Wow, what a response.
I'm going to be leaving for training at Frontsight tomorrow, so after these responses, anyone else who wants to respond, feel free, or i'll pick up on Monday.
Why do liberals feel it's okay to mandate moral philosophy rather than allowing free choice in the matter from the people who have proven themselves by their actions and results in life to be contributors to our society?
[snip]
Here's another one. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has no motivation whatsoever to contain costs and increase performance, can actually run things better than businesses who MUST do so every single day in order to survive in a competitive environment?
[snip]
And yet another. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has a long history of indecisiveness and beauracratic overhead, be more responsive and responsible than an individual that makes their own choices in life?
BTW I edited it for brevity and ease of reading, not to imply anything about your arguments.
To me, it's more of "Which is more important, getting help to the most people possible, or getting the best help possible. If we could do both, that'd be wonderful, but, if we could make sure the most people got the most help in a way that didn't involve government, i'd be all for it.
As far as government vs. businesses, here's the difference: Businesses are answerable to their stockholders, while a government is answerable to the people as a whole. With all the inefficiencies involved in a government, I personally prefer that an entity answerable to us as a whole be involved, instead of a business answerable only to people that care about teh bottom line. Not that wasting money is good, it's not, but, to me, it's a secondary thing.
Yes, I said it: as a taxpayer, I'll pay more for services that are answerable to the people as a whole, instead of a business answerable only to people that hold the purse strings.
Also, financial incentives arent' always compatable with the public good. If a car company can save $10 million dollars by eliminating a safety device, but not let the consumer know, that's not in our best interest. This happens every day.
As far as morals, I'm not going to argue who has more morals. I'm not going to judge someone because they believe things differently than I do: I put my beliefs out there, and hope that people agree.
What about the general march towards the extremest ends by liberal parties. For example the kicking out of Lieberman who had been previously the Democrat vice presidential candidate, Howard Dean as the chairman of the Party, move on Dot Org.
I think this is a bit of a misnomer. One of what I see as a problem in the democratic party, is, that they are moving farther to the right in order to gander more votes. This only enforces the "there's no difference between parties" stuff. Take the debates between Gore and Bush. How many times did they both say they agree on a specific issue?
That raises the question -- If gun control could work, would you support it?
This is a sticky wicket for me. in some ways, I'm one of the "shall not be infringed!!!" crowd. However, I see some value in SOME MINOR gun control, mainly, laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons.
In my opinion, we have too many gun laws on the books today. We don't need the laws banning newly manufactured machineguns. The AWB was a joke. The laws making it difficult to transfer guns between the states is annoying and unnecessary.
I am, though, in favor of the current system of instant background checks. You have to flash an ID to buy cigs or beer, and I think a simple check like you have to go through today is all thats necessary. It helps, and it's the only hurdle you should have to deal with. It won't keep guns out of the hands of everyone, but I think it's a small price to pay for making an attempt.
I'm also against regestration, etc, etc.
I'm confused. In reformed Judaism the Law is now looked on as quaint customs and tradition?
I should clarify, I belong to a reform temple, but honestly am a bit more conservative than most, but not as conservative as most in the "conservative" movement. I'd probably belong to a conservative temple if I could find one that I liked in Dallas that wasn't messianic.
Check this url for more information:
http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm#US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism
My major differences with the reform movement, is that I do believe that The Torah came from divinity.
There is also the Talmud:
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm#Talmud
Basically, the talmud is thousands of years of philosophical notes on the Torah
As far as the comment about the law, a great Rabbi, Solomon Schechter wrote, "...however great the literary value of a code may be, it does not invest it with infallibility, nor does it exempt it from the student or the Rabbi who makes use of it from the duty of examining each paragraph on its own merits, and subjecting it to the same rules of interpretation that were always applied to Tradition"
This to me is a basic difference between Judaism, as me and my family observe it, than what I take away from a lot of Christianity. This is a bit of a sticky subject, and I honestly don't want to offend anyone, so please don't take this to mean that I feel my beliefs are better. They are better FOR ME, though.
Most Jews these days accept that as society changes, the law must change.
Not to mention, if you don’t pay your fair share but can, I don’t want you abusing the society that I help pay for by using its facilities.