First of all, it never helps to think like a victim. We may even be right that middle America is dumb as a dirt clod, but that won't do us any good.
What should this party stand for? It's old core is old. I don't want it to be a shinier Republican party. I want it to advance ideas that a lot of America will struggle with. But it needs to shed itself of the "we're superior to the Right" as a moral position and clearly articulate a core that is compelling, positive and has the power to create the broadest possible good in these very turbulent times.
Well, let's examine this. let's set aside for the moment the Democrat's assumption that American's are stupid.
Ok, let's look at the results, Bush won big time, picked up seats in both the house & senate, and dislodged Tom Daschel (spelling?). Seems like a mandate to me (yes of course you disagree). But seriously, why did this happen to the Dems... is it because for the last 20 or so years the Democrats have lost touch with the pulse of America? I think so. The values of the Democratic party just do not represent the core values and morals of America. That's right I said Values and morals! What a novel concept! The Democrats bemoan in their ABB chant that Bush didn't reflect the core values or beliefs of America. Well, guess what? The Democrats were wrong. The number one reason people voted (according to ABC news) for Bush was morality. American's sided in record numbers with Bush over Kerry - on that there is no dispute. All one has to do is look at the current stars in the Democrat party to see how far left they are & how far out of touch these individuals are (Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary, Dean, M. Moore)
So what should The Democrats do? It's pretty obvious - they need to look at themselves, their beliefs and look objectively that hey, perhaps - just perhaps we are wrong. I know, I know we've built a campaign around saying that the other side is 100% wrong, but hey, look at the results, perhaps we are the ones that are wrong.... if we (democrats) ever hope to have power again we need to reflect the will of the people.
As a side note look at the gay marriage amendment that was on the ballot on 11 states (disclaimer: I think that gays should have ALL the rights that married couples have - there shouldn't be any difference, but to me it's a semantic argument, I think the word marriage should mean man and woman). So it was on the ballot in 11 states, and you know what? the definition restricting marriage to being to between just a man and a woman passed, 11 for 11. Does that tell you that hmmmm, perhaps we (democrats) have lost touch somewhere along the line with the pulse of the nation? Hmmm, perhaps the Democrats have gone too far in trying to circumvent the will of the people (suing when you don't get your way chief among these).
How do you regain power? Simple, by realizing that you are wrong, look at Reagan - He was not apologetic about being a conservative & he won overwhelmingly - routing his opponents. The next best thing to electing him for a third term was electing Bush 41. But alas, he was too much of a moderate and one of the reasons he lost was because he wasn't conservative enough & his opponent, Clinton - ran as you recall as a "new" democrat - he ran to the right of Bush 41 & won 2 terms because of that. Bush 43 won because he, like Reagan wasn't apologetic about being a conservative & ran well to the right of Kerry who wisely tried to conceal his dismal senate record.
Face it, the democrats are out of touch. You may think you are right, but if the democratic party collectively pulls it's head out & does some deep reflection and realizes that American's aren't stupid, that the party is for thinking that - the Democratic party won't ever again have power.
Come to think of it, go ahead, keep moving left, keep deceiving yourselves, the further left the party goes, the further out of the mainstream and less consequential they become.
First of all, it never helps to think like a victim. We may even be right that middle America is dumb as a dirt clod, but that won't do us any good.
What should this party stand for? It's old core is old. I don't want it to be a shinier Republican party. I want it to advance ideas that a lot of America will struggle with. But it needs to shed itself of the "we're superior to the Right" as a moral position and clearly articulate a core that is compelling, positive and has the power to create the broadest possible good in these very turbulent times.
The Democrats need to "flip-flop" the tables on the Republicans, and go after them the way Republicans label Democrats. How come we don't seem to hear "He's too CONSERVATIVE" during election campaigns? Democrats are going to have to throw "labels" on the conservative GIRLIE MEN of the GOP if they want to breathe some new life into their base.
Several here even defended Kerry from his Most Liberal Senator evaluations!
I maintain it is impossible to possess Core Values when you cannot even own up to your ideology!
...also had no "core values" I take it.
You just smeared your fellow Cold Warriors Bribite.
/Zin
It might interest you that NO "priests" in the Soviet Block ever denied their faith. Many went to the Gulags for it.
On the contrary, your loser puts on Brand Spanking New Camos and totes a shotgun around pandering for the Second Amendment vote, denying his true anti gun philosophy.
But somehow, in the mental illness called liberalism this equates.
I believe that you, Zin, are a proud liberal, why doesn't it bother you that your leader was so ashamed of the title? If you are for same sex marriage, say so! If you are for gun control, say so! Why be so ashamed of your ideology? (Reference to Kerry, not you, at least you're honest about it)
And just so you completely understand my point, I think that radical Islamic fucks have core values too. The fact that they are so opposite ours and their desire to force them on us, makes them a very serious enemy. The lack of core values, i.e. Kerry, cannot recognize this threat.
They hid it by being married. And created a well publicized conundrum in the Catholic church at the end of the USSR.
Again, you rewrite history or get your facts utterly wrong. That was most definitely done. No argument.
I own guns, Bribite. Does it occur to you that maybe Kerry dissented from that particular part of liberalism? He might have voted for the assault weapons ban, assault weapons not being shotguns, but I don't know what letters he was getting from his people in Massachussetts.
As for same sex marriage, I'll note, conservative sneers aside, he has a female wife. His agreement with gay marriage, then, is something less than 100 percent. The fact is, maybe his feelings about it one way or another aren't strong, but he's at least willing to listen, and unwilling to persecute or harass, the latter two are what Republicans tolerate, and they show it whenever Bush has another election campaign. Just ask John McCain.
But that's liberalism. The freedom to let other people couple as they wish, and call it what they want, as long as other people can understand their language. It might irritate conservatives, but they can't say calling a gay union a "marriage" would be confusing or unclear to them.
(I am by no means a church historian) but I was under the impression that the Catholic Church in the Soviet Union had no great presence, and perhaps no presence whatsoever. The Russian Orthodox Church is of the Eastern variety, and my recollection is that their priests are allowed to marry. I could perhaps stand to be educated on this issue, but I'm pretty sure that the Eastern Church either never had or now does not have a prohibition on priests marrying.
As for your discussion of the language, and the notion that a couple of fudge-packing fags should be entitled to call their activities a "marriage," I would remind you of the warning from (perhaps ironically) ancient Greece. I believe it was Thucydides who told the tale of a city so divided by the Peloponnesian War and which side to enter that its debate over it degenerated into disagreement over the meaning of simple words.
That there are those who would demand that we called queer pairings "marriage" suggests --- confirms, for those of us who understand the nihilism of the far Left's agenda --- that their goal truly is the destruction of civil society as we have known it.
that is a phony comparison.
There is a rather large difference between hiding your ideas from a totalitarian state because you fear murder, and hiding your ideas from the voters because you fear that they won't vote for you.
The former is a necessity to preserve life. The latter is a craven exercise in self-interested pursuit of political power.
A democratic republic relies not only upon an enlightened citizenry, but also upon honest men and women as candidates for public office. Lacking the latter, it is impossible for the former to exercise an adequately informed choice.
So, you were phony on the first word that you wrote.
A rather large difference? The only difference is the emotion that you and I have for one as opposed to the other. The emotions are so strong for the former, that you could attach moral superiority to it, but that's all there is to it. Why? Because somebody who's down on their luck, out of power, and struggling for their life is not a threat, so our pity can take hold. Granted, the former is a necessity to preserve life, but the only reason for preserving life is, finally, so that said life can gain power. And nobody is more powerless than the dead. If they lie to save their lives, they will probably lie to gain perceived power, too.
You say Kerry lied. Did you notice, Bush lied, too? He lied about his environmentalism in the debates, flagrantly. That wasn't pandering to the middle? He isn't concerned about the environment, but neither is his base like you or Bribite, so you don't even mark a lie like that. But he held on to a few voters with that lie. Why was he running away from his conservatism? He hides his anti-abortion agenda behind "strict constructionism." My ass. Anti-abortion. Meanwhile, he's hidden and expunged his old drug habits, and quite possibly the fact that he paid for a woman's abortion in 1970. He orchestrated lies against John Mccain in SC in 2000. Rumors that didn't exist until a week before the primary. He presents himself as a man of "family values" and that's a big whopper. That's the Bush's "public face," (a euphemism for a lie) and it doesn't hold up for three seconds of scrutiny, other than the fact that the family financially supports and rescues each other. That's not what I consider "family values." Family values is putting resources and effort into raising healthy and strong children, physically and mentally, healthy and strong. Look at the broods of both George and Jeb. Tell me that they've put anything but financial resources into this. (Chelsea Clinton, BTW, is healthier, smarter, stronger, and more capable. Period.)
I find these more offensive than any lies Kerry told. Your man is a liar from far back, James. Even when he doesn't have to be. And given his growing arrogance, it's not going to be long before you even realize it.
Given the power that's on the line, why do you assume that politicians won't lie? I don't. I compliment them when they are honest, because I don't expect it. Thinking that they won't lie is as absurd as demanding full disclosure in a poker game. I check the facts on what they say. If their lies offend me I vote against them. Bush's lies offend me the most. I don't really care that Kerry can't decide definitely on guns. At least I could talk to a man like that about it and not see his eyes glaze over or be shown the door.
/Zin
-- Modified on 11/6/2004 12:54:17 PM
I'm always saddened when one so ill-informed and illogical presumes to make public pronouncements with such authority. "Phony"? Let's face it: we're all phony here, hence the fact that we hide behind handles to obscure our identities, most completely unrelated to our real names (and for good cause, I might add).
I maintain that their is a considerable difference between one who, in a totalitarian society, hides his beliefs and one who, in a free society and free from threat of government retaliation but in fear of the electoral wrath of his fellow citizens, obscures his beliefs and runs from accurately-rendered labels. Kinda like the difference between the way I (and probably you, too) sign comments here, and the way we sign them when submitted to journals for public consumption.
As for your subsequent and lenghty rant, I cannot speak to the environmental issue, as professional obligations prevented me from seeing or listening to most of the debates. Even assuming the truth of your statement arguendo, though, it seems doubtful to me that the President's comments could have risen to the level of the lies told about him regarding, say, federal regulation of arsenic levels in drinking water.
As for his "anti-abortion agenda," you call it a "lie" to make an argument from a principle to a specific, condemning the principle of "strict constructionism." Some people would call that "principle." Of course, it is at least equally fraudulent for the pro-abortion crowd to claim broad public support for their position, yet decline to put forward a constitutional amendment actually to enshrine their position in constitutional law, instead resorting to the courts, and penumbras and emanations.
Other portions of your rant are simply nonsense. "hidden and expunged his old drug habits"? Were you so concerned about Slick Willie's drug use (I believe Gennifer Flowers is on the record as saying he had a "nose like a vacuum cleaner," as opposed to the innuendo you and your allies have offered), and his refusal to release all of his medical records (which, it has been speculated, might indicate sinus cavity damage consistent with long abuse of cocaine), I might take such concerns seriously. "[Q]uite possibly ... that he paid for a woman's abortion in 1970"? I'm pretty well-informed on far Left lunacies, but I guess I just missed this one.
"[O]rchestrated lies against John Mccain in SC in 2000." This one, of course, has been thoroughly debunked. Were there those who attacked McCain in 2000 in South Carolina? Certainly. Did Bush benefit from them? Probably. Did he "orchestrate" them? Of course not. If he had, it would have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1976 (as amended), and the FEC never took any action against him. Indeed, I do not recall that a complaint was even filed, though I could be wrong about that. Suffice it to say, if you have such evidence, tell somebody, because otherwise, it's just another myth advanced by BushHaters.
Perhaps one of the keys of your comments is "That's not what I consider 'family values.'" I suspect that you and I would strongly disagree with what does, on the margins, with my conception being more consistent with, oh, say 10,000 years of human civilization, as opposed to the construction of four justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
As for Chelsea Clinton, I don't know her. But I suspect that time will tell.
Another telling comment is your claim that "my" guy is a liar from way back, "even when he doesn't have to be."
Bold talk from someone who quite probably (based on these comments) supported Slick Willie. Travel Office ring a bell?
-- Modified on 11/9/2004 6:43:08 AM
Several here even defended Kerry from his Most Liberal Senator evaluations!
I maintain it is impossible to possess Core Values when you cannot even own up to your ideology!
You can't fix a problem until you identify it accurately. The fear of the liberal tag is spot on. I think that the Dem's vision of progress is stale and outdated.
And I am not a conservative. I am also not a liberal. I am a fringe lunatic, evidently.
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 6:52:48 PM
... The democrats have a core set of values and morals that are not represented by the religious right. One common value involves the separation of church and state. That means that if you can't convince people to change their behavior in the world of ideas, then you don't try to use the government to force them to change. The GOP is prepared to break this core value -- they are going to use the government to get us all back on the "right track".
I would personally love to be in the GOP, I share many of it's conservative values. I accept that the best government is the smallest possible government that does only reasonable and useful things. I aspire to minimize the cost of regulation. I am certainly for a strong defense. However, I cannot accept any party that contemplates removing a woman't right to choose, has faith based incentives for social services, or who wants to punish Gay People by not giving them the advantages of being able to marry. Additionally, I dislike people that can't look at reality: we were persuaded to back invading Iraq under a false premise. The GOP now stands around and acts like NOTHING is wrong and that no mistakes were made. The leader of the free world is standing there with his limp little pecker hanging out and yelling at us to quit looking down -- look at his eyes and see how true and moral he is. He looks like an idiot when he does this and I don't give a fuck if 99% of the people in the US buy it.
When the mainstream GOP bucks up and tells the evangelicals to STF up and go away: I will be there to take their place. Religion has a place in society and in people's lives. It is a way to live -- not directions for constructing a modern society.
Harry
it is awfully ironic for taws6 to be trumpeting the "values and morals" bit on this website. I would wager that a **majority** of Bush-voters would take away his access to this site if they could.
Reading Taws' post, you would think that millions of Americans DIDN'T vote for Kerry. Let's not forget, 48% of americans did not vote for Bush, a president that once had an approval rating in the 80's.
Are the democrats in the minority? Absolutely. I don't have a problem with that. We have plenty of marol issues that we will continue to fight for, one being the Seperation of Church and State.
The problem with your post Taws is that you say we have to admit we are wrong! That is ridiculous. When will 100% of a free society ever agree on anything? I never tell me conservatives friends that their beliefs are wrong. How can you say that?
One last thing. How the hell is it possible for you to come on this board and try to defend the Moral position of the Bush administration. The very people that if they had their way, this board and many of its users would be locked up. That is hipocrosy at its best.
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 2:39:35 PM
It says "Freedom of religion" not Freedom from religion... !!!
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 6:51:02 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the free practice thereof..."
It doesn't say either "freedom of" or "freedom from" religion. Those phrases are derivative. They are not in the document.
It promises that everyone is free to practice: i.e. worship, fulfill obligations, celebrate. It prohibits you from establishing it, i.e. making it part of the establishment. Mixing religious duty and exhortations with government power.
I realize that the framers believed in God, but though I am an atheist, I don't think that makes them liars, as most adamant Christian arguments would imply. I don't think the fact that they were believers means that they must be lying about what they said in this amendment.
/Zin
That's not my commentary, that's Billkyle's, with my name on it! It even refers readers to HIS reviews at the top.
Please take the post down.
/Zin
Even weirder, that's not even where I posted it. It is found again further downstream....
I've seen that happen before.
BTW, It's Kile, not Kyle! At least that's how I spelled it when I made it up and have been spelling it ever since.
BK
Amendment 1 says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
If you are a lawyer you can argue about what it means and whether it implies that congress can make laws to implement the evangelical social agenda.
When the government makes laws to implement established morality it gets prohibition all over again.
It took us until 2 years ago to admit that Gay people had a right to have sex with each other.
We spend billions to stop people from taking drugs because we have decided they are illegal.
Don't you agree that it's time to get government out of the morality business?
there are faith-based incentives to use the constitution to establish restrictions on medical procedures or to define marriage. Those incentives are intellectually and morally abhorant to this American. I'm old enough to remember what happened when abortion was illegal. I'm smart enough to realize something is seriously wrong with placing constitutional restrictions on scientific research. I've seen enough of the world to know that Gay Marriage does not threaten marriage and that constitutional restrictions are a bad idea..
Harry
The constitution is amazingly short - I don't think many can argue that. So today I suppose you can argue semantics on the definition of stuff, you know it depends upon what your definition of "is" is.
Bullshit.
If you read, (as I have), the other writings from the founding fathers, most noteably the Federalist Papers, it very clearly outlines in quite simple language (so for the democrat's sake even "stupid Americans" can get it), what each part of the constituion is supposed to do - more of a users manual if you will.
And as everyone knows - yet the democrats want to ignore is that this country was founded on a beleif in God, and that as a country we should be guided by a 'higher moral authority' if you will. What the seperation of church & state basically means that democrats like to ignore is that it's there to prevent a forcefull adaptation of one universal religion - as was the case in England.
To totally remove God from government was NOT the intent of the framers - to state otherwise is just simple wishfull thinking for a select group. (kinda like the left's attempt to ignore the 2nd amendment)
... I have read the federalist papers. I also know enough about the religious beliefs of the framers to know that many were athiests and agnostics. Those framers had thought about the issue and they understood how to build a pluristic society where they could live beside their religious neighbours.
The constitutiion doesn't remove or exclude religion. It just says that your idea of Religion doesn't get preminance over someone else's idea of Religion. My sense of the religious right is that they don't see it that way at all.
If you disagree with this, say so and I will let the rest of the board flame you away.
If you agree, I will be the first to apologize for not expressing myself clearly.
As to the second amendment -- buy all the guns you want. Don't forget to enlist in the National Guard since that was the primary intent of the second amendment.
Harry
Uh- dude- we ARE to the right of wwhere we were. That's the point. The right have travelled into Fascist territory- AND APPARENTLY TOOK AMERICA WITH THEM!
I'd say you guys ought to invest in Brown cloth. There are shirts to be made !
From Webster's The way I read the definition, the Democratic platform is more Fascist than the Republican Platform:
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
For the fool speaks folly, and his heart works iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. - Isaiah 32:6
O you sons of men, how long will you turn my glory into shame? How long will you love vanity, and seek after falsehood? Selah.
- Psalms 4:3
And the Words of the Messenger
Shall be Heard but not Understood
The Beast of the Beltway Doth Lie
Hidden behind the Bosom of Innocence.
For I heard the calumny of many, fear on every side. Denounce him, we will denounce him, say my close friends as they watch for my stumbling. Perhaps he will be persuaded, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. - Jeremiah 20:10
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 2:27:06 PM
For Behold, I am but the Messenger
A Messenger of Syn a Sizzim & Murth
But the Words of the Book are those
Subscribed to by the Son of Satan.
Hallepalooza!
In the house of the righteous there is much treasure; but in the income of the wicked there is trouble. - Proverbs 15:6
Had to read it too fast at work. 
Great snare, POD.
and the election proved it!!!!
... re-read Christ's story of the Publican and the Pharisee that went into the temple to pray. For my money, it captures the major problem with the Evangelicals and the way they behave. I know that I am a sinner and that I don't have the answers to everything. However, another thing I know is that some idiot with God on his mind and a bad haircut is in just as poor a shape as I am. My only saving grace is that I am conscious of how poorly informed I am, how mistaken I can be, the pain and the problems I can I can cause, and how poorly I can be connected with people. Further, at this point in my life, I have enough faith that God and the world can help people those poor people understand their own errors and that someday if they listen hard enough they will be able to be embarassed and saddened by the problems they have caused by their false pride.
I once told a niece that I was proud of her for getting involved in scientific studies because she would learn the greatest personal secret that was revealed only to a few. She asked what that was. I told her that she would finally learn how stupid she was and how little she really knew about anything. Sadly, it is a secret that few will ever know. Most people are too dumb to understand how dumb they are. Too much of what passes for modern religion only exists to shield people from realizing their own finiteness and stupidity. Ideas that were supposed to liberate your soul are reduced to a cheap cradle to help you avoid facing life.
Harry
The New Testament is a living document written by the hands of men. As such, it is subject to the interpretation and misinterpretation of those who distort its words for their unHoly activities.
The Old Testament is handed down by God, written in the words of God, and as such is inviolate to the machinations of man.
Thus do I reveal the Blasphemers for their true selves for how can they disagree with the words of the Divine, unless their hearts be not True?
The lips of the wise spread knowledge; but the heart of the foolish does not do so. - Proverbs 15:7
Get over your bitterness. With our off the board discussions I know you are better than this self absorbed tripe.
"some idiot with God on his mind and a bad haircut"
This kind of generalization reveals a bigotry that I really don't think exists in you. (I'm pretty sure it does in a few others)
You might find it interesting that at both UCLA and UCI, two of the most respected medical schools in the country, filled with "scientists", that the largest extracurricular organizations are BIBLE STUDIES and most are led by Professors, not "some idiot with God on his mind and a bad haircut"! Well, maybe haircuts are a matter of taste!, I'm just glad I still have some, even if most of it is in my nose and ears 
!
Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive my friend.
It is my personal opinion that unless a person has a belief in a Higher Power, it is impossible to possess "Core Values". Core values emanate from a belief in an Omnipresent Supreme Being. In that, I believe that Osama bin Laden possesses Core Values, however misguided.
Science and Christianity are certainly not mutually exclusive. There are many studies on health and expanded consciousnessthat demonstrate the efficacy of Christian practices. I know. My company works directly in this field.
Of course, if we're going to bring science into the conversation, then we've also got to admit that pratitioners of many wisdom traditions can also demonstrate the same prowess. Just because we were born in a Christian culture doesn't make it primary. Of course, tell that to the evangelical right. Just take a weapon in case it gets ugly.
Frankly, there are many traditions that promote much greater self reflection than what I observe in contemporary Christianity and whose whole approach is a systematic effort to uncover life's most profound mysteries.
If you're really honest about it, there is a potent segment of people - and I know them first hand, as I travel to rural Arkansas frequently - whose belief structure is as primitive and lost as a goat at the prom. And these people voted for Bush. Are you claiming them as your deep brother and sister?
If you feel the need to filter your core values through a fictitious omnipresent being, hiding your will from yourself, distancing yourself from responsibility, and then do social engineering based on this error, you are misguiding yourself and the world.
You're wrong. Science and Christianity haven't been compatible since the 16th century, when Galileo committed his blasphemy and turned a telescope to the sky. He discovered that not only was no god there, there was **no there there** either. No God, no angels, no heaven to see, and suddenly the world became a universe far different than any Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah would have ever created.
That was it. End of story. Not only for Christianity, but for Judaism and Islam. But since then, most people have not received the news very well. In fact, they are in denial and pretend that it really didn't matter. It does. Never mind fighting evolution in schools. Your battle is over. Your deception continues.
Ever wonder why God in the Bible doesn't tell us about one star we couldn't see yet? Doesn't tell us about bacteria? Doesn't tell us about dinosaurs? Because Bribite, he didn't know anything his authors didn't know. Yahweh, or whoever he's called, is their creation, not the other way around. They could fake power with literary devices and imagery, but they couldn't fake knowledge.
You could call what I write here bigotry, Bribite, but you have no argument against any of this. All you can do is avert your eyes from the Medusa's head.
/Zin
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 10:49:56 PM
Alright, here we go.
There is a huge difference between spiritual practice and religous belief. And the essence of spiritual practice is an inward pursuit. What an enormous amount of research confirms is that diverse spiritual practices all lead to the same (or very similar) psycho-physiological states. Greater sense of well-being, deeper sense of personal responsibility for moral behavior, greater capacity to solve problems more inclusively, same brain states, etc, etc. Now, I am taking about really commited practitioners, be they Christian, Buddhist or, frankly, atheist.
The conscious pursuit to develop one's own grasp of humanity is the ultimate act of personal responsibility, to become one's best self and fight the internal wars inherient in this effort -and the adoption of symbols or specfic belief systems themselves as being the objective, in and of themselves. As I tell my daughter, the God she doesn't believe in, I don't believe in either.
But there are incredibly powerful states of mind that I will call "faith" and "redemption." I am not talking about a belief system, like "Jesus is the Son of God and no man cometh the the Father but through the Son." That's one symbolic way to induce the state of mind I am trying to describe (although it's usually not an effective practice in modern Christianity, but I'll leave that can of worms for another time), but not the only one. The Buddhists talk about faith in terms of taking one's clearest and most enlivening moment of consciousness, the one that you felt some of the mystery of life making some sense, where it just felt great, that was gone in the next heartbeat dropping you back down in your everyday world - that this moment of inspired insight is worth pursuing - there is no mythology in it, there is only personal validation.
I am not advocating anything that detracts from personal responsibility or that substitutes a surrogate mythology in place of self-honesty. We all hold belief systems. I remain a skeptic of mine and spend more time examining them critically because in the end they always constrain me to something that won't hold water.
Here's my point. Truth is whatever it is. That's "God" in my mind. Science is one way of describing it, so it has to be integrated into any valid schema. Also, art is one way of describing it, as any of you who listen to great music know. Wmblake is not randomly taken as a moniker. And ethics is a way of expressing it. All are valid, all are important.
This is why I see myself as in the lunatic fringe. I know there are states of consciousness that simply make my life make all the sense I ever dreamt it could. I don't stay in them long, but when I do, I love it with all my heart. I worship it, I celebrate it, I adore it, I am devoted to it in every way I can be. More than anything, I try to tell myself the truth and act on by best vision.
Anyway, Zin, you and I started to talk about this a while ago, and so I thought here was as good a time and place as any to let this rip.
-- Modified on 11/5/2004 9:45:30 AM
... I am beginning not to like myself about how angry I feel.
I apologize if I stepped on people's own religious feelings.
I will get over that... there, it's done...
However, it doesn't change my fundamental concern. I too am a "values oriented" voter. People who think that that their feelings and concerns represent "values" and others do not should stop and think a little further.
My concerns about the evangelical right remain. I will try to be less expressive. However, remember Ben Franklin. "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe when the legislature is in session". I don't want to see "family values" enshrined in the constitution.
All the best ... Harry
"Most people are too dumb to understand how dumb they are." is another. Yes sir, Harry. I love to see great stuff flow.
I have been thinking about why so many Christians trouble me. I have two tentative conclusions. Well, one isn't so tentative. I am truly out of step with the mainstream, especially in rural American. But even in LA, what I think about and what I seek still is on the outside edges. Ok, that's fine. Lonely sometimes, but fine. That's always the price for thinking.
The other is -surprisingly - new. It's that so many take their guidance from static authority. The Bible as the Truth. A "literal interpretation" of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, whatever. As if our developmental and therefore perceptual bias is non-existant. The point is, where does the fundamental personal responsibility for wading through all the mystery that you spoke to your niece emerge from in such a clearly defined world view? Where the prod of personal doubt, the acknowledgement of shame that comes from the fires and drives one to deeper truth?
See, I really do think it's really a fundamental divide over what values guide this country, and these go back to where we are developmentally as adults - and to not the belief system that guides us or reflects where we are. And I think the Dem's have to do a much better job at being really boldly inspiring. We just won't carry the bottom percentiles in the process.
I mean, damn, if we're gonna lose anyway, then let's be bold.
-- Modified on 11/4/2004 6:30:58 PM
How many people in Physic wards can quote the Bible like you?
Ever notice that nobody goes insane and becomes an atheist? Or how nobody goes psychotic and becomes less religious!!
/Zin
lotta guys in jail are good at it too..
HarryLime is right. Conservatives speak of their "core values" and are proud when they win with them. What you don't grasp is liberals have core values too. Different ones. That's not a matter of strategy.
I agree that the majority rejected them. So, I'll work as a minority.
/Zin
lecture the dems on moderation. Bob