Why religious people should be leftists

[Atheon]

Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism.

[ Image ]

Check, please!

Yup. Social conservatism lies at the very heart of conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is more like libertarianism.

[mediumaevum]

Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism.

[ Image ]

Check, please!

Yup. Social conservatism lies at the very heart of conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is more like libertarianism.

It really, REALLY depends on how you define Social Conservatism.

If you by Social Conservatism take the policies of Justice, Foreign and Military alongside religion, yes, that is conservatism (when combined with libertarianist economics).

But if you leave out the fiscal policies, and only have policies of Justice, Foriegn, Military and Religion, you get a Social-Democrat. The worst of its kind.

In short, it isn't religion that defines a Conservative. Conservatives and Classical Liberals (libertarians) are the same, except for their emphasis on Justice, Foriegn and Military policies.

[Atheon]

Social conservatives are those who oppose abortion, gay rights, premarital sex, racial equality, marijuana, porn, gambling, prostitution, etc., and get their panties in a bunch when they see other people having a good time.

[mediumaevum]

Social conservatives are those who oppose abortion, gay rights, premarital sex, racial equality, marijuana, porn, gambling, prostitution, etc., and get their panties in a bunch when they see other people having a good time.

And that is where I say that Social Conservatism has as much to do with Conservatism as National Socialism has to do with Socialism.
It is NOT conservatism, or the definition of Conservatism. Nor does National Socialism has ANYTHING to do with Socialism.

People are confusing the words. National-Socialism is not two words. It is read and understood as ONE word.

It is the same that goes for Social Conservatism. It should not be understood as two words, but ONE word.

Think in software programming terms:

A variable called "Anything" is treated totally different from the one named "Any_thing".

[frosty]

You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.

[Jason78]

I like how the OP has compressed the entire political gamut into a 2 sided, black and white dichotomy.  

And he never even mentioned anything about the center parties!

[Special B]

Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.

[frosty]

Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.

How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.

[mykcob4]

Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.

How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.

Well frosty you know, I am sure, that conservatism has a complete and seperate political meaning. It actually means preserving the assets for the wealthy and historically for the families that are either titled or have a legacy of owning power, be that land or what ever the criteria. It actually has nothing to do with conserving anything or the personal convictions of an individual. A social conservative is someone that "conserves" institutional culture that preserves power to the afore mentioned class. Ergo denying voting rights to minorities because it threatens traditional leadership by white power brokers.
The conservatives like to say that they are for traditional values which is to say that they don't want to give equal oppertunity to anyone else because traditionally they have built in intitutionalized prejudices. They like to call it "family falues" or "moral majority", they even call it patriotism. Hijacking terms and purposely misusing the true definition of those terms is a tactic used by conservatives. It's called propaganda.
Liberalism is an ideology that recognizes equal rights and equal oppertunity for all no matter their social class.
Historically there has always been conservatism personifided by the Spartans and Liberalism of which the Atenans were a prime example. Liberalism emerged from the first "Hero" that appeared as "Ode on a Greecian Urn" which elivated common humanity when given free and fair oppertunity to acheive "god" status. Thus rebuking the conservative held ideology of divinity and birthright. Democracy was born out of that poem and Liberalism prevailed as the greatest acheivement of mankind. Defeating even the mighty Spartans.

[frosty]

Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.

How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.

Well frosty you know, I am sure, that conservatism has a complete and seperate political meaning. It actually means preserving the assets for the wealthy and historically for the families that are either titled or have a legacy of owning power, be that land or what ever the criteria. It actually has nothing to do with conserving anything or the personal convictions of an individual. A social conservative is someone that "conserves" institutional culture that preserves power to the afore mentioned class. Ergo denying voting rights to minorities because it threatens traditional leadership by white power brokers.
The conservatives like to say that they are for traditional values which is to say that they don't want to give equal oppertunity to anyone else because traditionally they have built in intitutionalized prejudices. They like to call it "family falues" or "moral majority", they even call it patriotism. Hijacking terms and purposely misusing the true definition of those terms is a tactic used by conservatives. It's called propaganda.
Liberalism is an ideology that recognizes equal rights and equal oppertunity for all no matter their social class.
Historically there has always been conservatism personifided by the Spartans and Liberalism of which the Atenans were a prime example. Liberalism emerged from the first "Hero" that appeared as "Ode on a Greecian Urn" which elivated common humanity when given free and fair oppertunity to acheive "god" status. Thus rebuking the conservative held ideology of divinity and birthright. Democracy was born out of that poem and Liberalism prevailed as the greatest acheivement of mankind. Defeating even the mighty Spartans.

I like that explanation. I try to avoid partisan discussions, but you have said before you are from a different generation than people my age so maybe it would be easier for someone like you to understand my post. With current events boiling over it seems most people are getting edgy, and not following a set of ethical personal values (their own ones, not religion!) and it makes matters worse. But perhaps that was my mistake, as Liberalism as you explained it is the very embodiment of values and morals. That is a Liberalism I can agree with!

As for the traditional systems, I am in favor of severely reforming or abolishing them. I am a reformist, I believe in change. I like to shake things up. But I do think that people being awful to other people and having no direction in life and then saying they are acting as "Liberals" does give the word negative connotations to observers.

[mediumaevum]

You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.

All arguments are equally valid in terms of biased/unbiased opinions. Only the strenght of the argument (which is NOT subject to wether or not it is biased) makes a better argument than the other.

I also fail to see how women can be in favor of men's conscription if people on Welfare cannot participate equally in the discussion of welfare.
Again, it is the strength of the argument that counts. Not wether or not one is in self-interest.

Also you have to remember that YOU are also acting in self-interest.
If you want lower Income Tax, for example, of keep it where it is, or if you fear high unemployment and vote for parties that would like to lower the unemployment,
you are acting in self-interest too.

Nobody are unbiased.

The only difference between me and you is that I am honest about my self-interest. We have yet to hear from you where you are coming from.
Most people either are dishonest or refuse to tell people about their self-interests. That, so far, includes YOU, Frosty!

[frosty]

You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.

All arguments are equally valid in terms of biased/unbiased opinions. Only the strenght of the argument (which is NOT subject to wether or not it is biased) makes a better argument than the other.

I also fail to see how women can be in favor of men's conscription if people on Welfare cannot participate equally in the discussion of welfare.
Again, it is the strength of the argument that counts. Not wether or not one is in self-interest.

Also you have to remember that YOU are also acting in self-interest.
If you want lower Income Tax, for example, of keep it where it is, or if you fear high unemployment and vote for parties that would like to lower the unemployment,
you are acting in self-interest too.

Nobody are unbiased.

The only difference between me and you is that I am honest about my self-interest. We have yet to hear from you where you are coming from.
Most people either are dishonest or refuse to tell people about their self-interests. That, so far, includes YOU, Frosty!

Lol. Well, mediumaevum, it may indeed be true that I have not divulged my full life story on these forums, but that is for two reasons.

1) I don't want to.
2) I don't need to.

You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests. But you have, and I have a right as a rule following forum user to challenge what you post, just like you can do the same with me. Considering how I have done my best to see things from as many different perspectives as I can in life, I have developed a neutrality that stays with me to this day. I try not to take sides in anything, but your violent posts when you don't get your way is not good.

[mediumaevum]

You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests.

Then you cannot say you are not acting in self-interest.
I could accuse you of acting in self-interest too if I knew them, then your arguments will, according to your "reasoning" become as little valid as mine.

I don't understand why my honesty should get me punished in terms of making my arguments less valid, simply because people KNOW I act in self-interest, as
compared to those we can only guess about their self-interest. At least I am the honest one.

But I don't claim my honesty should make my arguments better than those who are or seem to be neutral, wheras you tell me that my arguments are less valid,
with the one and simple reason that I have been honest.

I fail to see the logical reasoning behind that, let alone the ethical one.

[frosty]

You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests.

Then you cannot say you are not acting in self-interest.
I can accuse you of acting in self-interest too, then your arguments will, according to your "reasoning" become as little valid as mine.

I don't understand why my honesty should get me punished in terms of making my arguments less valid, simply because people KNOW I act in self-interest, as
compared to those we can only guess about their self-interest. At least I am the honest one.

But I don't claim my honesty should make my arguments better than those who are or seem to be neutral, wheras you tell me that my arguments are less valid,
with the one and simple reason that I have been honest.

I fail to see the logical reasoning behind that, let alone the ethical one.

mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.

I also appreciate you only quoting a certain part of my post, and saying that my reasoning is "reasoning", like that, implying it is something else.

I can't help but have this feeling come over me that all this talk about honesty, arguments, blah blah blah will turn into a circular waste of time if we don't just relax. You have to just calm down.

[mediumaevum]

mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.

I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?

Now, luckily, in my country the two largest TV stations are actually allowing both parties (people on welfare and CEOs) to have a say.

I don't know about the culture in your country, but it seems to be discriminating people. At least what you have been saying is discrimination.