MyDD :: Conservatism and its Demise

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:49:51 AM EST

Conservatism is far from dead. The early 21st Century is a blip in a political screeen. After 2008, the GOP will most likely once again become more conservative and will hopefully be more consistently conservative. President Bush is not a conservative in many areas and neither is McCain. We need a party in the U.S. that will keep the USA from becoming a socialist state.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:56:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Says you.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. I said it and it is true. Over the decades, an obituary has been written for one party or another and from the supposed ashes rises the Phoenix of the party. My friend, history is on my side.

you do realize that America is (none / 0)

becoming a more progressive state then a conservative one right?

Which means eventually the majority might favor a type of goverment more in style like that of Europe (in terms of politics)?

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This could happen. It could also be that we become a total socialist or communist state. That is what happens when you take freedom away.

I see someone ate thier parnoid-Os today (none / 0)

Um I hate to break this to you but liberialism and even the socialist and countries like England don't take freedom away.

Unless you're talking about how it seems like there's no longer the freedom to disagree politely (according to the GOP) without being called an elitist, a snob, a traitor or something else?

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see someone ate thier parnoid-Os today (none / 0)

I don't recall calling anyone here a name. If you believe I have, please copy it here. I don't really care what the GOP says. I often disagree with it. Thanks.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you misunderstand (none / 0)

You're talking about freedoms being taking away, and so I brought up a freedom that while not taken away has been pushed into the background in the name of patriotism.

that's all I was saying, I never was talking about you specifically and I didn't mean to imply that either (if I did).

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you misunderstand (none / 0)

I think I just didn't get your point. Sorry. I'm afraid I still don't. Could you please restate it for me?

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you misunderstand (none / 0)

it's really not worth getting more into because I'm not sure how to really explain it and if i'm honest it's frankly a cheap shot at the GOP.

That said my history with the GOP makes it hard not to point out the inherent contradiction and hypocrisy the GOP has on so called 'activist judges' and on how you only really have the freedom to agree not disent.

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you misunderstand (none / 0)

I disagree with many Supreme Court decisions. If, at some point, you think I am being a hypocrite, please point it out to me when you see it. I am willing to back up my arguments. Thanks.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fair enough (none / 0)

to be frank I do not know enough about you to say for sure.

I just wanted to point out that often times (and it's just not conservatives, liberials can be just as bad sometimes about the 'activist judge' label sometimes) people only complain when it suits them and that can lead to hypocrisy.

just something to think about

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 05:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough (none / 0)

How about we take a case and discuss why the Supreme Court was right or wrong with a decision? I offer to you the case of Lawrence v. Texas. If this is one that you disagree with the decision, then we can take one of your choice as long as you think the decision is correct and I think it is wrong.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0 2pdf/02-102.pdf

This is a lengthy decision and I would have to read it again as it has been quite a while since I read it, but it would be worth it and it would probably interest some other people who are discussing a similar topic in another thread.

It would take quite an investment of time as one has to go back and read earlier decisions to fully understand the arguments made. It was a split decision 6 - 3. Let me know what you think.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm familair with Lawrence v Texas (none / 0)

because I've frequently debated for equal rights for homosexuals.

Thus I would say that Lawrence was a landmark decesion protecting mine and anyone elses' right to do pretty much what ever the hell I want in the privacy of my own home.

It was also a landmark decesion saying that equal protection and on due process.

It was also the foundation of what would come over the next couple years as the LGBT group would be able to challenge other laws (if I remember right the MA Surpreme Court cited Lawrence when it overturned the MA law against same sex marriage).

That's my opnion on the legality of it, I have a personal opnion but I'm not sure it is really revelent or would even help things here.

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm familair with Lawrence v Texas (none / 0)

There is no right to sodomy listed in the Constitution, just as there is no right to scam someone out of money by calls made from a bedroom. The State of Texas had laws against both items. Where in the Constitution is either of them constitutionally legal? Please cite the Section, clause or amendment. Thanks.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see someone ate thier parnoid-Os today (none / 0)

drache: Um I hate to break this to you but liberialism and even the socialist and countries like England don't take freedom away.

Les: Everytime the Congress oversteps its constitutional authority, it takes a slice of liberty away. It takes more money that I have earned and that I deserve and forces me to give it to others who have not earned it.

I have no objection to private charity for those who need it and deserve assistance and I willingly give. For the Federal Government to simply provide everyone with health insurance coverage, or food to many, or shelter to many, it is wrong in many ways and does diminish liberty.

I could go on at length on this subject, but I think I have given you enough to make myself clear.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

But the truth is that we probably just have different views on it.

Frankly I'm tired of people only claiming Congress or the courts only overstep thier authority when they disagree with the decesion.

Now maybe you're different, but well then again maybe not.

I'm sorry you don't think grouping together and forming a goverment doesn't mean you have some obligation to help others but if you don't like the agenda presented you can always vote against it.

That's what democracy is you know, the right to have your voice be heard even if it's just you.

But at the same time, democracy also means you have to accept that sometimes you're not in the majority.

I wasn't in the majority when Bush was first elected, but I accepted it as the supposed will of the people and that the country was at that time more conservative then I was.

I would humbly suggest you might want to prepare yourself for the day when the country is more progressive then you. Becuase all signs point to a realignment on par with teh Reagan era or FDR's New Deal era. And if that is indeed what the future holds then for the next 30 years you'll find yourself in a very different America.

Personally I think it's well over due and long needed, but then again I also believe we all have a responsiblity to reasonably help each other out, that the roads need to be maintained, and that just becuase someone makes 100+ million dollars that they shouldn't have more voice in the goverment then me. Among other things, so I welcome America shifting left.

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

I am not trying to step on your toes here, so please don't think I am trying to belitttle you by what I am about to say. That is definitely not my intention.

The U.S. is not a democracy. A true democracy would mean that you could vote on every bill that was proposed and some of the states, i.e. California, provide the opportunity to do that through the referendum process. We are a constitutional republic. This should mean that we live by the constitution and what it means and we elect people to represent us. You probably know all this, but I just want to be sure that we are clear on what the issues are.

I find Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court out of step with the Constitution in many areas. I try to remain consistent in my beliefs in that there are some things that probably I would like in the Constitution, but they aren't. On the contrary, there are limitations to Federal authority, but they do it anyway.

Where in the Constitution can it be found that Congress has an enumerated power to provide national health care, Social Security, or Medicate and Medicaid? How about welfare? I have read the Constitution. I have read many books on the subject and I have yet to find where the Federal Government has a constitionally provided authority to be involved in such areas of concern.

It used to be that the Constitution had to be amended to change it. Slaves were freed, were recognized to have certain rights, and were given the right to vote and it took 3 amendments to accomplish this. It took an amendment to given women the right to vote. It took amendment to prohibit the sale of liquor and it took another one to do away with that prohibition.

With that said, where is the amendment for the things that I mentioned or where is it to be found in the original Constitution?

I agree that we should help others if they need it and deserve it. If someone drops out of school, goes on drugs or alcohol, and cannot hold a job, I do not believe that I should be forced to pay taxes to maintain even a minimal lifestyle for that person; especially, when the payments are not connected to rehabilitation.

I believe in help this person; however, through private charity that is located in the community that the person resides. Local people can better diagnose the person's condition, needs, and provide direct assistance that will help the person actually change. Congressmen and Senators do not know the needs of these people. They prescribe funding, but much of the funding goes to waste because it is not directed at resolving the problem.

I am not sure how much has been spent at this date, but it is easily over 6 trillion dollars spent on welfare and transfer payments since 1968. Has poverty diminished greatly? No. Why not? Should we have spent all of our resources to make them middle class? Some people here want the income ceiling to virtually match the floor. That is taking liberty away from those who produce, those who earn, and those who deserve.

I agree that someone with $100 million should not have more of a voice than you do. However, they probably will have under virtually any system you wish to devise. Perfection is probably an unrealistic goal. We just need to ensure that we remain a true constitutional republic with the voters choosing the people who represent us.

Help others? Yes. At the point of a gun? No. I apologize if I got long-winded and here I only touched the surface.

Respectfully,

LesGovt

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

Look I'm aware of what America truely is which is actually a Representive Consitutional Republic; that said I prefer mostly to use the word democracy even if it is a bit wrong (as techinically we are a democracy just a specific sub group of goverment inside a broader definition).

It makes communicating easier.

So then you're a strict constitutionalist eh?

Then I guess you're also against our public interstate system?

Would you prefer a completely unregulated energy bill?

How about a completely unregulated flying system?

Or perhaps you'd like to remove union support?

Maybe you'd like to deal with your phone company when it can charge however much it wants?

There are ALOT of things that we do that aren't in teh consitution and were not foreseen by our Founding Fathers. But the truth is that to move at least a little on this issues (instead of waiting 10-20 years for each admendment) at some point in the late 1800s our Goverment started to just do it.

Now it's contraverisal i guess but at the same time there's so many things that we need our goverment to do that isn't in teh consitution that I find your arguement lacking.

And don't even get me started on charities, you may consider yourselve 'forced over the point of a gun' but frankly that's more then a little melodramatic.

Like I said if you don't like it you do have the power to challenge it, that said you may find the majority disagree with you and even in a Republic it's still the same outcome there (provided the consitution is being followed).

Finally, proverty in the US just won't disappear just because we shove money at it and you're oversimplifying things because over the last 40 years we have had a majority of the rule be by conservatives so it's not like we were seriously invested in wiping out proverty for the last 40 years and failed. More like Carter set some things in motion then Nixon ripped it about and so on.

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

I am a strict constructionist and I am because Madison, Jefferson and others told me that I should be. If you want the quotes, I will post them for you.

Interstate System: Article I, Section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

Would you prefer a completely unregulated energy bill? I would like energy to be as deregulated as possible. I am not against some regulation. The regulation just needs to be done by the State; except when energy sources move across state lines. Article I, Section 8:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

How about a completely unregulated flying system? Nope, I don't favor that and that is one that the Federal Government can regulate. Article I, Section 8:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Or perhaps you'd like to remove union support?

Sorry, I am not sure what you are talking about here. You'll need to explain for me to be able to respond.

Maybe you'd like to deal with your phone company when it can charge however much it wants?

Article I, Section 8:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

I agree that there are many things that were not planned by the Founding Fathers, but they made provisions for them. Here are the provisional clauses:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

and:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

drache: But the truth is that to move at least a little on this issues (instead of waiting 10-20 years for each admendment) at some point in the late 1800s our Goverment started to just do it.

There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Of those 10 were ratified in 1791. Of the remaining 17, 5 were ratified in the 1800s and 12 in the 1900s with the last one being as late as 1992. I agree that there was an ignoring of the Constitution that has taken place; however, you put it a bit too early. It began very slowly in the late 1920s and went full speed thru the 1930s and went crazy during the 60's and 70s. I began going full speed the mid to late 1930s after FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.

I thank you for one thing and that is admitting that the Constitution has been abused. You have left me with the impression that you are fine with this. Are you?

As for the point of a gun, may I suggest that you tell the IRS that you will no longer be paying your taxes as you protest (fill in the blank). When they come to visit, refuse to open the door. See how long it is before you are looking down the barrel of a rifle or pistol.

drache: (provided the consitution is being followed).

Les: But that's the rub. It isn't being followed.

Carter was after Ford who was after Nixon. The power of the purse is Congress and not the President. The Dems have controlled Congress far more than Republicans.

Whew! I am now tired and hungry. I better go eat. Why cannot I see posting to/from me in some threads and don't get alerts in others, i.e. the one I am responding to here? I had to go through this thread to find it.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

the roads though can not be maintained by the states alone and that is what that article provides for (if I am rememebering my classes right)

on energy: I hate to break this to you but most of the energy moves across state lines, you know those huge tall 50 Kv towers and lines? That's what they do.

More over that article says nothing about energy so perhaps you could do more then just say it does?

on flying: again it's not strictly commerence

unions: unions largely exist and were created because of Congress and it's support. Without Congress (as shown by Reagan) they can be busted and there is no provision for congress to do this.

I will conceede the phone companies (even though that's not strictly commerence but we have enough points right now)

Like I said I think Congress and the excutive branch have been acting outside of their strict consitutional limits for well over a century. I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing and even if it is how to correct it. Frankly though some of the most expansive increases have come under Republican control (see Reagan and Bush jr for example)

I didn't say your voice was refusing the IRS but that's an option I guess, no I was talking about voting and if you don't like being in the minority well you either can accept it or find a new country I guess. And I am not trying to be cute here just realistic.

On the courts, actually the arguement I hear most is that it start ~1896 with the establishment of the IRS though I'd love to know what exactly happened in the 60s and 70s that was so out of bounds.

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

Your first one about roads confuses me since I cited the clause that cover Federal involvement.

As for the energy, if you are talking about the movement of gas or oil or other items across state line, then you are taling about interstate commerce and I cited the clause for that too. My thought here was a power plant that produces energy for a community. That isn't necessarily interstate commerce.

The commerce clause doesn't mention any specific endeavor or product. It does refer to interstate commerce.

Most flight is part of interstate commerce in airlines, charters and cargo carriers. Also, most private aircraft can or do fly from state A to state B.

Unions - The government should not be financially supported by the Federal Govt and nor should business.

Phone companies are interstate commerce if their lines run across state lines or calls can be made across state lines, i.e cell phones. It certainly is commerce.

As for which party is to blame for stretching the Constitution beyond the authority for the Federal Govt, I agree that both parties are duplicitous. You think it is the Republicans and I think it is easily the Dems. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, billions of transfer payments, etc., etc., etc.

About the IRS, you has said that I was being melodramtic with the "at gunpoint" comment. I was providing an example of how you have do things or else it will be by gunpoint.

I have no problem with the IRS being part of the Federal Government. The 60s and 70s included cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and other similar types of cases.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

The roads thing can be conceeded by me because it's not easy to argue many points at once.

My only real point is that back then there was no real need for road maintaince now roads need alot of maintaince and it's something I doubt the Founding Fathers thought about.

To be fair though the world has changed alot.

On energy, on I'm talking about energy, power lines carry electricity not gas not oil and it doesn't seem to be covered by that provision. See CA 2000-2002 as to why unregulating that market is a really bad idea.

On flight, actually most flights are by air lines and for travel purposes. And as you are a strict constitutionalist then that clearly isn't exactly commerence.

Unions your comment makes no sense

Phone Companies, again I'm okay conceeding this becuase it makes the dicussion more narrow and specific and we can concentrate on fewer points and thus go into more detail.

You don't like social security? Frankly I'm not surprised but really you should review the history as to why it exists.

There are compelling reasons for SS and frankly you ignore history and your own peril.

And yes you have to do some things as demanded by the goverment, that's what happens when you're in the minoriy.

As for those decesions, I'd have to look up the first but Roe is and was far from activism; the truth is that the so called 'pro-life' people have no legal way short of an admendment to stop 95% of abortions. You don't have to like it but it's consitutionally supported.

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

Where in the Constitution does it provide the Federal Government with the authority to rule on whether or not there is anyone who has the right to destroy an innocent, unborn human life?

Where do you find in the Constitution any authority for the Federal Governmnent to enact legislation for any type of retirement program?

I would not be at any peril if I invested my own money and could draw the better gains that Social Security. If it were an investment program that was just sitting there and you could put your money into it, would you? I sure the heck wouldn't.

Let's please get something straight. If I am in the minority, and that is the only issue of concern, then I fully accept that I am in the minority and I don't win on an issue. That is not my beef. My beef is that I can even be in the majority and have a beef. The problem is not majority or minority or winning or losing, it is the destruction of the Constitution.

As for the rest, I still give you the Commerce Clause.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you are in the minority (none / 0)

And further it's not a child get the words right, an 'unborn child' is a fetus. Please don't try cheap tricks because they won't work.

You're also oversimplifying (as many that would call themselves 'pro life' do) the issue at hand.

Abortion isn't something you can sum up in one one sentence and there is a right for women to have the final say over thier bodies.

It's as simple as that, I'm sorry you don't like the decesion but it's founded on the constitution.

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you are in the minority (none / 0)

drache: And further it's not a child get the words right, an 'unborn child' is a fetus. Please don't try cheap tricks because they won't work.

Les: I did not say "unborn child." If you plan to criticize what I say, you ought to get my words correct. I said, "innocent unborn human life." And that phrase is entirely correct, both scientifically and philosophically.

drache: You're also oversimplifying (as many that would call themselves 'pro life' do) the issue at hand.

Abortion isn't something you can sum up in one one sentence and there is a right for women to have the final say over thier bodies.

Les: When was it that a woman's body included penus?

drache: It's as simple as that, I'm sorry you don't like the decesion but it's founded on the constitution.

Les: Try providing the clause in the Constitution that covers this. I have yet to see it and this is at least the second time that I have asked you for it.

by LesGovt on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

drache: Like I said I think Congress and the excutive branch have been acting outside of their strict consitutional limits for well over a century. I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing...

Les: So you are not sure that violating the Constitution is a bad thing, heh? I think most liberals agree with you. How about we just throw the Constitution into a septic tank and move on from there? That ought to delight a few folks.

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and we believe in the rule of law... or we don't. Do you believe in the rule of law? If yes, then I ask you and your liberal friends to support the Constitution.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

This is just a classic strawman.

Seriously I already showed several things that aren't strictly on the consitution that without them we the peopel would be in trouble.

If you want to keep up ignoring my points and selectively misquote my position that's fine but as far as I'm concerned you can do it talking to the air.

I'm tired of being told I don't support the consitution and I'm even tireder of the implication that I'm unpatroitic. So I'm not going to reply to you because I've got better things to do with my time.

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you really want to get into this we can (none / 0)

drache: If you want to keep up ignoring my points and selectively misquote my position that's fine but as far as I'm concerned you can do it talking to the air.

Les: I did not misquote your position. I quoted you directly. If you wish to take back your statement, you can. If you wish to leave it out there, you can do that too. I really don't care. In spite of your righteous indignation, you made the statement and it appears that you could be pleased that the Constitution has been evaded. It happens all the time. I have asked you to show me where certain things are in the Constitution and I have yet to see the response pointing where I can find them.

I will do you a favor and let you talk to air. Goodbye.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

then I suggest you reread my comments (none / 0)

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: then I suggest you reread my comments (none / 0)

drache earlier: Like I said I think Congress and the excutive branch have been acting outside of their strict consitutional limits for well over a century. I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing...

Les replied: So you are not sure that violating the Constitution is a bad thing, heh? I think most liberals agree with you. How about we just throw the Constitution into a septic tank and move on from there? That ought to delight a few folks.

Les: "...outside of their strict consitutional limits..." "...outside of their strict consitutional limits..." "...outside of their strict consitutional limits..." "...outside of their strict consitutional limits..."

"I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing..." "I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing..." "I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing..." "I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing..." "I'm not sure if that's completely a bad thing..."

by LesGovt on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is The October Protocol?

becoming a more progressive state then a conservative one right?

Debatable.

by Koan on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

America is definitely becoming a less religious state, which I for one see as a greatly progressive evolution. And if we go by Europe as a guide (admittedly, a small sample), more atheism/agnosticism tends to equal less conservatism.

What is The October Protocol?

Maybe. I don't see less religious as more progressive, and I don't see evidence of American society becoming less religious anyway. The religious right as a political movement seems to be losing steam, but I think it's because the policies they push for are only tenuously related to the religious values that they claim to uphold.

Positions I'd call non-progressive such as support for the death penalty, opposition to gun control, and discomfort with the welfare state seem to be pretty entrenched in mainstream American politics.

I will say that the Obama-McCain matchup seems to have shifted the frame of political discourse a step or two to the left, for this election at least. (Witness McCain making noise about global warming--a topic that was anathema to most conservatives.) Which is a good thing.

by Koan on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=281 &article=0

"A new survey in the U.S. shows that the number of 18-25 year olds who are atheist, agnostic or nonreligious has increased from 11 percent in 1986 to 20 percent today."

"[Generation] Nexters [Millenials/Gen Y] are among the least likely to attend church regularly: 32 percent attend at least once a week compared with 40 percent of those over age 25."

"Nearly two-thirds of Nexters (63 percent) believe humans and other living things evolved over time. By contrast, Americans over the age of 40 favor Creationist accounts over evolutionary theory."

This was done by the Pew Center for Research.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most Americans are religious people. It is far from an agnostic country. Again, this is wishful thinking.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with you. But I also believe it is (slowly) changing, as per the poll I quoted.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it does, it will not be for the good.

as if (none / 0)

agnosics and atheists and hell even non Christian are just as (if not more moral) then the so called moral voters.

Our country was founded absent god for the most part and it did fine though the first 150 years with little injecting of religion into people's faces.

Hell it wasn't till McCarthyism that religion really started butting into goverment and into people's faces.

The sky is not falling

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as if (none / 0)

Religion was a very large component of our country at its founding. Several states had state religions at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights did not impact what the States could or could not do concerning religion.

I'm sure that some atheists are moral. I know that an agnostic can be moral as I am moral.

If you would like me to share some info about religion and the Founding, just let me know. I will gladly share it.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

please (none / 0)

don't assume you're dealing with some that knows little or nothing.

Becuase if you do I'll make you look foolish.

Of the founding fathers there were some that were clearly and deeply religious but a number of the 'big names' (like Jefferson) were deists and frankly there's alot of evidence that if they could have been they'd been agnosic or atheist (but you had to expouse belief in god even if it was impersonal)

So no we were not founded as a religious country and we definitely were not founded to expose a religion or a group of religions. We were founded as a nation of outcasts really, people that didn't or couldn't fit in in English society at the time with a few that came becuase of other reasons.

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please (none / 0)

Sorry, but we must be reading far different history books. Of the Founders, the most obvious Deist was Benjamin Franklin, but he was not anti-religion. About a couple of months ago, I just finished a biography of Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I will try to find some passages from the book and post them. He was not a Christian, and he was a Deist, but a Deist believes in God. A Deist is not an agnostic or an atheist. Franklin from time to time even attended Christian church services. So did Jefferson and Jefferson even attended Christian services that were held in Federal Buildings. From the biography, "...he settled instead for the simple creed that the best way to serve God was doing good to others." That's not the quote I was seeking as there are much better ones.

The First Amendment did not even protect religious liberty and did not erect "a wall of separation" between church and state. Shall we try this as a topic and see where it leads us?

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please (none / 0)

we must be

Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin.
source here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fa thers_of_the_United_States#Religion

or we can go with
http://www.religion-online.org/showartic le.asp?title=1682

as a rebutal to your assertation that the first admendment did not create a wall of seperation becuase I think that's a much more elegant answer then mine (without writing my own essay that is)

more on the founding fathers:
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/ the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious- beliefs/

I can keep this up all night and it is a fact that back then that if you said you were atheist or agnostic any one of several churches would have you arrested and if you were lucky you died quickly.

Thus in the age of enlightenment deism became what is today's agnostism and even atheism.

Like I said I have more sources becuase I've debated this often on the internet so if you need more just ask

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please (none / 0)

I have debated this online since 1994. There were states with state religions at the time of and after the founding and the First Amendment. Under your scenario, that could not be.

As for my statement about the First Amendment not creating a wall or even protecting religious rights, you miss the point of the Bill of Rights and the history behind it. First, when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to Congress, he included the following amendment:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

There are several good books about the Bill of Rights, but the above comes from The Origins of the Bill of Rights, by Leonard Levy. It's on page 40.

That proposed amendment is not part of the Constitution and never was, and yet Madison proposed it. Congress did not accept that clause. They rejected it; therefore, religion was an issue for the states and not the Federal Government.

The Bill of Rights were intended to protect citizens from the Federal Government and not from the States. Madison had thought this to be unnecessary, but he changed his mind at the end of the Virginia ratification convention.

It is here that I will conclude the discussion on religion. It matters not to me what you believe. You will believe what you will no matter how much evidence I produce. It's not worth the hassle.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it matters not what I believe (none / 0)

but can prove

For example, you say states had offical religions, which ones and when were they removed? were they removed? What were the circumstances?

I've provided links to support my position, showing that it's more then what I believe.

You haven't and thus what's not worth the hassle is debating someone that only wants to debate thier opnion.

Nice strawman though

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Franklin (none / 0)

"I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe, That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children."

The system of morals that Jesus provided, Pranklin replied, "was the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.

"I have," he declared, "some doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, which I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."

Benjamin Franklin, An American Life by Walter Isaacson

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We will have to agree to disagree on that. Do you support the idea of non-Christian religious beliefs in government? And if only Christian, what denomination?

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We may and probably will always disagree on most everything, but that's okay. Hopefully, you will someday see the error of your ways. :-) <---- Just to point out the obvious, :-) <---- means humor.

I support the people. If the people of Birmingham, AL, want to put a Buddha in their court house, let them do so. If the people of Madison, WI, want to have creche on the lawn outside of the state capitol, I'm fine with that too.

If a state legislature wants to borrow some legal tenet from Islam and wants to enact it by way of legislation and the majority of the people of that state support its enactment, it is fine by me as long as it is not in my state AND that I disagree with the tenet. But then, if the tenet was Christian and if it was in my state and if I disagreed with it, I would fight against that one too.

How about those things? Do you agree that these are appropriate or do we disagree again?

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I support a total separation of Church and state, but in general, I agree that the people's will is the most important thing.

What if your state enacts a tenet from any religion that you disagree with? Let's say something from the Old Testament, where you are required to stone any woman who is an adulterer. (I tried to pick one of the more outlandish ones to ensure you would disagree with it)

Would you move to a different state? I understand that and wouldn't blame you.

But if the people can make decisions about religious symbols, why not about gay marriage? If gay marriage passes a referendum (or more accurately, if anti-gay marriage amendments DON'T pass a referendum), would you be ok with that?

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If stoning was enacted in Missouri, I probably would not move, but would hopefully fight it.

As for laws passed by a legislature and not manufactured by a court, and if the people agreed with the law, then I would accept that this law was the law.

So far every state that has attempted to pass a referendum against same-sex marriage haa succeeded and by large percentages. Do you accept the people's decision?

My bet is that you don't. Hmmmmm. It just might be that the conservative is the tolerant one. :-)

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are some issues that the people can not be trusted to do the right thing on their own. Slavery is one. Would a referendum on slavery have passed in the South in 1860? How about in 1900? How about in 1960? And how sure are we that it would pass in every state in 2008? Same goes for desegregation.

I trust the courts to create equality between types of marriage when there is no good logical reason to deny it. There is a religious reason, which is why churches aren't required to officiate for gay marriages. But there isn't a good non-religious reason (in my opinion).

I don't expect people to suddenly wake up and say "Hey, gay people are fine" after years and years of thinking it was a sin. I try to look at the big picture and hope that in several decades it won't even be an issue. I understand people that think it's a sin or immoral or disgusting, but I strongly disagree.

If enough voters care enough to pass an amendment denying gay marriage, the courts are not allowed to overturn it. So I'd abide by it, obviously.

I think the bare minimum needs to be civil unions, and we can debate whether gay couples get to use the word "marriage" or not.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html #Am15

ProgressiveDL: There are some issues that the people can not be trusted to do the right thing on their own. Slavery is one. Would a referendum on slavery have passed in the South in 1860?

Les: No, but an amendment passed and then ratified in 1870. I believe that an amendment to the Constitution carries far more weight than any referendum.

ProgressiveDL: How about in 1900? How about in 1960? And how sure are we that it would pass in every state in 2008?

Les: It happened long before any of these dates. Here is what the Thirteenth Amendment says:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

ProgressiveDL: Same goes for desegregation.

Les: We know that true desegregation has never really occurred. Have you been to an inner city lately. The best way to effect change is to have the people through its representatives to effect the change. Brown v. Board of Education had great intentions, but great intentions are not results.

ProgressiveDL: I trust the courts to create equality between types of marriage when there is no good logical reason to deny it.

Les: Yeah, what's the need for any constitution anyway?

ProgressiveDL: There is a religious reason, which is why churches aren't required to officiate for gay marriages. But there isn't a good non-religious reason (in my opinion).

Les: Churches do not pass laws about marriages. State legislatures do that.

ProgressiveDL: I don't expect people to suddenly wake up and say "Hey, gay people are fine" after years and years of thinking it was a sin. I try to look at the big picture and hope that in several decades it won't even be an issue. I understand people that think it's a sin or immoral or disgusting, but I strongly disagree.

Les: Being a tolerant conservative, I don't care whether homosexuals are homosexuals. Just don't push the homosexual agenda on the public. The public has very notably stood up against that pressure.

ProgressiveDL: If enough voters care enough to pass an amendment denying gay marriage, the courts are not allowed to overturn it. So I'd abide by it, obviously.

Les: Voters don't even need an amendment to deny homosexual from getting "married." They can simply do that constitutionally by referendum. Do you abide by referendums?

ProgressiveDL: I think the bare minimum needs to be civil unions, and we can debate whether gay couples get to use the word "marriage" or not.

Les: Sorry, but I disagree. A marriage by any other name is a marriage.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We obviously will continue to disagree about the merits of gay marriage, and that's fine. But I do need to correct one of your points. The 13th Amendment was passed ONLY because of Reconstruction. The Southern states were forcibly held (with the backing of the US military) by Northerners, blacks, and anti-slavery Southerners for more than 10 years until 1876. The only reason the Amendments got passed in the South was because the North was pulling the strings. There is no way any of them would have passed had the North just left the South to their own devices.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:46:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see where that corrects any point that I made as I don't disagree with your analysis. The Republicans were on the right side of the issue of slavery and the Democrats had it wrong.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:49:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And the South was solidly Democratic. The Republicans were northern/northeastern elites. That sound like today's Republicans?

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, so you agree with me that the GOP freed the slaves and the Democrats were obstructionists. See, we can agree on something. :-)

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I totally agree. FDR transformed the Democratic Party to the party it is today and JFK completed the North/South, Blue/Red electoral map swap. For example, saying that Lincoln is a predecessor of today's Republicans is technically true, but a severe distortion.

The Dixiecrats were the old Democrats and when they left the party, the Democrats became the Northern, liberals that we tend to think of today. The Dixiecrats were eventually subsumed into the Republican Party.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So the Dixiecrats joined the party that had the largest percentage support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hmmmm. That's intriguing. Maybe the Dixiecrats changed for reasons unrelated to race. Maybe they believed in the authority granted by the Constitution to States. Maybe they did not believe in the nanny state. There are all kinds of reasons why people in the South switched parties, but I doubt race was one of them.

Don't forget, it was a Democrat who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama and would not let blacks enter until the Federal Government stopped him.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha, are you defending the Dixiecrats!? I hope I am misinterpreting your post, because I'm positive that's a bannable offense.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can get banned if I say that the Dixiecrats joined the party who had the highest percentage of votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Wow! How is that defending the Dixiecrats? Is truth not accepted here?

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your tone makes it sound like you are trying to uplift them or somehow mitigate the vileness of their positions.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My tone? LOL! This is text. You don't know what my tone is. I believe it is vile to suggest tha the ceiling for income should not be far above the floor. Is someone who suggests that vile? I certainly think so. :-)

no it's not (none / 0)

see the poll and research cited by the other commentor

go look up the front page story on myDD last week about how people identify themselves when you don't use loaded words

America is tilting back left, a realignment of the country is coming and it's coming like a glacial.

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even if there is a realignment, it does not mean conservatism is dead. You guys seem to want to write into events more than actually exists. That is called hyperbole or, in this case, probably just wishful thinking.

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Conservatism (and by this, I think most of us mean "neoconservatism" may not be dead, but it is changing). The type of conservatism that means smaller government, lower taxes, and "common sense" will always be around in some form. The neoconservative ideals of preemptive strikes, a unitary president, and fear tactics to scare up votes, is definitely in trouble.

by LesGovt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am a conservative. I am not now nor have I ever been a "neoconservative." I believe in balancing the budget. I believe in cutting the size of government. I believe in bringing the government closer to the people. I believe in positive virtues and against licentiousness. I believe in a strong defense. And, I believe in abiding by the intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

So, if this "neoconservativism" dies, it is no skin off my nose.

that's fine (none / 0)

and I apologize for not being clear but the truth is that true conservatism has been long been the minority in the GOP and instead the so called 'neocon' ideals have been pushed and pushed and now it truely is blowing up.

I frankly take no real comfort in that though because I believe in balance.

That said like I said the country is right now more progressive then conservative, (it's like 54% to 46% or something like that according to the study highlighted last week). It's sublte but that's how it's been trending.

That's all I'm saying

by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Balances change and changing balances do not make a philosophy dead.

the philosphy of conservatism will not be dead, at least not any time soon.

Any one telling you that is just crazy

I'm not agruing conversatism as the ideal goes (and I mean the real definition of it not the 'neocon' idea that has been popular for the last 20 years)

and let me just say I look foward to it, while I don't agree to quote Patton 'If everyone is thinking alike then someone isn't thinking'.

I want people to challenge me on my views, I want people to think differently because that more then anything has made our country great. And a honest, fair and true exchange of ideas will continue to make our country great

by drache on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:49:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, sure. Seek the impossible. :-)

i'd rather seek the impossible and fail then never try

by drache on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is not neoconservatism, that's the real ideal kind of conservatism. I respect your kind of conservatism, though I disagree on many positions. I don't respect neoconservatism at all because it is inherently disingenuous and is all about getting power.

by LesGovt on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you might also need to know that I support the war on terror and the war in Iraq as they are the right thing to do and I want to win. Does this change your mind?

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I still respect conservatism, but it makes me think you are actually a neoconservative. Not enough evidence for me to know for sure. Do you support bombing Iran? FISA? Waterboarding/torture?

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You may think what you wish. What you think has no bearing on what I am.

I certainly do not want to bomb Iran, but I would if I had to do so.
I have no opinion on FISA.
Waterboarding is nt preferred, but under certain conditions, I would do it.

Are you for:

Providing Miranda rights to armed non-uniform combatants on the battlefield when they are captured?

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Define "on the battlefield." If it is a pitched battle in Afghanistan and they are clearly shooting at US troops, then no Miranda rights for them. They are enemy troops.

If they are some random Iraqi asleep in their bed, then I don't care how much "evidence" we have, we have to treat them like arrested criminals. If it is in Iraq, we need to follow Iraqi law. If it is in America, we follow American law. Simple as that.

Someone is only an enemy combatant if they are clearly captured while in the act of war. Anything else and we treat them as an arrested criminal.

And waterboarding is never ok. It's not because it's "not nice." It's because it destroys our moral standing and makes it more likely our own troops (and citizens) will be tortured abroad, all the while providing suspect intelligence.

P.S. I don't believe you that you have no opinion on FISA. So I will assume you are all for warrantless wiretapping based on your previous posts. I would say you are a neoconservative. Sorry to burst your bubble.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ProgressiveDL: P.S. I don't believe you that you have no opinion on FISA. So I will assume you are all for warrantless wiretapping based on your previous posts. I would say you are a neoconservative. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Les: You have burst no bubble; except one that might exist in your mind. As I said, I really don't care what you think about me as I know who I am.

With regards to FISA, I have mixed feelings about warrantless wiretapping. I don't want people's phones tapped for any reason without proper cause. I further understand that throwaway cell phones make warrantless wiretapping an exercise in total futility.

My guess is that if we did not have warrantless wiretapping, you would blame President Bush if we were attacked again for not protecting us. You apparently think you see this issue clearly. I do not as there is a lot of what ifs that accompany it.

Sorry, one with arms at time of battle who have been brought to Cuba are included with those captured sleeping with the enemy. If they are to have constitutional rights, then all must receive Miranda. Either that or there is a bit of flipflopping going on here.

As for waterboarding, if it saves American lives, under certain circumstances, do it. You go ahead and let the Americans die. I wouldn't.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm willing to take the .001% chance of being killed in a terrorist act in exchange for not having my freedoms taken away. I don't blame Clinton for not preventing 9/11 (Bush was on the job for 7 months, so it's not his fault either), so why would I blame Bush?

I have no problem with the FISA court having oversight to allow warrantless wiretapping, and there is an emergency procedure to get retroactive approval. What I have a problem with is Bush and his cronies unilaterally deciding who and when they will tap for any reason and then not telling anyone about it.

I also have a problem with the fact that the No Fly List has been completely abused to place non-criminal anti-war activists on it. I don't trust the Bush administration to do the right thing behind closed doors when no one is looking.

by LesGovt on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is the why do I blame Bush a rhetorical question. I have responded to my sentiments about FISA, so I have nothing to add.

by Lakrosse on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

are you a GOP troll? because it sounds like you are.

by NY Writer on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you an idiot? Because it sounds like you are.