What it means to be a liberal

[Joeychgo]

What it means to be a liberal

By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."
Published October 10, 2006


For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?

 

[segxr7]

1. People don't have "truths". What you or I believe doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Either something is true, or it isn't.

2. You cannot support tolerance, equality, and respect for different viewpoints while simultaneously supporting things like the (un)equal rights amendment, affirmative action, "hate speech" laws, etc. That's a complete contradiction.

3. Nothing wrong with that.

4. Agreed. But if liberals actually believed this, they wouldn't support "Robin Hood"-style wealth redistribution, locking people up for what they consider "hate speech", and so on.

5. Refer to #2.

6. You can't believe this while believing #4. They're, again, completely contradictory. Either you want an overbearing, meddling, wealth-redistributing government, or you don't. Pick one.

7. I completely agree. But not to the extent of stupidity like banning Christmas parties in schools because someone might be offended. Anyone who is offended by mention of a holiday needs psychiatric help.

8. Courts have a responsibility to SERVE JUSTICE. Not to promote any kind any kind of political view, whether it's liberal, conservative, or anything else.

9. "without such protection liberalism is impossible" -- Why should a political view be artificially propped up and protected by the government? I thought liberals are in favor of democracy?

10. No problem there.

Just my 2 cents, as an agnostic libertarian.

 

[fossten]

What it means to be a liberal

By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."
Published October 10, 2006


For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

The liberals in this country, as proven by groups like the ACLU, want all speech censored unless it agrees with liberal thought.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

Liberals are the most intolerant people I know. They constantly bash Christians, conservatives, and families. They lie to women at abortion clinics and scream bloody murder when anyone tries to protect the life of an unborn. It is actually conservatives who passed the Civil Rights Act, not liberals. Liberals attack African-Americans like Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas simply because they do not agree with their supposedly tolerant views.

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

As evidenced by the recent incident at Columbia University, liberals consistently try to squash public debate. They scream, yell, rush the stage, hurl racial epithets, and call names rather than engage in the debate of ideas. It is the liberal Democrats who cheat at the polls, using dead people to vote and rejecting voter ID cards which actually mandate the 'one person one vote' principle.

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

Yet liberals are the ones who enact legislation designed to take away our freedoms. The Kelo case is an example of this. It is the liberals who seek to confiscate our incomes with higher taxes and higher government spending under the auspices of "reducing the deficit." It is the liberals who believe that the government must not take a pay cut, but rather the citizens must pay more to satisfy the needs of the government. Furthermore, the liberals in the media routinely try and convict American citizens falsely, ruining their reputations even after what they assert has been proven false, as in the case of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

Liberals have consistently trampled the rights of minorities, most notably African-Americans. Furthermore, liberals have ignored the human rights atrocities in places like China and Darfur, choosing rather to champion the rights of Al Qaeda members who would destroy this country in a second if given a chance.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

"Help" is a relative term. If help means to give money, thus depriving citizens of the motivation necessary to better themselves by working for a living, and keeping them dependent on the government, then liberals do want to help. However, the welfare system which was in place for decades FAILED to solve the poverty problem. Throwing money at a solution has never worked. It is true that liberals want to take from the workers in this country and give to the nonworkers. This is socialism.

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

Yet this contradicts their so-called advocation of free speech. Liberals believe in removing religion from all public parts of this country. The problem with this is that the majority of people in this country believe in God and do have a moral base. This is godlessness in the extreme.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

Liberal judges do nothing but extinguish religion from our society. They force people to tolerate evolution and islam in schools while squashing any mention of the word 'Jesus.' Again, this is an assault on freedom of religion. Judges are not supposed to make law. They are supposed to interpret the law. Liberal judges typically legislate from the bench, drawing elixir from the Constitution where it is not enumerated, in order to cater to far left elements who frequently contribute to the financial interests of these judges.

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

The liberals have attacked our national security for decades, fighting against defense spending, SDI, new technologies, advocating cutting and running since the Korean War, preventing necessary security measures like foreign surveillance, and even attempting to grant Constitutional rights to terrorists. They have the absolute WORST record on national security in our nation's history, the true Pacifist party. Furthermore, they preach isolationism to the extent that we should not interfere with human rights violations abroad, even if it is in our nation's interest to do so.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

And yet they fail to safeguard the rights of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and Tom DeLay. Liberals believe that enemy combatants should be dealt with as a police matter, not a military one. Furthermore, liberals believe that we should strangle our security efforts so that we don't anger the terrorists into REALLY trying to kill us, as if it is our fault that they are angry with us in the first place, which is also what liberals believe.

Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?

Mostly misleading, but very revealing and instructive. I've drafted a similar list for conservatives before.

 

[MonsterMark]

Fossten, your reply deserves a huge...


OWNED!

 

[Joeychgo]

Fossten, your reply deserves a huge...
OWNED!

No it doesnt. It is very telling.


Ill just pick one to comment on....

Liberal judges do nothing but extinguish religion from our society. They force people to tolerate evolution and islam in schools while squashing any mention of the word 'Jesus.' Again, this is an assault on freedom of religion. Judges are not supposed to make law. They are supposed to interpret the law. Liberal judges typically legislate from the bench, drawing elixir from the Constitution where it is not enumerated, in order to cater to far left elements who frequently contribute to the financial interests of these judges.

This is such a twist and spin it isnt even funny. Judges are suppose to enforce the constitution. I believe strongly in the seperation of Church and State. When you say "force people to tolerate evolution and islam in schools" you forget that is exactly what the Constitution dictates. This is America. You are free to believe any religon you want, including no religon. A child is impressionable and shouldnt have one religon or another forced down their throat by the State (i.e. the School).

Religon is a personal matter and a child's religous upbringing should be one of the family, not one of the school. I dont believe there should be any mention of Jesus nor Muhammad nor ANY other religous icon in our schools. School is for learning FACTS and there is no FACT in religon. You may not like that, but LOGIC dictates evoloution, not the various religous beliefs.

Now that I am sure your blood is boiling, let me point something out. Not having that seperation of church and state is exactly what causes ALL the troubles in the middle east. They continously come back to the Koran and how we are infidels and the Koran give them the authority to kill us. So, the Koran has become a political tool instead of a personal religous choice of belief. This is EXACTLY what the Constitution was meant to protect the USA from becoming, a State controlled by one religon.

NOW - before you start caling me a commie pinko or something, let me also say this. SOME parts of religon are now cultural within us. For example, In God We Trust as printed on our money. That phrase has converted to being more cultural, and shouldnt be removed. One Nation under God, Same thing. Those are more cultural now and should be left as is.

Yet this contradicts their so-called advocation of free speech. Liberals believe in removing religion from all public parts of this country. The problem with this is that the majority of people in this country believe in God and do have a moral base. This is godlessness in the extreme.

On the contrary. The right of free speech is the right of the individual. I have no problem of you walking around all day saying "Praise Jesus" if thats what you want to do. However, I do have a problem with our Government (ie the School) opening every class with the same statement. The right of free speech does not extend to Government, it is a Constitutional protection FROM the Government. The difference being, if you want to say Praise Jesus as you walk around, I dont have to listen to you. I can walk away if I choose.

Our students are stuck in that class. Maybe, their family has chosen a religon where Jesus isnt a religous icon, maybe a buddist or even Islamic. The U.S. is the most religiously diverse country in the world. Why should they have Christianity forced into their child? The only reasonable answer is to not make such a statement because you cant praise each and every religous icon every morning.

You dont have to be religous to have a moral base. Your statement indicates that you can only have a moral base within religon.

But, tell me this... While your on the subject of your moral base and christianity, why do the republicans abandon the Church when it comes to the Death Penalty? The Catholic Church has many times said the Death Penalty is wrong, so where is the religon and morals there?

Pope John Paul II declared the Church's near total opposition to the death penalty. In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.

My morals on this issue are not guided by the church, but by a simple statement made by a former Supreme Court Jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Better ten guilty men should go free than one innocent man should die." -- We can not be 100% sure, 100% of the time, of a man's guilt, and we cannot undo a death sentence. Therefore, we should not use such a penalty.

In My Opinion, we are ALL hipocrites at one time or another.

 

[mespock]

NOW - before you start caling me a commie pinko or something,

You Commie Pinko!

 

[Joeychgo]

I can almost smell the smoke coming off Fossten's keyboard right about now...

 

[fossten]

No it doesnt. It is very telling.


Ill just pick one to comment on....




This is such a twist and spin it isnt even funny. Judges are suppose to enforce the constitution. [Wrong - they interpret the Constitution. Try reading it once.] The I believe strongly in the seperation of Church and State [which phrase ISN'T in the Constitution] . When you say "force people to tolerate evolution and islam in schools" you forget that is exactly what the Constitution dictates. This is America. You are free to believe any religon you want, including no religon. A child is impressionable and shouldnt have one religon or another forced down their throat by the State (i.e. the School). [Baloney. Students are forbidden from even praying outside of class but inside the school grounds. But they teach Islam classes. You have no idea what you're talking about.]

Religon is a personal matter and a child's religous upbringing should be one of the family, not one of the school. I dont believe there should be any mention of Jesus nor Muhammad nor ANY other religous icon in our schools. School is for learning FACTS and there is no FACT in religon. You may not like that, but LOGIC dictates evoloution, not the various religous beliefs. [Wrong. Science continuously and consistently disproves evolution. But that's another subject which I'm sure you don't want to get into.]

Now that I am sure your blood is boiling, let me point something out. Not having that seperation of church and state is exactly what causes ALL the troubles in the middle east. They continously come back to the Koran and how we are infidels and the Koran give them the authority to kill us. So, the Koran has become a political tool instead of a personal religous choice of belief. This is EXACTLY what the Constitution was meant to protect the USA from becoming, a State controlled by one religon. [Wrong. The Constitution was speaking of the State staying out of religion, not the other way around.]

NOW - before you start caling me a commie pinko or something, let me also say this. SOME parts of religon are now cultural within us. For example, In God We Trust as printed on our money. That phrase has converted to being more cultural, and shouldnt be removed. One Nation under God, Same thing. Those are more cultural now and should be left as is.



On the contrary. The right of free speech is the right of the individual. I have no problem of you walking around all day saying "Praise Jesus" if thats what you want to do. However, I do have a problem with our Government (ie the School) opening every class with the same statement. The right of free speech does not extend to Government, it is a Constitutional protection FROM the Government. The difference being, if you want to say Praise Jesus as you walk around, I dont have to listen to you. I can walk away if I choose.

Our students are stuck in that class. Maybe, their family has chosen a religon where Jesus isnt a religous icon, maybe a buddist or even Islamic. The U.S. is the most religiously diverse country in the world. Why should they have Christianity forced into their child? [This is a false straw man argument. Nobody's advocating a state-run religion here. But why should a Christian child be forbidden from exercising his or her religion, providing he/she doesn't infringe on the rights of others? That's what your liberal buddies have achieved: the forbidding of practice of religion. They can't even pray privately in schools.] The only reasonable answer is to not make such a statement because you cant praise each and every religous icon every morning.

You dont have to be religous to have a moral base. Your statement indicates that you can only have a moral base within religon.

But, tell me this... While your on the subject of your moral base and christianity, why do the republicans abandon the Church when it comes to the Death Penalty? The Catholic Church has many times said the Death Penalty is wrong, so where is the religon and morals there? [The Catholic Church is at odds with the Bible and most Protestant beliefs, and this issue is no exception. I don't believe the Catholic religion can be equated with mainstream Christianity. By the way, the Bible says "an eye for an eye."]

Pope John Paul II declared the Church's near total opposition to the death penalty. In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. [see above]

My morals on this issue are not guided by the church, but by a simple statement made by a former Supreme Court Jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Better ten guilty men should go free than one innocent man should die." -- We can not be 100% sure, 100% of the time, of a man's guilt, and we cannot undo a death sentence. Therefore, we should not use such a penalty.

In My Opinion, we are ALL hipocrites at one time or another.

Great. You take your morals from a mortal, flawed human being instead of a perfect, just God. That makes no sense whatsoever. According to that logic, we should just let all the criminals go free since there's really no way to EVER REALLY KNOW if anybody committed a crime, nor can we judge whether somebody's actions are really right or wrong. But that thinking fits right in with the typical liberal judge who sets child molesters free, like this: http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_072006WABdoughnutjudgeEL.8404e76.html

The fact that we are hypocrites is the very reason we SHOULD have justice in this society. You wave it around like a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Great. You take your morals from a mortal, flawed human being instead of a perfect, just God.

Exactly WHO's (out of the thousands of "religions" in practice on this planet) GOD are we supposed to get our morals from? They don't ALL agree on the same set of morals, OBVIOUSLY given all the religious wars that have been going on for thousands of years. Are you saying YOUR "god" is the ONE ALMIGHTY??? ROTFLMAO Put down the kool-aid. You are no better than the islamofacists.

 

[Calabrio]

You are no better than the islamofacists.

I guess I missed the thread where Fossten posted pictures of him beheading "unbelievers". Or the one where he supported the "honor killings" of rape victims.

Oh, he's never done that?

I guess that means Johnny is talking out of his rear again.

 

[fossten]

Exactly WHO's (out of the thousands of "religions" in practice on this planet) GOD are we supposed to get our morals from? They don't ALL agree on the same set of morals, OBVIOUSLY given all the religious wars that have been going on for thousands of years. Are you saying YOUR "god" is the ONE ALMIGHTY??? ROTFLMAO Put down the kool-aid. You are no better than the islamofacists.

Johnny, if you'd stop yelling, you might hear how ignorant you sound.

Nice to see that you acknowledge the existence of islamofascists, though, although the irony is that, as a leading pacifist, you'd be one of the first ones shot if they took over our country.

 

[Joeychgo]

Exactly WHO's (out of the thousands of "religions" in practice on this planet) GOD are we supposed to get our morals from? They don't ALL agree on the same set of morals, OBVIOUSLY given all the religious wars that have been going on for thousands of years. Are you saying YOUR "god" is the ONE ALMIGHTY??? ROTFLMAO Put down the kool-aid. You are no better than the islamofacists.

WHile we're getting our morals from religon - lets remember something. More people have died in the name of religon then for any other single cause.

Yup - thats moral.

My point was exactly this. Catholic morals and jewish morals and buddist morals and the morals of islam, among the many others - are all different. We are all entitled to believe whatever we choose, and our government isnt suppose to push or restrict one religon over another. - Its in the constitution for a reason... You dont like that? Then start your campaign to repeal that amendment.

 

[Calabrio]

Within the last century, communism has killed far more people than religion ever did.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Within the last century, communism has killed far more people than religion ever did.

Within the last day, religion has killed far more people than communism ever did. So WTF?

 

[fossten]

Dang, Joey, Johnny, you can't seem to see the forest for all the facts.

Maybe you should try researching your claims before you make them.


Democide

This is a report of the statistical results from a project on comparative genocide and mass-murder in this century. Most probably near 170,000,000 people have been murdered in cold-blood by governments, well over three-quarters by absolutist regimes. The most such killing was done by the Soviet Union (near 62,000,000 people), the communist government of China is second (near 35,000,000), followed by Nazi Germany (almost 21,000,000), and Nationalist China (some 10,000,000). Lesser megamurderers include WWII Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, WWI Turkey, communist Vietnam, post-WWII Poland, Pakistan, and communist Yugoslavia. The most intense democide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they killed over 30 percent of their subjects in less than four years. The best predictor of this killing is regime power. The more arbitrary power a regime has, the less democratic it is, the more likely it will kill its subjects or foreigners. The conclusion is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM

It bears mentioning that the Soviet Union was a RELIGION-LESS regime and had NO GOD ALLOWED. Even the ChiComs persecute the Buddhists and hate the Dalai Lama. This would seem to directly contradict Joey's entire argument.

Actually, Joey, I'm grateful to you, because I never would have looked this up if you hadn't made that bogus claim. This is a fascinating site with all kinds of statistics and tables. Everybody should check this out.

Funny thing about that site: Nowhere did I find the United States listed. I guess even though we're a religious nation, we don't kill people. Wonder if maybe we worship the right God here.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, if you'd stop yelling, you might hear how ignorant you sound.

LOL, YOU calling me ignorant after posting a statement like:

[The Catholic Church is at odds with the Bible and most Protestant beliefs, and this issue is no exception. I don't believe the Catholic religion can be equated with mainstream Christianity. By the way, the Bible says "an eye for an eye."]

...... is like the pot calling the kettle black. Since you love to get hung up on semantics, show me where in the Bible that Jesus says it's OK to kill ANYONE for ANY REASON. You have yet to address Joey's question why some of you self-proclaimed christians support the death penalty.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I guess I missed the thread where Fossten posted pictures of him beheading "unbelievers". Or the one where he supported the "honor killings" of rape victims.

He's just never been caught on film........ yet. But given his anti-social behavior here and outright hate for liberals and democrats, he most certainly would in a NY minute.

 

[fossten]

LOL, YOU calling me ignorant after posting a statement like:



...... is like the pot calling the kettle black. Since you love to get hung up on semantics, show me where in the Bible that Jesus says it's OK to kill ANYONE for ANY REASON. You have yet to address Joey's question why some of you self-proclaimed christians support the death penalty.

I'm not going to fall for your ridiculous straw man argument regarding Jesus. He certainly never advocated allowing people to walk all over you, nor did he ever say that you should not fight back if your family or country is attacked. Show me one instance where Jesus advocated turning the other cheek, and I'll show you specific instances that He was referring to.

Come on Bible scholar, show me what you've got. Hypocrite. You libs are anti-death penalty for murderers but pro-killing innocent babies. Should be the other way around.

Makes sense. <sarcasm off>

 

[Joeychgo]

Come on Bible scholar, show me what you've got. Hypocrite. You libs are anti-death penalty for murderers but pro-killing innocent babies. Should be the other way around.

See, this is where you give something a spin only in an attempt to make liberals look bad.

The Death Penalty is something the government inflicts;

Abortion rights has to do with a womans right to control what happens in her own body.

Governmental right vs individual right.

Do I think a woman shold have an abortion? No. Ideally, in my opinion, if she isnt prepared to have a baby she should give it up for adoption.

But, im not prepared to tell her what sh can and cant do with her body. If she insists on having that abortion, I dont feel it's my place to tell her she cant and must carry that baby. I will try to influence her otherwise, but I believe ultimately its her decision.

The death penalty isnt an individual's choice, but a geovernmental action, and really serves little public interest except revenge.

Governmental right vs individual right

 

[TheDude]

For the people arguing on 'Separation of Church and State'... No where in the Constitution does it mention God (any God) or Jesus for that matter. The only passage where it can be argued that it mentions a religious figure is in the signatory section where it reads "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". But using "Lord" here is simply a way of expressing the date in both religious & secular context. Even the word "lord" is ambiguous as it could also mean King.

 

[Calabrio]

He's just never been caught on film........ yet. But given his anti-social behavior here and outright hate for liberals and democrats, he most certainly would in a NY minute.

You can't be serious. The comment wasn't funny. And it makes you look completely unhinged. Now'd be a good to time to retract the comment.

Furthermore, if you really think there is some link between anyone here and the Islamo-extremist groups that have declared War on civilization, you have demonstrated to us all just how little you understand about the world. You're screaming out just how unable you are to comprehend the actual threats that exist in the world. You're announcing your gross ignorance and flawed world view.

If religious Christians are no different in your mind from Islamist who want to cut your head off, you've been brainwashed.

 

[fossten]

See, this is where you give something a spin only in an attempt to make liberals look bad.

The Death Penalty is something the government inflicts;

Abortion rights has to do with a womans right to control what happens in her own body.

Governmental right vs individual right.

Do I think a woman shold have an abortion? No. Ideally, in my opinion, if she isnt prepared to have a baby she should give it up for adoption.

But, im not prepared to tell her what sh can and cant do with her body. If she insists on having that abortion, I dont feel it's my place to tell her she cant and must carry that baby. I will try to influence her otherwise, but I believe ultimately its her decision.

The death penalty isnt an individual's choice, but a geovernmental action, and really serves little public interest except revenge.

Governmental right vs individual right

That is a tired, old, sad argument. I'm sorry, Joey, but this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me.

1. If women have the right to control their own bodies, then why is prostitution illegal in most states? And why are women in most states prohibited from taking illegal drugs?

2. Since 1.5 MILLION babies are aborted each year, approximately half, or 750,000, are females. Don't these female babies have the same rights over their bodies as their mothers do? What is the constitutional basis for discriminating against the most defenseless females in our society by robbing them of their right to life?

3. Women already enjoy reproductive freedom; they can engage in relations with anyone they choose. But this right does not extend to the baby.

4. What about the other 750,000 male children aborted? Are they part of the mother's body too? If so, how can she be both female and male at the same time? That is absurd and scientifically impossible.

5. If the females have the right to decide between a baby's life or death because they are biologically linked, shouldn't the father, who is just as biologically linked, have an equal say in the decision? Why, then, are fathers prohibited from deciding between life or death?

6. A fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. It is a distinct human being apart from its mother. It merely resides in the body of the woman. In fact, the baby's genetic code differs from that of its mother. Studies have shown situations where the woman's immune system has failed, and the mother's body tried to reject that of the baby. This is proof positive that the baby and the mother are distinct beings apart from one another.

7. Basically, the methods by which abortion is peformed are these:

a. The doctor enters the womb with a loop-shaped knife and cuts the baby in pieces. Often this causes complications and severe bleeding in the mother.

b. The doctor injects the woman with a drug that relaxes her cervix, and the baby falls out, and is then left to die, sometimes in dumpsters. This procedure sometimes causes severe bleeding and complications for the mother as well as brutally killing the baby.

c. The doctor injects a poison salt solution into the womb, which causes the baby to convulse. The chemicals burn the baby's outer skin, while its arteries and veins rupture, and tissue and organs hemorrhage. The baby suffers for more than an hour and the mother delivers a dead baby about an hour later. By the way, the Nazis developed this procedure in the concentration camps.

d. Partial-birth abortion, which Clinton supported, involves the doctor pulling the baby feet first through the birth canal, leaving the head inside. Then he punctures the base of the skull with surgical scissors, inserts a tube and sucks out the baby's brains, collapsing the skull.

But if you're in favor of that stuff, Joey, I'm sorry for you.

Try and spin that.

 

[fossten]

For the people arguing on 'Separation of Church and State'... No where in the Constitution does it mention God (any God) or Jesus for that matter. The only passage where it can be argued that it mentions a religious figure is in the signatory section where it reads "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". But using "Lord" here is simply a way of expressing the date in both religious & secular context. Even the word "lord" is ambiguous as it could also mean King.

I know I've stressed this before, but you really should read up on things before you comment on them. You could not be more wrong.

It's not ambiguous when you consider where it came from. "In the year of our Lord" is translated from Anno Domini, which is Latin, and where we get the letters A.D. It is distinguished from the letters B.C., which as any normal, ordinary person knows, stands for "before Christ."

The problem with your assertion is that you are ignoring the FACT that A.D. refers to the year Jesus Christ was born. As much as you can try to spin away from that WELL DOCUMENTED FACT, you have no other possible explanation to account for the reason why we use that dating system.



Adv. 1. anno Domini - in the Christian era; used before dates after the supposed year Christ was born; "in AD 200"
Synonyms: AD, A.D.

By Wordnet Dictionary

Anno Domini (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated AD or A.D., is the designation used to number years in the dominant Christian Era in the world today. This is the conventional designation now used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. Years before the epoch were denoted a.C.n. (for Ante Christum Natum, Latin for "before the birth of Christ"), although BC (Before Christ) is now usually used in English. The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Western World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest of the world. However, in academic, historical and archaeological circles, particularly in America, the same epoch is often referred to as the Common Era (CE) and the BC period as Before the Common Era (BCE).

While it is increasingly common to place AD after a date, by analogy to the use of BC, formal English usage adheres to the traditional practice of placing the abbreviation before the year, as in Latin (e.g., 100 BC, but AD 100).
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Anno_Domini

 

[TheDude]

I know I've stressed this before, but you really should read up on things before you comment on them. You could not be more wrong.

It's not ambiguous when you consider where it came from. "In the year of our Lord" is translated from Anno Domini, which is Latin, and where we get the letters A.D. It is distinguished from the letters B.C., which as any normal, ordinary person knows, stands for "before Christ."

The problem with your assertion is that you are ignoring the FACT that A.D. refers to the year Jesus Christ was born. As much as you can try to spin away from that WELL DOCUMENTED FACT, you have no other possible explanation to account for the reason why we use that dating system.



Adv. 1. anno Domini - in the Christian era; used before dates after the supposed year Christ was born; "in AD 200"
Synonyms: AD, A.D.

By Wordnet Dictionary

Anno Domini (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated AD or A.D., is the designation used to number years in the dominant Christian Era in the world today. This is the conventional designation now used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. Years before the epoch were denoted a.C.n. (for Ante Christum Natum, Latin for "before the birth of Christ"), although BC (Before Christ) is now usually used in English. The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Western World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest of the world. However, in academic, historical and archaeological circles, particularly in America, the same epoch is often referred to as the Common Era (CE) and the BC period as Before the Common Era (BCE).

While it is increasingly common to place AD after a date, by analogy to the use of BC, formal English usage adheres to the traditional practice of placing the abbreviation before the year, as in Latin (e.g., 100 BC, but AD 100).
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Anno_Domini

Yes, I am fully aware of what A.D. and B.C. means, but being used does not mean any religious implication really, it is just a standard measure of time or recording time. We also use a Julian calendar, does that mean we're all pagans?

Let me ask you this, if the forefathers had really meant for America to be a Christian Nation, wouldn't they have at least had the word Jesus or God somewhere in the constitution, at least one time?

Fact is they didn't, and it was a smart move. Using past and current theocracies as examples, we can see that having a religion run government is a bad idea. And before you go off on Musliam to Christian tangents, the fact remains that when you introduce religion into government, there is room for corruption, no matter how benign the religion.

 

[Calabrio]

But if you're in favor of that stuff, Joey, I'm sorry for you.

Try and spin that.

Ow.... very well stated. :bash: