Dear adult American citizens, Thanks so much for voting for Bush. [/angry scarcasm]
Really. I'm so upset that I'm 9 months too young to have tried to influence this election.
I want to move to Canada.
[ November 03, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Dragon ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
You.
(~)_(~)
Boo!
...anyway, I think you're taking this too seriously. I dislike Bush myself, but so what? I don't think Kerry would have been much better, with his turn-US-over-to-UN attitude.
Of course, what'd I know? I wanted the Libertarian candidate to win ^^.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
...but if you try sometimes, you might find You get what you need!
Not a reflection on the election results. Just a need to finish the song lyric. Move along, nothing to see here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dear Dragon,
Thank you for respecting those you disagree with enough to voice your disappointment in a productive manner.
Oh, wait.
Dagonee
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
You are most welcome!
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I dunno, Dag-this campaign has been the lengthiest ever, and the dirtiest in a long time. I think it's understandable that the apparent defeated would be initially angry and emotional.
Speaking as someone who voted for Bush, I sure as hell would be irritated and liable to emotion-and I know my fellow voters would be, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah. Those Bush-voters are such horrid people, rotten to the core, making miserable neighbors and truly evil decisions.
If only we as a society were advanced enough, civilized enough, to usher in a new era in which the masses wake up and voted for Kerry!
Cats and dogs would live together! Colors would be brighter, food would taste better, and we'd all get ponies!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ponies? For dinner?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, you can take comfort in the fact that Bush did not clearly have a mandate-- there are lots of disappointed people out there this morning who will be sure to keep their eyes on the administration through the next four years.
Kerry supporters-- don't martyr yourselves. It is neccessary that this country has your voice of skeptiscism. Even if I don't agree with Kerry's values, I see the need for opposition to the current administration, if only as a token attempt to "keep them honest."
So much was accomplished in this divisive, bitter election. I'm heartened that people were standing in lines to vote, that people waited hours to exercise their opinion. Maybe that's worth all the bitterness.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I doubt I will ever bother to do so again.
Kwea
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why?
If the process is clean, and the victory honest, then where is your objection?
(Two big if's, I know)
This isn't a loss for the American people at all-- now that we've shown interest in politics again, perhaps we can push for more honesty. This election is a wake-up call. The people are watching now.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Scott, you said it.
I imagine there are strategists in the Democratic National Committee this morning who are taking a hard look at the party platform and candidate choosing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee,
On that glorious day sometime in the future, there will be ponies for riding and for grilling!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, you can take comfort in the fact that Bush did not clearly have a mandate-- there are lots of disappointed people out there this morning who will be sure to keep their eyes on the administration through the next four years."
Yeah, right. The same people who voted their hearts out last night and found out that born-again Christians really do outnumber them everywhere it counts.
The disappointed people can't keep a closer eye on the administration than they have been. And they can't get any more disappointed.
I am really, legitimately, a member of a minority. And while that minority can wield real power in specific areas in which it's concentrated, it simply can't stand up to the weight of the majority on a national level.
I think Ohio in particular, with its overwhelming born-again turnout driven by anti-homosexual fervor, demonstrates this aptly; even though both sides had record turnout, it's simply not possible to muster enough opposition to shut out the people willing to hate for God.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: I respect those who disagree with me. But that doesn't mean I want to live in a country where a man like George Bush can win an election fair-and-square.
quote:Yeah. Those Bush-voters are such horrid people, rotten to the core, making miserable neighbors and truly evil decisions.
Non sequitur.
quote:Yeah, right. The same people who voted their hearts out last night and found out that born-again Christians really do outnumber them everywhere it counts.
Yeah. So it goes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sara, that's not a non-sequitur. Especially by adding the "fair and square" tag, adam has made it clear that it's some attribute of the voters who elected Bush that make the country less acceptable to him as a place of residence.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doc,
You've got me there. The tone of my posts has been extremely sarcastic, ungracious, and pretty childish. But...you know, in this case, I really do feel like I'm giving what I'm getting-just in plainer language. So no, I don't believe it was a non-sequitir, even though I do believe it was the other things I just said.
J4
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am really, legitimately, a member of a minority. And while that minority can wield real power in specific areas in which it's concentrated, it simply can't stand up to the weight of the majority on a national level.
So what are you going to do about that?
A commentator yesterday said something I thought was very interesting-- there was little to no pandering to the Conservative Democrats / Liberal Republicans from the opposing party. Bush came right down party lines-- Democrat = Liberal = Enemy. So did Kerry.
But nothing could be clearer, to me at least, that America does not think that way. Lots of Republicans are dissatisfied and a bit ashamed of the President's fumbling of the Iraqi reconstruction (I'm one). And with heightened political awareness, the time is ripe for reasoning.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh, hey, don't forget that every state that had a proposition for it voted for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman and protect the sanctity of marriage (from those homo sinners).
*waves Canadian flag*
*whistles innocently*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
What does follow from Adam's statement is that most of his neighbors (in the extended sense) have made a choice that makes him feel uncomfortable to live here.
Doesn't mean he's saying they are "horrid ... rotten ... miserable ... truly evil." Just that he is uncomfortable living with their decisions.
I'm in the same place. I am uncomfortable as a citizen in a country that is so strongly evangelically Christian and which is comfortable with our foreign policy over the last four years.
Doesn't mean that I find any of y'all who voted for Bush to be evil -- just that I don't want to live in this country because I'm not comfortable with that trend, and I have to find a way to deal with that.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:You've got me there. The tone of my posts has been extremely sarcastic, ungracious, and pretty childish.
I still loves ya.
quote: But...you know, in this case, I really do feel like I'm giving what I'm getting-just in plainer language. So no, I don't believe it was a non-sequitir, even though I do believe it was the other things I just said.
I just don't think my lack of comfort in living with this decision means I think you are a miserable, rotten hunk o' manhood. That's all.
I just feel very much the stranger in the strange land.
[ November 03, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So what are you going to do about that?"
Well, since the actual deciding factor here appears to not have been any tax philosophy or opinion on the war but, rather, one's belief in born-again Christianity, I can only hope that these people all become disillusioned with their choice of God. Any suggestions on how I can speed up that process?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sara,
I was using hyperbole, of course, but I think there is an element of truth in it. I mean, it's not just that you think that someone has made a bad political decision...but to say that "I don't want to live here anymore," or "I'm uncomfortable living here now," doesn't that also imply a moral judgement as well?
Which, really, is fine with me (though obviously I disagree with that judgement, if it exists). How someone votes is a strong measure of their morality, and among the most meaningful. But it really does seem to me that if one is now uncomfortable living in America, that necessarily means they have found a lack in morality and other human qualities based on their neighbor's political stances.
But, really, we can all rest assured of this: it won't last. The Congress and the White House are never aligned for very long. The thing that worries me most now is the SCOTUS and what such a powerful GOP will do. Hopefully, the Justices can hold off retiring.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You could point out that they really don't like the other members of their various congregations after all-- works for people in our ward all the time.
quote:Well, since the actual deciding factor here appears to not have been any tax philosophy or opinion on the war but, rather, one's belief in born-again Christianity
I'm interested in the fact behind this statement, Tom. Are you being bitter, or is there evidence to your opinion? In my part of the world, even the Christian radio stations were touting Bush's war on terror rather than his stance on homosexual marriage.
[ November 03, 2004, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
There's no chance that the justices can hold off another four years. It's going to be a big re-make of SCOTUS and a terrifying one, for many of us.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
BtL, coincidentally, my husband and I happen to have a meeting already scheduled with our immigration attorney, Glorily Lopez. The meeting was set to discuss his reapplication for permanent resident status (it has to be renewed after the first year of residence in the States). We were originally going to meet last week, but she had laryngitis.
Looks like we have some additional things to talk about. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The first two to go will likely be Rehnquist and O'Connor.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The thing is, Jeff, how long does it need to last?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
SCOTUS is my concern, too. Very much so. Especially given the tip of balance in Congress.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You have a point, Twink. Really, my ideal situation would have been for the DNC to gain a solid majority in at least one house of Congress, and Bush to have kept the White House.
Wait...that's hardly my ideal...let's just say it's what I hoped for.
I think this is the only reason possible for me to be grateful for new minority tactics in Congress for filibustering.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I was using hyperbole, of course, but I think there is an element of truth in it. I mean, it's not just that you think that someone has made a bad political decision...but to say that "I don't want to live here anymore," or "I'm uncomfortable living here now," doesn't that also imply a moral judgement as well?
For me, it is a question of feeling at home and feeling like my life as citizen is congruent with the rest of me.
This is now pretty much an evangelical Christian nation that is comfortable with its foreign policy decisions of the last four years. That is what it is -- it has declared itself.
I'll be your friend, but I don't wanna be married to ya. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm interested in the fact behind this statement, Tom. Are you being bitter, or is there evidence to your opinion?"
Absolutely. In every state that had an anti-homosexual proposition on the ballot, evangelical christians turned out in numbers that exceeded estimates by at least 10%. In Ohio, in particular -- the only state that really mattered in this election -- evangelical christians go better than 3:1 for Bush.
The best predictor of voting patterns this election happens to be religious values. As I predicted, months ago, and everyone said I was silly for doing.
------
You know, if Sara winds up moving to Canada because Ohio doesn't like homosexuals, I will be very, very mad at Imaginary Jesus.
[ November 03, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Heh, J4, I was hoping for the opposite. I was quite unconcered about the Congress and Senate, but was really hoping for a change in the presidency, so as to get rid of, most notably, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (whose tendrils are seeping into this country in ways that make me very unhappy).
[ November 03, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You oracle you.
Not everyone-- I didn't enter that conversation, surely.
And if I wasn't there, it's like it never happened.
Sheesh.
Thanks for the info, Tom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is now pretty much an evangelical Christian nation that is comfortable with its foreign policy decisions of the last four years. That is what it is -- it has declared itself.
Well, about half-plus-one has so declared itself.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom, I find myself once again in the minority. It's an odd feeling to know that the majority of the people in America disagree with my opinion of things in general, and candidates in particular.
I don't really think the "born again" vote is a fair characterisation of what turned the tide in this election. I think people voted their conscience and Bush won. I can't really nit pick at that. I don't like the outcome, but I don't think it's any less valid if one group is more successful than the other at getting their supporters to the polls.
It's over. Bush won. And the House and Senate are both GOP-held by wider majorities.
It is now up to the Republican party to show that their leadership is good for all Americans. That they are the ones worthy of this leadership position if they want to retain it.
I'm skeptical. But we (by the only process we have) have selected them to lead and now we need to see what they can do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is now up to the Republican party to show that their leadership is good for all Americans. That they are the ones worthy of this leadership position if they want to retain it.
They won't, though. That's my prediction.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:You know, if Sara winds up moving to Canada because Ohio doesn't like homosexuals, I will be very, very mad at Imaginary Jesus.
Tom, I've come to the realization that I was an errant Canadian seed that blew too far South. It was an accident. *weak grin
I will visit often, I promise. And you must come visit me a lot, too. Send SOphie for inoculations.
Seriously, David and I have been looking seriously at heading back to Canada after the fellowship. He is a fish out of water here, and I do feel all warm and squishy up there. Foremost for me, even above the question of religious belief, is that I can practice medicine there without fighting an uphill battle. I don't have family keeping me here, and I can (hopefully) seduce my friends to come visit.
This just speeds up our timetable a bit, frankly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't really think the 'born again' vote is a fair characterisation of what turned the tide in this election. I think people voted their conscience and Bush won. I can't really nit pick at that. I don't like the outcome, but I don't think it's any less valid if one group is more successful than the other at getting their supporters to the polls."
Look at the stats again, Bob. Voter turnout was the key, and I honestly believe that both parties really pulled out literally every single stop in order to bring as many people to the polls as they could. And if you review the survey data, it's obvious that the evangelical Christian vote and the Democratic base went head to head, and the evangelical Christians just plain outnumbered 'em.
Now, I don't doubt that they WERE voting their conscience. But keep in mind that these are people who define "good" as "what God wants," so I have trouble believing that their religion was not a factor in determining what their conscience said.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Yeah, right. The same people who voted their hearts out last night and found out that born-again Christians really do outnumber them everywhere it counts.
quote:I am really, legitimately, a member of a minority. And while that minority can wield real power in specific areas in which it's concentrated, it simply can't stand up to the weight of the majority on a national level.
I think Ohio in particular, with its overwhelming born-again turnout driven by anti-homosexual fervor, demonstrates this aptly; even though both sides had record turnout, it's simply not possible to muster enough opposition to shut out the people willing to hate for God.
quote:This is now pretty much an evangelical Christian nation that is comfortable with its foreign policy decisions of the last four years. That is what it is -- it has declared itself.
quote:Absolutely. In every state that had an anti-homosexual proposition on the ballot, evangelical christians turned out in numbers that exceeded estimates by at least 10%. In Ohio, in particular -- the only state that really mattered in this election -- evangelical christians go better than 3:1 for Bush.
I agree with all of this. I can't express how very stunnned and sorrowful I feel right now. The thought of what laws are going to be passed in the next four years truly scares me. My fear is that while everyone concentrates on the wars abroad, laws that legislate morality will be passed without a blip on the radar.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
To an extent, I think Tom’s right. But only about a third of American evangelicals are solidly in “the religious right.” I think what tipped the election is that Republican Christians were successful in focusing the discussion of religious issues on abortion and same-sex marriage. Other evangelicals, including professors at some pretty conservative seminaries, tried to broaden the discussion to include poverty, human rights, the death penalty, the environment, and Bush’s theology of empire, among other things.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
From what I heard, churches were actively campaigning in this election. Definately time to remove their tax exempt status in my opinion.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Don't worry, Dragon. Sometimes you need dark times to appreciate the good.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think that's better said. I wasn't trying to say that "born agains" weren't the deciding factor, but that the religious of a particular type were courted and brought to the polls by the GOP.
They have as much right to vote as I do.
The GOP has a right to get the vote out.
It just worked better for them this time. They did a better job of making this election count enough to their supporters.
This is how every election in America has been since I've been old enough to pay attention. A few issues become important enough to get people to polls in greater numbers than what the other party can do.
I think we need a change in this country, that's for sure.
But I can't fault the GOP for how they managed this time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I intend to fault the people who voted for them, however. I can accept that the country has embraced that philosophy without respecting the people who hold it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
When you put it that way, Tom, it makes me really want to jump up and change my mind about the issues we disagree on.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "Democratic base" nowadays?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, do you honestly think that you're well-qualified to offer lifestyle suggestions to mourning Democrats at the moment? If so, what would your qualifications be?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You can move to the north east. That's pretty close to Canada and seems to hold their value system.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Scott, do you honestly think that you're well-qualified to offer lifestyle suggestions to mourning Democrats at the moment? If so, what would your qualifications be?
I'm assuming he was conscious through both Clinton elections, and very possibly was annoyed with very similar reactions by Republicans.
Dagonee
Posted by SeeDKing (Member # 6998) on :
Tom, you are a smart guy, but all you are doing is complaining that there were more motivated republican voters, that they ran away with the election, and then invalidating their votes by making a generalized statement about their intelligence based off of their religious beliefs.
So what exactly are your qualifications for disregarding anyones vote, and your qualifications for measuring intelligent beliefs?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, do you honestly think that you're well-qualified to offer lifestyle suggestions to mourning Democrats at the moment? If so, what would your qualifications be?
:shrug:
Just keep doing what you've been doing. That's fine with me-- I didn't vote for Bush, but I certainly like the way this election is playing out more than I would a Kerry victory.
If you want to convince me, you better learn how to speak to me.
And this is all general you's and me's here.
[ November 03, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So what exactly are your qualifications for disregarding anyones vote, and your qualifications for measuring intelligent beliefs?"
I'm not disregarding their vote. I'm calling the person who made the vote ignorant. They have every right to be foolish, but I am not compelled to respect their foolishness.
And if you want me to demonstrate that a belief in evangelical Christianity is ignorant, I'd be happy to start that thread again. But wait a while, 'k?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, you really need to clarify your terms. Last time you changed your mind from "fundamentalist" to "fanatic" halfway through. Now your applying your arguments to "evangelical," which is a very different categorization than fundamentalist.
Dagonee
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Tom,
I think we probably agree on more issues than we disagree on, but honestly, lay off the bigoted remarks. It doesn't reflect well on you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes, please wait awhile. I’ve had all the inaccurate overgeneralization I can stand for one week. It’s bad enough to hear that I don’t count as a Christian from those I disagree with politically without hearing it from you too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some of those you disagree with politically.
With as much surety any human can have about another, I know you're a Christian.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would submit that there is a difference between being prejudiced against someone for their beliefs and being prejudiced against someone for their sexual preference or skin color, Ryuko. I will freely admit to that prejudice, in much the same way that many Christians will freely admit to the desire to save those of us who do not share their opinions.
Dag: actually, when speaking of large voting blocs, I really don't need to clarify terms, since it's the blocs and not the specific sects that matter. In this case, all voters who were motivated by the desire to go right-wing on social issues thanks to their Christian faith became the means by which the people I consider genuinely dangerous got their hooks into the country.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tom, That's a pretty bitter stew that you float around in. I've heard more hate than praise from you on more than just this topic. I've heard more disdain than understanding. I've heard more complaining than ideas.
Have you ever thought, maybe just for a moment, that it's you?
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Tom,
" The Fair Employment Law declares that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, RELIGIOUS CREED, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, ancestry, or disability."
I won't bother to list every link out there, but it is a pretty universal concept that discrimination based on religion is just as abhorrent as any of these other prejudices.
You are free to disagree if you wish, but consider the company you are joining.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That it's me what, exactly? That it's me that's bitter, or that it's me that's forcing people to restrict civil liberties, ostracize homosexuals, marginalize non-Christians, etc.?
I'll freely admit to being bitter about the fact that those things are happening. I'm not even ashamed of being bitter about it. Heck, I'm not even ashamed of being angry about it, which I am.
If I were despairing of it, if I just accepted it, then I would be ashamed.
----------
"it is a pretty universal concept that discrimination based on religion is just as abhorrent as any of these other prejudices"
It's not one that I accept. I understand why it's there, and I understand who it's trying to protect. But it's a shell of a concept, and doesn't logically stand up to scrutiny.
If I declare myself a Satanist, I would expect that people react to me differently than if I said I were a Lutheran.
Now, I might expect that I receive the same rights and privileges of the government -- which is what this is meant to ensure, and which I certainly endorse -- but I see no reason why I should expect that people should not react to my chosen faith as a demonstration of my values and priorities.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
For the record...
Personally, I'm an agnostic and am a little concerned about the power that the religious right has. However, I don't think it is appropriate to disrespect these people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Dear adult American citizens, Thanks so much for voting for Bush.
*pretends he can't hear sarcasm* You're welcome. Glad to serve.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Nope, Tom, it's that part of your problem might be that you can't seem to grasp even the slightest possibility that you might be wrong about your ideals.
That it's all just a plastic castle: antiseptic, cold, and bought off the shelf, not built from actual real life's bricks, mortar, sweat and tears.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:That it's all just a plastic castle
Okay, was that on purpose?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: marginalize non-Christians...
Tom, it's odd to hear you complaining about the marginalization of non-Christians, considering how much I have felt that you marginalize believers.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I don't pick phrases like that if they don't have some impact.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
****wonders if Sara would move to Vancouver or Victoria and would be just a few hours drive from me****
I do have some Canadian friends, here on work visa courtesy of Microsoft, who were waiting for the election results to see if they would renew or move back. They will be going back next summer Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, I might expect that I receive the same rights and privileges of the government -- which is what this is meant to ensure, and which I certainly endorse -- but I see no reason why I should expect that people should not react to my chosen faith as a demonstration of my values and priorities.
If that's your definition of the acceptable level of behavior due someone of differing beliefs, how are non-Christians being marginalized, exactly?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I didn't say they were being marginalized illegally, Dag.
-----
"Nope, Tom, it's that part of your problem might be that you can't seem to grasp even the slightest possibility that you might be wrong about your ideals. That it's all just a plastic castle: antiseptic, cold, and bought off the shelf, not built from actual real life's bricks, mortar, sweat and tears."
*laugh* You're right about one thing. It has never occurred to me for even a moment that my ideals are a plastic, antiseptic construct instead of beliefs developed from a real life of sweat and tears. And yet you're wrong about the more important one: the thought that I've never contemplated the possibility of those ideals being wrong.
What's interesting, in fact, is that I continually contemplate that possibility, and am often horrified by people who do not. What scares me most is the thought of living in a world where people not only do not contemplate that possibility sufficiently for themselves but do not tolerate such contemplation in others.
The house I would like to build has, built directly into it, that sort of tolerance. It has walls, but they're more bouncy rubber than brick, and it's got room to grow and evolve as the family gets bigger. If you're concerned about people not having a tolerant enough worldview, I would suggest you look in the other direction.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, just wanted to be clear.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"I'm rubber,..."
Posted by SeeDKing (Member # 6998) on :
Ok, I don't think Tom is marginalizing christians, but more to the point he is marginalizing christians who say that all human rights should be dictated by religious moral beliefs rather than what is best for the individual citizen of a government.
And I tend to agree with that point. I am a christian but at the same time I believe people should have the protection of the law when it comes to joint ownership of property disputes no matter what their private practices are.
It is the government's responsibility to protect all of its citizens equally.
At the same time, gay marriage is completely against what these peoples religious beliefs tell them is acceptable.. and gay marriage is what was banned.
Perhaps you should be angry that your representatives aren't interested in propossing more reasonable property and custody rights solutions for every citizen. However I think it is more productive to focus on redefining legal relationships away from marriage and more towards civil unions that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
However the door that this opens as a societal standard is a questionable one, because then you have to ask if you are setting the stage for bigomy and other moral dillemas that aren't based in religious beliefs but in actual human nature and emotion.
Truthfully banning gay "marriage" isn't the end of the situation, but it just goes to show that the problems lies with the definition of "marriage", and perhaps this election will provide the process for more realistic individual rights to be set.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh, come on.
My religious beliefs didn't figure into my vote for Bush. Obviously they color how I think, just like any beliefs do for anyone, but I made my decision based on what I thought about the candidates' abilities to lead. I am a registered independent. I was not voting as part of a religious bloc. There was no pressure on me to vote either way. I feel like I exercised as much freedom of speech as any other voter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, not to be finicky about this, but I am not marginalizing Christians. I lack the power to marginalize Christians, even if I wanted to. At worst, I am denigrating Christians.
------
And AFR, I don't for a moment think people only voted for Bush for religious reasons; that would be like assuming that every Democrat is a college-educated black steelworker from Massachusetts with a cell phone. But I believe quite firmly that this was the reason Bush won.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tom
quote: The house I would like to build has, built directly into it, that sort of tolerance. It has walls, but they're more bouncy rubber than brick, and it's got room to grow and evolve as the family gets bigger. If you're concerned about people not having a tolerant enough worldview, I would suggest you look in the other direction.
Tom, that's a paragraph that is in direct opposition to how you come off here. You are a thread thug who hides behind tolerance for everyone but constantly, and I mean constantly, attacks anyone with a opinion that disagrees with yours. You constantly deride anyone who has a religious belief, or who might have a conservative bent, you decry that others are bigots or ignorant. You bully and deride, your arguments always devolve into a proclaimation that your opponent is so simplistic that they can't even grasp what you are trying to say.
You get away with so much because your post count gives you some semblance of respectability, or more truly, you get a free ride on your bigotry because so many folks would hate to see some of your friends leave when you did.
But hey, I'm a nobody here, so I don't have anything to lose by listening to the other nobodies and actually valuing their opinions as coming from equals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What does the cell phone matter?
quote:You get away with so much because your post count gives you some semblance of respectability, or more truly, you get a free ride on your bigotry because so many folks would hate to see some of your friends leave when you did.
Bullcrap. BullCRap, BUllcrap, bullCRAP, BULLcrap.
Tom gets called down often enough. Everyone who posts something that someone else doesn't believe does.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The big hope for the Democrats was that polls were undercounting cell-phone-only folks, who tended to come from a demographic of heavy Kerry supporters. Unfortunately for them, it didn't pan out.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: christians who say that all human rights should be dictated by religious moral beliefs
In Canada, most of my Christian friends vote NDP. Very left. I think that when you say 'Christians' you should designate them as "right-wing" Christians or something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In fairness, he did say " christians who say that all human rights should be dictated by religious moral beliefs", not "all Christians".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, as long as people persist in mischaracterizing the opposition, there's no hope of changing their minds.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, it's upsetting me that people seem to think it was a bad thing that evangelical Christians registered and voted in record numbers.
I thought here we all believed that the higher the turnout, the better for America. Did we not believe that every group in America deserves to have their voices heard? Historically Christians haven't turned out for the polls that much - now they are.
We are Americans just like you, Tom (and others). We have a vote and a voice and we are finally starting to get organized and get that vote out like many other "interest" groups have been. You don't see me complaining when the democrats mobilize minority communities to get out the vote - even though they traditionally vote Democratic. Why? Because I think *everyone* in America eligible to vote should.
Is it only because you don't like our views that you want us to stay home and not vote? Is that what America should be about?
I heard another statistic that 87% of active duty military voted for Bush. Now, with all the talk about the war in Iraq and how poorly Bush has been handling it, I think it's telling that the men and women actually over there and doing the job support their commander-in-chief.
Edit: obviously I didn't mean "everyone", changed it because certainly there are hatrackers who don't feel this way
[ November 03, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by SeeDKing (Member # 6998) on :
Basically Tom isn't saying every christian voted for bush, he is saying that the GOP used the idea of gay marriage to rouse the religious right into voting in record numbers to vote against gay marriage, or if that wasn't on the ballot, they voted for Bush because he is against gay marriage.
While this may be true, I still think the tactic of using emotional or moral beliefs to pull in more voters isn't exclusive to Bush's side, and it still just points to the fact that the fault lies in how the laws on this issue are defined.
If the issue was touted as property and custody rights instead of "gay marriage" it would have been tough for Bush to call these people out.
It isn't a failure of the people who voted, but more realistically a failure to define the issue outside of the realm of christian morals.
As I said before, this can actually be turned towards progress in civil rights if you can get people to see the differences between the two ideas.
So instead of complaining about the vote, try to understand the motivations, and then come back with a stronger argument that doesn't offend a majority of the countries moral beliefs but calls to their ideas of civil rights.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Tom, it's odd to hear you complaining about the marginalization of non-Christians, considering how much I have felt that you marginalize believers.
marginalize: relegate to a lower or outer edge, as of specific groups of people; "We must not marginalize the poor in our society"
Believers are hardly on the "lower or outer edge" of American society. To those of us living outside America, it's quite obvious that believers are front row centre. They are hardly being "marginalized."
Edit:
Also, I think what Tom may be trying to get at is something I noticed pointed out on a few of the major American TV networks today. They noted that of voters they exit polled, lots of them chose their candidate on the basis of "moral values" (a very broad and nebulous term which encompasses both things like gay marriage and abortion as well as general uprightness of character). "Moral values" was the single largest reason for candidate selection (the chart I saw pegged it at 22%; the next most common reason, the economy, was at 14%).
What really bothers me about people voting based on "moral values" is that in order to vote along those lines you do not need to be informed. You don't have to know about the candidates' views on issues of importance to the country and the world, you just need to have a vague idea of what sort of a guy he is.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, there's a very compelling case to be made that Christians are marginalized in many of our social institutions.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We are Americans just like you, Tom (and others)."
Oh, absolutely. My complaint is not that you voted, nor that the Republicans were somehow dishonest or sleazy for motivating a large number of you to vote; frankly, I'm overjoyed by the turnout on all sides. I'm just disappointed that so many of you voted stupidly, for stupid reasons.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Case in point. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Gee. I'm intolerant of certain forms of intolerance. I'm such a hypocrite, I swear. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've got to agree with Sopwith -- Tom, you really do come across like he said.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I vehemently protest the word stupid - you may disagree with it but it doesn't make me stupid. I consider that statement a personal insult. I don't call you stupid for voting for Kerry - I jsut disagree with your reasoning.
I have very good reasons for voting the way I did, I voted in accordance with my belief system and I voted consistent with the set of values I live every day. And....not all of my vote is based on my faith - I voted Republican because politically I line up with the conservatives in my views.
Notice there was NO marriage amendment in my state and evangelicals still turned out in record numbers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I have very good reasons for voting the way I did, I voted in accordance with my belief system and I voted consistent with the set of values I live every day. And....not all of my vote is based on my faith - I voted Republican because politically I line up with the conservatives in my views.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. What about the actual records of the two candidates? Their stances on issues of significance to the entire world, such as the war in Iraq, or significance to America specifically, such as the US economy?
I don't understand why the candidate's perceived or actual values are more important than what the candidate has actually done while in office.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not everyone is dissatisfied enough with the way Bush has run Iraq to think that Kerry would do it better.
I assume voters' valules informed their opinion of how well Bush has done.
Dagonee
[ November 03, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, I vehemently protest the word stupid - you may disagree with it but it doesn't make me stupid."
*nod* I understand. And believe me, it's a word I'm sure I'll regret using as soon as I stop being roundly and completely infuriated by American ignorance. It's not a well-considered word, and it's too emotionally loaded to be valuable for persuasion.
But, Belle, I do think your vote was ill-considered at best, and I do think certain elements of your belief system are highly flawed. You, of course, feel exactly the same way about me and my philosophies. I'm not insulted by that, nor do I think that you intend that I be.
That I think you've made a poor decision does not mean that I think you're a horrible person. This doesn't mean, in fact, that I think you're even a slightly bad person. Your political views are such a small subset of who you are -- both here on the forum and in real life -- that I generally judge you by factors I consider more relevant. Are you a good mother? Consistent in your opinions? Decent and compassionate to people around you? And so on.
But you have chosen to belong to a religion that I think is mostly unfounded in truth, and you are relying on values largely based on that faith to influence your political decisions in ways that I think are profoundly dangerous to the country. I don't exactly like pointing that out -- precisely because you know I do, at the end of the day, like and respect you very much -- but I have to do so, in the same way that some of us have felt compelled to tell, say, Karl and Telp how they feel about the sin of homosexuality.
I don't believe there's any polite way to tell someone that you think they're wrong. I'm absolutely sure there's no polite way to tell someone that they're so wrong that they are in fact damaging the country you both hold dear. So I could either not say it, or be impolite -- and I'd rather apologize for being impolite, to be honest.
I do regret the "stupid," though, for what it's worth.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*mega depressed and disillusioned* I still can't completely understand it. Bush's policies are terrible. How could he win again? I'm not exagerating when I say his winning will have a negative impact for folks like me who can only find crappy part-time jobs to support themselves and need things like section 8 housing to ease the burden a bit. What do you think will be some of the first things on his chopping block to fund this war and these insanely illogical tax cuts? I just wish there was some SENSE when it came to polictics. Not straight black and white, no leaning towards the left or right just somehow trying to do what is really best for people in this country in a responsible way... I just don't feel that Bush has done that and I am shocked that states that probably have high incidences of unemployment or underemployment can vote for him. I just do not get it. I'm not saying they are idiots or something like that, it doesn't make any sense. I despise the direction this country is going in.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Not everyone is dissatisfied enough with the way Bush has run Iraq to think that Kerry would do it better.
I assume voters' valules informed their opinion of how well Bush has done.
It should really be the other way around. How well Bush has done should inform voters' opinions of his values.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
How incredibly condescending.
Will you now pat us on our heads, give us a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and send us out to play with our friends?
Oh goody! Papa Tom isn't going to put us in timeout for being such little idiots. He realizes that it's not our fault for being so naive and misguided.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stop.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think sometimes when Tom is jumping between posting on Ornery and Hatrack, he just forgets that this is the "kinder, gentler" forum
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's interesting, Sopwith, is that you feel that you have the right to criticize my behavior, but are in fact criticizing, specifically, my assumption that I have the right to criticize people's behavior.
Do you grant that you have the right to call me on what you believe is hypocrisy and/or presumptive arrogance?
Seriously, man, I'm sorry you feel hurt. I'm even sorry, to some extent, that I lack the rhetorical talent it would take to make you understand the depth of my disappointment in you without somehow making you realize that I'm disappointed in you. But I would hesitate if I were you to suggest that it is somehow wrong of me to call other people wrong. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stop unmaking, or I swear I'll bring fluff into this thread so fast and so thick, you'll be coughing dandelion seeds until the inaugural ceremony.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't tell if Scott is talking to one side, the other, or both.
<--- hopes it's both
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But I would hesitate if I were you to suggest that it is somehow wrong of me to call other people wrong.
So next time a Christian steps up and says "Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being," you won't protest that statement? YOu won't accuse me of "forcing my values down other people's throats?" Because if it's okay for you to tell people they're wrong on this forum, it's okay for me to as well, right?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
(shake of the head, a shrug, polite bow)
On more consideration, the argument isn't worth having. There's a big world out there that keeps on spinning around. It's better to be involved in it than to be throwing fuel onto a pointless fire.
Seeyas.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bad example, Belle. Tom has said "Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being," many times on this forum.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually, at the risk of offending half the country I think the right is wrong on a lot of levels. Especially when they imply that homosexuality is a threat to American society. Poverty is a worse threat. Economically the country will not look very good when most Americans have to take low paying jobs at Walmart or McDonalds to support themselves barely. This is something I serious see happen. Why? Because I'm living it right now. I don't even want to think of what a disaster that will be when the gap between the rich and the poor becomes a canyon. Something has got to be done to stop that!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So next time a Christian steps up and says 'Abortion is wrong because it's the murder of a human being,' you won't protest that statement?"
*blink* Belle, you may want to use another hypothetical example. Because that particular one isn't going to produce the answer you'd expect.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Not my point, dkw. He is always critical of a Christian who tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values.
I want him to understand that he is doing the same thing. He isn't calling it "faith" but he's stating he deserves the right to call other people wrong without being called on the carpet for it. Therefore - so do I.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom I'm not saying you disagree with the statement - I'm saying you disagree with people who use their system of faith and values to call other wrong, regardless of the issue. I know the stances on abortion around here, I jsut threw that one out because it's such a hotbed issue it gets brought up a lot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He is always critical of a Christian who tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values."
No, no, see, I'm not. I am occasionally critical of Christians who seek to legislate based solely on their faith and values, but I am to my recollection never critical of a Christian who merely tells someone else they're wrong based on their faith and values.
Ask Christy; I respect that aspect of democracy immensely. I once spent twenty minutes arguing with a shopkeeper over whether or not America was truly a christian country, and whether it should be.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's not the way I remember it, but I don't feel like pulling up old threads to drag out an argument I don't want to have anyway, because I'm in no mood to feel negative today.
So, I'll concede that you haven't done that, specifically.
I will however, copy this thread, so I can have this handy if I should ever need it.
quote:But I would hesitate if I were you to suggest that it is somehow wrong of me to call other people wrong.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Belle, I am very glad that there was such a marked increase in voter turnout, regardless of how the vote went from my perspective. That is an unmitigatedly Good Thing.
The way this vote went does affect my personal life, and it does so in such a way that I fear I will be chewing my hands off at the wrist if I stay here. Not because my evangelical Christian friends are evil, but because I can't function productively.
I'm starting to figure out what this means to me as the day goes on. Remember, I'm not just an American -- I am part of an American/Canadian marriage. My other half is not tied to the US, except through me, and is in fact strongly tied to another place with other values. He put aside his comfort to be with me for the last few years, but it has been a very distressing time for him. There is no likely change for him anytime soon, not in this context. Frankly, were I not married to a Canadian, the idea of leaving would not have even occurred to me. I'm pretty sure that I would have considered it cowardly, unpraiseworthy, wrong-hearted as well as wrong-headed. If I care about people here, my fellow citizens, shouldn't I buckle under and fight what I see as the good fight? Not abandon them?
The trick is that I never get away from this. For me, there is no surrounding myself with like-minded people, getting our minds off our woes over a beer and a crack of the pool cue. When I am at work, I deal with the (still not officially acknowledged in any meaningful way) health care crisis. When I get home, I face the questions and concerns (real, heartfelt, troubled) of a man -- my husband, my other half -- who lives in a country he cannot in good conscience support, who is miserable in much of his work just like me, and who asks me hard questions.
That isn't a complaint, by the way. I married a critical thinker, a cosmopolitan, and a Canadian, all rolled into one. I wouldn't ask him to be different, I wouldn't want him to be different. But it does mean that the cognitive dissonance I have with my country doesn't leave me for more than a few hours at a time (usually, when I am with Tom and Christy and Sophie . We usually don't talk politics.) But it's there when I go to work each day, there when I go to sleep at night, always there.
Life isn't the same for me as it was before I married. It isn't the same for him, either, and we are a partnership. It's like a cross-faith marriage -- you have to find some tenable middle ground. Were this last election not my visions of the Perfect Storm (Bush re-elected, tightened Republican control on Congress, SCOTUS seats coming up for grabs), I could see making a bid for the tenability of a waiting period. However, it did happen. I don't begrudge it, but I have to face the reality of it for my daily life.
I'll still be reading up on baseball, though. And go, Hoos! (As long as we beat the Hokies ... ) I don't hate, despise, or castigate those who voted for Bush. I don't question the right of those who have faith different from mine to cast their votes and direct the country -- I regret the outcome, but I don't attribute that to evil on the part of those who determined it.
I just have to figure out how to get to a place where I am happy and content enough on a daily basis that I can do good work in the world, rather than gnaw at my hands in unremitting anxiety and distress. Being that half of me is Candian, the solution is kind of obvious.
I've been coming to that decision for a long time, though. Not that much has changed for me since yesterday -- the election just confirmed what I was suspecting about the trends in this country, anyway, and thus confirmed for me the realities of the options I have.
quote:****wonders if Sara would move to Vancouver or Victoria and would be just a few hours drive from me****
I love Victoria! It's more likely Ottawa for us, given our respective work situations. But I will keep you posted.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, no problem, Belle. To be honest, this is not the first time over the last seven years that someone has announced that they're copying a thread in hopes of catching me in hypocrisy or inconsistency. To date, however, no one has actually used quotes from any of the threads they said they were copying for that purpose, so I am forced to conclude -- since the thought that I am neither hypocritical nor inconsistent is unthinkable to me -- that they are merely unobservant and/or lack dedication.
-----
Sara: We're going to have to get at least one D&D campaign in before you go, y'know.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Oh, things take time. We went ahead and started the process to lift the conditionality on his permanent residence status. We have to do this in order for him to continue working under the current grant, as that runs out in July or so. We need a good six months plus buffer to find work up there, especially given that I have to wind through the morass of credentialling and licensure in another country.
We were hoping, actually, to get an affadavit from you & Christy that we are indeed happily married, living together, and not just doing this for a green card for him. (Now there's an irony.) It wouldn't have anything to do with specifiying our long-term plans -- just a testification that our marriage is a real one, not a sham.
Oddly, Glorily is pushing for Dave to apply for US citizenship. Dave's eyes went a little tight around the corners, and he held his tongue. Regardless of whether it would improve his range of choices in work and life, that is about as likely to happen as ... well, the Giant Purple Panda landing and initiating world peace through distribution of magical springerles.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, yes -- next campaign, I'm there. Just send me a date and time, and I'll come loaded with snacks. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder if David would object to being called a wee bit nationalistic? Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just for fun, here are non-religious reasons why I voted for George Bush.
1. I support the war in Iraq, I think the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power and I think we need to stay over there and finish the job.
2. I believe lower taxes are good for our economy.
3. I am a small business owner, and I feel that Kerry would have raised corporate and business taxes and as a small business struggling to get by and pay our people enough, I am strongly opposed to increased taxation on businesses.
4. I would like to see some portion of social security privatized.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Clearly if he's currently living in the US he isn't nationalistic enough Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Belle, how are war, the economy, and how we take care of the elderly not religious issues?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:1. I support the war in Iraq, I think the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power and I think we need to stay over there and finish the job.
2. I believe lower taxes are good for our economy.
3. I am a small business owner, and I feel that Kerry would have raised corporate and business taxes and as a small business struggling to get by and pay our people enough, I am strongly opposed to increased taxation on businesses.
4. I would like to see some portion of social security privatized.
See, even though I completely disagree with all of these, I can at least respect you for having voted based on these sorts of reasons. I think you're wrong, but not illogical. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
David considers himself internationalistic with regards to Canada.
He has the data to back up his viewpoints, regardless of personal biases, anyway. And our marriage is such that we talk about this all the time.
I wouldn't want it any other way. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's a fair question, dkw. I guess in my mind they can't ever be separated since my faith is such an integral part of how I see everything.
However, those are not issues that have been traditionally seen as religious issues along the same lines as abortion and gay marriage. There is no biblical passage that's often touted out to support voting for privatization of social security like there is when people line up on opposite sides of the abortion and the gay marriage debate.
When I think as a business owner, I think in terms of what is going to be financially best for me and my employees. When I think of social security, I think of my future in a financial light, not a religious one.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"Belle, how are war, the economy, and how we take care of the elderly not religious issues?"
They can be, but they don't have to be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't think of a single issue that couldn't be described that way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And of course, many of the analyses that go into deciding how to vote on those issues will be practical analysis: Does a particular economic plan help or hurt the poor? Is the war an effective way to provide peace and safety in the long run? Do privatized accounts provide for a better retirement system?
Not religious questions, although religious beliefs are necessary in deciding that these questions are relevant.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Not religious questions, although religious beliefs are necessary in deciding that these questions are relevant.
Er, no they aren't. In people who are religious, though, they play a role.
What I'm saying, though, is that a good chunk (let's take that twenty-two percent figure) of the voters didn't do what Belle did. Rather, they cast uninformed votes from their guts. I'm quite willing to call that stupid.
Edit: An uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all, to me.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And since Belle was the person under discussion, and she is religious, that was a perfectly valid statement for me to make.
Since the whole exercise posed by Dana's question is about what issues are religious amongst religious voters, the distinction is not necessary here.
Dagonee
[ November 03, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
For a religious person, I think they have to be.
I’ve quoted this before, but it’s worth posting again:
quote: We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)
We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. (Deuteronomy 30:19) [this includes capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world, as well as abortion.]
Dag is right that how one’s faith leads one to vote on any of these considerations will depend on various analyses. They aren’t black and white by any means. But to limit “religious issues” to abortion and gay marriage ignores an awful lot of the gospel, IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree - everything is a religious issue to me ("questions" referred to those specific questions used to analyze the isues). And even if I thought gay marriage should be illegal for religious reasons, I would abhor that so much religous energy has been spent on it to the exclusion of other issues.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
the following is from my sweetie, who I sent browsing through the thread. I thought it would be good fodder for our discussions.
BTW, he has already been sent a job posting for a faculty position at U Victoria, romanylass. Our feelers are sprouting.
quote:I wonder if David would object to being called a wee bit nationalistic?
Hi Tom. Dave here.
I should clarify that my sense of being a Canadian occurs within a framework of being an internationlist. This is a perspective that I think is shared by many Canadians when we think about ourselves as a nation. It implies a valuing of peoples around the world, and striving for constructive relations between nations even in the face of immense difficulties. This view is of course seen as something akin to 'weak' down here. It might be usefully contrasted to the intense nationalism and isolationalism currently (and historically) predominant among Americans, and very central to American personal identity (i.e. the American exceptionalistic variant of patrioticism).
Not that there's anything wrong with Americans being nationalistic. I'm just pointing out that American nationalism is of different and more intense form than found in Canada, or at least in my own soul. The version down here has never made sense to me. It just never translated into anything I valued from home.
And now after a wonderful and rewarding extended visit to this land of the best and the worst, I am planning my move back home, a move that has been intended since before I arrived. I'm leaving your nation, and returning to the world. I think that this is my heart-felt answer to your (hopefully non-rhetorical) question. *smile
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dave reacted to intimations of nationalism pretty much the way I expected he would. Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
CT: I know some really nice communities in Ontario looking for doctors.... *hint hint*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't ignore other parts of the gospel Dana, and I resent it being implied that I do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDIT: Nevermind. I'll post when I can be more coherent.
[ November 03, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Belle, I did not mean to imply that you do. I do think that large parts of the gospel are ignored when religion is mentioned in public discourse, but that was not aimed at you, personally.
I apologize that my phrasing did not make that clear.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Jaiden: Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have decided that there is work to do. I believe our two-party system is guaranteeing us a second-class leadership with a lack of vision or focus for the long term.
I believe that we are being strung along by those who use morality-based arguments, and those who argue against using them.
I believe, we need to look at our Country and our world comprehensively and select a direction that works to make us good, and then work to accomplishing that, not just for one election, but for the rest of our time here.
That we can be tugged and pushed when we should be working toward a particular goal is insane, to me.
I think we have the capacity to do much better. To be led by better people than we are even being offered as choices now. And I believe we should demand it.
And I believe that the current two party system is hurting our country in ways that are probably even hard to recognize until it's too late.
Do you realize, for example, that we still do not have a budget for LAST fiscal year in many Federal agencies? We don't have one for this fiscal year.
The one job that Congress MUST do every year, they don't seem capable of doing.
Our leaders can't seem to agree on the direction for revamping our (universally acknowledged as a failure) intelligence system.
We leave all the important work undone while we take up issues that are "vote getters."
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
First off, I'm sorry I wasn't more respectful of other people's views in my initial post. I was upset, but that's no excuse.
Mainly I am worried about our personal freedoms. I am worried about the rights of homosexuals, the rights of pregnant women, and the rights of every citizen with the probability of more Patriot Acts. I just don't see how that is good for our country.
On a lighter note, I was reminded today that the Red Socks winning the World Series is supposed to be a sign of Armegeddon...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doc,
It's completely unsurprising that you've got such well-considered and articulated positions for considering (well, having already decided, anyway) to migrate to Canada. I say that without my previous sarcasm (and, I confess, a bit of gloating, which is strange since I don't like Dubya, either).
For what it's worth, I think you've got your priorities straight-were I in your position, I'd take marital happiness (not to mention the numerous other issues) over expressing-love-for-America-by-living-there six days a week and twice on Sunday. Without sounding too silly and melodramatic (I hope), it's our loss to have ya leaving.
Or more simply put (why should I use one sentence when several will do?), sorry I was such a schmuck to everyone.
J4
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Well, you know, Jeff, what is a monumental shift in my 3D life will amount to a suprisingly small blip in my Hatrack life. For all intents and purposes, I'm still here.
Now I'll just be able to send y'all some of the really good maple syrup.
No worries about schmuckability, at least from my perspective. It was a remarkably tense time for Hatrack, and I'm surprised we didn't go up like a powderkeg. I think we're in the process of sorting it out, and I think there are a lot of raw feelings (understandably, sadly, and from all corners), but the worst has likely passed.
Another to Rakeesh. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I respect those who disagree with me. But that doesn't mean I want to live in a country where a man like George Bush can win an election fair-and-square.
quote:What does follow from Adam's statement is that most of his neighbors (in the extended sense) have made a choice that makes him feel uncomfortable to live here.
Doesn't mean he's saying they are "horrid ... rotten ... miserable ... truly evil." Just that he is uncomfortable living with their decisions.
I'm in the same place. I am uncomfortable as a citizen in a country that is so strongly evangelically Christian and which is comfortable with our foreign policy over the last four years.
Doesn't mean that I find any of y'all who voted for Bush to be evil -- just that I don't want to live in this country because I'm not comfortable with that trend, and I have to find a way to deal with that.
I agree with Adam's statement, and with Sara's interpretation of Adam's statement.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I considered voting TomDavidson for president, but I decided that if that isn't his real name, I couldn't bear the responsibility if the REAL TomDavidson won and was a complete fool.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Go Tom!! Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
After a devastating result in the Australian federal elections in mid-October, I was holding out hope that perhaps something could be saved in the United States.
I was wrong.
I find it so ironic the blather that people are rolling out about Bush and the economy. I can accept that people think he's good for Iraq (hey, he only lied to get troops there, squandered the advantage over al Qaeda and stuffed up the post-war planning) but CUTTING taxes when you have over 100,000 troops tied up in a potentially long-term foreign conflict is just perplexing. Bush's tax cuts have been demonstrably worse for the economy: the Social Security Trust fund is suffering; Medicare / Medicaid are suffering; the budget surplus has been destroyed. Conservative and religious values might be on the rise, but the fabric of the American economy and its welfare components are coming apart faster than most people think.
The Bush Administration has not governed for all the people so far. They've governed for the rich ones. Why will they start now?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Um, the neoconservatives want to destory Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. And the bona fide conservatives want to hamstring the government by reducing its cashflow. Everybody wins, right?
Also, as one of a small number of Aussies I know, mind if I email you and pester you with questions about Australia? I'm planning to move to either Australia or NZ in the next few years.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Twink, I know that. You know that. How many voters do you think know that?
-----------
Email away! It'd be great to hear from you and I'd be more than happy to give advice. If you wind up in in Sydney, we can go out and get trashed. Errr... I mean, sightsee. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Heh. About zero. As someone I quite like just said on another fourm, "but, hey, look at the bright side. At least family, faith and fortune have been saved from the ravages of liberalism."
------
You'll have mail shortly, sir. And don't tempt me to move sooner -- I could really use a stiff drink or three today.
Edit: Actually, to be strictly accurate, I've wanted to go out and get trashed since mid-July. When I do finally wind up in a city where I have some friends, the first outing is going to be epic.
[ November 03, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Indeed. I firmly believe that one should always get trashed epicly Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Me too, EG, me too. I was hoping at least one election would go well for me this year.
Ah well.
quote: I don't have family keeping me here, and I can (hopefully) seduce my friends to come visit.
I'll come visit you Sara. I've wanted to go to Canada for a long time.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I doubt that this nation will ever be as united as we were in the year after September 11th-- heck, I doubt that we will ever be as "united" as we were when Clinton was president. I really don't think that such unity is possible as long as he's president. Not that I don't think he'll try, but if he only tries as hard as he has for the past four years, he's not going to have much luck. At the same time, many Democrats (and independents, in my case), there's too much emotion directed at him that'll probably outlast his term. I at least hope that we can get to the point where the voters that make up "the other side" no longer feel like exiles in their own land.
Honestly? I wanted Kerry to win. Badly. But Bush won the electoral college, and though 51% of the popular vote may not be much of a mandate, it's still a victory for him. For now, as much as it pains me to say it, George W. Bush will still be president of the United States.
I'm really looking forward to the day when I won't have to hear anything of this sleazy election, and when I can turn on the news and find out about some new scientific breakthrough or something. I hope that one day our two parties won't use an "Us vs. Them" mentality as such a large part of their campaign (i.e.; "Let's win America back from them", "let's keep America from falling into their hands" are some I've heard recently). Most importantly, I'm looking forward to the day when I can actually vote four years from now (17 and 10.5 months in two years, gah), and I hope that it will be for a canidate that I can have at least some respect for, or better yet, a canidate that has a lot of respect for the other guy. I guess it's easier to vote when you can't easily imagine your canidate with horns, a pitchfork, and hooves because of all the mud that's been flying around.
So, uh, congrats to Bush and Co. For the fellow Kerry folk out there, four years is far too long to keep worrying about this. I wanna try to make the best of it.
--j_k
[ November 03, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wouldn't mind moving to Canada. They have lovely winters there and I adore winter. One day when I have money... I really honestly don't think I have a place in the US anymore.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I just wanted to say that whenever I look at this thread's title, it brings tears to my eyes. Because I hear it being said in a spiteful tone of voice in the way the first post was... (sigh) And this was the first time I really got a chance to vote...
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Nobody move to Canada. Move overseas instead. And don't ship your stuff. Donate it to Yozhik instead.
::needs unbroken kitchen chairs::
[ November 03, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote: Because I hear it being said in a spiteful tone of voice in the way the first post was
I'm 'hearing' a lot of the thread titles on the board today in that tone and it makes me sad. Folks, it's not the end of the world.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Folks, it's not the end of the world.
If you keep saying that, you'll eventually be wrong. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I know. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Why is it that every time an uncompromising Republican gets elected, the Democrats start talking about leaving the country?
Okay, OSC has done the Lincoln thing to death, and it's not a fair comparison--especially not where Sara is concerned. But it disturbs me that so many liberals are talking about fleeing the US (not just here, but on some other forums and blogs I read). Are they giving up on the idea of loyal opposition just because some of the Bushies are? Or is it really that frightening that the government can see what you checked out of the library now? (What are you people reading anyway? )
Argh...this is coming out snarky and I don't mean it that way. I too am anxious about what will happen now that Dubya has been reelected. But skipping the country seems like an overreaction to me (Sara excepted, since she has additional reasons). Roughly half the population voted for Kerry, after all.
[Edited for spelling]
[ November 04, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why is it that every time an uncompromising Republican gets elected, the Democrats start talking about leaving the country?
'Every time'? When was the last time? And it seems to me that Bush has made some serious compromises as both a conservative and a Republican.
Now, some of them I think were necessary. Whenever I hear people get angry about how big government has gotten and point out Homeland Security, I roll my eyes.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Don't let the door hit you in the Ass!
BC
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
mabus, I definitely definitely appreciate the concession to me. It probably means a lot more to me than you could imagine, so thank you. Very much.
I think our context on this as Americans is pretty skewed, though. We never (as far as my experience goes) question why other people come to America -- it is taken for granted that it is natural to leave one's country and come here. Presumably, people do this because they hope for a better life with more opportunities of some sort. Most of them aren't being persecuted or unable to eat, at least not in these days.
It's just a better life here.
Why is it different when someone leaves here for exactly the same reasons?
(But again, Mabus . Thank you for being nice to me. You didn't have to be. )
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, BC. I'll watch for it.
Would hate to do any more damage to my tail than I already have.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Actually aimed at Dragon who started the thread, did you say you were leaving as well?
Sorry to hear it, but again, careful of that door.
BC
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
My husband is a Canadian citizen, and though we tried to work out a cross-continent marriage as I finished residency, I ended up needing open-heart surgery my intern year. (Replacement of a priorly-replaced defective aortic valve.) During the recovery, and especially since I was back at work in less than a month, he just worried about me too much to put up with being apart, so he moved down. Reluctantly.
He gave my country 4 years of his life. He's earned some time where he wants to be, now.
There are also work reasons for me to move. Canada has a better epidemiological database collected in the sorts of areas I do research.
But yeah, my butt's pretty bruised as it is. I've been working my tail off the last few years.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why do I feel like I just bought a used car?
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Sara, I'm echoing Imogen here as another Aussie who'd be more than happy to visit you - if I ever make it to Canada... something I've been wanting to do for ages!
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
As far as I know, Rakeesh, the last time it happened in any numbers was the Civil War--which was why I said the comparison wasn't fair, since the political lines have definitely realigned since then. But as long as I have been on the internet I have been encountering people who say, "If so-and-so [always a Republican] wins the election I'm getting out of here. I can't stand it anymore." And it puzzles me, because it does not happen to me in person--I live in an area where even the hard-line Democrats are not terribly frightened about Republicans unless either they or a current Republican activity is extreme. Nor can I think of any likely Democratic policy that would make me feel the same way.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Were I not married to a Canadian already, I don't think leaving would have even occurred to me. However, things are not that way for me, and I'm both surprised and delighted to feel some excitement about making this change. I definitely hadn't expected that, and there is no way I would have understood it before.
Rakeesh, FWIW, most of my life I drove used cars. True, my last one (a 1980 Geo Tracker) eventually lost all gears but reverse, but I was able to work around things up til that point. *grin
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Troubs, hey!
I am serious about the invite. We will work it out. It will be late Summer/ early Fall 2005 before we make the move, though.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Are they giving up on the idea of loyal opposition just because some of the Bushies are? Or is it really that frightening that the government can see what you checked out of the library now?
I think the most frightening thing is that they are killing innocents and conquering nations in our names (and making us pay tons for it!) It's one thing to mess with me, but it's something worse to commit evil in my name, send me the bill, and in doing so provoke terrorist attacks against me.
Nevertheless, I don't see how moving would help. That just lets the Bush administration stay in power and keep doing what they are doing.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Nevertheless, I don't see how moving would help.
My point, Xap...certainly I understand why you object, but you are not in any danger personally (that I know of) and your leaving would not fix anything. So why are people doing it?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'll ask again. Tell me if I'm being too pushy.
quote:We never (as far as my experience goes) question why other people come to America -- it is taken for granted that it is natural to leave one's country and come here. Presumably, people do this because they hope for a better life with more opportunities of some sort. Most of them aren't being persecuted or unable to eat, at least not in these days.
It's just [that they judge it to be] a better life here.
Why is it different when someone leaves here for exactly the same reasons?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't blame them. I feel like I don't really completely fit in with American society for several reasons. But, I would not be able to move for years considering how low my social position is right now. So, I'll stay and raise hell instead.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Sara, I don't think you're being pushy, and I have no problem with anyone leaving for a better life. I'm just curious as to how people think their lives will be better, is all, and Xap in particular.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mabus, I can understand why many people might feel like their lives would be better lived in another country, especially one with a better overall quality of life than America. If your values are dramatically different from the majority of your countrymen, it can be exhausting to try to work around that on a regular basis; in many cases, it may just be easier to move somewhere you are already appreciated as a peer instead of someone without moral fiber.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I want to move to Canada.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
I still loves ya. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
He's earned some time where he wants to be, now.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)