[QUOTE="peter1191"]
In case you don't know, "Genetic_Code" is that one conservative christain that made that topic attacking liberalism yesterday (or today morning? Sorry I was on vacation so I'm not sure). Anyway, I didn't agree with all his views, but it struck me that much of what he said makes senses, and I can myself point out problems in liberalist philosophy (particularly in the US, since I live here and don't know "liberals" outside of it):
1) Unending assaults on Christianity:
This one really annoys me. We all believe in religious freedom, in the right for someone to choice to follow thee God, or to believe there is no God, and live as they choice. Thats great and all, except when liberals feel the need to attack Christianity at every turn. From attempting to ban all forms of religious expression in schools (I read on the news that a little boy got sent home for drawing a crucifix!), to turning "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" its unbelievable. In 2005, some guy in Denmark made a cartoon insulting Muhammad. I personally have a muslim friend (liberal herself) who was appalled. And rightfully so. Yet in the middle east churches were burned and some christians killed, where for all we know the cartoon could have been published by an atheist (I forgot who did it exactly, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Now, where is the religious freedom? You can't insult hinduism, islam, judiaism, or any oriental religion, hell any native american religion, but Christianity, one of the basis for western society, is beat down at every turn. And this leads to my second point:
2) Misinterpretation of separation of church and state:
We are all taught in grade school or high school important things our country did over its history, often given to us in honeyed words and patriotic ferver. One of these important "things" is the separation of church and state that took place in the 1780s-1790s when Thomas Jefferson had states end their support of state-churches. I believe that this separation-where the state is unaffiliated with the church and does not control it, and vice versa-is one of the most beautiful things about this country. NO LONGER CAN ANY ONE VIEW DOMINATE ANOTHER! But that DOES NOT MEAN, as it has come to mean in the 1960s, that religion should be pulverized from the public sphere. So what if we say "In God we trust?" So what if the supreme court has the Ten Commandments hanging from its walls? Who cares if Christmas invovles a baby Jesus (which was and is its intended "reason for the season")? Why is their such a hate for religion in the public sphere? I though religious freedom meant we all have the freedom to choice or reject? Why is it that when citizens want to express themselves, w/o imposing on another their views, are they dejected? Separation of church and state does not mean that any interaction therein by one's religion and one's political or social views is dangerous: all it means is that NO ONE CHURCH CAN DOMINATE THE GOVERNMENT, NOR ONE VIEW!!!! Not any religion, any social theory, and philosophical approach! What has happened to this idea of separation of church and state? Why has it become a playground of mulitcultural lunacy? Speaking of which.......
3) Insistence on Muliculturalism
Now, I'm all for being a global citizen. But I want to know that I have my feet planned "at home." Liberals have this incessent need to pretend like the US has no culture outside the accepting, secular, and at all times universal. Forget "Merry Christmas" for a second. Liberals somehow believe that we do not have to force immigrants to learn english. No, we should adapt to them by learning spanish! Well thats just dandy, except for the fact that my family has emmigrated from egypt, and we have arabic and english under our belt. Another language to learn at this point is absurd. And pointless. Shouldn''t I come to a country and except to integrate to its way of life w/o compromising my views? Whats compromising about learning to speak a different language? Are you going to go to paris and complain why they all speak french!?
And here is a point Genetic_Code hit on: moral relativity. It would seem that "moral relativity" only applies to other's views. As for theres, anyone whose rich has to pay more taxes, anyone who is poor/drop out is in general always the victim of a "corrupt" and "weak" and "unfair' system (aka capitalism). Now, I'm all for a progressive tax (a consumer tax, in my opinion, best forces the rich to pay taxes rather than look for loopholes). However, it would seem that this is how they view the world. Not in truth, but in their own lens. Why, they are just as ready to say (in advocacy for minorities) that a lack of a father figure has broken down many households, yet by that same token can easily say that homosexual relationships can lead to a stable enviornment for raising kids. Its all absurd. Abortion is "right" b/c your just killing a "collection of cells." WOW! WHAT A REVELATION! Imagine, can't you say that about EVERY LIVING THING IN EXISTENCE? I'm just a collection of cells, and when one nerve fires and the sodium and potassium pumps do their stuff, i feel pain. But its really just a bunch of cells, so my death is meaningless.
Now, I recognize the ability of liberals to really help society (aka I'm not some Rush or Glen Beck). When conservatives underrepresent minorities, there are always advocacy groups on the other side. Whenever conservatives get too patriotic or militaristic, liberals demand peace and moral authority (ironically, as it turns out). They always point out what needs to be improved in a society. But their philosophy just reeks of weakness and contradiction. I just had to put that out there. For a view that prides itself on being "academic" or for the well educated, it seems to be horribly in-cohesive
theone86
Assaults on Christianity, that one never gets old. Seriously, dude, just because someone espouses different beliefs than your own does not mean it's an attack on Christianity. I'll tell you what I told GC, go check out some of the writings by the Dalai Lama on religious cohesion. I personally don't like the idea that Mohammed is above reproach (OMFG, a liberal not agreeing wtih Islam!!!), but the religion and culture have evolved differently than Christianity and we should try to be more understanding of that. As for other religions not being open to insults, what world are you living in? Do you want to know how many Jewish jokes I saw on TV last week? You want me to count how many times I've heard a crack at Vishnu's expense? All religions are treated pretty much equally, the reason why Christinaity is, "under attack," is because it holds a place in our society above that of other religions. Why is there a big deal about the Ten Commandments being taken down? Well you don't very well see any other religion's moral tenets being displayed outside courthouses, do you? It's not the government's place to espouse one religion over another. The reason why it used to be acceptable is because no one questioned Christianity's hegemonic place, times are changing, get used to it. As for Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas, it's said to be inclusive and it IS inclusive of Christianity, there's no attack going on there. BTW, Jesus is NOT the reason for the season, the season was originally the winter solstice celebration, a celebration observed by heathens, that involved a ceremonial tree andgift-giving. The Christian origin was Martin Luther adapting these heathen traditions into the Christmas tradition.
Spanish is a global language, it's going to be the second-most spoken language in a short amount of time. Most people in other countries know at least a second language, most people in America do not.It's tantamount to people in Quebec not being able to speak English or French, there such a large population of both languages that not speaking either one is almost heresy.
A consumer tax favors the rich as they consume less than the rest of society. Homosexual couples have proven to be completely capable of providing stable environments for children without affecting them psychologically. No one said abortion is right, we just recognize it as an ambiguous issue and don't assume the government's right to dictate morality. As for all living things being a collection of cells, in the case of the first trimester there is no recognizable brain or thought activity occuring.
I will refer you to the same people I referred Genetic Code, Foucault and Lorraine Code. Uncertainty does not necessarily indicate weakness, it can indicate an empathic ability and an ability to understand perspectives outside your own. Truth is not a set commodity, it is in a constant state of flux. This does not mean there is no truth, but it does mean we cannot expect truth to remain static.
First and foremost, I can't imagine why there is "Christmas break" if we are celebrating this "heathen" holiday. I understand if traditions were adopted from non-Christain sources into Christmas, but this whole issue is beside the point.
Now, for the language barrier issue. I am not opposed (whatsoever) to the need for Americans to speak two languages. But first off: (1) your example of Canada is inappropriate because whereas that nation developed with two separate cultures under one the US developed as an ever expand set of english-speaking states and (2) I feel angry when some spanish person comes over to American and tells us what should or should not be spoken. Spanish maybe a widely spoken language, but those who come to American should speak adapt to what happens here, not the other way around. That said, I have taken about 6 years of spanish so far, and I'm pretty good with it, and have no antagonism with the speaking of it. We need not be self-contained, but at the same time this country isn't a mixing pot of languages, There is one dominate, plain and simple, and it should remain that way.
Now, for your Christianity remarks, you seem to be blinded by one simple fact: to you every religion is the same. To many liberals they claim this, then act differently. Yes, the Dali lama has been criticized. Yes, in Afghanistan militants have attacked a holy buddisht statue. But in the US (the country of interest) there is no such thing as equal criticism. Believe it or not, Christainty is moreso ridiculed, attacked, and put down, than any other in the public sphere. The ten commandments are not even a religious symbol alone: they are the very foundations of western legal systems! It has historical precedent! But it seems prudent to wipe out history if it relates to religion, in your eyes...
And know, to your point on uncertainty in truth. I understand where you are coming from, and many (religious) conservatives will claim to be absolutely right b/c they interpreted words in such a way and applied it to a modern issue with little relevance to said words. As society evolves more and more questions will arise. But let us not be foolish: there are some things which are clear. A baby had a heart beat only a few weeks after conception. It is a joke to be "uncertain" about the existence of a LIFE. It is supremely ironic that at a time when science has most advanced, has most connected our daily lives with things of intrinsic worth, like giving birth, and showed us that life can exist from the single-celled organism to the dinosaur, that we still question basics. Be uncertain about the uses of things such as stem cells, cloning, and so on, and even government-citizen interactions. But on things of basic worth, like the family unit, the process of conception and birth, etc, if you are unsure about how one should act in a given case, how things "should" be, then society becomes a hilarious joke. All societies, especially modern ones, should be build on the following principles (not all inclusive, but what I can think of): (1) the family unit, (2) respect for life, (3) respect for one another. Without these three points nothing can be achieved. This is basic. Be uncertain about more complicated issues. Don't come to the basics and say it is a "position of strength" to be uncertain. That is just wrong.
Log in to comment