Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge > Politics & Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-31-2008, 11:21 AM   #31
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
3) Spend money equally - give inner city schools the same resources that suburban schools get.
I'll make comments on some of the other educational issues next week
when I have more time. But, on this one, remember the point of this
thread with you was for me to cite examples on how many "liberal ideas"
don't work in reality.

In terms of spending money "equally", do you mean taking more money
AWAY from urban schools? Because, that's what you'd have to do if
you want to make them "equal". I taught at an urban school for a year,
and in Wisconsin, as it is in California, and in many other states, the
urban schools are much BETTER funded than the suburban or rural
schools...their problems lie in major issues that have nothing to do
with the funding. At the urban school, I had more access to resources,
was paid better, and had an easier time with the "materials" side of
teaching, than I did at the rural school I taught at. At the rural school,
however, I was much better able to do my job.

Most of the major disparities between Urban schools and others, just
AREN'T due to funding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Human experience and the lessons of history do the job just fine.
Oh MAN I gotta call you out on THIS one, CK. As respectfully as I can
say it, this is probably the most WRONG comment you could have possibly
made. I could go on and on about this...but I'll put this point on it:
Here we are in the 21ST CENTURY, and we're STILL seeing mass murder,
racial bigotry, killing of the unborn, whole nations in poverty due to
corrupt governments, etc etc etc...

What "lessons of history" are you talking about that are "doing just fine"???


Maybe you want to rephrase/explain, if I'm honestly reading you wrong.

I got more to say on this...plus the educational stuff, but again,
I'll be back in on Monday.

Later days.:read:
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 11:34 AM   #32
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
I'll make comments on some of the other educational issues next week
when I have more time. But, on this one, remember the point of this
thread with you was for me to cite examples on how many "liberal ideas"
don't work in reality.

In terms of spending money "equally", do you mean taking more money
AWAY from urban schools? Because, that's what you'd have to do if
you want to make them "equal". I taught at an urban school for a year,
and in Wisconsin, as it is in California, and in many other states, the
urban schools are much BETTER funded than the suburban or rural
schools...their problems lie in major issues that have nothing to do
with the funding. At the urban school, I had more access to resources,
was paid better, and had an easier time with the "materials" side of
teaching, than I did at the rural school I taught at. At the rural school,
however, I was much better able to do my job.

Most of the major disparities between Urban schools and others, just
AREN'T due to funding.
I think you are wrong here Phil. I am not questioning your experience, but I think on a national level suburban schools receive much more funding and resources than inner city schools. I worked at a school in downtown Cincinnati and they were using text books that were ten years old. They had more students in every class and limited resources...

I will try to find some statistics to prove this.

Quote:
Oh MAN I gotta call you out on THIS one, CK. As respectfully as I can
say it, this is probably the most WRONG comment you could have possibly
made. I could go on and on about this...but I'll put this point on it:
Here we are in the 21ST CENTURY, and we're STILL seeing mass murder,
racial bigotry, killing of the unborn, whole nations in poverty due to
corrupt governments, etc etc etc...

What "lessons of history" are you talking about that are "doing just fine"???


Maybe you want to rephrase/explain, if I'm honestly reading you wrong.

I got more to say on this...plus the educational stuff, but again,
I'll be back in on Monday.

Later days.
You are missing the point. I am talking about individuals, not society in general. There will always be murder, and atrocities of all kinds. Religion or lack of religion doesn't effect those things. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, and many of been committed in the absense of religion... That is not my point.

My point is, that most people can have morality without religion. As Ricky said, most of us are disgusted by the thought of murder... Not because some book says it is wrong, but because our human instincts say it is wrong. We've learned, throughout history, that murder causes pain, so we don't do it. Again, I am talking about individuals, not society...

As I said, most people know that murder is wrong... The Bible simply echoes what people already know... It doesn't expose some hidden truth...
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 05:23 PM   #33
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Okay, CK, back again...

To three things...

First...on the funding of schools, I see that you live in Ohio.
I have heard about the major problems in the schools in Cleveland,
and they are very similar to those in Milwaukee. Also, Cleveland and
Milwaukee are both very similar in that they are both very racially
segregated cities. You are in Cincinnati, and may be similar as well.

On funding itself...no, I don't deny that funding IS important. Yes,
replace the 10-year old textbooks, create smaller classrooms, make
sure the plumbing works, etc. However, I have a BIG problem with
those who simply take the approach "we need to spend more money",
but then completely ignore the real problems. In other words, continue
to pour more and more money into an inefficient system, in hopes that
it will squeeze out some more positive results, rather than just make
the system more efficient.

One glaring point on this...in Milwaukee, they have 6800 teachers, but
need 7800. About 1/2 of all teachers have two years of experience or
less. They cover bases with teachers who are not licensed, move
students around, and try to squeak by each year. (In fact, the year
I was there, it was on an emergency license for the year). Whenever
there are analyses done on this, almost invariably, they state that the
huge shortage of teachers, and why so many leave the district within
the first two years, is, simply and only "pay rate". They completely
ignore the fact that the main reason people leave teaching in the
district (and many other similar districts), is pretty much the basic
human desire not to be called the "F-word" 20 times a day.

In short, what I'm saying is that strict student discipline (with the
VERY NECESSARY support of the administration), grouping
students by abilities and by behaviors, and removing chronic problem
students from the classroom (and making parents actually DEAL with
their problem children) will be the main way to improve our problem
schools. Unfortunately, these ideas (by my experience, anyway) are
not on the liberal agenda in the present day.

I'm gonna go onto a new post, so as not to be too windy on one...
...
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 05:30 PM   #34
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

No time now Phil...

I'm leaving work... I will respond later
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 05:55 PM   #35
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Second...on the issue of the "lessons of history"...

Not sure which way to go with this one on my response to your
response...

Maybe I'll answer in a roundabout way, getting at some other things
that were going around my mind over the weekend.

Let's start with the issue of religion as it relates to morality.
Firstly, let me say that I think a lot of people, especially those who
reject religion out of hand, miss the point of religion. For those who
DON'T believe in God (atheists, agnostics, those who KIND of believe
but for whom it just doesn't click...), they see religion as a tool to
brainwash people into "acting good". Furthermore, they see religious
morality as a collection of traditional moralities that come from a
number of cultural sources, only interpreted as being from an ultimately
transcendant source.

For religious believers like me, I see religion as the search for ultimate
transcendant truth, not just a tool to "act good". God, to me, as I
believe He is for everyone (even you), is NOT just some cosmic school
principal waiting to pounce on you (so you damn well BETTER "act good"),
but as our creator who has chosen to reveal Himself for reasons far
beyond us.

Enough of that. I'm guessing that doesn't really interest you...but back
to the point:

I understand what you say. It doesn't take Ghandi, or Pope John Paul II
to figure out that murder is wrong, or that jacking someone's car is
wrong, or arson is wrong. Yeah, hard morality like that is easy to figure
out. However, I believe we go down the wrong road when we deny God,
and thus our transcendant dignity as human beings, and consequently
allow our consciences to become soft (Who cares, anyway. We're ALL
going to be dead someday, so what does it matter??), which all adds
up when we start to examine the little things.

I challenge you on this...does no transcendant moral code really work
in reality? If personal conscience ends up being left to what each
person, sort of, decides what they "feel" is right or wrong...then we
get stuck in a kind of moral anarchy. "I'm going to download those
songs without paying for them...after all, it's just a big record company
anyway", "I don't feel like doing my job when the boss isn't looking",
or "I'm going to have sex with my girl...it's okay if we're in love, isn't it?"
Or...let's let each individual person decide of the unborn child is a "life"
or not...if that life is inconvenient to me, I'll just "decide" that my moral
code says it's not. Maybe worse of all, is simply how people treat other
people in ordinary life...as a kid who was regularly teased, picked on,
and humiliated, I sure wish the kids around me had a bit of a better
understanding of the dignity of the human person.

Ultimately, without the transcendant (or, at least the sense of the
transcendant) dignity of the human person, collective morality ends
up being morality by popular vote...fraught with agendas and self-interest,
unfortunately.

AND...on the macro level, you may not accept this assertion, but I
certainly do, that the United States has been the greatest bastion
of freedom, success, and dignity for the human person this world
has ever seen, because it was (although with a secular government)
based primarily in the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition. :thumbsup2:

Next post...
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 05:57 PM   #36
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
No time now Phil...
I will respond later
It's okay, CK....

You just got me here in the middle of crafting my posts...

Get to it when you get to it, as ususual.

(We may have some interlopers in the meantime, too).
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 06:30 PM   #37
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Okay, thirdly, on the Communism = No government issue.

Someone referred me to some literature, but I'm not going to
waste my time reading Das Capital or the Communist Manifesto,
any more than I'd want to read Mein Kampf, even if out of
curiosity.

I'm examining the principles themselves, and just don't see how
it could possibly add up, regardless of what Marx would say.

The basic idea of pure communism is "from each according to
his abilities, to each according to his needs"....the only way this
is achievable, on a large scale, is by a big controlling government
that HAS to redistribute wealth, and HAS to dictate what work
each person is going to do. On the surface, the basic premise
of pure communism sounds nice and rosy, but human beings are
just NOT wired to cooperate with this premise. People really do
tend to want to be (gasp) compensated for the work they do,
and ask, out of fairness, for others to contribute, as well, for
what they receive.

As far as the idea of "returning the wealth back to the people",
suppose we removed government completely, and, for that matter,
even doled out the wealth equally to each person, and then stepped
back. You gotta know that, even within a year, you'd have the
entire population naturally separate into the wealthy, the middle class,
and the lower class, at the simple fact that some people are going to
be smarter, wiser, more enterprising, more risk-taking, more industrious
than others. Economically, the communist vision REQUIRES a complete
government control to institute.

Peripherally to this, CK, you said something about "civil liberties", in terms
of which "side" wants to control and which doesn't....

Here's a frustration for me: Often, when I hear people on the left cite
"civil liberties", what is most often mentioned is abortion, legalized drugs,
pornography, sodomy, and rights of convicted felons. Unfortunately,
"liberty", to some, means the "right to do anything I damn well please",
or in other words, bad behavior. I may argue that there are some things
that ought to be regulated...and, ironically, ends up being the extreme
right (libertarians, the Ron Paul types), who really WANT to stay out of
abortion, pornography, etc...

However, let me respond by saying this...the left wants to regulate many
many issues of personal behavior as well, just different things. The left
wants to regulate (if I own a business) who I want to hire and fire,
whether I want to own a gun or not, where and when I am allowed to
practice my religion, smoking in public, speech codes, what school I have
to send my kid to, social engineering, etc. Moreover, high taxes are the
most direct way that big government can regulate what you do with your
MONEY (which, after all, is the physical manifestation of your personal labor
and industry). In extreme cases, ultra-left forms of government have also
been involved in extreme redistribution of wealth, and even eugenics.

In general, the tendency is that far-left equals large government control,
in both economics and liberty...while far-right tends toward limited gov't
in all it's forms. Some issues, for some reason, tend not to fit the scale...
such as abortion, which seems to find its ban on the moderate right.
The left seems unanimous in making abortion legal in all its forms, while
to far-libertarian right also wants to keep it legal.

As an aside, I think the abortion issue has been misplaced. Shouldn't
liberals, who claim to be the champions of the weakest among us, be
the defenders of the unborn, the most innocent, weak, and voiceless
of all ? Shouldn't conservatives, at least in how they're portrayed as
the defenders of the strong and powerful, be the ones who wouldn't
care about someone as weak and inconsequential as an unborn child ?
How did THIS happen? I'm not even trying to being glib,
I just want to understand...
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 07:18 PM   #38
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

<---Interloper

I just wonder when humanity has actually followed, en mass, a 'transcendent moral code' that we can use as a comparison? It seems to me that, people being people, there has always been a majority who do what they feel is right on a personal level, barring some kind of government regulation. As such, the idea that this moral code as provided by a divine being is superior is only theory at best. Just as communism may be nice in theory but not workable in reality, I feel the same way about religious morals. I would cite the many variations of Christianity as an example (being the predominant religion of this country); even within the tenets of one religion, people cannot agree on what is morally right or wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly that money is not the be-all-end-all of education answers. Yes, money can help, but only if it's spent to fix whatever problems are there, not to continue to fund problematic designs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
I find it strange that people sit at home, around the dinner table and think, "Damnit! People are gay!"
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:10 PM   #39
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Alright phil... I'll start in on this....


Quote:
In short, what I'm saying is that strict student discipline (with the
VERY NECESSARY support of the administration), grouping
students by abilities and by behaviors, and removing chronic problem
students from the classroom (and making parents actually DEAL with
their problem children) will be the main way to improve our problem
schools. Unfortunately, these ideas (by my experience, anyway) are
not on the liberal agenda in the present day.
Those ideas are not on anyone's agenda because you can not force parents to "deal" with their child. I agree with all of your ideas, but they seem to be unenforcable.

In my view, you pay teachers more, in order to attract the "best and the brightest" to the teaching profession. That way, instead of going to work for som fortune 500 company, or Hillary Clinton's campaign, they will be teaching our future leaders. If you increase the pay for teachers, you will get better teachers, and in turn, get better results from the students.

Quote:
I understand what you say. It doesn't take Ghandi, or Pope John Paul II
to figure out that murder is wrong, or that jacking someone's car is
wrong, or arson is wrong. Yeah, hard morality like that is easy to figure
out. However, I believe we go down the wrong road when we deny God,
and thus our transcendant dignity as human beings, and consequently
allow our consciences to become soft (Who cares, anyway. We're ALL
going to be dead someday, so what does it matter??), which all adds
up when we start to examine the little things.
Phil, the exact opposite is true. If you don't believe in the after-life, all you have is NOW. You can then focus on making THE REAL WORLD better, instead of focusing on some fairy tale in the sky.

You are Christian right? The Bible says we should stone homosexuals to death. The Bible says it is ok to kill people who don't believe in "the word of God." The Bible says that all of those who believe in "false Gods" will go to hell...

Do you believe that 70% of the world's population is going to hell? Do you believe that a moral and charitable Muslim will go to hell but a Christian who murders, and asks for forgiveness will go to heaven?

What kind of morals are those?

My problem with religion is the types of things people will do "in the name of religion." Only a belief in a higher power can cause someone to go through with a suicide bombing. Only a belief in a higher power will cause someone enslave an entire race of people. "If the Bible says it's ok..."

I don't believe in a book that was written over 2000 years ago by primitive men. The thoughts in the Bible are the thoughts of primitive men. We have evolved and so have our minds. Without religion, I am able to view the world in an objective manner, instead of through the lense of some book.

Is there a "God" or some type of higher power? I don't know. But I DO know that NO ONE can KNOW either way. People murder, enslave, and conquer people based on religion - a belief in something that is unprovable...

Religion isn't conducive to the advancement of human civilization. Instead, it keeps us in the dark ages and makes peace impossible.

As long as you believe in Jesus and Ahmed believes in Mohammed and David believes in the Jewish God - we will be at war.

Without religion, we can focus on RIGHT NOW (not some utopia in the sky), and make the world a better place.

Quote:
AND...on the macro level, you may not accept this assertion, but I
certainly do, that the United States has been the greatest bastion
of freedom, success, and dignity for the human person this world
has ever seen, because it was (although with a secular government)
based primarily in the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Those same "Judeo-Christian" values were used to enslave an enitre race of people (the Bible says slavery is ok) and kill homosexuals...

America has been a great symbol of freedom and success for those that fit the mold of a white, christian, protestant, straight male with money. For everyone else, America isn't the utopia you describe. To this day we still improsin innocent black men. To this day we still have people like Fred Phelps (a Chrstian) who runs "goodhates***s.com." We still don't give homosexuals equal rights. We still discriminate.

So, America IS the best country in the world... But that's not saying much.

Quote:
On the surface, the basic premise
of pure communism sounds nice and rosy, but human beings are
just NOT wired to cooperate with this premise.
Speak for yourself. I AM wired to cooperate with that premise. Many of us are. Again, if you forget religion for a minute, you might be able to do that as well...

Quote:
However, let me respond by saying this...the left wants to regulate many
many issues of personal behavior as well, just different things. The left
wants to regulate (if I own a business) who I want to hire and fire
Are you referring to equal opportunity employment practices? If so, sorry bud, we SHOULD prevent people from racist hiring practices.

Quote:
where and when I am allowed to
practice my religion
This always makes me laugh. You live in a CHristian country, with a Christian government, where nearly all business are owned by Christians.

Poor poor Christians... it must be so tough in America to be a Christian...

Who is trying to prevent you from practicing religion? Oh, you must be referring to that little thing called "the separation of church and state." Yes, keep your religion out of my science books and I will keep science out of your church and your Bible...

Quote:
smoking in public
That's a pulic health concern. That gives non-smokers (the majority of the population) the right to go out in a smoke free environment. MORE rights are protected by smoking banns.

Quote:
Moreover, high taxes are the
most direct way that big government can regulate what you do with your
MONEY (which, after all, is the physical manifestation of your personal labor
and industry)
Phil, you are misguided on liberal policies and beliefs. We want to tax ONLY THE VERY RICH at high rates. Unless you make more than 500K a year, your taxes would not increase under democratic leadership...

Again, this gives MORE RIGHTS to everyone other that 2% of the population....

The greater good is considered, instead of the rights of a few people who make extreme amounts of money.

Why do you want to protect these corporate assholes who are the same people responsible for ENRON, Tyco and all the other scandals? Tax them at high rates, and let the rest of America prosper.

Quote:
In general, the tendency is that far-left equals large government control,
in both economics and liberty...while far-right tends toward limited gov't
in all it's forms.
You are so misguided Phil. You are a bright person, but you have had limited exposure to diverse forms of literature. If I suggest some books will you read them? I will read anything you suggest to me.

The right wants to control everything we do. Which political party is in favort of the Patriot Act? Which political party favors restrictions on sexuality?

Phil, the "right" is for civil liberties... AS LONG AS YOU LIVE LIKE THEY DO. If you are a heterosexual, non drug using Christian - than the "right" is all for your civil liberties... But if you are gay, a drug user, or another religion, your rights are not protected by "the right."

The "left" on the other hand, supports your right to be straight. We support your right to not use drugs. We support your right to believe in Jesus. We support your right to do anything you want.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2008, 06:42 PM   #40
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi, CK...

It'll be kind of laborious to go thru each point of disagreement
above. There's also a lot of misunderstanding of the other person's
position going on here...where a personal face-to-face conversation
works much better. Unfortunately, you live in Ohio, and I live in
California.

We disagree, a lot. There's stuff I think you're wrong about, and
you think I'm wrong about. Maybe I AM wrong about some stuff,
but, dang it, maybe so are YOU.

Briefly, to poke at a few of the points above...

On the issues in particular, where I claim that liberals also want to
do a lot of "controlling", it's true, they do. I cited a number of
examples. It doesn't mean that I disagree with them. Examples:
I DO like the fact that we keep smoking out of public venues
around here. I DO believe in common-sense restrictions on the
ownership of guns. I just say that liberals have their own issues
of control.

You're wrong that liberals want to heavily tax "only the top 2 %"
(i.e. over 500 K). Come again. I'm still in the five-figure income
category, and I'm heavily taxed, due to the ultra-Liberal state
I'm in. When taxes go up, it pretty much affects everyone who
works top/down. I may believe that you, personally, only want
to tax the top 2 %. I'd agree, that would be great. My only
concern is that heavily taxing the ultra-wealthy, that is, large
business owners, would probably result in an unintended
consequence of higher unemployment.

You say that you, personally, are hardwired for communism.
Really? Be honest, are you willing to work for little or no pay,
figuring all of your labor and industry just "goes to the good of
my community"? Would you work more, or as hard, if you knew
that you would not be compensated for it? My point is the
simple human fact that people just don't tend to work without
being compensated.

As for you're characterization of Christianity (rich, white guys who
want to stone homosexuals)...this really frustrates me. Maybe it
really REALLY frustrates me because you are right, to the extent
that some ultra-right wing Christians DO fit this description. Moreover,
I get frustrated with some Christians I meet who seem to always
say "the Bible says..." or "Jesus says..." and argue on authority only.
I'm not like that. I am a Catholic who, although I'm not a master
theologian or anything like that, am rather well versed in Catholic
theology and ethics. What I have always liked about the official
catechisms and other writings I've read, is that, in addition to
citing Biblical references, they actually give human explanations as
to why this is right, this is wrong, that is right, that is wrong. They
leave room for challenging the ideas, and challenge the reader to
think it through.

As for "stoning homosexuals", I wish that those "god-hates-you-know-
what" people would freakin' SHUT THE HELL UP and stop making all
us DECENT Christian people a bad name. Please don't use them as
an example of Christianity, any more than would it be fair for anyone
to assume that all Muslims are terrorists.

As for your claim that as long as Person A believes in Jesus, Person B
believes in Mohommad, Person C believes in Moses, or whatever, "we'll
all be at war..." I just don't buy it. One who I greatly admire, Cardinal
Francis Arinzi, wrote an ecellent book about "religious dialogue" and how,
even in the face of our differences, we can find our common ground.
Moreover, true Christians have a great respect for ANYONE who is a
believer, trying to live their lives, the best they can, with what they
know. Please don't cite people who are the BAD examples of religion as
the evidence that religion is inherently bad...The Christian message of
"love your neighbor, as yourself", or the true message of Islam as
being that of "peace", those are the good messages. I'm guessing
that you may have just had some bad experiences with religious people
in your personal life (speculation only).

As far as emphasizing differences...seems to me that liberalism is actually
obsessed with that. My personal image is that of the color-blind society.
Liberals seems to want to pigeon-hole people into categories of race,
gender, sexual-orientation, ethnic group, economic class, almost to the
point of making these categorizations that person's personal identity.

Brief comment on "hiring who I want to hire"...I don't own a business
My brother owned a successful business that employed anywhere from
40-200 people. As far as I can tell, if I'M paying the bills, if I'M taking
the financial risks, if I'M putting in the 80-hours a week to keep my
business afloat...what the hell business is it of the GOVERNMENT to
tell me who, or how, or when, or where to spend my own money in
running that business??? Now, obviously, a racist pig who decides
"no blacks in my business" is a jerk a-hole, and probably won't succeed
very long as a business in the present day, if he IS a jerk a-hole...
however, suppose a very qualified black person were to come to
my business and say "I want to apply to be your office manager..."
but I'd rather hire a personal friend of mine, who may not be as
qualified, but I know him. Should the government FORCE me to
hire the person I don't know, because of some government obsession
with the color of people's skins?? Well, I don't think so. Moreover,
we already do have laws which protect people against violations
of their rights (which I agree with, of course), to protect against
housing discrimination and things like that. But forcing someone to
use THEIR money, to hire someone that the GOVERNMENT says they
should....that's a little more dicey.

I could go on...and I've rambled some...but let me leave with these
two challenges...

On the abortion issue...the liberal frame is to protect "women's rights
to their bodies", while the conservative frame is to protect the "life
of a nascent human being". Not to get into the abortion debate,
per se, but here's my challenge to you...like you said, the atheist
(such as you) believes in the NOW, and not (as you describe) some
"fictional paradise in the sky". That given, and our mortal life being
ALL there is....and that each person gets one, and only ONE shot
at this life...why do you take the side AGAINST the unborn child
who is about to lose out on that ONE shot at life???

Secondly...please don't call me "misguided", and please don't try to
place me into the caricature of the goofy extreme Christian who wants
to stone homosexuals. (This thread is supposed to be friendly, even if
we disagree a lot) In actuality, I am rather moderate, and agree with
a lot of the more moderate liberal positions. A big part of my point,
though, whether I agree with it or not, is that liberals DO have their
bevy of issues where they DO also want to control people's behaviors.

Enough, until next week...

PS: Despite all this...if you ARE ever out here in California, I'd
still like to smoke a cigar with you...
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2008, 07:11 PM   #41
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
On the issues in particular, where I claim that liberals also want to
do a lot of "controlling", it's true, they do. I cited a number of
examples. It doesn't mean that I disagree with them. Examples:
I DO like the fact that we keep smoking out of public venues
around here. I DO believe in common-sense restrictions on the
ownership of guns. I just say that liberals have their own issues
of control.
Good point. I apologizes for assuming that you opposed all of those measures... you know what they say - "when you assume..."

Quote:
You're wrong that liberals want to heavily tax "only the top 2 %"
(i.e. over 500 K). Come again. I'm still in the five-figure income
category, and I'm heavily taxed, due to the ultra-Liberal state
I'm in. When taxes go up, it pretty much affects everyone who
works top/down. I may believe that you, personally, only want
to tax the top 2 %. I'd agree, that would be great. My only
concern is that heavily taxing the ultra-wealthy, that is, large
business owners, would probably result in an unintended
consequence of higher unemployment.
You are correct, not all liberals are the same. In some "liberal" states, everyone is taxed at high rates...

You may be right about unintended consequences of high taxes on the wealthy, but I believe those would only be short term. If the very wealthy were taxed at a high rate for an extended period of time, I believe that, eventually, they would be forced to accept their mere million dollar salaries and hire the appropriate amounts of workers...

Quote:
You say that you, personally, are hardwired for communism.
Really? Be honest, are you willing to work for little or no pay,
figuring all of your labor and industry just "goes to the good of
my community"? Would you work more, or as hard, if you knew
that you would not be compensated for it? My point is the
simple human fact that people just don't tend to work without
being compensated.
Yes, I really mean that. Communism is a bit utopian, I know this, but keep that in mind when reading this. In a perfect communist system, there IS incentive to work harder. If everyone cooperates with the system, everyone benefits. Agreed, that is idealistic and unrealistic, but that is my funamental point.

Futhermore, I don't advocate a full-out communist state. I would prefer if our government was slightly more socialist, but not to the point where everyone makes the same amount of money. I do bleieve that a doctor should make more than clerk... I simply think the gap between wealthy and poor can be reduced.

Quote:
As for you're characterization of Christianity (rich, white guys who
want to stone homosexuals)...this really frustrates me. Maybe it
really REALLY frustrates me because you are right, to the extent
that some ultra-right wing Christians DO fit this description. Moreover,
I get frustrated with some Christians I meet who seem to always
say "the Bible says..." or "Jesus says..." and argue on authority only.
I'm not like that. I am a Catholic who, although I'm not a master
theologian or anything like that, am rather well versed in Catholic
theology and ethics. What I have always liked about the official
catechisms and other writings I've read, is that, in addition to
citing Biblical references, they actually give human explanations as
to why this is right, this is wrong, that is right, that is wrong. They
leave room for challenging the ideas, and challenge the reader to
think it through.
To be fair, I don't think that's exactly how I characterized Christians... If I did, I apologize.

I know that MOST Christians are good people. I don't doubt that for a second... I am simply saying that there are many immoral things written in the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities for 2000 years...

Again, I am not saying that all or even most Christians do this... But it does happen.

Quote:
As for "stoning homosexuals", I wish that those "god-hates-you-know-
what" people would freakin' SHUT THE HELL UP and stop making all
us DECENT Christian people a bad name. Please don't use them as
an example of Christianity, any more than would it be fair for anyone
to assume that all Muslims are terrorists.
I don't use them as an example... I know that they are the exception.

Quote:
As for your claim that as long as Person A believes in Jesus, Person B
believes in Mohommad, Person C believes in Moses, or whatever, "we'll
all be at war..." I just don't buy it. One who I greatly admire, Cardinal
Francis Arinzi, wrote an ecellent book about "religious dialogue" and how,
even in the face of our differences, we can find our common ground.
Moreover, true Christians have a great respect for ANYONE who is a
believer, trying to live their lives, the best they can, with what they
know. Please don't cite people who are the BAD examples of religion as
the evidence that religion is inherently bad...The Christian message of
"love your neighbor, as yourself", or the true message of Islam as
being that of "peace", those are the good messages. I'm guessing
that you may have just had some bad experiences with religious people
in your personal life (speculation only).
I haven't had bad experiences with people of faith. Most of my family and my girlfriend's family are devout Catholics. I was confirmed in the Catholic church... Personally, I have had quite pleasant experiences with the church...

I am just aware that only religion can be used to justify something like suicide bombings... An agnostic or atheist could never commit such an act...

Again, I know that those people are the exception and not the rule...

My point is, religion CAN create blind faith. Blind faith renders a population of people who don't think objectively.

Not all religious people are like that, but some are.

Quote:
Should the government FORCE me to
hire the person I don't know, because of some government obsession
with the color of people's skins?? Well, I don't think so. Moreover,
we already do have laws which protect people against violations
of their rights (which I agree with, of course), to protect against
housing discrimination and things like that. But forcing someone to
use THEIR money, to hire someone that the GOVERNMENT says they
should....that's a little more dicey.
Equal opportunity employment practices are necessary to ensure that minorities have an fair shot at making it in this country...

Isn't that what this country is about - equal opportunity?

If we allow racist to hire whoever they want, we are not giving everyone an equal opportunity...

I am aware that a truly equal opportunity society can never exist... but we should make it as fair as possible in my view...

Quote:
On the abortion issue...the liberal frame is to protect "women's rights
to their bodies", while the conservative frame is to protect the "life
of a nascent human being". Not to get into the abortion debate,
per se, but here's my challenge to you...like you said, the atheist
(such as you) believes in the NOW, and not (as you describe) some
"fictional paradise in the sky". That given, and our mortal life being
ALL there is....and that each person gets one, and only ONE shot
at this life...why do you take the side AGAINST the unborn child
who is about to lose out on that ONE shot at life???
Quite simply... I don't.

I actually oppose abortion. I find it disgusting. I would never recommend it and I would do everything in my power to prevent my girlfriend (or any other woman) from having one...

With that said, it's not my choice. In my view, we need to ensure that women have the right to decide what they do with their bodies... only a woman can know the circumstances under which the child was conceived... only a woman can know the potential dangers of delivering the child... For those reasons, we must allow women the right to choose...

I also support a woman's right to choose for a practical reason... it is similar to why I support the legalization of drugs... If we make abortion illegal, it won't stop abortion. People will still have abortions, except they will have them in make-shift clinics, and back-alleys in unsafe conditions...

Abortion is a problem - whether it is legal or illegal. Either way, it's going to continue. Legalized abortion allows us to regulate and control the situation, and make it as safe as poosible...

The same can be said for drugs... Since the "war on drugs" began, more people have started using drugs. The "drug problem" isn't going away. Legalization of drugs would allow us to regulate and control the problem. It would allow the US government to profit of the sale of drugs instead of street thugs and terrorists.

I support these things mainly based on practicality.

Quote:
Secondly...please don't call me "misguided", and please don't try to
place me into the caricature of the goofy extreme Christian who wants
to stone homosexuals. (This thread is supposed to be friendly, even if
we disagree a lot) In actuality, I am rather moderate, and agree with
a lot of the more moderate liberal positions. A big part of my point,
though, whether I agree with it or not, is that liberals DO have their
bevy of issues where they DO also want to control people's behaviors.
I apologize if I called you misguided. My last post was semi-angry, and I apologize for that. You've been nothing but friendly to me, and I should return that to you.

Quote:
PS: Despite all this...if you ARE ever out here in California, I'd
still like to smoke a cigar with you..
Count me in! The same goes for you if you ever make it to glorious Ohio
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2008, 07:11 PM   #42
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
you know what they say - "when you assume..."
When you "assume", you make an a$$ out of Uma Thurman

Hi, CK, back again.

Actually, I want to THANK you for your last post. I was actually
kind of afraid to read it, because of my hesitancy to get into what
ends up being arguments. Especially since they had one of those
"Planned Parenthood" tables at the student center here at the college,
and some crotchety old lady called me an "a$$-hole" when I walked by.

Firstly, we disagree a lot...as we can tell. For my part, I don't turn
my back to those members of society who are suffering...but I try to
face the truth as best I can, and really do try to examine what I think
is the BEST way to approach issues, and exhort others to do the same.
Maybe this is why attach the word "moderate" to my label of "conservative"
(as much as labels mean anything, anyway...they mostly tend to just set
people against eachother).

Secondly, wish you didn't get mad before. I do, too, when I
find I disagree with people, especially when I feel somewhat threatened
(not personally, per se, but in a more social way). But, remember,
we're decent guys, both eventually trying to get to that best way we
can run our human society.

Now, to the meat, again...

I see your point that religion is too often used to justify acts of evil.
Often, those not religious, such as you, lose sight that it is actually the
misunderstanding of the TRUE meaning of religion that causes these
horrible acts. In fact, this is the real meaning of the commandment
"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"....This may be interesting
to you (it was to me), that the original translation was more "Thou
shalt not CARRY the Lord's name in vain", or in other words, to use
the name of God to do EVIL. Thus...why a commandment against it.
Using God's name as an excuse to do evil is about the worst thing a
person could do, for numerous reasons. I cry in my heart over it.

For the idea of "communism" (I don't like the word...it's application
has, now, historically become to be synonymous with the Soviet
Union, China, and Castro's Cuba)...the basic premise is actually
quite beautiful: a society of loving, caring people working for others,
giving to the community...but unfortunately, that just ain't what
humanity is, on the whole. It's why we use the word "utopian" to
describe it. That's why I reject it....it just AIN'T gonna work on
anything but a very VERY small scale.

But...nothing wrong in dreaming big.

Abortion issue....I've heard all the "I'm personally against abortion,
but we should still keep it legal..." arguments. I doubt you'll be able to
come up with one I haven't heard. I DO understand the arguments to
keep it legal, and I've tried really REALLY hard to be sympathetic
to the "...but keep it legal..." side. However...I just CAN'T for the LIFE
of me get past one, incontrovertable fact: that poor unborn child is
still a human life. I really hold firm to the idea that our law should
protect that life, first and foremost...then, from that, deal with all
the unfortunate issues around it (health issues, pregnant teens,
rape, single parents, etc...). Yes...that DOES include social programs
that support the parents, and proper adoption procedures.

As an aside, I've had it up to my EYEBALLS with the pro-choice
advocates I've come across who have been really rude....like the
one I just encountered about an hour ago.

Lastly...and this is a personal question to you, CK, because I'm
understandably curious. It's interesting that you say you were
raised as a Catholic as a child, and that your girlfriend comes from
a Catholic family....but that now you are not, but rather an atheist.
I'm just curious how and why you drifted away. Did it just not
click to you? Did it all seem implausible to you? Did you have
some experiences that led you to see things very differently?

Even though we very virulently disagree on many things, you're
adamantly caring attitude, as it seems, makes you sure look like
a hardcore Catholic on the inside, if not theologically.

As far as getting mad , I understand it. You get mad when
you see people as trying to take a position that neglects the poor,
the way I automatically do when I see people advocating legalized
abortion, or when I see people bagging on God.

PS: I'll save a cigar, for when the day comes... :thumbup:
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2008, 07:37 PM   #43
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

I will skip to your last question because I think we have both made our points on the issues.

First of all, I am not an athiest. An athiest is one who claims to "know" that there is no God. That is just silly. I do not claim to know that which is unknowbable.

I am agnostic. I don't make any claim on the super natural. I don't deny God and I don't deny the possibility of no God.

My main problem with religion came at a very early age. I began to question the idea of listening to a priest (some guy) telling me what happens when I die. "What makes this guy any more an expert than anyone else?" I would ask myself. I soon came to the realization that priests and all other theologians are no more knowlegable on the afterlife or "God" than anyone else.

I then began to question the Bible... Again, I had the same problem - it was written by humans, not God.

Also, when I hear church members and Christians throughout the country claim that homosexuals are "sinners," I was basically outraged. Of all the things to place judgement on, homosexuality doesn't even make the list - nor should it.

Likewise, my BIGGEST problem with ALL religions is the idea of heaven. In every major religion, the qualification for heaven is that you must believe in a certain faith to get in. I'm sorry, but IF there is a God, that is not the case.

Christianity claims you have to accept Jesus to get into heaven, muslims claim you have to accept Allah to get in, etc...

If either one of those is true, then the majority of the world's population is going to hell. According to the Bible: a good-hearted, generous, loving Muslim goes to hell - but a Christian who commits murder, then asks for forgiveness from Jesus gets into heaven...

I'm sorry, but in my view that is bull. I just can't buy into any faith that believes most of the earth's people go to hell.

And finally, as I said before, I do not claim to know that which is unknowable. Whenever possible, I use the socratic method. I question everything, and claim to know basically nothing.

Having said all of that, I do not fault anyone for being religious or athiest. Some people like to have faith in one side or the other... I am more of a fence sitter

Quote:
PS: I'll save a cigar, for when the day comes...
I look forward to it! :thumbsup2:
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.

Last edited by CKFresh; 02-12-2008 at 07:43 PM.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2008, 05:40 PM   #44
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Post

Crappin-A$$

I just put in a reply, and the stupid thing timed out on me...
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2008, 05:47 PM   #45
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Christianity claims you have to accept Jesus to get into heaven, muslims claim you have to accept Allah to get in, etc...
If either one of those is true, then the majority of the world's population is going to hell. I'm sorry, but in my view that is bull. I just can't buy into any faith that believes most of the earth's people go to hell.
Okay, trying again...I'll just be briefer than what I had just TRIED to put in...

If you don't mind, just a bit of theology...as a respite from the politics,
just for today...

You are right....the idea of most of the world going to hell IS "bull".

Common sense DOES tell us that a loving God will judge people based
on who they are...not on what their "theology" is.

Moreover, that actually IS the true teaching of the Catholic Church.
"No salvation outside the Church" does NOT mean that Heaven is a
"Catholics only" club. It rather means that salvation comes through
the action of the Church, but that ALL decent people have the
opportunity for ultimate salvation. Beyond that, honestly, I don't
really know exactly HOW God would judge...but that it will be just.

As I've said before, CK, you still seem to me to be a "good Catholic"
on the inside, even if your theology is that of an agnostic.

I did try to say more....but all that was lost by the website.

Not much in the mood for politics today...but I will want to get
back to some more next week, especially some major issues I
have with the educational system.

Later.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hell in St. Louis bama4256 The Lounge 0 12-19-2007 11:11 AM
Conversation with myself Panthers-Rule The Lounge 3 10-14-2004 11:47 PM
Who should start in St. Louis? Marc National Football League 15 02-25-2003 12:16 PM
St. Louis Scores 28 Points in Fourth Quarter bama4256 National Football League 9 01-03-2003 05:17 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 AM.