It's official - RELIGION = Right Wing, ATHEISM = Left Wing.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Not to criticize, but you seem to subscribe to whatever philosophy you most recently have googled.

I've been arguing with anarchists since 1978, and I have yet to find anyone who can defend that point of view, so good luck to you :-)

reply to post by adjensen


Well I've been an Atheist and Liberal since 2005. So Google doesn't have anything to do with it. Anarchism is confusing. I'm reading a book about the history of the belief.

It is official, I am going to lose my marbles.
Not this same argument, AGAIN.

Classically speaking, the argument has always been about statism vs anarchism.

That is the classical left and right. More power to the government vs more power to the individual.

Then people started separating the economic and social components hence the blurring of the debate.

Classically speaking, all the statists are on the left, yes you can show the charts that distinguish the difference in social and economic freedoms, the problem is that NO MATTER who has control, they cannot give up the power of one, without the power of the other.

So everyone on the "supposed" social freedoms side of the argument, are STILL tyrants.

So everyone on the "supposed" economic freedoms side of the argument, are STILL tyrants.

This left/right crap is the perfect excuse for the governments to divide the idiots on the "left" from the idiots on the "right."

Tell me folks, when has there EVER been economic freedom without social control or social freedom without economic control?

Never right?

There has been a time where BOTH freedoms were pushed, but not any longer, cause all you Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Corporatists, Dictators, TYRANTS in other words, have ruined it for the rest of us. You know, the freedom and liberty lovers. You know, the anti war mongers! You peeps are all about subjugating people to your beliefs, to your ideals, to your tyranny!

How bout coming to the TRUE side of freedom, the Libertarians and True Anarchists, instead of spreading your DAMN TYRANNY! Oh I forgot, you are tyrants!

As for the spiritual side of it, I think the Truly Spiritual are with me. You know, the ones that are not slave masters or social darwinists. We believe in charity, not FORCED charity. Forced charity is tyranny, I could care less what spin you want to put on it.

Not in the UK - religion transcends the political spectrum here.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Parallex

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Parallex
It has finally become distinctly clear in the minds of the world at large.

Religion has become the preserve of Right Wing thinkers and practitioners, Atheism & Agnosticism have become the preserve of the Left Wing.

Boy.
This is going to come as a surprise to the United Church.

Can you expand on your point? I'm curious about your statement my good cryptic canuck!

Simply that the United Church of Canada, which is Canada's largest Protestant denomination, is known as a hot-bed of social activism and such other liberal activity. From the wiki entry:

In structure, the United Church has a "bottom-up" governance, where the congregation selects its clergy, rather than clergy being appointed by a bishop or other body. The policies of the church are inclusive and liberal: there are no restrictions of gender, sexual orientation or marital status for a person considering entering the ministry; interfaith marriages are recognized; communion is offered to all Christian adults and children, regardless of denomination or age. en.wikipedia.org...

Pretty darn Lefty looking bunch to me...and a social force, not a cult or an aberration. Nice sandwiches too.

Christians in Canada are very different. They're VERY liberal socially. Canadians are the nicest people in the world, and the Christians in Canada are the nicest people in Canada.

Since moderation implies inconsistent, middle-of-the-road and compromising, it promotes a lack of principles and integrity.

These arguments appear desperate to preserve the present political system. Groups fighting for more government favors and handouts at the expense of individual rights.

reply to post by Parallex


The left is quite religious actually.

They just don't force their religion publicly on others. Which I respect quite a bit.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
How bout coming to the TRUE side of freedom, the Libertarians and True Anarchists, instead of spreading your DAMN TYRANNY! Oh I forgot, you are tyrants!

As for the spiritual side of it, I think the Truly Spiritual are with me. You know, the ones that are not slave masters or social darwinists. We believe in charity, not FORCED charity. Forced charity is tyranny, I could care less what spin you want to put on it.

I'm with you on most of this, and if you get off at the Libertarian stop, I'll be right at your side. Anarchy, however, is a big fail if society consists of more than one person (or, arguably, one family.) I do not object to paying for goods and services that are most efficiently provided by a governmental (or government like) entity, nor do I object with that entity codifying a reasonable set of laws to direct conduct between individuals.

What I object to is that entity believing that its existence needs to be maintained at all costs, and that said existence is justification for legislating things that have nothing to do with basic conduct and the provision of shared goods and services. Unfortunately, the direction that we seem to be going in is either contrary to this, or it obviates control to other entities, in the case of America, corporations, who are even less accountable, yet hold the same views of self existence and control.

It is funny, in a way, that the root of both entity types are the decisions made by human beings, but those decisions are generally self serving, and result in the oppressive system that oppresses not only us, but those who made the decision in the first place.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, the whole problem is the case of disputes. In contract law or agreements. Also criminal law.

I am a Libertarian, the smallest possible government to protect the rights of the individual. I have done some investigation into the anarchy beliefs of private courts and private police forces.They do make some very good discussions in the acedemic sense. I think if we were to devolve our country back to the libertarian ideals the US was founded on, I think after a few decades of such governance, a possibility could be argued to go to true ultimate freedom. Of course the one thing that would have to be removed is the belief that society owes individuals something. The narcissistic craving I call it. Add to that the social control parameters that people insist on placing on others.

Not to say I have don't have morals that limit my social actions, I just do not feel the need to be a tyrant and force my beliefs on others.

Do no harm. Do not infringe on another's rights.

That about covers it.

But we have bureaucracies and corporations appointed to do what our government was never authorized to do.

One thing after another, piled upon each other.

Sooner or later the upside down pyramid can no longer support itself.

Aw, darn it! I don't want to be left-wing. Can I not be left-wing please? Come to think of it, I don't want to be right-wing either. I hate to give up atheism. How about if I pick an odd-ball religion? Which religion can I pick that doesn't make me a winger? Preferably one that allows me to worship my god(s) / goddess(es) by drinking tequila twice a week.

To heck with it, I'll make my own religion. The Church of the Stainless Steel Pole. Services will be held daily at your local go-go bar. Give generously, God needs your money! (Apparently , creating the universe doesn't pay well.) Ye must repent your political ways, O republicans and democrats, before ye can enter the kingdom of The Studded G-string! Oh, and our "chosen people" are the Swedish Bikini Team. We don't want to make the same mistake that last God did.

I am an Atheist and definitely in the right side of the political spectrum.

Not really. There are PLENTY of Democrats and Extreme Liberals who are very religious. Chris Matthews from MSNBC is a good example, he's a loyal Catholic.

So this thread is kinda invalid and pretty inaccurate.

reply to post by Parallex


You'd think that it would go the other way. You would think that Christians would follow the liberal lifestyle of Jesus. I mean the guy was all about turning the other cheek and doing unto others... then again he hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, maybe he is a Republican

I think that there is a correlation there but not strict in that there can be conservative atheists and religious liberals.

I can think of some famous atheists in history like Thomas Hobbes, Mussolini and Napoleon, who thought that God did not exist and everything was just matter in motion, but I don't think that the term Left-wing could be applied to them. Authoritarian, certainly, but not really sympathetic to a radical or leftist viewpoint of allowing the masses to have a share of political power. the fact that Napoleon and Mussolini were radicals when they were younger doesn't really count, either, since that's definitely not where they ended up.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Parallex

 

You'd think that it would go the other way. You would think that Christians would follow the liberal lifestyle of Jesus. I mean the guy was all about turning the other cheek and doing unto others... then again he hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, maybe he is a Republican

I think that there is a correlation there but not strict in that there can be conservative atheists and religious liberals.

Some of them do, like Soujourners, the Catholic Worker and Evangelicals for Social Justice, but they don't get on TV very much. Obviously the Republicans aren't interested in them, and neither are the church leaders and hierarchies. So yes, there have always been leftist Christians in America but they never get the money, attention or publicity of the Right.

Why is that?

I also think that many of the Republican leaders don't believe in any religion at all, but just cynically manipulate the voters using these wedge issues of race, religion and culture. Their real interests are protecting big business and the wealthy. Of course, many Democrats are the same, no matter how much they pretend to be populists at election time. Think Max Baucus, Mary Landreiu, Blance Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joe Liberman, Bill Clinton and the rest.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Well, make sure you read several books on the subject.

Also remember this, the only thing I took away from my US history class, the very first day the teacher had a prepared dialogue he always had for his class.

History, be it from one second ago to thousands of years ago, is always based upon a perception. That perception is changed by the very eyes that see it. Two people standing side by side would see things differently and if they write it down, you will have two very different observations.

Every historical record is skewed by the very person that observed it and the one that is writing it. Heck, what I write here now is my observation and my interpretations of the very dialogue given that day.

Everything you read or hear from another is skewed by their beliefs or their perceptions.

Just remember this tenet when learning anything from anyone or anything else, EVEN YOUR OWN EYES.

so the Right Wing is the party of Muslim Extremists?

makes sense, actually.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Classically speaking, the argument has always been about statism vs anarchism.

Classically speaking, that argument is bull# when applied to the modern day.

That is the classical left and right. More power to the government vs more power to the individual.

Yes, but not for hundreds of years. We've moved on.

Then people started separating the economic and social components hence the blurring of the debate.

If anything, that makes it easier to see where people stand.

Classically speaking, all the statists are on the left, yes you can show the charts that distinguish the difference in social and economic freedoms, the problem is that NO MATTER who has control, they cannot give up the power of one, without the power of the other.

Pardon?

So everyone on the "supposed" social freedoms side of the argument, are STILL tyrants.

So everyone on the "supposed" economic freedoms side of the argument, are STILL tyrants.

That's a nice couple of generalisations you put out there.

This left/right crap is the perfect excuse for the governments to divide the idiots on the "left" from the idiots on the "right."

Or to, you know, see more-or-less where people stand at a glance?

Tell me folks, when has there EVER been economic freedom without social control or social freedom without economic control?

Never to my knowledge. What's your point?

There has been a time where BOTH freedoms were pushed, but not any longer, cause all you Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Corporatists, Dictators, TYRANTS in other words

Apparently you're not very well educated on the meaning of certain political ideologies.

You know, the anti war mongers!

What?

You peeps are all about subjugating people to your beliefs, to your ideals, to your tyranny!

You seem to be the same.

How bout coming to the TRUE side of freedom, the Libertarians and True Anarchists,

Because I don't agree that it will result in much 'freedom' at all.

instead of spreading your DAMN TYRANNY! Oh I forgot, you are tyrants!

Why do Anarchists always seem to have a favourite word to use on anybody they don't like?

As for the spiritual side of it, I think the Truly Spiritual are with me.

What is that even supposed to mean?

You know, the ones that are not slave masters or social darwinists. We believe in charity, not FORCED charity. Forced charity is tyranny, I could care less what spin you want to put on it.

Except that it isn't.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Since you may not be able to understand simple observations, such as this-

Tell me folks, when has there EVER been economic freedom without social control or social freedom without economic control?

Never to my knowledge. What's your point?

The point was, tyrants do not only control the economic or only the social freedoms. They want to control both. Hence, what the hell does separating them do to the argument of left/right?

Since you acknowledge my postulate that control of one has never existed without the other, the left right should only be talked about in regards to the tyrants also known as statists and the others that are about freedom.

The rest of your critique of my comment goes to show that you do not understand anything I said, or more accurately, you disagree with people being free by your avatar's name.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
The point was, tyrants do not only control the economic or only the social freedoms. They want to control both. Hence, what the hell does separating them do to the argument of left/right?

Margaret Thatcher relinquished a great deal of government control over the economy (and was even prevented from going further with such matters by other members of her own party), whilst strengthening control over the social aspect. Many countries (such as those in Scandinavia) are well known for their very (in a relative sense) liberal social laws, coupled with far stricter control of the economy.

Since you acknowledge my postulate that control of one has never existed without the other, the left right should only be talked about in regards to the tyrants also known as statists and the others that are about freedom.

It's a matter of degree. For example, I'm socially liberal yet economically moderately left-wing. Where would I be placed on the scale in relation to someone such as Margaret Thatcher, who was more-or-less the reverse?

The rest of your critique of my comment goes to show that you do not understand anything I said, or more accurately, you disagree with people being free by your avatar's name.

That was a fantastic way to address my post without actually addressing it.

I'd like to know what you mean by 'freedom' and how you plan to enforce this 'freedom' without 'tyranny' (as you call it.)