...Liberals are against big government? They are for opportunity? Then riddle me this, why do the liberals in DC always want to (1) raise taxes (which takes money away from the public, therefore limiting their economic opportunity), (2) increase the spending and size of government (I've never seen the Democrats in my 45 days and 51 weeks of life thus far ever willingly lower taxes or decrease the size of the Fed unless there was a Republican in the Oval Office; and no, Clinton-Gore only shrank the gov't by massive reductions in our military), (3) ever relinquish control of anything they can have the government get control of....
Well, you answered your own question by your next post:
...Since they seem to want to act like the Democrats now, I may have to go your route, Val.
They're NOT liberal. They're only parading under the label (and I'll get into labels in a second). MY first vote wasn't for Obama. It was for
Ron Paul, whom I consider to be much more liberal than any of the other candidates. I don't disagree with your statements against the DEMOCRAT party, but I, like jimmy, support points on both sides of the lines (or, actually, from all sides of all lines). However, if I were to surmise these affiliations of mine, they would lean towards individual rights, liberty, etc, as well as small, transparent government that answers to its people.
Now, before I go on, a bit about LABELS. If any of you have ever listened to George Carlin (a most distasteful comedian IMO, meaning no disrespect to his memory, I just didn't like his humor), then you'll come to understand something he knew very well: most human beings think in language. That is to say, if you take a concept, the moment you start to formalize it in your head, you'll generally start to think about it in terms of words. This is NOT wrong. Liberalism and Conservatism are such words, which mean certain things.
However, also if you'll listen to George Carlin, you'll know that we tend to butcher that same language, generally for our own purposes. IE, if you ever read advertisement, and marvel at how great it makes a real PoS sound, then you'll begin to grasp the problem at hand. The Democrat and Republican parties (both private parties) are trying to sell themselves to the American people. They're trying to get us to buy them their power. It's a crude interpretation, yes, but it's accurate in essentials. For that reason, the parties know that their best chance is to instill a
herd mentality, whereby they can poke at a few concepts and sell them to the right people, and the herd mentality begins. Only those of us (like yourself, from your previous statement) can see that even though they sell themselves one way, they're really not all they claim to be. Again, I'm not defending the Democratic party, I'm defending liberalism. I know their INDEPENDENT meanings; even I know the difference between the two words (and concepts). Thus I say I am a
liberal, not a Democrat.
State Ownership = individual ownership??
I'm sorry. I made a foolish assumption, and the fault is mine. Please see this quote:
public / state ownership != individual ownership
I'm a programmer, see, and in my preferred languages (C-based, such as C, C++, C#, Java, etc), != (note the !) means NOT EQUALS, where-as == means EQUAL-TO, but not SET EQUAL TO.
Amercian Conservatism == Economic Liberalism
Again, the use is my bad. I should have used a more common syntax.
That in mind, I'm sure that if you re-read that particular section of my post, you'll find that, while we may disagree in semantics, our views on who should have control of the economy are the same.
If that is what Wiki says a liberal and a conservative are, then remind me to use an accurate source.
Sure.
Merriam-Webster?
Encarta?
Wiktionary probably wouldn't satisfy your taste, but you can pick and choose from
Onelook.com, which searches all online dictionaries.
I do not doubt that you're a student of history, so I'm sure you'll see that language is what we make it. How many words did Shakespear invent for his plays? That being said, what the issue is here is CONSISTENCY. I did not post, as you might read above, about the democratic parties, or the republican parties. I did not post about past presidents or what they may or may not have supported. I posted about
language. It's the consistency that I was harking you about, not your political stance. Liberals do NOT support big government. Liberals do NOT support state-run economy. It is the exact opposite by the
definition of the word. Liberal is not synonimous to Democrat, neither is conservative synonimous to Republican. In fact, back in the day, it was the Republican party who had more liberal views. It might be argued that it was Democratic-Republican party back in the day, but Lincoln was definately a Republican. His stance on slavery matches my stance on several, very controversial topics (more on these later), but the Federal Government shouldn't have a say on it. A (very) liberal concept, by the definition of the word (which, again, was the point of my argument).
Annoy a Liberal: Get a Job! Be Successful! Be Happy!
Nice punch, but I'll see if I can't dodge it here ~_^.
Once again, just to re-iterate what I've been pressing,
by definition, liberalism promotes
individual success and growth. And, once again, by definition, "American" conservatives are economic liberals. ONCE AGAIN, this is LANGUAGE we're discussing about. Notice I say LIBERALS, not DEMOCRATS, nor REPUBLICANS. So if you ask me to point to another democratic president who did such and such, I'm gonna say, "Well, I don't know about democrats, but [some president, regardless of party] did [some action], which falls into liberalism in the following manners: [a b & c]". Though, if you DID push the Democrat/Liberals POV, I might as well just not even bother. I'm sure that those who can will understand what I'm saying and those who can't... well, minds and parachutes and whatnot.
Now, here is a quote which I think is my own, as I've heard no one else say it, but I'm not likely to be the first to say it in such a huge world: Hippies make liberals look like idiots. (Sorry if this offends you, but here's my reasoning AND YOUR DEFENSE, though it's not much of one). Hippies are those people who are, indeed, liberals, but they waste their precious freedom doing an unwonted amount of stupidities with it (AGAIN, this is my POV, which, despite what most of you might think, are MOSTLY in line w/ Hawk's, with one very big difference). I used my freedom to study martial arts and compete internationally, race motorcycles, graduate from an art-oriented, selective high-school with a major in Creative Writing and a minor in Dance, play first string offense and defense in the football team that won state champs while I played, climb the highest peak in Dorado Canyon, and excel in software engineering so as to be the lead architect and coder for a semi-conductor plant. I'm 23. I've known more success by the time I was 18 than most will know in their lifetimes. I use my freedom wisely, and do not force others to use it the same way I do. That's the concept of liberalism at work. It would be rather ironic, wouldn't it, if my VERY well-paying job were to annoy me because it was a symbol of my own success. Although, I will admit, I'm not 100% content. See, I want to own my own video game company and use the funds for the welfare of my fellow man, so I guess I'm not entirely happy, nor will I be until I achieve those goals. Still, I'm satisfied with the dx/dy(My Success), so I guess we can count that as happiness for the time-being. It would be pretty ironic, and I think somehow impossible, if my happiness annoyed me.
Oh, and my Lord and Savior was not a "liberal crucified by conservatives..." Anyone who would believe that has no clue about Scripture and practices American "Church-ianty', not Christianity.
Nothing else had really quite made me feel the desire to argue liberalism vs conservatism, but alas, here we are.
Using the book of St. Matthew, chapter 12 as a reference:
Here we see an example of a desire to conserve from a changing force. Jesus came and His disciples, hungry, started to pick ears from the corn. The pharisees challenged, even went so far as to condemn them for doing this. They argued that this was unlawful on the sabbath. When Jesus rebuked them, and rebuked them for saying it was wrong to heal on the sabbath, they conspired to destroy Him. For whatever reasons, whether greed, malice, or whatever, the pharisees here show a prime example of why they were so spiteful of the Lord. The pharisees were so concerned about the preservation of their rituals, their customs, and their way of life, that when Jesus came and told them, "Hey, you're doing it wrong. You need to change," they didn't take it very kindly. Over and over, Jesus promoted change in the way they were doing things. And it's important to understand that, technically, the Jews were NOT breaking the commandment of the sabbath. They were certainly not working, as they were instructed to. They would even not leave an egg out, for fear that it would cook under the sun, and this could be called labor. But Jesus came and told them that they should do work, but only GOOD work, Holy work. Maybe the Jews didn't really understand the teachings, but the fact remains that Jesus was promoting change. And He promoted it EVERYWHERE.
This,
BY DEFINITION, is the antithesis of conservatism. Of course, in our personal example, you, in trying to keep with the commandments of the Lord, WOULD make you conservative of His teachings. That does not change, however, that Jesus taught against the conservation of certain aspects of the Jewish way of life (and one of the main reasons why they crucified Him, though they, of course, used His proclomation of being the Son of God and Holy Messiah as their excuse).
Now, let's go into a more liberal concept.
My first reference is St. Matthew, chapter 7.
Here Christ teaches not to judge others, but also, to remove the beam from your own eye. This points to another reference, but in general, the concept is, don't tell other people what to do or not do. It is for God to judge, and each man to know their own sins. This is a vague statement of individual growth, as well as promoting that no man should rule onto another. Moving on to my other reference.
St. Matthew, 5:27-30, 5:43-48
Here Christ teaches us something that's a bit between the lines. Firstly, one need not actually perform an action to have already committed the sin by which he would have committed had the action been performed. But here is the important part: If your eye (or hand) makes you commit a sin, cut it off. Now, as none of us here are blind, and we can all type, I feel very confident in saying that we did not actually pluck out offending eyes or cut off offending hands. Especially in forums such as these
😛. Instead, I would ask that you consider that He teaches us to pay for our sins even when there is no one who can accuse us of doing them (save God, of course, and ourselves). The meaning thereof is much deeper, of course, which goes on to teach us about really humbling ourselves before the Lord on all of our sins, but the point I'm going to stress here is the same as above: that each man work to develop himself individually and without the judgement from the church, perse.
The last few verses are about loving our enemies. (Please note that, again, some of these commandments by Christ replace or otherwise transcend some aspects of the Law of Moses. Again with change and, therefore, lack of conservation). The most important bit here teaches us how we should treat those even who sin against us, or who sin in general. We are taught that God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," in the same breath (before the quote) saying indirectly not to act out or retaliate against sinners. (We see another example in the same chapter: His modification of eye for an eye).
Now, what all these mean I'll soon get into, but I will now mention a last reference which I would ask you NOT to judge too harshly. That, of course, is John 8, which, though wonderful scripture, is argued to not be one of St. John's actual scriptures. John 8 gives us the example of the adultress, brought before Christ. The Jews tempt him by reciting the law of Moses, which is to stone her for adultery. Christ replies: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Now let's think about gay marriage for a second, or abortion, or whatnot. One of these hot topics of the day. In these modern days, we don't throw stones, do we? But let's say that our federal government outlaws these things for the sake of conservation of our way of life. But this wouldn't really solve the problem, would it? After all, abortion's been around for ages and ages. Long before the time of Christ. So a woman goes through an abortion for whatever her reasons may be. What will her price be? Or the price on the doctor? How many years and how big a fine? But these aren't stones, are they? They're not like stones at all.
Truth is, they are. The concept of "you're bad, you deserve to be in prison" is ridiculous. Prisons aren't meant for the judgement of men, they're meant to keep the rest of society safe from people who would hurt or steal and so forth. But who should fear from the woman? The judgements we cast on people are just a different method for throwing stones at each other. But never had it occured to anyone to be more like Christ. These "Christians" outside women health centers shouting their abuse at all those who are coming for help and aid, some of them not even in need of an abortion. And that's what Jesus would do, is it? That's what He did? That's funny, because, in my mind, I for some reason see the Savior of man, the Prince of Peace, trying to soften the hearts of these women, and show them that they're not alone, and that they do have better options and try to help them onto a better path. But, CLEARLY, I must be wrong. How else could it be that there are so many people condemning these women every day in the name of our Lord? And that's what they see, isn't it? That is the portrait that WE paint of Christ. He is cold, brutal, and unforgiving. That's the image He portrayed during His ministry, isn't it? Must be, because I don't see any other group treating these women so badly.
And so there it is, isn't it? Here we are, tugging at the splinter in the eyes of our sisters and brothers while having a whole 2x4 plastered over our visage.
But does that make abortion right? No. Certainly not. I would challenge you to think that your views on abortion are as grave as mine. No one who has seen a mother carry her baby could possibly consider it. At least not the way I see it. The beauty it is to help God in this great miracle of life. Abortion is not something that would even be
considered in my family. The concept would be as foreign as... well, I can't think of anything quite so foreign that wouldn't already be too familiar to be foreign enough. I mean, for me and mine, that's it. There's just no abortion. My girlfriend says the same. Her words are "I think it's dispicable, actually." But you can be damned sure that we're NOT going to go throwing stones. Physical OR otherwise. And if we get the opportunity to spread our help and love to one of these women in need, you can bet we sure as hell will, for HER sake as WELL as her baby's. But even then, we have free will, and they have the right to turn our help away, and the help of the Lord if He were here. They will have to answer to Him. But to HIM. NOT us. And while they're still here, they still have a chance of being redeemed if we're only willing to stretch out our love and our kindness that they may follow in the steps of the Lord, for those who ARE in His path would have the strength and love in their lives to not even need to consider the option.
Gay marriage goes a similar pattern. The Federal Government should have no say on who can marry, or by whom, for that matter. If marriage were a Federal thing, then why do marriages between the different religions count? If you're married in another church, and come to mine, we're gonna tell you that you're missing out on a few key things. And you know what? As most of the marriages in the US result in divorce, I'd say the point's pretty moot. Hardly any of us acknowledge the religion of another group to be true, so then why their priesthood under which they were married? And frankly, why does the Federal Government care who's with who to give them tax breaks and the right to adopt or have a family? Now, let's say, IE, that they try to marry under a certain church. Well, you'll have to follow the rules of the church. If they say no gay marriage, that's up to them. In my church, that's a definite no. And we don't really consider most outside marriages to be very important in terms with our church (that's not to say that they're not important, just that our church doesn't recognize them). But I'm not gonna say, "Hey, you didn't marry in our church so you're not married." Nor that "Hey, you didn't marry by the rules of my church, so you shouldn't get a tax refund." I'm sorry, but there are things that belong to the church to deal with, and things that are apart. Legal marriage is NOT the same as a marriage sanctioned by the church. Even AETHIESTS are allowed to get married. A marriage without God? How does that make any sense in our book? Being gay doesn't make the unloving, or less intelligent, or less capable of sharing a family. Do I think it's right? I'm don't really consider it a marriage the way I see a church marriage. Frankly, I don't think they care, but as long as we know that, we're on the same page. I'd even go so far as to try to bring them into the church and teach them WHY we don't see those marriages as not real marriages, but that's COMPLETELY different than saying, "Nope. Can't do it. Not natural." Somehow I see one as having a little more compassion and a higher chance of actually bringing in our fellow brothers and sisters into the gospel of the Lord. And when it comes time for it, their marriage will be judged by their maker, and they'll have to answer to Him. But not to us, according to the scriptures, and certainly not to the US government, in which teachers can get sued to high heaven for professing their beliefs.
And if you're going to sit there and tell me that all is right in the world and we should fight to protect our current way of life, or in fact, the way we've been living even since Christ came, I'd say you're full of it. The world Christ was trying to promote still hasn't come around. Heck, not long after He died, we brutally murdered His disciples and tossed ourselves into an apostasy.
And so, considering these teachings, which are about individual growth and change, and the reasons for which He was crucified, being the Jews trying to conserve their way of life, I don't see how the simple declaration of Christ being crucified by conservatives isn't true. I will, however, say that He taught a lot of conservation, as much as change, which is a good way to live (obviously, as it's the way He taught us to live). Between you and me, if we were to talk about these points which you say are wrong and condemnable, you will find that I agree with you on at least 90% of them. But I also believe that it's not our place to judge, neither is it to condemn, and forcing the government to punish these things because we believe them to be morally wrong... that's pretty much the meaning of condemnation. And I even moreso agree with Lincoln: Not just is it not up to us to judge or condemn, but it sure as hell isn't the Federal government's job to do it either. Less so, even.
What's wrong with being a Democrat?
That would be a matter of opinion. The first thing and main thing I'd say is that, if you're going to register Democrat, then I hope that you, personally, of your own volition and rational thought, agree with all of their POVs. If not, then I would say that you're an individual thinker and should instead vote moreso on the candidates and their stances than their politica affiliation.
I don't want to get into the whole liberal vs conservative thing, but it just strikes me that Jesus didn't line up on either side and to the people of his time , he was more of a bonafide fruitloop radical. I think too many of us tend to put labels where there are none.
I hope I answered some of your concern about Jesus being liberal vs conservative. I don't really mean to put a label on Jesus as a whole, save it be the facts. But some of His actions were liberal, some were conservative. Though, of course, I doubt anyone truly is completely liberal or coservative. The main thing I'm liberal about is choice: that is to say, let people choose right or wrong of themselves and don't judge them for it. Only lock em up if they present a danger to their fellow man. Things like that. Otherwise, I'm anti-abortion, don't believe in gay marriage, and have very defined points of view on how much effort a man should put into his life and his career.
EDIT:
I would also like to re-iterate, Hawk, that I understand the morals and ideal under which you vote, and I applaud you for them. I'd would like to point out that if we compared these topics individually, you and I are probably going to agree on most of them. The only thing we so far disagree on are semantics and whether or not our views on those points should be pressed on other people.
EDIT 2:
I would also like to make it known! I don't mean to confuse any of you on the subject: I, like Lincoln, completely abhor slavery. I was merely using his example as a liberal republican. Might've been a bad example. Sorry if it seems offensive!
