Realism, Religion, and Liberty

I contend that we need a new major political philosophy which speaks to a large part of society which is ignored and to contend with the two major political parties which currently exist. Rather than rely on slanted beliefs which come from the left or right, we need a balanced and realistic perspective which relies on facts and logic to reach conclusions.

I've written bad and good threads about Trump, because I agree with him on many points but also disagree on many other points. Rather than kneel before him and portray him as the savor of the world, it's important to realize he's just a man, and no man is perfect. However it's also crucial to realize Trump has many plans which do go against the "status quo".

For example he wants term limits on all members of Congress, he wants to reduce government spending by shrinking or totally killing off unnecessary government departments, he wants to reduce the over-regulation which harms the economy, he wants to make it much harder for government employees to become lobbyists after they leave government service.

Furthermore, he is taking a hard stance against MSM propaganda and a hard stance against terrorism. Instead of fighting proxy wars which support terrorist groups, the U.S. will now fight with other world super power such as Russia to destroy the terrorist groups in Syria and other places. They are putting petty differences aside and doing what is necessary.

On top of that he wants to reduce taxes for the middle class and create more incentives for businesses and manufacturers to operate from the U.S. instead of another country. He also has a healthy skepticism when it comes to controversial topics such as vaccinations, he asks questions instead of simply towing the mainstream line with unquestioning faith.

It's for those reasons and many others that I have come to accept Trump and see the good in this situation instead of just the bad. However there are still many aspects of the trump administration which have me concerned or angry because they totally contradict his other principles or it's just not something I believe in, such as his religious leanings.

Whether you're on the left or right, there's a very good chance most of the people who represent you are religious to some degree. As a result, that very large group of people who call themselves agnostic or atheists feel totally ignored and unrepresented. These religious beliefs often lead to other questionable policies which inhibit liberty and freedom.

For example the ability for a women to get an abortion is undermined, the ability for gay couples to get married is hindered as much as possible, nations such as Israel which do evil crap all the time constantly get a free pass, the freedom to use natural drugs such as marijuana is constantly thwarted and the users are treated like hard criminals.

It would be unfair to say everything Obama did was terrible, just look how far the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. has come in the last 8 years. Now there's a chance much of that work could be undone by Trump and Jeff Sessions. It seems very hypocritical to run on a platform promoting freedom and restoring power to the people, while wanting to restrict certain freedoms.

That is why I strongly feel the need for a third major political party which takes a more balanced approach by drawing on the wisdom of both the left and the right. This new "Realist Party" would have a strong emphasis on liberty and freedom, while also emphasizing the separation of church and state, with a preference for cold hard facts over emotional bias.

The facts are, marijuana is less harmful than other legal drugs with the government taxes, it's a natural plant that has existed since the dawn of time, and it has many proven medicinal purposes. Logic then dictates it should be ok to for personal use, especially in the privacy of ones own home. Principles of liberty say it's fine if it's not harming anyone else.

See how easy it is to reach a conclusion when you're not bogged down by artificial arguments of morality which have no realistic basis? This is what we need, a political party which sees things for what they are and not what they want them to be, a party which understands how to balance republic and democratic principles without creating a nanny state or fascist corporatocracy.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Unfortunately, America has been what I would call an "indirect theocracy" for far far too long. The church has had its filthy hands on too many legislators, and has ingrained itself deep within our culture. Because of this, things like prostitution are illegal. There is no logical argument that can be made for things like this. The best a person can do is "it's wrong."

But I firmly believe we are finally reaching the end of that long, long era. The only cure for religion is education and information has never been easier to access. And I'm about 99.9% sure that our new president is about as Atheist as they come. He just says that "God" s**t to keep his base happy. What we're seeing now is religion (particularly Christianity) in its death throes - the vocal minority screaming as loud as they can to cling to what little control they have left.

I have hope that in my lifetime we'll see a western world freed from the tyranny of religion.

I think he will not go far enough with the religious side. I seriously think that very, very severe laws aught to be enacted to curb all religions in any governing body.
A law NEEDS to be put in place that states "any religion (that's all religions) that infringes on another human being, either by coercion or by their forcing adherence of their religious rites on anyone, or because their religious rites infringe on the day to day running of any person, company or secular organisation, that said religion loses it's right to be protected as a religion that has the right to be practiced without interference".
In other words, as the law states you have the right to practice any recognized religion. But you cannot force it on anyone else. If enacted this law MUST be used with vigor to separate any and all religions from government and people who do not wish any part encroaching on THEIR way of life.

a reply to: MrSensible

And I'm about 99.9% sure that our new president is about as Atheist as they come. He just says that "God" s**t to keep his base happy.

I have to disagree with you on this point, Trump is clearly quite a religious man, the inauguration ceremony and the people he has chosen for his administration make it very clear. His actions indicate that his words aren't just pandering, even if he doesn't believe in God he's still going to take actions which appease his base. One of the reasons I think he will do a good job, or at least do what he says, is simply because he has a huge ego, there is no room for failure, he wants people to view him as a boss. It's why he loves tweeting and why he doesn't mind speaking badly about the politicians he has to work with.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Just an alternate view from me here - feel free to disagree....

Dumb people down by rejecting science and scientific principals.

Then legalise and popularize weed so that people - especially the young generation who might challenge established thinking - are stoned off their heads most of the time

Then decry everything bad reported as fake news, and shout the dissenters down.

Its an interesting strategy, isn't it?

a reply to: neformore

Then legalise and popularize weed so that people - especially the young generation who might challenge established thinking - are stoned off their heads most of the time

In my experience the people most willing to question establishment thinking are people who smoke, so your argument falls apart right there. Although that's not to say they wont be too lazy to do anything about it.

EDIT: also there is clear evidence that legalization and decriminalization results in lower levels of drug use. It's the same psychology as a kid who wants what they cannot have, once it's easy to acquire it becomes boring and loses its allure.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Is the actual ability for gays to get married undermined or only their ability to force others to serve them by baking cakes and taking photographs of it?

Understand, that aside from Pence, Trump has been consistently pro-gay marriage from the start. So this is basically barking up the wrong tree here.

There ought to be latitude in this country for some to realize that while you do have the right to get hitched, you do not have the right to force someone else to participate in your ceremony. I don't have the right to force an imam or a rabbi to perform a traditional Christian wedding ceremony for me, for example. That goes against their sincerely held beliefs, but I have just as much "right" to get married as anyone else.

I also think that a lot of the hysteria over Trump is just that until something actually happens. We don't know for sure what will happen with marijuana. It seems to me that the administration never really campaigned much on it. They have bigger fish to fry in immigration issues and the lack of legal enforcement associated with that.

And yes, I have been waiting for the thread where the atheists' heads explode at the naked show of spirituality at the inauguration. Basically, if anyone in this country had a right to feel left out, it was them, but until and unless someone tells you you have to start worshiping a religion, then look at the things that will benefit you.

No candidate will be perfect. I think there will be a lot of good for a lot of people out of this administration if it upholds its basic government power trimming promises by just shrinking the bureaucracies and regulatory state alone -- even the atheists.

And again, I will also point out that Trump, unlike Obama who carried race card immunity, is on a far shorter reign. He has enough hidden enemies in the blue blood GOP that if he sets a foot out of place, there will be a bipartisan impeachment effort. There won't be any Trumpitler, not like the hysteria is making people think there will be.

a reply to: ketsuko

There ought to be latitude in this country for some to realize that while you do have the right to get hitched, you do not have the right to force someone else to participate in your ceremony. I don't have the right to force an imam or a rabbi to perform a traditional Christian wedding ceremony for me, for example.

I agree, it should be up to a particular church whether they want to allow gay marriage, or at least the local state laws. The problem is when the federal government comes in and tries to dictate who can and cannot get married to each other. Based on what I have seen from Trump he's not against gay marriage, so I will give that to you, but that position isn't reflected in his cabinet choices and they may take actions out of his control.

The gay issues aren't really what I wanted to focus on though, I was just pointing out how religious beliefs can undermine liberty and that was a good example. And also how easy it is to say you support freedom and liberty and then do the opposite because of your personal beliefs. Another example is the mass surveillance program, Trump and his choice for CIA director think it's a good thing even if it infringes on our privacy.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Here's the thing:

Your personal moral schema is shaped by your beliefs, even if you are an atheist, and it is insane to expect anyone to completely divorce that from their decision making process. It is also way too easy to simply blame one's religion for a decision they might have arrived at.

For example, it is well known on this board that I am very pro-life and a Christian. There are some very irritating times when people will simply dismiss my pro-life views as stemming solely from my religious faith, but my arrival at a pro-life position encompasses more than that, and I consistently articulate that when I argue the position. It is simply unfair to completely dismiss an argument that never once references God, scripture or the Bible as purely based on religion only because you know a person's faith.

When I argue from faith, I make that very clear. And there are some issues that I know you cannot argue from faith because people are too quick to dismiss you from the outset.

And this is what happens all too often at all levels and in all situations. If a person's faith is known, then their reasons for making this or that choice must be based solely on that. It is lazy argumentation and a cheap excuse not to address that person's concerns and argument.

a reply to: ketsuko

For example, it is well known on this board that I am very pro-life and a Christian. There are some very irritating times when people will simply dismiss my pro-life views as stemming solely from my religious faith, but my arrival at a pro-life position encompasses more than that

I can understand that, you don't need to be religious to be pro-life, I was just pointing out how that's typically the case, presumably because that's what the bible says, I don't really know.

Also I find the term "pro-life" to be quite misleading, it implies the opposite side is "anti-life", when that's not at all the case. I believe there is a certain age after which abortion would not be ok because the fetus has a lot of brain activity happening.

What I'm saying is, women should have the freedom to abort their child while it's still very undeveloped, especially if that women was impregnated in a traumatic event or against her will.

If we're being realistic, there's no way we could force every women to have her child, if we tried the world population would explode and then everyone would get screwed over... is it worth all life dying so one more life may briefly live?

Just ask China what overpopulation is like, they live cramped in tiny apartments and walk around with face masks on because the air is so polluted. There is nothing more important to the individualist than freedom and personal space.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Just ask China what overpopulation is like, they live cramped in tiny apartments and walk around with face masks on because the air is so polluted. There is nothing more important to the individualist than freedom and personal space.

It's ironic you put China in there with "freedom" especially when it comes to a talk on abortion. Women there have no freedom when it comes to that. Do you know how many women have been massacred in China thanks to their fertility policy? There is a cultural preference for boys in that culture, so even on the first pregnancy, a girl has a sky high chance of being murdered for being a girl ... or abandoned after birth. That's why you see so many international adoptions of Chinese girls in this country.

Then, because of the preference of boys, China also has a large generation of men who will mostly be single now. There simply aren't enough women in that country.

Oh, and if you are found to be pregnant illegally, they will forcibly abort that child. In some places, that practice gets quite brutal with women being beaten along with being compelled into the hospital for the procedure at any time in the pregnancy.

But let's do talk more about liberty and freedom and abortion and China.

a reply to: ketsuko

I never said China had freedom, I was using them as an example of why overpopulation is so bad, they have so many people they literally have laws against having too many children, which is obviously not a good thing. But that's what will happen if you insist on being so pro-life and restricting access to abortion procedures. How about instead of allowing the population to get so out of control in the first place, we apply some long sighted logic and let women have the right to abortion. At the rate our global population is increasing, we need at least some ways of minimizing the growth, or we're going to destroy ourselves in the end, we truly will have paved the path to hell and it would be with good intention. Some times you need to be a realist and face the reality of the situation.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Sadly, not much realism in government. Religion is a farce, too. Liberty? What is that? Post 9/11 liberty has taken a bath.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I contend that we need a new major political philosophy which speaks... [Universally]

'Politics' = interpersonal relations.
What we need, all of us, politically, isn't a 'philosophy' because there is no 'philosophy of unconditional Love!
There is just the experience/Knowledge and practice.
From which we get all Virtues;

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

From such Love come 'ethics';

"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!"

This will be Universal politics in a couple of centuries.

We can begin, Now, to;

"Be the change that you want to see!"

"If it cannot be thought with Love,
it doesn't need to be thought!
Don't think it!
If it cannot be spoken with Love,
it doesn't need to be said!
Don't say it!
If it cannot be done with Love,
it doesn't need to be done!
Don't do it!
If the day cannot be Saved by Love,
the day isn't worth saving,
offer it up with Love!!"

Wage Love! Practice Compassion!

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

Perhaps we need take a step back before we can take two steps forward. Proper laws that guarantee personal liberties reduce the need for government, as the laws themselves, govern society.

But if despots dictate the laws that control society, whilst operating outside the law itself, it doesn't matter who rules, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So before we can discuss introducing more parties into the madness we should recognise the inherent weaknesses of the current system. Governments and the legal system should be completely independent. Only the supreme court can create laws with the sitting members elected by the public.

The Law by Frederic Bastiat (freely available on free audio books) is a good read.