Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

To Bob's credit, unlike many Christians I'm pretty sure he believes in actually helping the poor, just through tithing and charitable donations, instead of government means. That makes him more bleeding heart than some would think, and certainly more liberal than most pro-corporate neoconservatives.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

To Bob's credit, unlike many Christians I'm pretty sure he believes in actually helping the poor, just through tithing and charitable donations, instead of government means. That makes him more bleeding heart than some would think, and certainly more liberal than most pro-corporate neoconservatives.

Tithing and charitable donations are obviously good, but if that's all one does, to me that falls short. To me one should also get out there and first hand help with things. As Americans, many of us have the means to financially contribute, but to just write a check and then think one has done all there is to do is to me falling short of what one can do. There's tons of places out there to volunteer at, etc.

And I'll trot out there my usual comments about how my stances on things like the death penalty are hardly in lock-step with what people think of as conservative. But, that's part of the problem of labeling people and sticking them in a box. There's usually a lot more nuance to things, but nuance doesn't fit in boxes well.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

And I'll trot out there my usual comments about how my stances on things like the death penalty are hardly in lock-step with what people think of as conservative. But, that's part of the problem of labeling people and sticking them in a box. There's usually a lot more nuance to things, but nuance doesn't fit in boxes well.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't bother playing with the "importance" sliders on each question and kept them all at medium, because I couldn't be bothered to take the time. If I had to go through and rank each question, instead of being Right: 0.77 and Libertarian: 2.46, I'd probably be around Right: 1.0 and closer to Libertarian: 1.0. I care more about spending and guns than I do gays and God.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Tithing and charitable donations are obviously good, but if that's all one does, to me that falls short. To me one should also get out there and first hand help with things. As Americans, many of us have the means to financially contribute, but to just write a check and then think one has done all there is to do is to me falling short of what one can do. There's tons of places out there to volunteer at, etc.

This should be a whole other dimension on the political quiz: active vs passive. It's uncorrelated with social or economic views. Just as there are socially active conservatives (tons of church groups doing great charitable work) and socially passive conservatives (the Randian "let them eat concrete" types), there are liberal equivalents (socially conscious volunteers vs those who are content to pay their taxes and do nothing more). At their best, both the religious conservative and secular liberal traditions stress the importance of going out into the community and directly serving the poor -- not just because it helps them, but because it germinates something inside the giver that is also "blessed."

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

At their best, both the religious conservative and secular liberal traditions stress the importance of going out into the community and directly serving the poor -- not just because it helps them, but because it germinates something inside the giver that is also "blessed."

and also because it germinates something inside the receiver as well. One hopes that it gives the recipient a sense of "hey, maybe I am worthwhile after all, if these people are coming here to help me out. Maybe they see something in me I haven't noticed inside myself yet." One hopes further that it helps encourage a greater sense of both self-reliance and also a "pay it forward" reciprocity in the recipient:

"what do I owe you?"

-- you don't owe me a thing.
I've been there too.
Someone once helped me out
the way I'm helping you.

If you really want to pay me back
Here's what you do.
Don't let the chain of love
End with you.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

"what do I owe you?"

-- you don't owe me a thing.
I've been there too.
Someone once helped me out
the way I'm helping you.

If you really want to pay me back
Here's what you do.
Don't let the chain of love
End with you.

Ahh yes, Flyover Country's "Kumbaya".

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ahh yes, Flyover Country's "Kumbaya".

Reminds me of that famous New Yorker cartoon, that has a map: NYC / Hudson River / San Francisco.

 

[ericredaxe]

I am f*ed. I'm hardcore hawk and economy, but socially very liberal. I have no home. Once upon a time I thought Arnold was going to lead us into new times. the trashy bum. him. and then Romney seemed so upright and upstanding, handsome Michigan boy (not that they are not a dime a dozen back here in DeToilet, oops, I mean Michigan. now who do I vote for? Hillary? or some right wing whack job that the Republicans run?

You are sort of what Romney campaigned as when he ran first for senate and then successfully for Governor of Massachusetts. He may not have been socially "very liberal", but was certainly moderate / left leaning on many social issues. That was of course before he had to move right to secure the nomination.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

and also because it germinates something inside the receiver as well. One hopes that it gives the recipient a sense of "hey, maybe I am worthwhile after all, if these people are coming here to help me out. Maybe they see something in me I haven't noticed inside myself yet." One hopes further that it helps encourage a greater sense of both self-reliance and also a "pay it forward" reciprocity in the recipient

I completely agree.

State welfare programs are necessary but they have a pernicious effect where neither giver nor receiver feel they are connected. The receiver feels no responsibility which just deepens his anomie, while the giver feels his contribution is wasted which allows opportunists to career-build by tub-thumping resentment.

 

[burd]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

You are sort of what Romney campaigned as when he ran first for senate and then successfully for Governor of Massachusetts. He may not have been socially "very liberal", but was certainly moderate / left leaning on many social issues. That was of course before he had to move right to secure the nomination.

I thought McCain was a good viable candidate before he felt the need to move there too. This dynamic must be driving a lot of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans crazy.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I had developed a similar grid a few years ago without using the "left-right" concept at all. I had a similar vertical axis of Centralized Control on top and Individual Liberty on the bottom (their Authoritarian / Libertarian axis), but the horizontal axis was Radical - Conservative ("left" / Radical was "don't trust your elders, invent new things" and "right" / Conservative was "we've tested these ideas for a long time and empirically we generally have found them to be pretty effective over time").

In this grid, "progressives" would be upper left, "monarchists" would be upper right, "liberals" would be lower right, and "anarchists" would be lower left.

It was surprising to me to see liberals and progressives as polar opposites in this terminology since so many people use the two words interchangeably.

To me a "liberal" was individual liberty and (mostly) free markets while a "progressive" is all about government control and "we are smarter than anyone who ever lived" superiority.

If you want to place a "classic" thinker on each axis, you'd have Hobbes or Plato on the top, Marx on the left, Burke on the right, and Jefferson or Adam Smith on the bottom.

I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was thinking about the above post. I questioned your position of...not specifically liberal (although others here probably will)...but rather of progressive. So I went to wiki on the matter:

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

Ah yes...that's the real deal. Im enamored by change. I guess I would call myself a Christian progressive...adding that all scientific/technology/economic change above is supplemented by societal change (which has been for centuries driven by Christian values). Doesn't quite fit your definition tho.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ah yes...that's the real deal. Im enamored by change. I guess I would call myself a Christian progressive...adding that all scientific/technology/economic change above is supplemented by societal change (which has been for centuries driven by Christian values). Doesn't quite fit your definition tho.

Ah yes, Christian values are exactly what pushed Einstein, Max Born, Oppenheimer, Haber, and any number of Jewish scientists who have completely revolutionized our scientific knowlege over the years, they've all been driven by their Christian values.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ah yes, Christian values are exactly what pushed Einstein, Max Born, Oppenheimer, Haber, and any number of Jewish scientists who have completely revolutionized our scientific knowlege over the years, they've all been driven by their Christian values.

There's plenty of scientists that have been Christian and non-Christian and who have contributed to scientific advancements, obviously.

Of course, just to even things out, here are a few Christian scientists off the top of my head: Newton, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, etc.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was thinking about the above post. I questioned your position of...not specifically liberal (although others here probably will)...but rather of progressive. So I went to wiki on the matter:

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

Ah yes...that's the real deal. Im enamored by change. I guess I would call myself a Christian progressive...adding that all scientific/technology/economic change above is supplemented by societal change (which has been for centuries driven by Christian values). Doesn't quite fit your definition tho.

there are "progressives" and then there are "Progressives." the former is how you see yourself. The latter is specifically a political movement, that maintains we need extensive government control over all life activities because no one else can be trusted. the Progressive movement (uppercase P) goes back to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

It has done a lot of good, in that we have a Food and Drug Administration, workplace safety, etc. The problem, of course, is not "whether" we need these things but where is the appropriate balance point between too much and too little. Progressives (uppercase P) seem to think that no amount of government control is ever too much.

Lots of progressives (lowercase p) believe we are better served by interacting directly with those in need and do not agree that government always has to insert itself into every social interaction.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ah yes, [Judeo-]Christian values are exactly what pushed Einstein, Max Born, Oppenheimer, Haber, and any number of Jewish scientists who have completely revolutionized our scientific knowlege over the years, they've all been driven by their [Judeo-]Christian values.

.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

There's plenty of scientists that have been Christian and non-Christian and who have contributed to scientific advancements, obviously.

Of course, just to even things out, here are a few Christian scientists off the top of my head: Newton, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, etc.

I'm just tired of Christians inserting their religion into the advancements of science, as though none of it could happen without the Church's blessing. Historically, the Church was the biggest supporter of scientific discovery in the Western world. Why would that be? Ah, yes, because for 1,000 years anything done outsie of the Church would get you excommunicated, essentially a death sentence. Who in their right mind would challenge such orthodoxy except for those few exceptionally brave people? How much more would we know now if the Church had just stepped aside and let scientists work unencumbered? How much further would science had progressed if we didn't have to REdiscover so much knowledge becuase the Church expunged so much pre-Christian knowledge the world had gained because it wasn't sanctioned?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

.

That's not even cute, just sad.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I'm just tired of Christians inserting their religion into the advancements of science, as though none of it could happen without the Church's blessing. Historically, the Church was the biggest supporter of scientific discovery in the Western world. Why would that be? Ah, yes, because for 1,000 years anything done outsie of the Church would get you excommunicated, essentially a death sentence. Who in their right mind would challenge such orthodoxy except for those few exceptionally brave people? How much more would we know now if the Church had just stepped aside and let scientists work unencumbered? How much further would science had progressed if we didn't have to REdiscover so much knowledge becuase the Church expunged so much pre-Christian knowledge the world had gained because it wasn't sanctioned?

I'm not a big fan of a lot that the Catholic Church has done in the distant past, as you may have noticed, so no argument that they did a lot of stifling in many ways. That said, there's a lot more to Christianity and Christian history than what a bunch of popes have done. You read the writings of folks like Newton, Pascal, etc. and they viewed their faith as integral to their scientific endeavors. You have a guy like Boyle who said that he felt his scientific efforts glorified God.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I'm not a big fan of a lot that the Catholic Church has done in the distant past, as you may have noticed, so no argument that they did a lot of stifling in many ways. That said, there's a lot more to Christianity and Christian history than what a bunch of popes have done. You read the writings of folks like Newton, Pascal, etc. and they viewed their faith as integral to their scientific endeavors. You have a guy like Boyle who said that he felt his scientific efforts glorified God.

Einstein and other non-Christians have said as much, too. In fact, he thought that physics was trying to solve God's logic. Just because individuals have ascribed their personal motivation to their religious convictions does not give a faith the right to co-opt the credit for discovery. It's petty and it's falacious.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Einstein and other non-Christians have said as much, too. In fact, he thought that physics was trying to solve God's logic. Just because individuals have ascribed their personal motivation to their religious convictions does not give a faith the right to co-opt the credit for discovery. It's petty and it's falacious.

I'm not sure why you're so upset about this. It doesn't have to be an either or situation. Some of the great scientific discoveries in history have been made by Christians who to probably varying extents tied their scientific endeavors with their religious beliefs. You have a guy like Newton who wrote more on religious matters than scientific matters. If those scientists credit their faith as playing a role, leave that to them. And those who don't, the same. I see Christian values and principals as being supportive of scientific endeavors so to me it makes sense that Christians would play a role in moving science forward. That in no way degrades the efforts of those who are Jewish or non-believing or whatever, as there obviously are many of those folks also.