EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 42
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 16 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote: No I want to leave it as a question for you to consider. The point is not what my analysis is here. I don't want to present a positive thesis. Instead I want you to think about it and ask yourself whether you are really approaching the question of the role of religion in society with the appropriate seriousness and intellectual honesty. Chances are, if your narrative about this is "religion is a bad bad oppressor and we killed it with Science" you might want to consider whether this might be just a tad bit too easy to be true. In your experience, when you've really studied some question and gotten to the heart of it, no matter what it is, does your final most informed opinion sound as simple as that? I bet not. edit: I'm not trying to be mysterious. I don't have an easy answer to the question. But I am quite convinced that it is a serious question and that anybody who spouts off some hardline secularist dismissal has simply not grasped the complexity of the issue. edit: and don't you dare say that "samizdat, if you don't present a positive thesis that means I get to ignore you and keep on thinking that I know the unequivocal answer" because I will strangle a puppy First of all, and once again, Huckabee's point is about the separation of church and state (children being exposed to God in school), not the decline of adherence to religion. The separation of church and state does not imply anything regarding levels of adherence to religions. In fact, it was initially introduced to protect religious affiliation. Now that it's clear that we are not discussing Huckabee's point, and that we have moved on to the broader question of the role of religion in society (not simply its removal from the public sphere), my short answer to you (it's getting late here, so I don't really have the time to elaborate but I still wanted to give you an answer today) is that I do not see which roles of religion cannot be replaced (even sometimes advantageously) by non-religious institutions and practices. Morality? Parents, school and interactions with friends. Socialization? School, university, and group activities of almost any kind (and work...). "Spiritual elevation"? Regardless of the fact that the quality and value of the kind of "spiritual elevation" provided by religion can be debated, art, culture, philosophy, etc. can very well provide our minds with at least as valid non-materialistic considerations, knowledge, thoughts, and satisfaction. Also, critical thinking can, in my opinion, more easily be encouraged in a setting where you are not forced to make your own faith-based beliefs in order to integrate with others. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
My analysis of what has happened in the wake of the collapse of traditional religious structures in Western society is a little more cynical than yours, but I've been spending too much time ranting on the internet lately so I think for now I just want to plant the seed of doubt  cheers and goodnight\edit: I do not think that people adequately understand the collapse of the legitimacy of traditional forms of Christianity as a serious cultural crisis. They see it is a sort of belated escape from intellectual tyranny, and that is an incredibly shallow analysis. You have a crisis of that magnitude in the ideological foundations of your culture, you are gonna see the ripples for hundreds of years. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
we are talking about historical time here my friend | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: you have to realize the mainstream nature of secularism is a VERY recent phenomenon | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: it's not about numbers, it's about the status accorded to that signifier in the cultural discourse edit: like, if you say that you are one of those, people go "oh, you're one of those." If I start talking to people, they don't go "oh, you're one of those" because my ideas are, mm, not mainstream. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
edit: On December 16 2012 16:13 sam!zdat wrote: edit: like, if you say that you are one of those, people go "oh, you're one of those." If I start talking to people, they don't go "oh, you're one of those" because my ideas are, mm, not mainstream. I suspect that's more a function of the people you're generally around than anything else. Atheism/secularism is completely mainstream among the circles I primarily interact with, but that's academia, which as you note has been a forerunner here for a long time. I'd be uncomfortable bringing it up in more representative U.S. contexts. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Speaker John Boehner has proposed allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest Americans if President Barack Obama agrees to major entitlement cuts, according to several sources close to the talks. sourceIt is the first time Boehner has offered any boost in marginal tax rates for any income group, and it would represent a major concession for the Ohio Republican. Boehner suggested hiking the Bush-era tax rates for top wage earners, including those with annual incomes of $1 million or more annually, beginning Jan. 1, two sources said. Well, the campaign to replace this guy as Speaker just got major ammo. I was assured by the lot of my Washington friends, mostly staffers for Congressmen, that this guy knew what was at stake and would hold the line on taxes. They hollered at my misgivings and I was tempted to go along with them, presuming better knowledge on the Hill. Well, now I stand a much richer man for putting money down on it back at midterm elections. He is good at compromise, as the term stands in the nation's seat of power. He is good at consolidating his own power, which means the fight to replace him will not be easy. It will be waged nonetheless. I'm looking for the poll of registered Republicans on this decision, even as the accolades roll in for his bravery. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] + As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead." The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: See, you point out this dynamic as though a leftist has not thought of it and will therefore see the error of his ways, when in fact this problem of the flight of capital away from regulatory regimes is precisely the issue for the Left! | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote: Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On December 17 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote: And so now can we admit that the fundamental problem of 21st century is the porosity of nat'l borders to capital? This makes it sound like some natural condition instead of a deliberately-crafted set of circumstances though (and of course those who benefit from this arrangement like to argue that it is the former). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote: As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. I'll try and keep a tally for you, of the wealthy who leave the country post tax hike. It's the least I can do | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On December 17 2012 07:10 farvacola wrote: I'll try and keep a tally for you, of the wealthy who leave the country post tax hike. It's the least I can do Because you know these wealthy people? Personally?  (I know, I know, neither do I, lol.) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
| ||
