain as they were," and quite another thing to claim "attacks on religion" due to an "onslaught from the left" (your words, not mine). "Things" change all the time, but that doesn't equate with an attack on your religion. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 12:39:05 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Left wing politics
"Religion
The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]" |
You left out most of that section. It continues:
"Religious beliefs, however, have also been associated with some left-wing movements, such as the American abolitionist movement and the anti-capital punishment movement. Early socialist thinkers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and the Duc de Saint-Simon based their theories of socialism upon Christian principles. From St. Augustine of Hippo's City of God through St. Thomas More's Utopia major Christian writers defended ideas that socialists found agreeable. There is a strong thread of egalitarianism in the New Testament. Other common leftist concerns such as pacifism, social justice, racial equality, human rights, and the rejection of excessive wealth can be found in the Bible.[45] In the late 19th century, the Social Gospel movement arose (particularly among some Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists in North America and Britain,) which attempted to integrate progressive and socialist thought with Christianity in faith-based social activism, promoted by movements such as Christian Socialism. In the 20th century, the theology of liberation and Creation Spirituality was championed by such writers as Gustavo Gutierrez and Matthew Fox.
There are also left-wing movements such as Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism. There have been alliances between the Left and anti-war Muslims, such as the Respect Party and the Stop the War Coalition in Britain. In France, the Left has been divided over moves to ban the hijab from schools, with some supporting a ban based on separation of church and state, and others opposing the ban based on personal freedom." |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:12:18 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just think you're wrong about the motivation of the author of these articles. I'm quite sure that his retirement would have been much more lucrative had he remained loyal to the Republican Party. Might it be the case that he is truly horrified by what his party has become and feels compelled to warn the general public?
Concerning your examples of "attacks" on religion, perhaps you ought to really think about whether those prohibitions prevent you in any way, shape, or form from practicing your religion. Do you think the government ought to afford your belief system privileged status? |
Perhaps I am wrong regarding the authors motivation. Maybe he is truly horrified at what his former party has become. Should I then give more credibility to the writings and discourse of Dick Morris?
I do not think that the government should afford my belief system "privileged status". I was attempting to show "why" some right of center conservatives feel the way they do. Conservatives (generally) want things to remain "as they were".
"Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[99] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. [i]Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[100] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.[101] Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration.[102] Most U.S. conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy and a strong military.[/i]" From Wikipedia |
You didn't answer my question, though, about whether you have been prevented in any way from practicing your religion. It's one thing to say you want "things to remain as they were," and quite another thing to claim "attacks on religion" due to an "onslaught from the left" (your words, not mine). "Things" change all the time, but that doesn't equate with an attack on your religion. |
"You didn't answer my question, though" sure I did. Your question was "Do you think the government ought to afford your belief system privileged status?" and I answered "I do not think that the government should afford my belief system "privileged status"." What preceeded your question was a statement - "perhaps you ought to really think about whether those prohibitions prevent you in any way, shape, or form from practicing your religion.".
To address your statement - I have thought about it. From a literal sense, it is true that I may practice my religion. However, the foundation of the lefts assault on religion is rooted in "The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]" ". The "eradication of christianity" seems part of the secular progressive movement from my vantage point. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:29:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Flash:
However, the foundation of the lefts assault on religion is rooted in "[i]The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state. |
That's not the left. That's Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:38:09 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
However, the foundation of the lefts assault on religion is rooted in "[i]The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state. |
That's not the left. That's Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. |
You seem keen on the constitution in this thread. What will be your response when the Health Care mandate is ruled unconstitutional? I trust it will be to vigorously support the Justices decision with the same ferver that you disply here. Or will it be more scalvertisms on how ignorant the justices are?
eta: further Article 1 was in place long before the recent assault from the left. The left's intent is as posted. "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such."
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 13:49:44. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:52:31 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Article 1 was in place long before the recent assault from the left. |
Wow, you actually got something right and didn't even dispute the point. So much for conservatives wanting things to remain "as they were." |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:58:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The fact that MSNBC's ratings are what they are or the repeated failures of Rosie O'Donnell or the failed Air America to counter conservative talk radio, says that either the american public is as stupid as the left claims they are or they are as smart as the right says. |
There is perhaps another analysis that can be reached from the failure of a liberal version of Limbaugh/Fox news' attack style journalism than who is smart and who is dumb. I would contend that it is more a question of how the two ideological camps have chosen access information.
It seems to me that conservative media in the last 3 decades has entered an echo chamber, where opposing views are only allowed if the liberal guest is weak enough to be an object of ridicule. The goal is to have a harmony of opinion of the hosts and callers to set up a call and response choir of outrage at those outside the circle and unanimity within the circle. Heck this morning I stumbled on Conservapedia; it seems someone wants to move the conservative searches over to a Fox News version of Wikipedia. Around 15% of the guests on Fox identify as liberal. Around 18% of their audience identifies as liberal. If a fellow of the Heritage Foundation is there he will have the one on one interview with the hosts.
The most commonly sited liberal flag carrier is NPR News. It is where I get most of my news. The hosts are slanted to the left, but they are there to facilitate the discussion of their guests, not shout over them. Those guests usually represent opposing viewpoints on the given topic. If there is a guy from The Center on American Progress, there is a guy from the Cato Institute to balance him out. If there is a guy who wants to tear out the dams, there is a guy there to represent the water district or hydroelectric. The goal is to find areas of consensus and illuminate differing viewpoints. Given that the organisation does see itself as liberal, around 60% of the guests are self identified conservative, and 30% of the listeners self identify as conservative.
So the two exemplars of liberal and conservative media are different modalities of information gathering. A liberal version of an insular rage machine like Limbaugh or Fox news does not seem to appeal to liberals who seem to be looking for differing viewpoints and challenging discussions, rather that be reassured of their view point and being told who is to blame for all that is wrong with the world. This withdrawl of some conservatives into a bastion of ideology, where only those with similar viewpoints are spoken to or listened to is dangerous for a democracy that is founded on compromise and consensus.
I have no interest in seeing liberals follow that model, I want conservatives to re-engage with liberals, even though the strategy of isolation, ideological purity and brinkmanship is creating short term wins for their ideology within the GOP, it is ultimately bad for our form of government. I do understand that there are conservatives who are fighting this movement and that a fair share of liberals live in their own ghetto of circle jerk, but that is on the whole how I see the issue of insularity and conformity of right wing media. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 02:04:00 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Article 1 was in place long before the recent assault from the left. |
Wow, you actually got something right and didn't even dispute the point. So much for conservatives wanting things to remain "as they were." |
(generally). You forgot to include the word generally. Not by design I'm sure. Likely just an oversight on your part. Including the word "generally" might change the impact of your post. Diminishing your point all together. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 02:07:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
The fact that MSNBC's ratings are what they are or the repeated failures of Rosie O'Donnell or the failed Air America to counter conservative talk radio, says that either the american public is as stupid as the left claims they are or they are as smart as the right says. |
There is perhaps another analysis that can be reached from the failure of a liberal version of Limbaugh/Fox news' attack style journalism than who is smart and who is dumb. I would contend that it is more a question of how the two ideological camps have chosen access information.
It seems to me that conservative media in the last 3 decades has entered an echo chamber, where opposing views are only allowed if the liberal guest is weak enough to be an object of ridicule. The goal is to have a harmony of opinion of the hosts and callers to set up a call and response choir of outrage at those outside the circle and unanimity within the circle. Heck this morning I stumbled on Conservapedia; it seems someone wants to move the conservative searches over to a Fox News version of Wikipedia. Around 15% of the guests on Fox identify as liberal. Around 18% of their audience identifies as liberal. If a fellow of the Heritage Foundation is there he will have the one on one interview with the hosts.
The most commonly sited liberal flag carrier is NPR News. It is where I get most of my news. The hosts are slanted to the left, but they are there to facilitate the discussion of their guests, not shout over them. Those guests usually represent opposing viewpoints on the given topic. If there is a guy from The Center on American Progress, there is a guy from the Cato Institute to balance him out. If there is a guy who wants to tear out the dams, there is a guy there to represent the water district or hydroelectric. The goal is to find areas of consensus and illuminate differing viewpoints. Given that the organisation does see itself as liberal, around 60% of the guests are self identified conservative, and 30% of the listeners self identify as conservative.
So the two exemplars of liberal and conservative media are different modalities of information gathering. A liberal version of an insular rage machine like Limbaugh or Fox news does not seem to appeal to liberals who seem to be looking for differing viewpoints and challenging discussions, rather that be reassured of their view point and being told who is to blame for all that is wrong with the world. This withdrawl of some conservatives into a bastion of ideology, where only those with similar viewpoints are spoken to or listened to is dangerous for a democracy that is founded on compromise and consensus.
I have no interest in seeing liberals follow that model, I want conservatives to re-engage with liberals, even though the strategy of isolation, ideological purity and brinkmanship is creating short term wins for their ideology within the GOP, it is ultimately bad for our form of government. I do understand that there are conservatives who are fighting this movement and that a fair share of liberals live in their own ghetto of circle jerk, but that is on the whole how I see the issue of insularity and conformity of right wing media. |
Much appreciate your reply. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 02:55:16 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"You didn't answer my question, though" sure I did. Your question was "Do you think the government ought to afford your belief system privileged status?" and I answered "I do not think that the government should afford my belief system "privileged status"." What preceeded your question was a statement - "perhaps you ought to really think about whether those prohibitions prevent you in any way, shape, or form from practicing your religion.".
To address your statement - I have thought about it. From a literal sense, it is true that I may practice my religion. However, the foundation of the lefts assault on religion is rooted in "The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state.[5] Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[43] In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "children were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[44]" ". The "eradication of christianity" seems part of the secular progressive movement from my vantage point. |
I'll just reiterate what Shannon said, that the separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution, and I've never heard anyone on the left defend this aspect of the U.S. Constitution by referring to Bolshevism or the French Revolution; have you? And, by the way, there are religious folks in this country who defend the separation of church and state, but I suppose from your vantage point they're trying to destroy their own religion?
And when you say "from a literal sense," I assume the word "literal" means "factual"; in other words, it is a fact that you are free to practice your religion. So what evidence is there of an assault bent on the eradication of Christianity? |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 05:26:19 PM · #44 |
This thread makes so much more sense when I skip down and only read Brennan's posts...
You can't ask a liberalconservative why a conservative right winger lacks compassion. It's like asking an Irish why the British are the way they are or asking a Red Sox fan what's wrong with the Yankees. You have to hear it from the source.
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 17:47:29. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 07:02:22 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This thread makes so much more sense when I skip down and only read Brennan's posts...
You can't ask a liberalconservative why a conservative right winger lacks compassion. It's like asking an Irish why the British are the way they are or asking a Red Sox fan what's wrong with the Yankees. You have to hear it from the source. |
You may want to re-read your history books and engage in casual conversations with both sides of the Irish perspective Doc.
I can assure you that if all the Irish felt the same way about the British, the country would not have experienced the sectarian violence that has plagued the country for umpteenth numbers of years.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 07:46:01 PM · #46 |
| You get my point Ray. You don't talk to one group to find out why the other group is the way it is. |
|
|
|
03/23/2012 07:48:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I can assure you that if all the Irish felt the same way about the British, the country would not have experienced the sectarian violence that has plagued the country for umpteenth numbers of years.
Ray |
Who are you kidding those "Irish" up in Ulster are nothing Irish, they are Scots and Angles who have been occupying native soil since they were the spearpoint of the invading English. Once those bas**rds were the petty tyrants who kept the Irishmans face planted firmly in the mud of their native land for the enrichment of their English lords. If the uprising of 1916 had been able to run it's course without that traitorous treaty of 1920 the Irish would have swept out these houseboys of the English into the Atlantic and they wouldn't be perching up in the fifth county of Ireland calling themselves Irish while still kissing the ring of the English monarchy.
See the Irish have a perfectly lucid understanding of the English.
Just don't get me started on the Papal Bull of 1155
Message edited by author 2012-03-23 19:57:24. |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 12:35:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
However, the foundation of the lefts assault on religion is rooted in "[i]The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state. |
That's not the left. That's Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. |
????? Been reading Article 1 and am missing the religion assault clause. |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 12:40:05 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'll just reiterate what Shannon said, that the separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution, and I've never heard anyone on the left defend this aspect of the U.S. Constitution by referring to Bolshevism or the French Revolution; have you? And, by the way, there are religious folks in this country who defend the separation of church and state, but I suppose from your vantage point they're trying to destroy their own religion?
And when you say "from a literal sense," I assume the word "literal" means "factual"; in other words, it is a fact that you are free to practice your religion. So what evidence is there of an assault bent on the eradication of Christianity? |
Separation of Church and State...I'm missing it from Article 1. See references to the first Admendment and an "intrepretation" regarding the separation of Church and State as it applies to a STATE SPONSORED religion - but missing the application to my point.
An example would simply be the numerous posts in religious slanted threads here on DPC and the zeal to which "believers" are crucified for having the ingnorance and audacity to believe in such "fairy tales" and "myths". That attitude is the attitude I am referencing from the left and the insight I was trying to illuminate from a more conservative perspective. Perhaps I was too subtle.
Message edited by author 2012-04-04 12:41:41. |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 05:46:31 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Flash:
An example would simply be the numerous posts in religious slanted threads here on DPC and the zeal to which "believers" are crucified for having the ingnorance and audacity to believe in such "fairy tales" and "myths". That attitude is the attitude I am referencing from the left and the insight I was trying to illuminate from a more conservative perspective. Perhaps I was too subtle. |
This could be the source of lengthy debates...
I personally know a myriad of people that I consider to be somewhat right of Attila the Hun and their perspectives as to what is and ought to be is not influenced in the least by religious fervor.
The zeal to associate politics with some religious underpinnings is seemingly something that is particular to the USA and makes those of us non-Americans wonder why.
Ray
|
|
