CE Volume 3

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Chrisfan said:

Geez, I wish we could get back to the goold old days where you actually showed respected to opposing viewpoints.

Well actually, I was initially responding to Melon, whose usual Euro-bashing is something I find kind of irksome.

Hopefully in my last post I explained my position a bit more fully. Surely I can disagree with your viewpoint without it being 'disprespectful' as long as I explain clearly why I do disagree?

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

By the way, not all people have the time, nous, or organisational capacity to budget for and then regularly donate money to charity, even if they have the inclination to do so.

Also, it's hard as a citizen to gauge which areas need most attention, and where the money is most needed at any given time. Why not charitably vote in a government that believes in things like free medical drugs, universal healtyhcare, higher benefits, and in effect let those with the big picture apportion the funds accordingly? It's actually more effective that way, and I can assure you that the beneficiaries of those social benefits are more appreciative of that than they are of people sending some random funds to specialist charities when they can be arsed.

If you can accept that I believe that argument, then you should understand why I see reliance on private charity as misguided at best. At worst, I think the reliance on private charity as part of this "small government, personal responsibility" dogma is actually just an excuse for fat people to hold onto as much of their income as possible, for their own selfish concerns.

You and I will just have to continue to agree to disagree on this, because I view that line of thinking about as selfish and lazy as you view conservatism as being evil.

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

Well actually, I was initially responding to Melon, whose usual Euro-bashing is something I find kind of irksome.

I can appreciate how and why you'd find the Euro-bashing irksome, and I can't say that I like it or agree with it either. But as much as I resent Americans Euro-bashing, I also resent Europeans lamenting the terrible fate of an America that won't fall in line with their way of doing things. We're different, and it's going to stay that way. The beautiful thing is, we CAN have it both ways! You can do it your way, we can do it ours.

[Thorngrub]

How beautiful is that.

[Meursault]

Shane's What's wrong with the world #34

People are to willing to be led, without looking into where they are being led to.

[Proud]

dem dern communeists, killin' dem kids n' not supportin' are troops. wanna give 'em all a free ride, 'swat der doin'. think 'er patriotic? igota flag on mah booze bottle, truck, n' dawg! now tahm tah lissin too dah countrah stashin. yeeeee haw! go dubya!

(note: i'm messing around, don't take the above seriously.)

[chrisfan]

This one is just too funny to not share for Rocky and Stratman ... did you guys hear about Kerry's apparent blunder in campaigning in Michigan and Ohio this weekend? Apparently he made a comment about the U of Toledo / Bowling Green football rivalry while in Bowling Green, OH. He ended it saying something about nottaking sides in the greatness of Buckeye football ... not sure if he meant the Buckeye state, or the Ohio State Buckeyes. Then, on the next stop in Michigan, he comments on the same thing, again making reference to how much Ohioans love that Buckeye football ... not realizing what a dumb way to rally a crowd in MICHIGAN that was. Oops.

Yes Rocky, you THINK you can vote for Kerry. But can you REALLY vote for an apparent Ohio State fan?

[pissin2]

The whole thing is stupid. The world is fucked, and every politician is evil. It doesn't matter who is elected. Each year we will continue to go more and more down the shitter.

[Proud]

pissin, that's a bit extreme, but i understand how you feel. especially when i realize that we live in a nation that believes ronald reagan destroyed communism and general mcarthur was a smart man.

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

It is my position that rhetoric such as that you highlighted from the right does not really differ all that much from rhetoric from the left claiming that Republicans are stomping on the Constitution, acting in treasonous ways, etc etc. I would say that it's about equal in frequency. It SEEMS to me that on the left, it comes from higher-up office holders, but that could very well be my perception.

OK, I take your point here, but I really think this kind of rhetoric is substantively different from a blanket charge of anti-Americanism. While the language "stomping on" or "tearing up" the Constitution or whatever - can be awfully extreme, there's actually a specific, debatable charge here: that the Patriot Act and other policies of the Bush Administration, in the wake of 9/11, violate the United States Constitution. This charge is of course open to debate, but it's a meaningful position that one can muster compelling evidence for: after all, 8 Supreme Court Justices, including reliable strong conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist, agreed that the administration's policies of detaining U.S. citizens at a naval brig in South Carolina blatantly violated due process guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. 6 Supreme Court Justices, including O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter - Reagan and Bush appointees - believed that the administration's Guantanamo Bay policy is both a constitutional due process violation and a statutory habeas corpus violation. I'm not trotting out these decisions again to endorse them, but only to show that charges against the Bush Administration of disregarding the Constitution have a plausible, factual basis. Vague charges of "anti-americanism" - always undefined and polemical - simply don't have the same kind of substantive content, in my opinion.

Cheers,
M

[Mary]

I would very much like to believe that private charity would be sufficient to take care of the needs of poor people, but I just don't believe that history is on the side of this argument, in America or anywhere else. The push for some kind of government-disbursed poor aid emerged out of the total, abject failure of private charities to respond in any meaningful way to the increasing squalor of conditions in ethnic ghettoes in early industrial America. I think private charities might be reliable under certain pre-industrial, agrarian conditions (though I'd be skeptical there) but in a multicultural, urbanized, post-industrial society with the complexity (not to mention geography!) of Western societies today, I find it implausible to the point of utter incredulity that private charities could possibly even put a dent in the persistent problem of poverty.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

I would very much like to believe that private charity would be sufficient to take care of the needs of poor people, but I just don't believe that history is on the side of this argument, in America or anywhere else. The push for some kind of government-disbursed poor aid emerged out of the total, abject failure of private charities to respond in any meaningful way to the increasing squalor of conditions in ethnic ghettoes in early industrial America. I think private charities might be reliable under certain pre-industrial, agrarian conditions (though I'd be skeptical there) but in a multicultural, urbanized, post-industrial society with the complexity (not to mention geography!) of Western societies today, I find it implausible to the point of utter incredulity that private charities could possibly even put a dent in the persistent problem of poverty.

Cheers,
M

Well in all fairness, if we're talking about effectiveness, just how effective have government welfare programs been at eradicating the problems? If they truly worked well to get people back on their feet, would there have been the need for welfare reform designed to take people off of the support after a given amount of time?

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

Well in all fairness, if we're talking about effectiveness, just how effective have government welfare programs been at eradicating the problems? If they truly worked well to get people back on their feet, would there have been the need for welfare reform designed to take people off of the support after a given amount of time?

*putting on my socialist cap*

Well, see, I don't believe that America has ever had anything close to a meaningful system of welfare, and the latest "welfare reform" effort was just another draconian bite out of our already pathetic and deeply inadequate system of poor aid. On the other and, I believe that many European social democracies have established the efficacy of substantial public welfare systems. It is quite a shock for me travelling around large European cities - where are all the dirty, homeless people begging for change or picking food out of garbage bins? Oh, they're there all right - it's no paradise - but the difference in scope is soooo instantly noticeable and soooo dramatic that walking around SF after returning from Europe is a downright shocking experience.

I realize this is an incredibly long article, but it so beautifully articulates my views on welfare that I thought I'd provide a link, should anyone find themselves with, you know, 17 straight hours of spare time

www4.law.cornell.edu/working-papers/open/handler/handler2.html

Cheers,
M

[shin]

Melon1 said:

The Left generally hates, yes hates, the heritage of Christian morals in America and being identified by them when in fact that what this nation was founded on, not just "taxation without representation".

This is true. This nation was in fact founded on the hatred of what was then modern Christianity by the most important thinkers and influencers of the American Revolution.

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter."

-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785


www.thomaspaine.org.uk/quotes.htm
www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

(read those pages, interesting stuff)

A fascinating cover article the other month in Time magazine about Thomas Jefferson's belief in "deism", or of nature as "God", and that all references to "God" by Jefferson have always meant nature. Thus, Jefferson was a pagan. That's not even getting into how he clearly intended Church and state to be separated...

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

If anyone ever says "it doesn't say separation between church and state in the constitution", tell them that's where it came from.


My understanding of history has Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and Madison as the most important influences on the American Revolution and the birth of America. The only member of that quartet than felt anything better than open hostility to the Church and the practice (of not the concept) of Christianity was Franklin.

Suffice to say, Christianity DOES play a part in our nation's history, but saying that, for instance, the 10 Commandments play a larger role in it than the teachings of deism is a complete farce. The very structure of our government lends itself to the ancient Roman senate, which if anything says that *multiple* views of how best to run a country were considered. There was a clear attempt by these men to mold this country into what would now be considered a Communist ACLU godless immoral orgy, or something of the sort.

The toxic abuse of American history must end.

They believe that unborn babies should have no say or no right to decide whether or not they want to live.

I think you should rethink how you phrased this statement. Unless you truly believe that unborn children have the ability to make such complex decisions, since that's what you are outright declaring.

[Mary]

And if I could just add to shin's excellent post...

Regarding both the status of religion and the status of abortion in the early years of America:

Most restrictive abotrtion statutes in America date from the second half of the 19th century, post-Civil War. For approximately the first 100 years of our country, abortion was only prohibited after quickening - the first noticeable movemnt of the fetus, which was considered to occur around the 17th week of pregnancy. There is also substantial evidence that even in the late 19th century, when states began moving to criminalize earlier abortion procedures, that most states were motivated by a concern that abortion procedures were medically unsafe for the mother. In this country, widespread concern about the fetus is very much an invention of the 20th century. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that you can't claim pro-choicers are somehow out of step with the traditional values of America.

Cheers,
M