Consensus in Politics

[Overdog]

The reality to me is that the religious right has no real strength in this increasingly secular country. It would be foolish to think they could make or change any laws by themselves.

The reality to me is that I can't see why people are afraid of having their countries' historical mottos or religious inscriptions on public buildings. Does this create a threat to your life, liberty or property? Do the traditions of your country upset you? Would you remove all vestiges of our collective past?

Would you outlaw the practice of Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Catholicism?

Do you think judicial decisions would be affected by the presence of the TC?

 

You should understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. We can't allow religion in public institutions because there are too many of them. As well, the Constitution forbids it.

 

Thank god, and I'm an atheist, for christ sakes!!!

[Zythryn]

Zythryn, go back to post #26 in this thread. Answer those questions I asked if you expect anything more from me. Also get a dictionary, look up the words ''allow'' and '' indulge''.

 

Ok Questor, I addressed your first demand in my previous post.

As to your second, I did that as well. So I take it when you said:

I think homosexuals should be treated like anyone else, and I think they should behave like anyone else instead of indulging in their ''freak'' show parades,

I misunderstood you. I read it as 'society should not indulge/allow homosexuals behavior such as the parade in San Francisco'. Aparently that is not what you meant, and I accept that.

So now, since you indicated I get a question now that I have answered yours.

How is it that homosexuals are not behaving like anyone else? And how is it that this behavior should be 'controlled' and by whom?

[questor]

Reason, will you look up the word ''consensus'' in the dictionary? That will give you the definition.

[questor]

Moontan, tell me how many people compose the religious right? Tell me any legislation they have influenced? You live in a small area, we're talking about the whole country. Tell me what you fear the religious right will do to harm your life style. This is a bogus argument.

[questor]

Overdog, I'm sure that being an atheist has great social value. Could you tell me why atheism is helpful to you, your society or country?

[Overdog]

Here's what I posted:

You should understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. We can't allow religion in public institutions because there are too many of them. As well, the Constitution forbids it.

 

Thank god, and I'm an atheist, for christ sakes!!!

 

My only reason for mentioning my personal belief was to support my larger point about freedom FROM religion, a point which you did not respond to.

 

Beyond just mentioning it for that specific reason (as well as an attempt to add a bit of humor), I am not willing to engage in any discussion of my personal beliefs.

[nutronjon]

Moontan, tell me how many people compose the religious right? Tell me any legislation they have influenced? You live in a small area, we're talking about the whole country. Tell me what you fear the religious right will do to harm your life style. This is a bogus argument.

 

This is a bad question to ask at this time. The Christian right is what elected Bush twice. Pat Robinson, the evangalist TV minister, supports Israel and bad talks the Palestinians and raising money to bring more Jews into Israel and to provide for them once they get to Israel. He is a Zoinist Christian, believing Jesus will return when the Jews rebuild their temple, where bloody animal sacrifices were made for superstitious reasons. Our country with a law against supporting any one religion, gives Israel more foriegn than any other country, and destablized the balance in the mid east, by contributing to Israel's weapon supply and military technology, including doing nothing while Israel developed a nuclear bomb. Like these religious folks could start a nuclear war that could destroy live on this planet.

 

The value of atheist is they might correct the wrongs of religious folks, and there are many, including a justice system based on the superstitious notion of good and evil people.

[nutronjon]

questor,

 

Maybe you'd be willing to define what you mean by "consensus in politics."

 

Are you just talking about a majority opinion about politics? Is our system of government not already based on a majority of opinion?

 

Ouch, you and questor have both said shocking questions. Many of us believe, it is not the majority running politics in the US, but coorperate powers and wall street. There are books written about this. It was a major concern toward the end of WWII, because the government had contracts with so much industry. We demobilized the military and weapons industry at the end of WWII, but put everything back in place with the Korean war and the Eisenhower administration permanent institutionalized the Military/Industrail Complex and replace liberal education with education for technology, to serve the Military/Industrial complex, and the public unaware of these things elected the son of the man who bragged the US is leader of the New World Order which is using the military to defend economic interest around the world, and what Hitler's New World Order was all about.

 

We can not have a consensus on this, because the common man doesn't have a glue what is happening. He is voting out of self interest and is not the political animal we need to be in the modern world, where we can destroy a country in a few hours, without distrubing our morning coffee. This high tech military capability has taken the our war machine out of the hands of the people, and puts it in the hands of industrialist.

[Overdog]

...We can not have a consensus on this, because the common man doesn't have a glue what is happening. He is voting out of self interest and is not the political animal we need to be in the modern world, where we can destroy a country in a few hours, without distrubing our morning coffee. This high tech military capability has taken the our war machine out of the hands of the people, and puts it in the hands of industrialist.

 

Nutron, try to calm down. Perhaps you've had a little too much of that morning coffee, because this is comming across as a bit incoherrent...

 

Could you re-state, please?

[REASON]

Reason, will you look up the word ''consensus'' in the dictionary? That will give you the definition.

 

Well, there are generally two common usages for the term "consensus."

 

con·sen·sus

 

–noun, plural -sus·es.

 

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

 

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

 

 

—Usage note Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion. The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus is objected to for similar reasons. Consensus is now widely used attributively, esp. in the phrase consensus politics.

 

Knowing this is why I asked you what you mean when you say "Consensus in Politics" because I don't know if your intent is to argue in favor of a majority of opinion, or a general agreement amongst the population. Granted, the distinctions are not great, but I tend to think that you are not just advocating a consensus in politics that simply amounts to a majority of opinion. I think you would like a general agreement amongst the population, and I think that you believe the only acceptable general agreement that can be reached, is one that is consistent with your political ideology.

 

Do you disagree?

 

Would you be willing to allow a more liberal solution to a particular problem if it meant achieving a consensus in politics?

 

 

Ouch, you and questor have both said shocking questions. Many of us believe, it is not the majority running politics in the US, but coorperate powers and wall street.

 

I do not disagree that there is an undue amount of influence by special interests in American politics. What I am talking about is the basic process that makes our Democratic Republic functional - the Majority Vote.

 

The majority vote represents a consensus in politics. But I don't believe this is the type of consensus that questor would like to achieve in this society. I think he would prefer that we come to a general agreement for how things should be done politically, that is more than just a simple majority.

[Moontanman]

Moontan, tell me how many people compose the religious right? Tell me any legislation they have influenced? You live in a small area, we're talking about the whole country. Tell me what you fear the religious right will do to harm your life style. This is a bogus argument.

 

First I don't think, he southern USA is a small area, the southern USA has been very influential in national politics, if you can't see that then your view of the USA is very myopic. What will the religious right do to harm my life style? Well lets see, Just a couple of years ago a police officer in a near by town was fired because she was living with a man she wasn't married to, a few years earlier a woman was arrested for having oral sex with her boy friend. It was found out because a nosy neighbor was peeping her window and say it and called the law, the window peeper wasn't charged. A great many laws in our country are conceived by the religious who think it's their duty to limit a persons life style. It's constant struggle to fight these people wand their antiquated views of morality. Equal rights for minorities was originally opposed in an almost fanatical way by the religious right. Any and all laws pertaining to the moral behavior of adults are primarily due to the religious right sitting up at night worrying that somewhere, some how, some one, might be having a good time. these people constantly want to regulate what they think of as sin not even thinking that what they think of as sin is simply a concept they got out of a tired old book with no real connection with reality. They think their own idea of what should or should not be is the law of the universe instead of the simple rules of their individual religion.

[questor]

Moontan, would you say that we should abandon all law that speaks to your idea of morality? Do you embrace all human behavior except murder and stealing? Do you condemn judgementalism? And by the way, the south is not a solid voting bloc.

[questor]

Reason, choose the definition you prefer and let's move on. You said:

''Would you be willing to allow a more liberal solution to a particular problem if it meant achieving a consensus in politics?'' give me a hypothetical, explain

whom it benefits and the logic, and cost of it. This would be my reason for voting for or against a bill.

[questor]

Overdog, these quotes pretty well show your stance on religion:

 

''Thank god, and I'm an atheist, for christ sakes!!!

 

''My only reason for mentioning my personal belief was to support my larger point about freedom FROM religion, a point which you did not respond to.''

 

In my own case no one has been forcing me to attend church, or any other Christian function. If I did attend one, I would probably find it more uplifting than watching certain parades. I would prefer to let religious people observe their customs than shut them down.

[Overdog]

I would prefer to let religious people observe their customs than shut them down.

 

So do I. But I also favor strong seperation of church and state.

[jackson33]

This is a bad question to ask at this time. The Christian right is what elected Bush twice. Pat Robinson, the evangalist TV minister, supports Israel and bad talks the Palestinians and raising money to bring more Jews into Israel and to provide for them once they get to Israel. He is a Zoinist Christian, believing Jesus will return when the Jews rebuild their temple, where bloody animal sacrifices were made for superstitious reasons. Our country with a law against supporting any one religion, gives Israel more foriegn than any other country, and destablized the balance in the mid east, by contributing to Israel's weapon supply and military technology, including doing nothing while Israel developed a nuclear bomb. Like these religious folks could start a nuclear war that could destroy live on this planet.

 

The value of atheist is they might correct the wrongs of religious folks, and there are many, including a justice system based on the superstitious notion of good and evil people.

 

The so called 'Evangelical Christan Right' is estimated at 23% of the US Population. Over history the percentage has been much higher, electing such people as FDR, JFK, Carter and Clinton by apparently setting out election, for you to be correct. Additionally, every elected President has been one form or another of a Christan and the most of the founders, themselves were. I see no logic in saying they elected Bush II, especially in 2004. Gore lost in 2000 for whatever reason and National Security won it for Bush in 2004.

 

Israel does receive a great deal of military aid, as does Turkey and a good many predominantly Islamic Nations. This not mentioning, the requirements/treaties under the Allied Forces or United Nations, which allowed them their STATE. For the record the Palestinians were offered an equal state, probably the same aid, but never has agreed to co-existence with Israel. Our religious freedoms are for the people of this country and our foreign policy is not based on or has anything to do any religion.

 

Sorry if off topic, but couldn't let your comments stand unchallenged.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry if off topic, but couldn't let your comments stand unchallenged.

 

Sorry Jackson, but your personal perspective is non-representative and doesnt' really hold water.

 

It seems most everyone but you is able to recognize what's been happening:

 

 

Martin Jacques: The neocon revolution | Politics | The Guardian

 

"...it was clear that the neocon revolution had wide popular support and serious electoral roots, that it was establishing a new kind of domestic political hegemony. In fact, the right has been setting the political agenda in the US for at least 30 years and that is now true with a vengeance. All the indications suggest that the revolution is continuing apace.

 

The appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the United Nations and the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank reveal a determination to place the cadres of the neocon revolution in key positions of power and influence and thereby create the conditions for its continuation and expansion. This was heralded almost immediately after the presidential election with the decision to replace Colin Powell, a man of very different political hue, with Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

 

During the first Bush administration, and especially in its conduct of the Iraq war, the neocon revolution was often characterised as unilateralist, but this was always somewhat simplistic."

 

 

It's so apparent that there's even a wiki about it:

 

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

And here's a piece from the Times, which includes some pretty biting criticism as well:

 

The neocons have been routed. But they are not all wrong | Gerard Baker - Times Online

 

"It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet — that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world — as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."