Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Can the Right compromise?

Politics-American Conservatives Liberals Compromise

  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#41 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:39 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 1 2004, 01:12 PM, said:

I think that most people are influenced by religion one way or another.  They may be influenced by it in that the paradigms they grew up with have become a part of their moral fabric, indistinguishible as a practical matter from whatever part of their moral make up is not a result of religious paradigms.  Or they may be influenced by religion in that they have become so disenchanted with it for one reason or another that they automatically dismiss any moral precept that is in agreement with a religious concept (regardless of whether that precept actually originates in religion).  Or they may be influenced by it in any other of inumerable ways.  It's not very realistic (imo) to say that this country or one party or another is not *influenced* by religion.  However, it is important to me that, regardless of that influence, folks running for political office convince me that they not only understand what the Constitution says about religion (both freedom to practice and the establishment clause) but that they respect it.  It is on this last point that I distinguish the two candidates.  I believe that they both understand the concepts in the Constitution.  I just don't think Bush cares about separation of Church and state.

As I said above, my opinion.

Lil
OK, and now you are in my head...........

OT:  Oh I have surely MISSED you!!!!!!!!!!!!

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ LIL }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

  :p

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#42 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:48 PM

{{{{{{{{{{{{{Cait}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}  I missed you too!!!!!!!!!!

:D
Posted Image

#43 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 05:02 PM

Delvo, on Aug 1 2004, 01:00 PM, said:

Hambil said that the right is influenced by religion and the left isn't, to explain why (s)he says that the right doesn't compromise like the left does. To maintain my point that the left is NOT more compromising, I countered the reasoning that religion is the cause of the difference by saying that the left's decisions are just as much a matter of religion as the right's. Where is the problem with this?

Hambil said:

But, because the right is heavily influenced by religion, taking abosulte viewpoints and refusing compromise is part on the very principles their platform is built on. "God is all knowning, God cannot be wrong, so if you disagree with what I see as God will, then you are wrong."

Well, as near as I can determine this is what you are refering to when you say, "Hambil said."

While it doesn't state it, it is implied that they (the Right ) do it, and the Left doesn't.  And I accept that your repsonse was to directly refute Hambil's implied statement.  

But I still ask you, how does this address a Moderate's concern over the (as Lil put it so well) separation of church and state, the establishment clause AND the leader of the political party that proposed such an amendment?  That kind of leaderhsip begs questions from me. Questions I want to look at very carefully in order to find answers as to leadership abilities.  AND there are questions that are begged from the Democratic party as well, but in this case the agenda's of the religious right and left are not the same, only one wanted to amend the Constitution.

While religion may be part and parcel of each party, only one leader of a party was calling for a constitutional amendment.  This concerns me as a matter of law,  and to dismiss my concern is foolish (not by you specifically, but in general), I am in the middle of the political spectrum, my vote is up for grabs--quite literally.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#44 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:07 PM

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 10:00 PM, said:

I am in the middle of the political spectrum, my vote is up for grabs--quite literally.

~ Cait
You told me you were off the fence, when I showed you the line in the Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the official religion of the state and allows it to be a source of law.

#45 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:10 PM

Why would that policy in Iraq impact how someone votes in the upcoming US election?   :unsure:

BTW, we haven't met I don't think (if we have then I apologize for my sieve like memory) so Hi!  :)

Lil
Posted Image

#46 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:35 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 2 2004, 02:08 AM, said:

Why would that policy in Iraq impact how someone votes in the upcoming US election?   :unsure:

BTW, we haven't met I don't think (if we have then I apologize for my sieve like memory) so Hi!  :)

Lil
Well, it is my understanding that we had some say in exactly what their constitution looked like. So, we didn't seperate church and state, even though we know it will most likely doom them to failure. In my opinion, everything we hoped to accomplish in Iraq, and every life we lost on both sides, was wasted thanks to that one line.

It is also my opinion that GW knew exactly what was in that constitution and allowed it anyway. I could speculate as to why, but I won't. I can't imagine anything that would justify allowing religion to hold the reins of government in a country with the history of Iraq.

#47 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 2 2004, 02:08 AM, said:

BTW, we haven't met I don't think (if we have then I apologize for my sieve like memory) so Hi!  :)
Oh, and I'm Hambil, good to meet you. I'm a boy hambil. I only mention it because someone seemed unsure in an earlier post :D

#48 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:44 PM

We may well have had quite a bit of say in their constitution, but we did not have a complete say.  It is their constitution after all, not ours.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#49 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:48 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 07:33 PM, said:

Well, it is my understanding that we had some say in exactly what their constitution looked like. So, we didn't seperate church and state, even though we know it will most likely doom them to failure.
I have two questions.

1.  Do you think the US has the right to tell Iraq whether or not they can have a national religion?

2.  As a practical matter, do you think that a constitution that says "separation of church and state", *especially* where the idea is forced upon a people rather than adapted by them, is even viable in Iraq?

Lil
Posted Image

#50 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 09:49 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 07:34 PM, said:

Oh, and I'm Hambil, good to meet you. I'm a boy hambil. I only mention it because someone seemed unsure in an earlier post :D
So does this mean I can now make a Boy Hambil filk out of a Boy George song???

:angel:

Lil  :hehe:
Posted Image

#51 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:07 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 06:05 PM, said:

SubwayCait, on Aug 1 2004, 10:00 PM, said:

I am in the middle of the political spectrum, my vote is up for grabs--quite literally.

~ Cait
You told me you were off the fence, when I showed you the line in the Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the official religion of the state and allows it to be a source of law.
OMG!!!  That is right, I forgot about that.  (Major issue for me) Thanks for reminding me.  

Jumps off the fence

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#52 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:30 PM

So, "allowing" Islam as a state religion in Iraq is an example of hardline Christianity dictating Bush's decisions? :wacko:

#53 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 2 2004, 02:46 AM, said:

I have two questions.

1.  Do you think the US has the right to tell Iraq whether or not they can have a national religion?

2.  As a practical matter, do you think that a constitution that says "separation of church and state", *especially* where the idea is forced upon a people rather than adapted by them, is even viable in Iraq?

Lil
1. Yes. We'd already decided we had the right to conquer them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
2. I think it is more viable than the alternative.

#54 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:36 PM

I agree with Delvo.  First of all, Islam is not Christian so, even assuming that the US has any business dictating to Iraq whether it should have a national religion let alone what that religion should be, and further assuming that it is only by the sufferance of the US that the new Iraqi Constitution makes Islam the national religion (a proposition I don't buy, btw), it doesn't make any sense how such a thing could in any way demonstrate Christian influence on the Bush Administration.

Lil
Posted Image

#55 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:37 PM

Delvo, on Aug 2 2004, 03:28 AM, said:

So, "allowing" Islam as a state religion in Iraq is an example of hardline Christianity dictating Bush's decisions? :wacko:
Yes. Especially if you take out all the words I said and insert completely new ones into my mouth.

#56 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:42 PM

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

1. Yes. We'd already decided we had the right to conquer them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
I disagree.  At the risk of Godwinizing this thread, that would be like us ousting Hitler for the evil sob he was and then telling Germany whether it is allowed to have a national religion.  I don't think so.  My opinion.

Quote

2. I think it is more viable than the alternative.

How so?  How do you expect such a thing to play out as a practical matter.  We're talking about a region of the world that has been torn apart by the inextricable emeshment of politics and religion for centuries.  It would be one thing if the IRAQI people decided to adopt a policy of separating church and state.  But to impose it on them?  Especially if, as you seem to be suggesting (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), the imposition is a matter of what the US wants and not what IRAQ wants.

I don't think it's even remotely viable.

Lil
Posted Image

#57 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:44 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 1 2004, 06:46 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 07:33 PM, said:


Well, it is my understanding that we had some say in exactly what their constitution looked like. So, we didn't seperate church and state, even though we know it will most likely doom them to failure.
I have two questions.

1.  Do you think the US has the right to tell Iraq whether or not they can have a national religion?

2.  As a practical matter, do you think that a constitution that says "separation of church and state", *especially* where the idea is forced upon a people rather than adapted by them, is even viable in Iraq?

Lil
You know Lil, I don't know the answers to those questions, BUT I do believe that given the conflicts between sects there, it would be good to give Iraq the best possible chance at a working democracy, otherwise we will be revisiting this mistake for years to come.

My reason for looking at it in this election, is the fact that it wasn't seen as a necessary element of freedom and democracy in the peace and rebuilding process itself.  And I believe that is because the sitting President does not see the necessity for the separation himself.  We say we are there to 'free' the Iraqi's, yet we don't do what we all know is necessary to ensure that a democracy DOES survive.  

I don't think it bodes well on a number of levels.

Do I think we should dictate our Constitution to them, no.  But, there are elements of the US Constitution that speak to ALL people and are the foundation of personal freedom.  That doesn't change because it is the Middle East.  So, I have to wonder why we didn't make a stronger suggestion.  It might have brought some of the weaker sects into a government that had a place for them.  The way it stands, only the State religion and it's believers will benefit, others will be outside of 'freedom'.

I worry about the women, and the children we are there to protect and deliver freedom to.  We weren't there to rid them of one dictator only to put another form of one in place ... this one with religions clerics making the law.  Where is the freedom to follow one's on conscience regarding religion?

Governments are there to protect the rights of the people they serve.  If religion is not separate from the state, then aren't *some* people outside that protection?  And if some people are outside the protection aren't they bound to continue to fight against the 'establishment'?  Isn't a caste system put right back in place?

It just appears to me to be a built in source of conflict that will lead to eventual and almost certain failure of the democracy.  That concerns me, since we are there to 'free' the people, to give them the foundation to build a democracy.

Instead it might be seen as just removing Hussein, (which is of course a GOOD thing) but not seeing to the actual foundation of freedom and democracy, It bothers me that an American President and Commander and Chief wouldn't fight harder for the bare bone basics of a democracy.. ie: a Bill of Rights that includes religious freedom.

All that said, I'm not sure how that could be accomplished, but I do know that a democracy can't survive without it.  See my point?

Also, this isn't partisan for me, I am concerned about American objectives in Iraq when we do not see to a basic Bill of Rights.  What are we doing there, beyond eliminating Saddam, and rebuilding what we see needs rebuilding.  I know we are doing a lot, but when we leave, and the Clerics rule, what about the people then?

It bothers me quite a bit, and I'm not sure what to do with my concerns.  I don't think it is partisan, I think that the area would be difficult to establish a separation of church and state in, BUT without it, *shakes head*... there is no freedom, there is no real democracy when the state religion holds the real power.  There just isn't.  

It just bothers me quite a bit.  And I don't have the answer to how to fix it, or what else could have been done, but I DO know it should have been done.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#58 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:46 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 2 2004, 03:40 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 1 2004, 08:34 PM, said:


1. Yes. We'd already decided we had the right to conquer them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
I disagree.  At the risk of Godwinizing this thread, that would be like us ousting Hitler for the evil sob he was and then telling Germany whether it is allowed to have a national religion.  I don't think so.  My opinion.

Quote

2. I think it is more viable than the alternative.

How so?  How do you expect such a thing to play out as a practical matter.  We're talking about a region of the world that has been torn apart by the inextricable emeshment of politics and religion for centuries.  It would be one thing if the IRAQI people decided to adopt a policy of separating church and state.  But to impose it on them?  Especially if, as you seem to be suggesting (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), the imposition is a matter of what the US wants and not what IRAQ wants.

I don't think it's even remotely viable.

Lil
Then I guess we agree to disagree :) My beliefs on this are strong, and I admit to that. If fact, I believe that seperation of church and state by the founding fathers is one of the single greatest accomplishments in human history. So, as much as I'd like to be (because I pride myself on it) I can't say as I'm all that opened minded on that particular subject.

I would certainly try, if someone really wanted, to have an open debate - but it probably is not worth it :)

#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:50 PM

Well we are going to have to agree to disagree.  As distasteful as I find the concept of invading a country to oust an unfit leader, I find the idea of summarily imposing our values on that country, especially values that go directly against centuries of culture and which touch on something as deeply personal as religion, to be more distasteful.  At least I find it distasteful in this instance.  We're not talking about, for example, banning a particular religious practice which we might find particularly barbaric (mutilation of female genitalia comes to mind), we're talking about taking a concept that is a difficult one even in the US where it's a cornerstone of the nation and imposing it from the outside on a region where it's fundamentally the opposite of what they've been doing.  I'm a big time believer in separation of church and state.  But I think there's a line between that belief and the concept that I have the right to impose that belief on entire nations just because I believe in it.

Heh, FINALLY, something on which we *don't* agree.

K, off to watch RHW's 2400 episode.  :)

{{{{{{{{{{{{{Cait}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Lil
Posted Image

#60 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:53 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 2 2004, 03:48 AM, said:

K, off to watch RHW's 2400 episode.
Sure, I miss ONE episode and they kill off 2000 people...  :p

Edited by Hambil, 01 August 2004 - 10:53 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Conservatives, Liberals, Compromise

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users