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.
posted
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?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
" 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.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tom, it's odd to hear you complaining about the marginalization of non-Christians, considering how much I have felt that you marginalize believers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
****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 Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness, he did say " christians who say that all human rights should be dictated by religious moral beliefs", not "all Christians".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
