Other than RKBA, what are your main voting issues?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The courts control, so a candidate's views are 99% immaterial. A lot of other stuff along that line, as well.
Click to expand...

Depends. If we're talking federal offices, senators have influence over the judiciary. Both senate and house pass the laws that courts often have to rule on. And when courts follow strict construction and do leave it to legislatures to legislate, then a candidate's views on a whole range of social issues can influence the kind of country we have.

My main issues:

RKBA

Immigration

Judical philosohy

Energy (neither party has a viable energy policy, which means we have a foreign policy driven by the lack of an energy policy)

America first foreign policy

Values (I know, it is vague, but I'm referring to whatever it was that made so many of us euphoric at the outcome of the last general election)
 
Pafrmu said:
My number two issue is freedom from atheism in all its forms. Atheism requires as much faith as any other religion. True agnosticism would not care if the ten commandments were posted and gay marraige was banned.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that atheism doesn't require much faith at all. The disbelief in something that you can't see, smell, touch or measure in any way comes pretty naturally. Thats neither here nor there as we ALL have freedom of religion. Since you mentioned freedom from atheism, lets make sure you also accept that atheists may want freedom from Abrahamic mysticism.

True agnosticism really wouldn't touch on the ten commandments or gay marriage in a religious sense. Agnostics are (put simply) unsure of whether or not there is a higher power out there and prefer to let science do the talking. However, they could very well have a problem with being governed by 10 notable religious laws or being denied the right to marry whom they wish because of religious rules.

An agnostic may not care about religion, but you'll find they probably still want their civil rights.
 
Issues besides gun control? With the caveat that my priorities be taken with the caveat that I'm not as 'concerned' with issues that I feel congress is already addressing more or less correctly.

1. Balanced Budget/Fiscal responsability: A hefty dose of limited government.
2. Healthcare: Keep/get the feds OUT OF IT. This would include adjusting the tax code so that either healthcare from the employer is taxable or making private health care/savings accounts deductable.
3. Fix immigration. I tend to live in areas with lesser amounts, so it wasn't as big of an issue before, but the sheer amount of illegals pisses me off. At the same time, a cause of this is how difficult it is to legally immigrate. Both sides need to be fixed.
4. Freedom of Speech/Term limits/Campaign Finance reform: I support term limits, makes it more difficult to be a career political, and all too often Campaign finance rules only help the established parties. Might as well make it open again.
5. Military/Self Defense: We're stretched too thinly for my comfort. The USAF is using far too many planes that it can't replace if we actually suffer significant losses. Think about it, we can't build B52's, B2, B1B, F15, A10, our refuelers, etc... without significant rebuilding of the tools. The majority of our planes are of designes older than their pilots. Closing/removing overseas bases in Europe would help, as would a moderate increase in force levels.
 
Limited government:

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. - David Crockett

It appears to me that the United States Constitution put some pretty severe limits upon the expansion of the Federal government. Sad to think how that has slipped away, and the appropriation of public money for every imaginable purpose is the norm.

So far as I can see, both sides of the aisle are complicit in this theft from the pockets of decent hard working Americans. A pox upon both of their houses. We won't have true freedom until we are secure in our possessions, and the present tax code and Federal theft so as to further income redistribution is a significant threat to our right to enjoy the labor of our hands.
 
You are using a very recent and very restrictive usage for "atheism" there. The word "agnostic" wasn't invented until the 1870s by Huxley. The idea that there is a continuum with atheism on one side, agnostic in the middle and theism on the other side is a recent invention out of the whole cloth, and a corruption of the real meaning of both words (dictionaries by the way give usages, not definitions).

Theism and atheism are two parts of a binary condition. Think of it like symmetrical and asymmetrical. The prefix "a" really is that simple - it means "without". Asymmetrical is without symmetry. Atheistic is without belief in a god or gods. You cannot be anything BUT theistic or atheistic. If you do not positively believe a god or gods exist you are atheistic - without god belief. If you have the belief that a god or gods exist you are theistic. Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It is a very specific term coined by one individual in opposition to the idea of "gnosis" which is knowledge coming from divine revelation.

Think of it this way. If I say I'm a millionaire do you believe me or not? It's not THAT hard to be a millionaire. Some nice stock returns and inheriting a decent house can make you one. I have a couple of expensive guns and I drive a brand new, paid for Mercedes, so I'm certainly not poor. It is far from impossible or implausible that I'm a millionaire. However it's also a self-aggrandizing claim. There is still a certain mystique and power about the word, and it's certainly possible to own expenisve guns and drive a Mercedes without being a millionaire or even close to one.

So do you believe me or not? If you do - if you believe my claim that I am a millionaire - then you would be the analogous equivalent of a theist on this question - you would believe a claim without proof.

If you reserve belief waiting for proof or at the very least further inferential evidence until you accept my claim of being a millionaire then you are the analogous equivalent of an atheist on this question - you do not positively believe, yet and with the knowledge you have, that I am a millionaire.

There is no other option. Agnosticism as originally intended may be the idea that "it's not possible to know whether dmallind is a millionaire or not" but that's a question of epistemology not faith (as "agnostic" really means). You have no option but to either believe or not believe, without further evidence, my claim of being a millionaire. Whether you argue it's possible to know or not is immaterial - what is your position now? This defines theistic or atheistic.

True atheism or agnosticism even by the perverted current usage however would still care about indoctrination and incorporation of specific theistic beliefs into secular society. Even if you accept the false idea of agnosticism as a middle ground, an agnostic would certainly care about governmental policy that supports a specific faith or preferential treatment or recognition for adherents of that faith. The ten commandments are not "theistic" alone, They are Jewish and Christian. School prayer does not rotate to Krsna or the Great Spirit or Gaia or Vishnu or Allah. It is exclusively to Yahweh, so an agnostic of any definition would certainly object to both.



BTW I am not a millionaire :)
 
I am sorry...

I will post my top 5 later, but I had to point this out.

A couple of posters put Religious Freedom as their #1.

Then somewhere in the list was that they were strongly against abortion and gay marriage, for religious reasons.

That makes no sense.

I do not mean to be harsh, but some of you might really need to take a hard look at where you really stand on the issue of "religious freedom."

I do not understand how you can claim to be for religious freedom and in the same breath say you desire to codify into law your religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion DOES mean freedom FROM religion.

Just think of how all you christians would feel if you moved to a fundamentalist muslim country, where you had freedom OF but not FROM religion. Sure, they might allow you to practice christianity. But you could not marry, cound not work or eat or drink during Rahmadan (sp?), if you were a woman you could not leave the house uncovered or without a man, cound not testify in court, sit on a jury... ad infinitum, would you be a happy camper?

Non-christians like me (an athiest, which implies nothing about me other than the fact that I do not believe in a god), do not want to live in a country dominated by Muslim, or Christian law. So, a free society needs freedom FROM religion.
 
In no specific order:

1) Reduced government spending (no pork, military spending on what we need and no crap projects that don't work, less military aid to foreign nations)

2) Rebuilding America's institutions (schools, roads, water treatment, schools)

3) Education and Healthcare for all (smarter Americans raise economic status and healthier Americans makes for better productivity)

4) Reduced corporate power (Exxon, fat guys not getting $400 million dollar retirements, corporations not being treated as people)

5) Improved environmental protections

6) Repeal of Assault Weapons ban in California and other 2nd Amendment violating states
 
Not to nick-pick but one can be aganist abortion and gay marriage without basing it on any religious belief or reason. Not all gays are for gay marriage and abortion. Not all athiests are either. I am aganist abortion and gay marriage and it has little to do with religion. :)
 
Why yes Kim, thats true, but thats not what was said originally. If you read SolaScriptura's first post, you'll note that he cites God twice. He also uses it as a proper noun as if referring to a person. He was making referrence to one particular god, and I'll guess its the Abrahamic god.

I'd be curious to know what you've got against gay marriage though. If your objection doesn't come from religious grounds, where does it come from?
 
Oher than RKBA...

Tax control. The federal and state governments use too much of my money for stuff I don't like. I suppose this includes 'big government' and 'budget control'.

Separation of State from Church. I don't want humanist atheism, the religion of the left, the basis for socialism and gun control, stuffed down my throat and force-fed to my kids in school.

Those are my three hot buttons.
 
My first priority is the right to keep and bear arms.

Apart from that, I am also against:

- abortion
- Children's Aid establishment
- public education
- socialised health care
- affirmative action
- taxes
- environmentalism
- feminism
- divorce culture and establishment
- eminent domain

Yeah, I am most certainly not a single issue voter.
 
Another Chistian here...

Religious Liberty, separation of church and state is vital for a healthy country.

Abortion, if you want to kill someone, have a trial first and condemn them.

Right to keep and bear arms, if I was drafted I would be a conscientious objector, I still believe strongly in personal defense and having the means to do so.

Home schooling, though this may be something that few people consider, it is an important right that parents be able to direct the education of their children and not have then removed by force when they do not send them to the state school.

Sadly few of my generation today have any understanding of the importance of such issues and what our country will be like if we loose them. :banghead:

On the Gay issue, I believe it is a abomination to God and is a sign of the corrupt times that we live in. On the other hand, God didn't create us as robots, we have freedom of choice, and we can use it how ever we wish. And God allows us to do as we wish, we may pay the price for it, yet he doesn't stop us. And I don't think the government should take the place of God in deciding such things.

All men have God given rights, those rights include freedom of choice, freedom to believe how one wishes and freedom to act as one wishes as long as it does not harm our fellow men. This rights don't come from the Constitution, they don't come from the bill of rights, they come from God and are merely reiterated in those documents.

Those are the issues that I vote on.
 
Less government ...PERIOD.

Don't intervene in my owning of arms, my freedom of speech, my freedom to assemble....my constitutionally guaranteed bill of rights.
Don't intervene in my moral decisions such as religion or abortion..it's none of your business.
Don't intervene in my income just for the sake of helping others less fortunate than me..if I choose to help them I will.

Focus on your primary job which is to PROTECT me and my way of life.

Protect me from the government overstepping it's bounds and interfering with my rights to live a peaceful, lawful existence.
Protect my borders from incursion.
Protect me from terrorists and criminals whether those criminals be citizens or government officials.
Protect my community in case of natural disasters.

And finally, PROVIDE only services that are useful for everyone.

Provide an economic environment in which capitalism can thrive and and recognize that government is the LEAST LIKELY entity to understand how to effectively and efficiently operate in a competitive market..so stay out of it.
Provide highways and infrastructure necessary to unite us as a nation.
Provide for the future by making sure you don't spend more than you take in. We have to do that and so should you.
 
On the Gay issue, I believe it is a abomination to God and is a sign of the corrupt times that we live in. On the other hand, God didn't create us as robots, we have freedom of choice, and we can use it how ever we wish. And God allows us to do as we wish, we may pay the price for it, yet he doesn't stop us. And I don't think the government should take the place of God in deciding such things.

All men have God given rights, those rights include freedom of choice, freedom to believe how one wishes and freedom to act as one wishes as long as it does not harm our fellow men. This rights don't come from the Constitution, they don't come from the bill of rights, they come from God and are merely reiterated in those documents.
Click to expand...

Wow. That may be the most elloquently written argument in favor of gay rights from the religious point of view which I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Why can't every relgious zealot stop and think about the "loving god" whose supposed ideals they are yearning to protect. Here is the forgiveness and understanding that I always felt should represent a diety. It has always seemed wrong to me that on Sunday the religious right could speak of His infinite love, and on Monday fight to condemn their fellow men and women who choose to live different lives from their own. I really appreciate this statement. You have every right to feel the way you do about homosexuality, but you respect your own limitations as a person of equal standing with those who are different from you. If only there were more like you.

Interesting how RKBA is so important, yet some would be tyrants on other rights-related issues.
Click to expand...

Good point. Honestly, this kind of hypocrisy is what keeps me from fully embracing a major political party, Republicans in particular. I hate the fact that the Republicans are the party (between the two) of second ammendment freedom, and yet they try to restrict our other freedoms at every turn (see; Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Abortion control, and Gay Marriage constitutional amendment). Libertarians look better every day. Damn this two party system (and let's be real, for the most part it is).

It is funny also how most people seem to split on the Abortion/Death Penalty/Right-to-Die issues. You would think it would be all life or all death, but usually it falls as Life/Death/Life or Death/Life/Death. Odd. To me, personal freedom is the most important factor. So if you feel (like I do) that some abortions are acceptable, as is the death penalty and the right to die, then so be it, but if you feel opposite that's ok. We should all be allowed to choose for ourselves what is best for ourselves and stay out of the lives of everyone else. As to the death penalty, we can all have it our way by electing our state officials who then decide, on the state level, what will happen in that state. If you want your opinion counted, vote. And welcome to the republic which we call the United States. Not everyone will be happy, but everyone has the right to do with their own lives what they wish, without infringement from those who feel differently.

As to how I feel... I'd love some modified Libertarianism. Give me my freedoms (and any gun or magazine capacity I desire) and then, for the most part, leave me alone.
-Yes, we need healthcare, basic services, and limited welfare assistance (disabled, work assistance), and we really need fiscal responsibility. No deficit spending that we pass on like Bush has with the war ("That will be dicided by future presidents", when asked about how the war in Iraq will end). :cuss:
-Taxation that is reasonable to your social level. Yes you've worked hard to earn your money, but that means you can afford slightly more than a single mother living below the poverty level, just be thankful that you've done as well as you have.
-Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to clog our social programs like education, healthcare, and the courts system (if you don't believe me, go to traffic court), but if they want to come and work real jobs, streamline the legal immigration process for those who wish wish to legitimately start a better life the right way.
-Corporate responsibility as well, and that goes for environmental concerns also, not just not ripping off your employees and the public at large.
-And also, as someone else said, it sure would be nice if our politicians could speak publicly with some kind of charisma and intelligence. :neener:
 
Wow. That may be the most elloquently written argument in favor of gay rights from the religious point of view which I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Why can't every relgious zealot stop and think about the "loving god" whose supposed ideals they are yearning to protect. Here is the forgiveness and understanding that I always felt should represent a diety. It has always seemed wrong to me that on Sunday the religious right could speak of His infinite love, and on Monday fight to condemn their fellow men and women who choose to live different lives from their own. I really appreciate this statement. You have every right to feel the way you do about homosexuality, but you respect your own limitations as a person of equal standing with those who are different from you. If only there were more like you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words!
Sadly I don't know many other 20 year olds that understand that, or even believe in the freedoms that we cherish. I hate to think what the US will be like in another 40 years when my generation is running it. :uhoh:

Anyway, back on topic! I was glad that I could register to vote without joining a political party.
 
dmallind said:
Theism and atheism are two parts of a binary condition. Think of it like symmetrical and asymmetrical. The prefix "a" really is that simple - it means "without". Asymmetrical is without symmetry. Atheistic is without belief in a god or gods. You cannot be anything BUT theistic or atheistic. If you do not positively believe a god or gods exist you are atheistic - without god belief. If you have the belief that a god or gods exist you are theistic. Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It is a very specific term coined by one individual in opposition to the idea of "gnosis" which is knowledge coming from divine revelation.
Click to expand...
Self-proclaimed agnostic here. It's funny that you note the origin of the term "agnostic" and then completely misunderstand why Huxley coined the term in the first place. He found himself trying to decide between all the various "-isms" around him and felt that he just didn't have the knowledge ("gnosis") to make any kind of choice...

Thomas Henry Huxley said:
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ' gnosis '—had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were "-ists" of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
Click to expand...
Think of theism as the binary value "True" and atheism as the binary value "False". Agnosticism assigns no value, or rather, it is a "null" value. I can see how theists would automatically classify agnostics as atheists, but there is an important distinction between the two words.

Regarding the thread topic, I focus very heavily on civil liberties stance and personal character when I look at a candidate. I found both lead candidates in the last presidential election sorely lacking in both areas.
 
True agnosticism would not care if the ten commandments were posted and gay marraige was banned.
Click to expand...

Hence my comment earlier about Evangelical Atheists.

I'm an atheist. Agnosticism actually has an odd true meaning, so I don't claim it. Atheism actually means what many people call "agnostic." It just means that I don't HAVE a belief in God. I don't have a disbelief, either, nor do I have any desire to dissuade anyone of their beliefs.

However, I oppose efforts by people to impose their religious beliefs on other people using violence.

Government is about violence. I have no problem with that. We need to use force to catch murderers, to stop rapists, to prevent robbery. There are good reasons for law enforcement, provided the laws only govern real crimes with real victims.

I have a huge problem with the inappropriate application of coercion and violence, as I'm sure we all do.

Now I don't see any coercion in having the Ten Commandments posted in every classroom, every courtroom and every town square in the land. I see more inappropriate use of government force in tearing them down. They're a part of Western history, and they're an important reminder of our shared moral beliefs. If an atheist cannot understand the word "God" in a metaphorical sense, then that person is quite uneducated.

I do, however, see a horrible moral violation when countries (our neighbor to the North I think is one) FORCE a pastor to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against his/her personal beliefs for ANY REASON. Freedom of association and freedom of conscience are the foundations of all freedom.

Gay marriage is an interesting subject. Again, I think that the motives of many advocates are not to fight for their own freedom to do as they choose, but rather to force others to bow to their wishes. On the other hand, there are committed gay couples who aren't hurting anyone, and who just want to have certain legal rights now given only to married couples.

There is another principle in law, however, and that is rational basis.

There is no rational basis for gay marriage, if one looks at the institution of marriage. Marriage exists to provide a legal framework for family law. It's about a couple having children, and the legal responsibilities of family members to each other and to the community (e.g. parents may be held criminally liable for some acts of their children). Family law also provides for divorce, and helps sort out what happens in case of divorce. That doesn't mean I LIKE divorce; the law does have to deal with these things, though.

We freely restrict who can get married based on age and blood relation. We do not allow any alternative heterosexual arrangements -- in some cultures, a woman may have four husbands, in fact, but in the US that is a serious offense. Western history is full of marriage between close relatives, especially among the wealthy, but we ban that because of the consequences to children from such marriages. Polyamory of any kind, while not illegal, cannot be recognized as a legal marriage. But gay marriage activists want to have a special dispensation for only themselves?

There are two ways I think we could go, and still pass the "rational basis" test.

1. Keep marriage pretty much as-is, based on the family unit common in our culture and found to be the best way to organize families and raise children. (Don't flame me here: I know there are great single parents out there. That's not what I'm talking about. This is about the law, not emotional reactions.)

2. Deregulate marriage altogether and make it a religious or purely personal, not a government-imposed institution. Allow for family corporations, trusts, and/or partnerships to deal with financial and ownership issues (some smart gay couples and even some very traditional families already do this, BTW, especially if they own any amount of real estate or other assets).

I think it serves the cause of freedom to choose #2. I do understand those who support #1. However, I just don't believe we need or want the government to manage our lives at this level, because having the government rule over our personal lives is a deal with the Devil (speaking metaphorically, if you don't believe in the Devil:p ).

I don't see homosexuals as a threat, either. Gay marriage wouldn't hurt me, or make me suddenly get a divorce. That's a silly idea. I just prefer not to see the government defining a single additiona special case for marriage. Gay relationships are not the government's concern, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
If Democrats were pro-gun and Republicans were anti-gun, who would you vote for?
2
Replies
30
Views
864
albanian
A
J
  • Locked
What are the most important issues to you this election year?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Sawdust
S
D
  • Locked
RKBA and CA Governor's Race?
Replies
2
Views
522
Jim March
J
L
  • Locked
Canada votes a new gov't today.
Replies
24
Views
822
McCall911
M
I
  • Locked
Ever visit the opposition's threads?
Replies
18
Views
647
iapetus
I
Back
Top