What are left-liberals really?

[Sir Galahad]

Derek, your statement regarding religious freedom under the Right/Conservatives is somewhat, well, broad and makes an assumption that one or two remarks by Jesse Helms defines an entire belief system. For the record, my wife and I are both Pagans (yes, that's capital "P" Pagans. ) We are both conservative Republicans. To date, no fellow Republican has tried to deny us our right to believe as we wish. To date, no Republican has told us we HAVE to believe in Christianity. My wife and I are the ones you're speaking of being possibly "repressed" by the Right and we'd like to say, thank you, but we are not repressed. We're doing just fine, thanks.

Now, just because Jesse Helms says something doesn't make it true for a whole belief. Just like everything that Starhawk says does not define the entire spectrum of Pagan religion. In fact, many liberals think that if you're a Pagan, you HAVE to be a leftist Democrat. So who's pressuring who?

Just wanted to speak up and say that we Pagan Republicans are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern, though.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Just wanted to speak up and say that we Pagan Republicans are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern, though.

Glad you're happy with your party. Wiccan friends of mine in a "conservative" part of the country (Birmingham, AL) just prior to clinton would have disagreed with you in very strong terms (the local "alternative" bookstore was the only store fined under the blue laws that regulated commerce on Sundays -- seemed the local officials weren't as offended by Sears selling clothes on SUnday though). I live in Florida now and after listening to "community leaders" educate me on what an evil person I am for following Islam, I choose to believe we're not much better off. Then there's my sister's best friend who moved from So Cal to Vidalia, GA and was brought up to the front of her history class so the rest of the class could see what a Jew looked like...

Most of the "right" I see down here is of the Jesus-fearin' kind. For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type (try walking out of church's Sunday dinner after the blessing was offered and coming back with a big mac because it was a "dear jesus" sort of blessing, then try to explain...)

I'm glad things are better 1,500 miles west.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Well, I got some news for ya, Derek. A LOT of those folks in the South you're referring to are actually Democrats (heard the term "Dixiecrat", or "Southern Democrat"?) Some of them have never forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and will not vote Republican. Some of those folks are still fighting the Civil War.

Some other things are that you will find prejudice anywhere you go and it's not limited by race, creed, color, or religion. EVERY race and belief has bigots. For me, the worst problems were with skinheads. Most of those guys don't even know what a polling place is. I think you're confusing the Far Right for the Right in general. To me, the Far Right and Far Left meet in the middle in the back. Extremists are extremists whether they're Right, Left, Libertarian, Whig, or what-have-you. That's why they're called "extremists".

You know, there are some Wiccans that tend to walk around with some very in-your-face attitudes about their religion. I'm not saying that's what your friend was doing, but some people see only those, yep, extremists. People that run around with hubcap-sized Pentacles around their neck blaming every Christian they see for something that happened over 500 years ago (i.e. "The Burning Times".) Of course, it's convenient for them to forget that plenty of ancient Pagans have just as much blood on their hands. Hey, we're all human. Everyone---and all faiths---have made mistakes. Some of them very horrifying ones. Truth be known, my wife and I actually have more in common with many Christians than we do with some Pagans. We're not Wiccans, by the way. I am not offended if a Christian discusses his/her faith with me. It doesn't bother me. I'm not going to melt if a Christian says a prayer in front of me. I respect their right to do so and show respect by being silent during the prayer. It's called filial piety. Each chooses the God to whom he feels closest. Without getting into religion here (though I already have, I'm afraid), that's the way we live. Nonetheless, I have never heard George W. Bush say anything that leads me to believe he is going to repress my wife and I because we follow a different God than he does. Just because he prays to his in public does not offend us. In public prayers, who actually knows Who anyone is praying to anyway? Again, each chooses the God to whom he feels closest.

Anyway, you'll find that there are actually quite a lot of people among Republicans that don't fit the stereotype of your "average Republican".

 

[cordex]

edited because I needed to reread a post better

 

[Derek Zeanah]

A LOT of those folks in the South you're referring to are actually Democrats (heard the term "Dixiecrat", or "Southern Democrat"?) Some of them have never forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and will not vote Republican. Some of those folks are still fighting the Civil War.

Well, what Lincoln/Sherman/Et Al did can never really be forgotten or forgiven...

You're right, and if I said "republican" then I mis-spoke. I'm talking about those who generally refer to themselves as being on the "right." No digs against either wing here either -- everyone has the chance to make up their own minds about issues. My point above (since lost) is that "the right," as a group, is no less controlling than "the left." They just pursue different issues.

 

[cordex]

Okay, going to rephrase what I was trying to say before.

Most of the "right" I see down here is of the Jesus-fearin' kind. For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type (try walking out of church's Sunday dinner after the blessing was offered and coming back with a big mac because it was a "dear jesus" sort of blessing, then try to explain...)

If you don't want to sit through what you describe as "dear jesus" blessings, maybe you shouldn't go to a christian church's dinner party, eh?

 

[Pendragon]

I like the thread about Fascism. The test was originally designed to try and identify "Authoritarian Personalities"

Personally, I have a fetish interest in Meyers Briggs personality typing (based on the classical "plegmatic", "sanguine", etc but extended)

In this system, four dimensions are used to describe the aspects of personality and temperment: http://keirsey.com/pumII/dimensions.html

The fourth dimension: http://keirsey.com/pumII/jp.html describes a persons preference for either judgement and scheduling "J" or perception and probing "P". It is my theory that the J factor is a strong component in the authoritarian personality.

I come from a conservative christian family of almost all "J" types - who all tend to be authoritarian. Myself, my brother and my wife are the only "P" types and we are much more libertarian than the rest.

It is said that the "P" factor seeks to understand people where the "J" factor wants to classify people.

Anyway - thats probably pretty wacky to some of you, but its a pretty popular theory for understanding temperment and personality.

 

[Khornet]

Pendragon,

took that test during my Navy Leadership course. Came out as "ISTJ". How does that square with my Fascism score of 2.9?

 

[BigG]

Derek, those types you noted are more the glassy-eyed conditioned Southern type. Calling them a rep is a stretch. Their minister decides who they vote for, imho. My definition of a rep- and I agree it don't fit em all - is somebody who thinks for himself and votes accordingly.

 

[CZ-75]

If you don't want to sit through what you describe as "dear jesus" blessings, maybe you shouldn't go to a christian church's dinner party, eh?

Maybe he was invited. If so, politeness and hospitality would dictate giving a blessing to God, rather than Jesus, so a muslim could eat the blessed food.

Common sense, from my non-religious viewpoint, however, would dictate doing this anyway. Why go to the #2 guy when you can ask #1 directly?

 

[cordex]

Maybe he was invited. If so, politeness and hospitality would dictate giving a blessing to God, rather than Jesus, so a muslim could eat the blessed food.

I don't know all the specifics of the situation.
However:

For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type

(bold emphasis mine. italics original)
Perhaps they were not informed as to what Derek's particular religious requirements were.

As for myself, if I decide go to a religous oriented dinner (or the home of someone I know to be devout beleivers in their faith), I will smile and accept whatever blessings the hosts/hostesses choose to offer. Where the food does not conflict with my own dietary choices, I will eat it. The food that I consume can be blessed by/through me however I am comfortable. If I am not in the mood to sit through a "dear jesus" or "dear allah" or "dear yaweh" or "dear god" or "dear vishnu" or "dear great spirit" or "dear buddha" prayer and eat the food thereby "blessed", I'll politely decline the invitation to whatever church has asked me to consume their food.

Common sense, from my non-religious viewpoint, however, would dictate doing this anyway. Why go to the #2 guy when you can ask #1 directly?

*shrug*
Frankly, I don't care who they pray to. Again, if you don't want to eat food blessed in the name of some diety - or that diety's kids - you probably shouldn't go to a dinner with a church group that worships that diety.

 

[Chris Rhines]

When somebody crosses us, cuts in front of us, decides to help themselves from our goods, we will become a little more intolerant.

Curiouser and curioser, said Alice...

BigG, do you have such an impulse control problem that you risk becoming violent when someone cuts in front of you in the buffet line? If so, perhaps you do need a government. I don't need one.

There are people out there who are really, truly incapable of self-governance. I think that we (I'm breaking my own rule here and refering to collective society,) that we should do everything possible to encourage this subspecies of humanity to die out.

We are not talking about YOU or ME individually we are talking about whenever TWO or more are gathered - GROUPS.

Groups are nothing more than collections of individuals. The same modes of thought apply.

Then we have to agree on rules. Since nobody agrees there needs to be an arbiter so people do not come to blows or worse.

Sure, fine, make your rules. If you want to subject yourself to someone else's idea of correct behaivor, feel free. Just don't try to rope me into it.

For better or worse everybody needs government, some to restrain them and others to keep predators from preying on them.

You still have yet to give me any logical reason why I need any government beyond that of my own mind. (And of course, you won't give me any such reason in the future, becasue baby, there isn't one!)

- Chris

 

[Sir Galahad]

Derek, it's like this:

You certainly wouldn't define the whole of Islam by the actions of al Quiada or Hezbollah, would you?

Neither can you define the entire Right by the actions of a few extremists.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Neither can you define the entire Right by the actions of a few extremists.

Nor am I trying to do so.

Here's a review: in response to the statement that the "right" was about freedom and the "left" is about control, I offered the following:

Unless you're talking about abortion. Or religion (Wicca, anyone?). Or alcohol. Or recreational drug use. Or medicinal drug use. Or pornography. Or language and violence in film/music. Or the right of gays to marry. Or...

I'll stand by that. In my experience (and experiences relayed by friends) this represents the viewpoint of the stereotypical self-described "right-wing conservative."

You're welcome to disagree, but I'm not the only one who thinks that the "right" is also about control. The issues they promote are just different from those of the left. I wish I hadn't mentioned religion because the "r" word is almost guaranteed to cause thread drift...

If you believe you're representative of the "right," and that one of your core beliefs is that each man should be free to live as he chooses, then it's worth some serious thought as to whether you are willing to let others have that freedom. Can they create music with naughty words in them? How about watching movies where people show their naughty bits (and sometimes let them touch for reasons other than procreation)? How about if other men decide to marry each other? What if the old woman down the street can control her pain by smoking weeds she grows in her garage? What if it's some 25-year-old who wants to smoke the same weeds? What if they want to publish books that present a worldview different than yours? What if the local school is going to read a book about Holden Caulfield? What if that other guy wants to practice a religion you disagree with? What if some of your neighbors want to make the statement that they don't like what the US is becoming, and choose to burn a flag? What if they want to hang Bush/Clinton/Whoever in effigy? What if that guy makes a mistake, pays the price society has determined he needs to pay, and now wants the right to protect his family from criminals? What if he believes that it's prudent to put his 14-year-old daughter on birth control? What if he wants to teach his 14-year-old son about peyote, vision quests, and the religious background of his people? What if he and his wife agree that she should make extra money by sharing her naughty bits with other men? What if he wants to share his naughty bits with other men for money too? What if...

(Note I didn't mention abortion this time -- another topic destined to cause thread drift).

It goes on. There are a number of issues where the mouthpieces of the "right" represent anything but "freedom." I'm often amused by the ideas those on the "left" (like my sister, hard-core leftist out on the left coast trying to make the world a better place) designed to make the world a better place. At the same time, of late I've become more and more conscious of what those on the "right" advocate as well. Leftists seem a little out of touch with reality, believing that they can ignore human nature and history in search of a better world. Those on the right seem to want a better world through increased economic freedom, increased military might, and increased control in private matters (arguably also ignoring history and human nature). They mean well too.

{deleted}

I believe that it's sufficient to say that if you truly want to live your life unmolested by others, in a "free" society, neither the "left" or the "right" are going to be comfortable with that...

Edited to remove yet another comment likely to cause thread drift.

 

[BigG]

Derek, I think you've put your finger on a lot of inconsistencies across the spectrum. Everybody is a hypocrite. Period. Even a [fillintheblank] is smug in their little holier than thou opinion of themselves.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Derek, I think you've put your finger on a lot of inconsistencies across the spectrum. Everybody is a hypocrite. Period. Even a [fillintheblank] is smug in their little holier than thou opinion of themselves.

I'm not even trying to say that, and I don't know that I'd even try to make that argument. I believe that most of us probably qualify as a hypocrite as the standards we try to hold ourselves to are those that take most of us a lifetime to reach...

What I ways trying to say (and I must be doing a bad job of it) is that, in general, people want to control other people. "wouldn't it be better if..." is something everyone thinks occasionally, and it's an important question to ask yourself or your peers. The problem comes in when you try and apply that idea to everyone else via the use of force. Mandating prayer in school probably qualifies, as does prohibition, and confiscatory taxes that enable government to do "good things" with the money.

Everyone thinks they know how to make the world a better place. In practice, though, the government that strives to leave its citizens alone as much as possible seems to be the best system we've ever devised. Theocracies and communism are both significantly worse in practice than a government that strives to do as little as possible -- both make individuals subservient to a ruling class (in one case it's to guide the country by abiding by God's will, in the other it's to make decisions that benefit society as a whole) and invariably turn to tyrrany.

I agree with the original statement that the "left's" problem is that they seek a more controlled society that's off in the direction of (social | commun)ism and that by definition that's bad. I just wanted to point out that the "right" wants to move society in another direction, where you might keep more of your money but you'll be less able to spend it the way you like. And by the way, that frightens a lot of those on the left. I was surprised how much.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, Derek, "what if". What if a woman in Saudi Arabia wants to drive a car? What if a man in Egypt wants to be a homosexual? What if a man in Saudi Arabia wants to drink alcohol? Or smoke weed? What if a man in Saudi Arabia wants to be a Wiccan? You can point out the "what ifs" of the Right and I can point out the "what ifs" for Muslim countries. At the end of the day, we'll be "what iffing" until doomsday. But, see, many in the Muslim faith to which you belong do the very things you are criticizing the Right for. Not consistant, in my opinion. Not to turn the thread to religion, but it has relevance to the discussion. It's easy to point out the "what ifs" , Derek, but theocracies are corrupt no matter who's running them. The difference is, here, we're not beheading the people we disagree with. As far as the content of music, you'll have to ask Tipper Gore about that. She's a Republican, right?

 

[BigG]

What I was trying to say ...in general, people want to control other people.

I must be doing a bad job of communicating because I was agreeing with you. When I called people (in general) hypocrites, I meant people that claim to be doing one thing while secretly doing another. Politics is mostly about controlling others while letting yourself do whatever you are particularly turned on by.

The laissez faire system that has run America for most of its history just pisses lots of people off. They can't stand to see other people enjoying themselves, getting ahead, and minding their own business.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You can point out the "what ifs" of the Right and I can point out the "what ifs" for Muslim countries. At the end of the day, we'll be "what iffing" until doomsday.

See my comments above about theocracies.

But, see, many in the Muslim faith to which you belong do the very things you are criticizing the Right for. Not consistant, in my opinion.

Well, if "muslim" the way I use it meant "practices the same as arab muslims, and gives the 'sayings of the prophet' equal weight to the Qur'an, then you'd probably be right. As is, you're not. "Muslim" pretty much means "one who follows Islam." Islam is pretty much "submission to the will of God."

I'll be happy to discuss my personal beliefs, but we can do it in the PM system so as not to go way off topic here. My prediction? You'll be surprised.

Derek, but theocracies are corrupt no matter who's running them.

Bingo!

"Morality" is something each person has to come to grips with; using the state to enforce your particular set of morals is tyrranical. Does this mean we agree?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

The laissez faire system that has run America for most of its history just pisses lots of people off. They can't stand to see other people enjoying themselves, getting ahead, and minding their own business.

Heh. We were agreeing.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, we agree in a roundabout fashion. I find people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (and Jesse Helms) to be along the same bent as Torquemada and Matthew Hopkins WitchFinder General. But they're not running the government. And you'll find most of the neo-Puritans are on the Left these days using the "health issues" and "children" issues to restrict everything from soda to tobacco to "junk food" to ammo to SUVs. If you read National Review, or do a search on their online magazine, you'll find that a large number of conservatives are actually in favor of drug legalization or, at the least, decriminalization.

 

[dustind]

So i guess i am one of the few pro freedom types :banghead:

Why cant more people leave others the alone. :banghead:

Both sides are evil, for lack of a better word. IMHO, the right is the better of the two, because atleast they will let you keep some of your money.

Good article about the left. I have studied them too, they never take human nature or history into account, and IMHO are way out of touch with reality. Example, the war with Iraq, many of them think we are fighting the people (all of the civilians) of Iraq too. They also don't seem to care about reality, example the .50 ban.

www.democratunderground.com to see them in action.

 

[HBK]

Left-liberals are nothing more than socialists.

 

[goon]

Well, according to the world's smallest political quiz, I am sort of a left wing libertarian, or a right wing one. It depends on what I am thinking about when I take the quiz. Either way, my philosophy is that you should be able to live your life the way that you want in peace without any interference.
Either way, I am sure that I am a libertarian. I have been called worse.
A true leftist would only really concern themselves with government as far as it affects the economy. They would pretty much let you be otherwise.
The right wing would pretty much only worry about restricting your personal life to what they see as moral behavior, and let you be on other issues.
I would say that most of the so called left wingers that we see are really left authoritarian.
Bear in mind, I am just one more jack-a$$ on the internet, so don't take my opinions to heart.

 

[goon]

Then there's my sister's best friend who moved from So Cal to Vidalia, GA and was brought up to the front of her history class so the rest of the class could see what a Jew looked like...

Just goes to show you that some people are idiots no matter what they call themselves, or where they are.
I apologize for the mistreatment that has been dealt against you, your Wiccan friends, and your sister's friend by so called "christians".
People like that are the reason that there are ethnic, racial, and religious issues in this country, and in the world.
Those things are only issues if you make them issues.
I just wish that other people could see that.