Here's something I don't get about politics.
So often, it's not an issue of right and wrong. It's an issue of choice over force. Why do conservatives always want to force their morals on other people? Liberals arn't usually condoning bad things, they just want to give people the right to choose for themselves weather or not they will do the right thing. And yet, at the same time, it seems like there are times when it is right to force good morals on others.
Where do you draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
The line is drawn when the morals presented in the Bible are put into use.
that doesn't help at all.
Wow Emily I never thought the Liberals deserved that much credit. Maybe you're right. Maybe that's they're real agenda. But if the Liberals are just letting people make their own choices why aren't kids or teachers allowed to pray in school? Why are they so set on not being racist that they give people of other races special benefits? (That's just as racist in the opposite direction!) So I guess what I'm saying is that however much Liberals claim that they're giving people more options, they really are just forcing their worldview on others just as much as we Conservatives are.
*their
Another thought: I suppose it goes back to our discussion about abortion--give them a choice or force them to stop the murder? I suppose if we turned out to be wrong about abortion then it would be pretty unfair for us to be forcing our view on others. One would think we should give the choice to each person if nobody knows what the real right choice is. But if the conservatives really are right why should we waste any more time letting people air their ridiculous wrong ideas?
well I'm certainly not standing up for liberals.
I'm just saying, it can't always be right to force our morals on others. Just because someone proposes a law which would ban some practice we consider sinful doesn't mean we should support it.
But as in the abortion case, I agree that since other lives are in danger we do have the right to step in. I'm just wondering where you draw that line.
I don't know. It seems like liberals are a lot more pushy that conservatives. Everything comes from a liberal point of veiw, the news, etc. etc. I agree with Aletheia, it seems like the liberals are double sided, and when it comes to christianity, they try to squash it down. Christians don't really have any freedom in schools, but other religions do.
exactly, exactly, conservatives are REALLY pushy about forcing things.
i know it's not a perfect example, because they aren't really clean-cut "conservative" ideas, but look at the laws we've had passed in washington state the last few years.
absolute filth, garbage.
they're forcing me to wear a seatbelt, they're forcing my business to not allow cigarettes, they're forcing me to stop talking on my cellphone (most recently.)
who are they to tell me?
that is not the government's job.
i refuse to conform to their standard.
i always wear my seatbelt, i've never smoked a cigarette, i don't do stupid stuff while i drive.
who are you to tell me i can't talk on a cellphone but i can chomp on a big mac while i drive?
who are you to tell me i can't do something stupid?
that is not the government's job, i refuse to believe the government is smarter than me and can make better decisions.
you want to know when you can fine me for talking on a cellphone? when i CRASH. yeah. until then, i'm a better driver than a lot of the retards out there on the road. i at least, use my blinkers.
why don't you go worry about them?
if no one can pray in school, then there is nothing forced on anyone--atheist kids don't pray to anyone/anything. what are they going to do while everyone prays? sounds like that's forcing something on them to me.
you can pray publicly in the privacy of your own home or on the street.
in school, there doesn't need to be a set time or teacher-led prayer. now, if it was a christian school, it'd sure be nice. but in public school everyone can pray on their own time.
me, i like small government.
government that does not interfere and grab more and more power over me and my decisions.
call me a little capitalist, but i like government that minds its own business.
neither conservatives nor liberals really want this kind of government. both say they do, but government just keeps getting bigger and getting more into places it doesn't belong. but both sides pretend like the other is the only one that wants to get into personal lives.
you draw the line when you have to start justifying why to do it, instead of looking for reasons why not to do it.
like abortion. I can think of like one reason to do it. maybe. plenty why you shouldn't (Biblically speaking, anyway). same for, say, smoking. you have to JUSTIFY doing it. but reading your Bible (extreme example, I realize) you should be looking really really hard to find reasons not to. Less extreme would be like donating to a charity or something. there aren't many reasons why NOT to do it.
So you should always as "why should I do this, and also why shouldn't I do this?" then weigh the pros and cons, using the Bible as your scale.
and the reasons Liberals are viewed that way and Christians aren't is all in tolerance. Liberals don't really care who or what you are as long as everyone gets to state their opinion. everyone, of course, except Christians. and Christians aren't against freedom of speach. they're just against people leading others astray by presenting flawed reasoning. so the Liberals come in the name of letting everyone have their say and be who they want to be, but "only as long as we can keep Christians and their views down." why do you think they appear mellow but fight so hard against prayer in schools, the ten commandments, etc.?
sorry to appear so anti- here (anti-liberalist, anti-abortion, anti-whatever) or make Christian and conservative synonomous. I realize that I have some pretty extreme examples here, but I think that that's really what's at the heart of this whole thing.
So I guess that there's also a difference between forcing your views/opinions and turning those views into laws that force people into following your opinion. At that point, it's up to the Bible to again be our scales. If your views are in line with the Bible, there's no reason that they would make bad laws, etc. But as we've discussed so much recently, while the laws aren't bad, it's just as important to work on individuals, to help them see God's love and why these laws are good.
Well Em I see what you mean now. But if we believe something is wrong, why not outlaw it? That's what laws are for.
Yeah Sam you're right that there are way too many silly laws nowadays. I think you're saying that conservatives passed all these laws. I don't know who it was but even if it was us, our laws are annoying but pretty much harmless I'd say.
While we're looking at recent laws: a few weeks ago Washington's congress ruled that people who were teaching abstinence in schools should stop, and instead schools should teach either sex education encouraging kids or nothing at all. Tell me that's not liberals pushing their agenda. Not only that, they're prohibiting the free speech of the people who took the time and energy to go teach abstinence in the schools.
No! No! Nobody ever forced the atheist kids to pray. They're forcing the Christian kids NOT to pray, which is exactly what the First Amendment tried to prevent!! They're NOT allowed to "pray on their own time," that's just it!
Hm well I've always heard that Conservatives push for small government and Liberals push for big government. Maybe it was just the Conservatives telling me so, but I thought that was part of their identity.
Yeah Verya you're right. And you're right (and Em is right) that though a lot of things are biblical you can't make them all into laws without putting people in straightjackets. It is a problem. Maybe it won't ever be solved until everybody is a Christian. I suppose people tried doing this in the 15th century which is why they tortured anybody who didn't agree with the Catholic church. So yes, how do you have freedom and morals at the same time? Is it possible in a fallen world?
I heard about a Christian student down in Texas who was valedictorian of his class, but he was not allowed to mention God's name. They even had police there to make sure he didn't. Tell me that's freedom of speech. Tell me that's not Liberals taking control and trying to squash Christians.
lol.
i'm sorry, i didn't mean to be rude, that came out wrong.
matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."
students can pray at lunch, while they're walking to class, on their free time, in their head, at club times after school, in the hallways. i just looked it up. it's true.
what is not allowed is for students or teachers to lead others in prayer in a way that excludes people who don't pray. that would be awkward if you were an atheist. i don't understand why we should force how we communicate with our god (which is a sensible way of doing it, imho) to be the way they do it.
how would you feel if islam had a time when everyone in the room did one of their bowing deals (and i don't mean disrespect to islam, i honestly don't know the name) before school every day. and you just stood there and went "uh, yeah, um"
that would be giving a time for islam to force their religion, and that's exactly, as a christian and as a person who prays, what i don't want to be forced on others.
conservatives say they want small government, but then they go spend us into trillions of dollars in debt every year just like all the politicians. just look at how bush has expanded this government yet again, spending more.
Way to go Sam! You looked it up, good job. OK you win. From what I heard it sounded like prayer wasn't allowed period in schools but I guess I heard wrong. (Should have looked it up myself.) You're totally right that it would be awkward for unbelievers to stand there not praying. Sorry for getting a little heated about that. :D
Yeah I asked one of my teachers about whether either party really is for small government and he says that each side wants to make a different aspect of government bigger--conservatives want a bigger military but lower taxes, while liberals want a smaller military but higher taxes. But he says that in the end conservatives end up wanting a smaller government than liberals do.
I'd have to check how the liberals and conservatives voted on the new cellphone law, but it was passed under a liberal governor.
And I thought I'd heard that Bush had lowered taxes. There's no avoiding spending more when we're at war, of course!
OK, I had a big looong comment to post on this, but Blogger lost it and my saved copy is gone...*kickscomputer* but then I read your last posts since last night and so most of what I was going to say is kind of unnecessary now. my sam-to-kacy language translator is broken right now, lol.
Ummm...just one thing. is evolution not a religion?
YES, it is. they just don't like to call it that. so I'm not saying that prayer in school should be forced, but it makes me so mad that we can't have a prayer in school when they won't even show an alternative to evolution. i totally understand that we shouldn't have one religion over the other, but I wish they could all be equal at least.
and about those other laws...some are maybe dumb. like it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk. but a lot of laws are put in place for our protection (seatbelt law, cell phone law), esp. from those idiots who can't drive. It may not be as necessary for us as for people who are lousy drivers, but it still applies to all people and is here for everyone's protection.
and the smoking law is a little protection of health, and a lot of protection of rights. sure they have the right to smoke, but we have the right to breath smoke-free air too. if restaurants had a section for people who wanted to play super-loud music, those restaurants would probably lose a lot of business, because people would want to go somewhere where they had the right to not listen to that music. so the smokers can still smoke, we're just asking them to show a little curtesy to the people around them.
but other than that my translator is now up and running, and I understand what you were saying, and agree with most of it ;)
oh yeah, and...bluetooth? great invention...
lol no, it's fine, i'm sorry i offended you.
that seems to make sense, although that's a large oversimplification of it the issues. liberals want a smaller defense budget but more money for things like education and social security reform and health care and things like that.
and, taxes lower under bush?
*gigglesnort*
well, if your income is over one million, then yes, your taxes went down under bush.
besides that, they went up and we went more into debt than ever before.
yeah, the cellphone bill wasn't a good example, because it had both parties split pretty evenly.
we don't have the right to breathe smoke-free air (last i checked the bill of rights). that's just it. lol. if we don't want to, then we can just not go where there's smoke.
if the restraunt wants to have a section to play superloud music and you don't like it, then you don't have to go. that's the beauty of our society. if you don't like it, then there's always somewhere else. until the government screws it up.
i know, bluetooth is genius.
Oh so about smoking laws... my teacher said that people could say that everything you do including smoking affects others. Because of socialized healthcare (which is liberal x53), if someone smokes everybody else ends up paying for it. So under this argument, the government basically has a right to dictate every single thing you do to make sure you don't end up with a hospital bill that everyone else has to pay. Which is of course ridiculous. Which is why we have to draw the line somewhere but it's hard to tell where....
that would make sense if there were laws against smoking itself.
the laws are in place so that the "innocent bystander" sorts don't have to smell and inhale a little cigarette smoke. because they're way too stupid to not go where's there's smoke, so they need the protection of the warm fuzzy well meaning government to protect them from those evil cigarette smoking chaps.
which i have a problem with.
though what you're saying makes sense, i don't think that's quite right, because these laws were made to protect OTHER people not the people who really get lung cancer from their own smoking.
Yeah good point. So basically they made a law forcing people to be considerate of other people--when the only way people will ever be considerate of eachother is if they actually want to be.
Post a Comment