Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Gap between Liberals and Conservatives is wider then I realized.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Gap between Liberals and Conservatives is wider then I realized.

    The gap between Liberals and conservatives in America is much wider then I ever imagined. While on a club hike today with individuals I had not met previously I happened to hear two hikers talking about relaxation and meditation. My interest perked up when I heard the name Mohammad in the context of peace, relaxation, and meditation. Feeling strongly that Islam has issues which need to be addressed by moderate Muslims regarding how that religion relates to the rest of the world, I calmly said, “You know the Koran guarantees salvation only to those who kill unbelievers or dies doing so. Its the only such guarantee in the Koran though I can't quote the exact verse.” I continued, “Whereas Christianity guarantees salvation to those who accept Jesus and treat others as they would be treated themselves.”

    Holy crap, you would have thought I had killed each group member's first born child. An amazingly emotional and aggressive out cry against me from all but two silent group members ensued. I was called a conservative war monger among other things. From my simple statement questioning Islam, the group began assuming I took an extreme right stance on all kinds of domestic issues irrelevant to the Mohammad discussion. Realizing I had mistakenly hiked into a field of land mines ,I decided to spend the walk exploring Liberal ideals by debating with the hikers.

    During our discussion I found that the Liberals were very emotional compared to my rational approach. They later admitted to such saying I rationalize everything. I explained for some decisions are rational. They painted with a very broad brush assuming that all conservatives are far right religious fanatics. They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se. It took a significant time for me to successfully (I hope) explain that given the US two party system many citizens are often forced to vote on one or two issues which are significant to that voter because they likely don't agree with a certain party on all issues. I repeatedly explained that for me I feel very strongly about individual self reliance economically. I feel strongly enough on that one issue that I vote Republican because I have few choices which are congruent with that ideal even if I don't necessarily agree with the Republicans on other issues which are less significant to me. They seemed to struggle with this idea. I suspect this is because they tend to agree with whatever the Democrats feed them through the media. However, when you point this out, they insist the media is unbiased.

    I found that the Liberals take the party line more precisely then conservatives. There appears to be very little room for diverse views. Keep in mind I am talking about individual voters not elected party members. They could not fathom that a conservative such as myelf could be pro environment. They cannot image diversity amongst conservatives. They could not predict my views on issues aside from support for president Bush and conservative economic policy. At the same time, I was able to predict their views on every issue.I could predict their conspiracies and prejudicies.

    What struck me most, aside from their shear emotionalism, was their insolent disrespectful insults of President Bush. They seriously believe he, Cheney, and Rumsfield are evil. The words satanic and Hilter were used in their description. I explained how different that is from how I believe in America. I explained that while I vehemently disagree with Liberalism, I would never say such things about President Clinton for example. I explained that while I disagree with President Clinton on many things, I believed he had America's best interest at heart. I explained that such extreme views on the current administration can easily cause those who do not concur to wonder about one's patriotism.

    One Liberal took exception to this. However, he later admitted to not being very patriotic. The Liberal went on to site a conspiracy theory about invading Iraq to assist oil companies. I explained that the difference between him and I appears to be that I believe that while not all of President Bush's decisions have worked out smoothly, there is no conspiracy, just a president being forced to make very difficult decisions during very difficult times. They finally sounded rational when they said that being the case, based on President Bush's poor performance in the war on terror, they want to vote a different party into power. However, it did not take long for the conversation to degenerate back into Bush bashing and emotional conspiracy theories and hate.

    I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people. They seemed quite confused by my stance on social and environmental issues. They insisted I was moderating and back pedaling. I reminded them that we originally began our discussion based on my views of Islam and the war on terror. They had made many assumptions about my, views. I reminded them that individual conservatives views often differ from that of the party's. However, we often have to make choices given the limited voting options in the US.

    I doubt any opinions changed as result of our debate. Unfortunately I doubt they learned anything. However, I found our talk very interesting and picked up a few things.

    I'm very interested in comments on my experience from Liberals and Conservatives.

    Marc

  • #2
    mcdelroy,

    I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people.
    you said it yourself. the hike was not a scientific study, your "sample" of liberals was so tiny as to be of...no value. at best, what you got was a knowledge of the liberalism your hiking buddies seem to share

    also, regarding the gap of which you speak, i think you also disprove it yourself. for example, as you say

    They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se.
    and in such a way quite a few right-wingers would condemn you for being a RINO, and that your beliefs would veer closer to the moderate/conservative wing of the democratic party. for them, you might be a damned liberal!

    past the obvious examples of those members that lie closer to the extreme ends of both groups, it can actually be pretty difficult to judge if a person is liberal or conservative, simply because one's views on the myriad of things to be politically judged upon can vary.

    to take a more personal example, i judge myself to be more liberal than conservative, although my truly liberal friends will lambast me and stare in shock when i tell them i full-heartedly support the iraq war, that globalization is a good thing, that bush is NOT that bad of a president.

    at the same time, my truly conservative friends will lambast me and stare in shock when i tell them that i don't mind gay marriage, that the christian right is a bunch of loonies (even though i am christian), that bush is NOT that good of a president (although he has gotten better since the first term).

    in the end, i call it a day by just stating that i'm a centrist. gap, what gap?
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mcdelroy View Post
      The gap between Liberals and conservatives in America is much wider then I ever imagined. While on a club hike today with individuals I had not met previously I happened to hear two hikers talking about relaxation and meditation. My interest perked up when I heard the name Mohammad in the context of peace, relaxation, and meditation. Feeling strongly that Islam has issues which need to be addressed by moderate Muslims regarding how that religion relates to the rest of the world, I calmly said, “You know the Koran guarantees salvation only to those who kill unbelievers or dies doing so. Its the only such guarantee in the Koran though I can't quote the exact verse.” I continued, “Whereas Christianity guarantees salvation to those who accept Jesus and treat others as they would be treated themselves.”

      Holy crap, you would have thought I had killed each group member's first born child. An amazingly emotional and aggressive out cry against me from all but two silent group members ensued. I was called a conservative war monger among other things. From my simple statement questioning Islam, the group began assuming I took an extreme right stance on all kinds of domestic issues irrelevant to the Mohammad discussion. Realizing I had mistakenly hiked into a field of land mines ,I decided to spend the walk exploring Liberal ideals by debating with the hikers.

      During our discussion I found that the Liberals were very emotional compared to my rational approach. They later admitted to such saying I rationalize everything. I explained for some decisions are rational. They painted with a very broad brush assuming that all conservatives are far right religious fanatics. They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se. It took a significant time for me to successfully (I hope) explain that given the US two party system many citizens are often forced to vote on one or two issues which are significant to that voter because they likely don't agree with a certain party on all issues. I repeatedly explained that for me I feel very strongly about individual self reliance economically. I feel strongly enough on that one issue that I vote Republican because I have few choices which are congruent with that ideal even if I don't necessarily agree with the Republicans on other issues which are less significant to me. They seemed to struggle with this idea. I suspect this is because they tend to agree with whatever the Democrats feed them through the media. However, when you point this out, they insist the media is unbiased.

      I found that the Liberals take the party line more precisely then conservatives. There appears to be very little room for diverse views. Keep in mind I am talking about individual voters not elected party members. They could not fathom that a conservative such as myelf could be pro environment. They cannot image diversity amongst conservatives. They could not predict my views on issues aside from support for president Bush and conservative economic policy. At the same time, I was able to predict their views on every issue.I could predict their conspiracies and prejudicies.

      What struck me most, aside from their shear emotionalism, was their insolent disrespectful insults of President Bush. They seriously believe he, Cheney, and Rumsfield are evil. The words satanic and Hilter were used in their description. I explained how different that is from how I believe in America. I explained that while I vehemently disagree with Liberalism, I would never say such things about President Clinton for example. I explained that while I disagree with President Clinton on many things, I believed he had America's best interest at heart. I explained that such extreme views on the current administration can easily cause those who do not concur to wonder about one's patriotism.

      One Liberal took exception to this. However, he later admitted to not being very patriotic. The Liberal went on to site a conspiracy theory about invading Iraq to assist oil companies. I explained that the difference between him and I appears to be that I believe that while not all of President Bush's decisions have worked out smoothly, there is no conspiracy, just a president being forced to make very difficult decisions during very difficult times. They finally sounded rational when they said that being the case, based on President Bush's poor performance in the war on terror, they want to vote a different party into power. However, it did not take long for the conversation to degenerate back into Bush bashing and emotional conspiracy theories and hate.

      I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people. They seemed quite confused by my stance on social and environmental issues. They insisted I was moderating and back pedaling. I reminded them that we originally began our discussion based on my views of Islam and the war on terror. They had made many assumptions about my, views. I reminded them that individual conservatives views often differ from that of the party's. However, we often have to make choices given the limited voting options in the US.

      I doubt any opinions changed as result of our debate. Unfortunately I doubt they learned anything. However, I found our talk very interesting and picked up a few things.

      I'm very interested in comments on my experience from Liberals and Conservatives.

      Marc
      Marc,

      Take a look at some conservative and liberal blogs where they allow comments. Be aware that there will be a bias in the numbers in the sense that those who are more emotional that rational will probably be more likely to post. Once you file that thought away in the back of your mind, start taking a look at the blogs. I think you'll find irrational comments on both sides of the spectrum.

      Heck, start thinking about some ultra-conservative actions - while I don't like using a religious example, it's the best that comes to time at the moment - would Jesus believe in threatening those walking into an abortion clinic and firebombing abortion clinics? Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone - casting verbal stones and fire bombs doesn't seem like the rational response.

      Lastly, what is the exact verse in the Koran that guarantees heaven for killing an unbeliever, and how do you square that up with verse 2:256 that states that there is "no compulsion in religion"? Thanks.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        sounds like you encountered some folks who have never confronted a conservative in a fierce debate and also they may have not faced someone who isnt a precieved "typical republican", who would equally just repeat the party line


        but are you trying to generalize thier ignorance upon all liberals, that would be ironic wouldnt it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Gap?

          As I mentioned I can't recall the verse number which was referenced regarding the guarantee of salvation rewarding violence in the Quran against unbelievers. I don't think it was Sura 9.5 but that verse seems similar. I toyed with the idea of reading the Quran, however, I'm not sure its worth the effort to me since I suspect few Muslims would read the Bible on our account. I'd be curious what a non-Muslim familiar with the Quran would have to say regarding the presence of an assurance of salvation in the Quran.

          To me that's a funny thought that I might be considered a Liberal by conservatives and a Rightest by Liberals.....sort of like a man without a country. When I called myself a social moderate and fiscal conservative to the Liberals they insisted that I was a Christian far rightist afraid to say so. I found that very narrow minded. Unfortunately, the hiking group's reaction to my views is not the first time Liberals have reacted similarly to me disagreeing with them. Unfortunately I do see an (unscientific) trend. How many times must I go through this for it to be scientific? :)

          Today's group jumped to many conclusions based on one statement by me regarding Mohammad. And boy were they ferocious. Based on social issues perhaps I'm not as conservative as they or I thought. Interesting. I am pretty sure that my ideas on taxes, government intervention in citizens' lives, and government spending lean further to the right then centrists. I'd be curious to hear centrists ideas on taxes, government spending, welfare and such. To me, it seems easy to be lulled into feel good politics encouraging programs to help all kinds of people. When the question comes up who will pay for such programs, it seems easy to say, "Not us. The rich will pay." However, in my view, without ever moderating government spending, eventually the rest of us pay more taxes too. Today it seems difficult to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves.

          Marc

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe he is refering to these

            Sura 8.12 "Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them."

            Sura 9.5 "When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters whereever you find them."

            Sura 47.4 "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives."

            Sura 8 is about a BATTLE - the Battle of Badr - not just some daily affair. A battles take two side to occur. Are you under the impression that while these 'horrid' Muslims were fighting, the enemies were simply standing there like good little peaceful men?

            Sura 47 was revealed during the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were under *threat of extinction* by invasion from Makkah.

            Sura 9 is interesting. Non-Muslims almost invariably quote verse 5 but leave out verse 4 and 6. Why? Because verse 4 says, "But the treaties are not dissolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have you subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God Loves the righteous."

            And verse 6 says, "If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."

            So basically what has been done above is:

            1. The background to each sura was shown. One cannot take a verse revealed for a battle and insist it is if for the daily affairs of Muslims.

            2. It was shown how Non-muslims who wish to attack Islam, conveniently leave out verses before and after their quoted verse. Above, I have shown only one of the many examples.
            http://www.themodernreligion.com/ter...sm_verses1.htm

            The only really important point about these texts is not that they are usually taken out of context by Non-muslims, it is how many Muslims also take them out of context. There are certainly enough Christians who happily quote selective chapter and verse of those texts from the bible that suit them, how many Muslims do likewise.
            Last edited by Parihaka; 15 Oct 06,, 04:48.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mcdelroy View Post
              As I mentioned I can't recall the verse number which was referenced regarding the guarantee of salvation rewarding violence in the Quran against unbelievers. I don't think it was Sura 9.5 but that verse seems similar. I toyed with the idea of reading the Quran, however, I'm not sure its worth the effort to me since I suspect few Muslims would read the Bible on our account. I'd be curious what a non-Muslim familiar with the Quran would have to say regarding the presence of an assurance of salvation in the Quran.
              Instead of being rational and logical, you are rationalizing, e.g., I won't read the Quran because Muslims probably won't read the Bible. Your decision to read the Quran should be based on your desire to learn, not on some perceived reciprocal equation. You didn't address my question - how does your view coincide with the verse that there is "no compulsion in religion"? How does Islamic jurisprudence reconcile these two views? Does Christianity and Judaism support a fully and completely literal interpretation of the Bible? I understand that you are younger; however, do not fall into the trap of seeing others as inflexible while not allowing yourself the flexibility to analyze things for yourself.

              Originally posted by mcdelroy
              To me that's a funny thought that I might be considered a Liberal by conservatives and a Rightest by Liberals.....sort of like a man without a country. When I called myself a social moderate and fiscal conservative to the Liberals they insisted that I was a Christian far rightist afraid to say so. I found that very narrow minded. Unfortunately, the hiking group's reaction to my views is not the first time Liberals have reacted similarly to me disagreeing with them. Unfortunately I do see an (unscientific) trend. How many times must I go through this for it to be scientific? :)
              Your sample frame probably does not extrapolate well to the population frame. My guess is the liberal sample frame that you see are probably those liberals who are in the same age group as you. Is a 18-24 year old liberal the same as a 60-64 year old liberal? Once you have a sample frame that is representative of the population frame that you are trying to describe, then you can state some results with scientific support.

              Originally posted by mcdelroy
              Today's group jumped to many conclusions based on one statement by me regarding Mohammad. And boy were they ferocious. Based on social issues perhaps I'm not as conservative as they or I thought. Interesting. I am pretty sure that my ideas on taxes, government intervention in citizens' lives, and government spending lean further to the right then centrists. I'd be curious to hear centrists ideas on taxes, government spending, welfare and such. To me, it seems easy to be lulled into feel good politics encouraging programs to help all kinds of people. When the question comes up who will pay for such programs, it seems easy to say, "Not us. The rich will pay." However, in my view, without ever moderating government spending, eventually the rest of us pay more taxes too. Today it seems difficult to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves.

              Marc
              If you really want to push their buttons, talk about how you support child labor in developing nations You'll really throw them for a loop where they will have to fall back onto fallacious positions to support and defend their mostly indefensible position. If you're interested in doing this, just start a thread about child labor, and I can post some stuff that you can use to develop your position. My stuff will range from a NYT Magazine article to some economics journal articles where the statistics will most likely be incomprehensible, but the conclusions won't be too hard to understand.
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #8
                The gap is enormous between the two. Which is why I regard the other side as dangerous. Perhaps not evil, in the sense that our enemies the terrorists are evil. But certainly deluded and set apart from reality at a time when clear thinking and rationality is required. REQUIRED, but not found in my political opponents.

                Vote Republican. Because there is simply too much at stake, and the Democrats are absolutely eager to do things that are deadly. Not to our enemies, but to us.

                An election Foley-equipped with frivolity
                (http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/9...teyn15.article)

                October 15, 2006

                BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
                Who is James Vicini? Well, he works for Reuters, the storied news agency. By "storied," I don't mean in the Hans Christian Andersen sense, though these days it's hard to tell. But they have an illustrious history and they're globally respected and whatnot. And last week newshound Vicini got assigned quite an interesting story:

                "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A California-born convert to Islam, accused of making a series of al-Qaida propaganda videos, became on Wednesday the first American charged with treason since the World War II era, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

                "Fugitive Adam Gadahn, 28, who is believed to be in Pakistan, was accused of treason, which carries a maximum punishment of death . . ."

                Wow! Treason! First time in half-a-century, since the Tokyo Rose days. Since then, of course, the very word "treason" has come to seem arcane, if not obsolescent, like something some fellow in doublet-and-hose might accuse somebody of on "Masterpiece Theatre" but otherwise not terribly relevant and frankly no big deal: Indeed, the campus left usually gives the impression that "treason" is little more than an alternative lifestyle, like transvestism.

                Yet the Justice Department wants this fellow over in Pakistan for treason. Now why would they do such a thing? After chugging through the various charges, Vicini got to the meat of his story: "Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides, a scandal that may help Democrats seize control of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections."

                Cut out that paragraph and have it framed. Or now that the nights are drawing in, if you're at a loose end of an evening, sew it into an attractive sampler and hang it in your parlor. In years to come, you'll spend many precious moments treasuring it as the perfect summation of the 2006 U.S. election.

                "Justice Department officials denied . . . " What Reuters means by those words is that a reporter -- possibly the great Vicini himself or his colleague ("Additional reporting by Rick Cowan") -- gets the press release about this once-in-a-half-century treason thing and says to the relevant feds, "C'mon, you guys are just nailing this dude in Pakistan to distract from Mark Foley, right?"

                And the Justice Department fellow no doubt replies, "Mark who?"

                And Cowan (or Vicini) goes, "The ex-congressman. Teenage pages. Horny gay Republican predators. Hastert's notorious pedophile ring. You must have read about it. It's been in all the papers." And the Justice guy says, "Sorry, I've been been working the fax machine to Pakistan all week, typing up the relevant indictments in triplicate, and so forth."

                Originally, only the Republican Congress was covering for Foley. But, as Vicini and Cowan see it, the conspiracy now extends to the Justice Department. We should be grateful Reuters imputed merely the "timing" of the treason indictment to the "lewd computer message" scandal, not the indictment itself. After all, why would the Bush administration have earmarked some nobody in Pakistan for a cockamamie charge of "treason" if it weren't for just such an eventuality as this? Also, notice the way the most damaging "lewd computer messages" and the toppling of Saddam Hussein both occurred in 2003: Did the neocons stage the entire Iraq war in order to set Foley up with an endless supply of fetching young Arab houseboys? As Al Jolson liked to sing, climb upon my knee, Sunni boy.

                And what about that North Korean nuke? That timing's pretty suspicious, too. And in that goofy outfit of his Kim Jong Il looks a bit like a teenage congressional page at a slumber party. Well, from a distance and in a poor light, and if you've had a couple drinks.

                And how about this for convenient timing? From the BBC on Thursday:

                "A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and U.S. targets. Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive 'dirty bomb' in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard . . ."

                In my new book (out this week, folks: you'll find it at the back of the store past the 9/11 Conspiracy section and the Christianist Theocrat Takeover of America section and the ceiling-high display of the new Dixie Chicks six-CD box set of songs about how they're being silenced), I say that some of us looked at Sept. 11 as the sudden revelation of the tip of a vast iceberg, and I try to address the seven-eighths of that iceberg below the surface -- the globalization of radical Islam, the free-lancing of nuclear technology, the demographic weakness of Western democracies. Other folks, however, see the iceberg upside down. The huge weight of history -- the big geopolitical forces coursing through society -- the vast burden all balancing on the pinhead of the week: in this instance, Mark Foley.

                Thomas Sowell says the question for this election is not whether you or your candidate is Republican or Democrat but whether you're "serious" or "frivolous." A lot of Americans, and not just their sorry excuse for a professional press corps, are in the mood for frivolity. It's like going to the theater. Do you really want to sit through that searing historical drama from the Royal Shakespeare Company? Or would you rather be at the sex comedy next door?

                In the 1990s, Americans opted for the sex comedy -- or so they thought. But in reality the searing historical drama carried on; it was always there, way off in the background, behind the yuk-it-up narcissist trouser-dropper staggering around downstage. The mood of the times was to kick the serious stuff down the road so we could get back to President Lounge Act offering to feel our pain. With North Korea, the people delegated to kick the can a few years ahead -- Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter -- are now back, writing self-congratulatory op-eds about their genius and foresight. Not at all. Albright's much-touted "agreement" was a deal whereby Washington agreed to prop up a flailing basket-case state in order to enable it to buy enough time to become a serious destabilizing threat to its neighbors and beyond. Many of our present woes -- not least Iran -- derive explicitly from the years when Carter embodied the American "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.

                Thanks in part to last decade's holiday from history, North Korea and Iran don't have to buy any more time. They've got all they need. Life isn't a night on Broadway where you can decide you're not in the mood for "Henry V" and everyone seems to be having a much better time at "La Cage Aux Foley." Forget the Republicans for a moment. In Connecticut, the contest is between a frivolous liberal running on myopic parochial platitudes and a serious liberal who has the measure of the times and has thus been cast out by the Democratic Party. His state's voters seem disinclined to endorse the official Dems' full-scale embrace of trivia and myopia. The broader electorate should do the same.

                © Mark Steyn, 2006

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mcdelroy View Post
                  The gap between Liberals and conservatives in America is much wider then I ever imagined. While on a club hike today with individuals I had not met previously I happened to hear two hikers talking about relaxation and meditation. My interest perked up when I heard the name Mohammad in the context of peace, relaxation, and meditation. Feeling strongly that Islam has issues which need to be addressed by moderate Muslims regarding how that religion relates to the rest of the world, I calmly said, “You know the Koran guarantees salvation only to those who kill unbelievers or dies doing so. Its the only such guarantee in the Koran though I can't quote the exact verse.” I continued, “Whereas Christianity guarantees salvation to those who accept Jesus and treat others as they would be treated themselves.”

                  Holy crap, you would have thought I had killed each group member's first born child. An amazingly emotional and aggressive out cry against me from all but two silent group members ensued. I was called a conservative war monger among other things. From my simple statement questioning Islam, the group began assuming I took an extreme right stance on all kinds of domestic issues irrelevant to the Mohammad discussion. Realizing I had mistakenly hiked into a field of land mines ,I decided to spend the walk exploring Liberal ideals by debating with the hikers.

                  During our discussion I found that the Liberals were very emotional compared to my rational approach. They later admitted to such saying I rationalize everything. I explained for some decisions are rational. They painted with a very broad brush assuming that all conservatives are far right religious fanatics. They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se. It took a significant time for me to successfully (I hope) explain that given the US two party system many citizens are often forced to vote on one or two issues which are significant to that voter because they likely don't agree with a certain party on all issues. I repeatedly explained that for me I feel very strongly about individual self reliance economically. I feel strongly enough on that one issue that I vote Republican because I have few choices which are congruent with that ideal even if I don't necessarily agree with the Republicans on other issues which are less significant to me. They seemed to struggle with this idea. I suspect this is because they tend to agree with whatever the Democrats feed them through the media. However, when you point this out, they insist the media is unbiased.

                  I found that the Liberals take the party line more precisely then conservatives. There appears to be very little room for diverse views. Keep in mind I am talking about individual voters not elected party members. They could not fathom that a conservative such as myelf could be pro environment. They cannot image diversity amongst conservatives. They could not predict my views on issues aside from support for president Bush and conservative economic policy. At the same time, I was able to predict their views on every issue.I could predict their conspiracies and prejudicies.

                  What struck me most, aside from their shear emotionalism, was their insolent disrespectful insults of President Bush. They seriously believe he, Cheney, and Rumsfield are evil. The words satanic and Hilter were used in their description. I explained how different that is from how I believe in America. I explained that while I vehemently disagree with Liberalism, I would never say such things about President Clinton for example. I explained that while I disagree with President Clinton on many things, I believed he had America's best interest at heart. I explained that such extreme views on the current administration can easily cause those who do not concur to wonder about one's patriotism.

                  One Liberal took exception to this. However, he later admitted to not being very patriotic. The Liberal went on to site a conspiracy theory about invading Iraq to assist oil companies. I explained that the difference between him and I appears to be that I believe that while not all of President Bush's decisions have worked out smoothly, there is no conspiracy, just a president being forced to make very difficult decisions during very difficult times. They finally sounded rational when they said that being the case, based on President Bush's poor performance in the war on terror, they want to vote a different party into power. However, it did not take long for the conversation to degenerate back into Bush bashing and emotional conspiracy theories and hate.

                  I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people. They seemed quite confused by my stance on social and environmental issues. They insisted I was moderating and back pedaling. I reminded them that we originally began our discussion based on my views of Islam and the war on terror. They had made many assumptions about my, views. I reminded them that individual conservatives views often differ from that of the party's. However, we often have to make choices given the limited voting options in the US.

                  I doubt any opinions changed as result of our debate. Unfortunately I doubt they learned anything. However, I found our talk very interesting and picked up a few things.

                  I'm very interested in comments on my experience from Liberals and Conservatives.

                  Marc
                  You could've just summed it up with, "Liberals are hyperventalliating dumbassed socialist swines."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mcdelroy View Post
                    As I mentioned I can't recall the verse number which was referenced regarding the guarantee of salvation rewarding violence in the Quran against unbelievers. I don't think it was Sura 9.5 but that verse seems similar. I toyed with the idea of reading the Quran, however, I'm not sure its worth the effort to me since I suspect few Muslims would read the Bible on our account. I'd be curious what a non-Muslim familiar with the Quran would have to say regarding the presence of an assurance of salvation in the Quran.

                    To me that's a funny thought that I might be considered a Liberal by conservatives and a Rightest by Liberals.....sort of like a man without a country. When I called myself a social moderate and fiscal conservative to the Liberals they insisted that I was a Christian far rightist afraid to say so. I found that very narrow minded. Unfortunately, the hiking group's reaction to my views is not the first time Liberals have reacted similarly to me disagreeing with them. Unfortunately I do see an (unscientific) trend. How many times must I go through this for it to be scientific? :)

                    Today's group jumped to many conclusions based on one statement by me regarding Mohammad. And boy were they ferocious. Based on social issues perhaps I'm not as conservative as they or I thought. Interesting. I am pretty sure that my ideas on taxes, government intervention in citizens' lives, and government spending lean further to the right then centrists. I'd be curious to hear centrists ideas on taxes, government spending, welfare and such. To me, it seems easy to be lulled into feel good politics encouraging programs to help all kinds of people. When the question comes up who will pay for such programs, it seems easy to say, "Not us. The rich will pay." However, in my view, without ever moderating government spending, eventually the rest of us pay more taxes too. Today it seems difficult to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves.

                    Marc
                    Careful talking about mohammed here.

                    For instance, it's against the rules to call him a pedophile, or talk poorly in any way about the "Religion of Peace", Pakistanis, or ragheads in general.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      more on my conversation

                      Instead of being rational and logical, you are rationalizing, e.g., I won't read the Quran because Muslims probably won't read the Bible. Your decision to read the Quran should be based on your desire to learn, not on some perceived reciprocal equation. You didn't address my question - how does your view coincide with the verse that there is "no compulsion in religion"?

                      From http://www.themodernreligion.com/ter...sm_verses1.htm
                      2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

                      I would say that Islamic extremists are interpreting this “no compulsion in religion” verse to indicate that non-Muslim Americans and Jews have rejected God, which to Muslims is Allah. Therefore, in the eyes of Muslim extremists, Americans and Jews have not rejected evil.

                      How does Islamic jurisprudence reconcile these two views? Does Christianity and Judaism support a fully and completely literal interpretation of the Bible?

                      I am confident we could quote contradicting verses from both the Bible and Quran encouraging peace and violence for many days. The themodernreligion.com website makes an interesting point about those critical of Islam taking Quranic verses out of context. It appears that Islamic extremists are taking the same quotes out of context in a similar manner to justify jihad Therefore, to me, it is seems evident that depending upon how the Quran is interpreted, Islam has some major issues regarding how it relates to the world around it.

                      I am sure there are similar quotes in the Bible which would indicate that Christianity should have an equally difficult time relating to the non-Christian world. However, at this time in history, it is reasonable to say that Christianity is not raging its equivalent of jihad against Non-Christian. Instead, the west, which is largely Christian, is responding to the new threat of terrorism.
                      I really feel that in order to move toward a solution to Islamic terrorism requires the involvement of moderate Muslims. When I refer to a solution I am talking about eliminating or dramatically decreasing the threat of Islamic terrorism against westerners.
                      I am perturbed at Moderate Muslims' silence in the US where they are free to speak their minds.

                      I understand that you are younger; however, do not fall into the trap of seeing others as inflexible while not allowing yourself the flexibility to analyze things for yourself.

                      There is always room for improvement, if we want to consider flexibility improvement. However, I found that I was responding to what they were saying while they just kept making the same statements in different ways. It was very interesting.

                      Is a 18-24 year old liberal the same as a 60-64 year old liberal?


                      It appears that the Democratic party has evolved from a mostly Populist party acceptable to a wide range of the US population to a party dominated by ferocious anti-establishment ideals much further to the left. Examples would be the prominence of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan in the Democratic party. It appears the Democratic party may be reducing its appeal to many swing voters by embracing such far leftists. I'm sure the same could be said of the far right with regards to the Republicans. I'd be curious how an older Liberal feels about this since those individuals might have more classical Populist views. I'm also interested in why this apparent gap between Conservatives and Liberals appears to be widening.

                      Your sample frame probably does not extrapolate well to the population frame. My guess is the liberal sample frame that you see are probably those liberals who are in the same age group as you. Is a 18-24 year old liberal the same as a 60-64 year old liberal? Once you have a sample frame that is representative of the population frame that you are trying to describe, then you can state some results with scientific support.

                      I was being facetious about this being scientific study.


                      If you really want to push their buttons, talk about how you support child labor in developing nations You'll really throw them for a loop where they will have to fall back onto fallacious positions to support and defend their mostly indefensible position. If you're interested in doing this, just start a thread about child labor, and I can post some stuff that you can use to develop your position. My stuff will range from a NYT Magazine article to some economics journal articles where the statistics will most likely be incomprehensible, but the conclusions won't be too hard to understand.

                      I am intrigued by your remarks. Feel free to discuss them here or via email. I would say that I am not in favor of what Americans typically refer to “sweat shops”. However, as far as wages are concerned, due to dramatic differences in cost of living, we should not expect companies to pay American standard wages in all other countries. Also, some cultures appear not to frown upon younger people working. We need to be cognizant of when we attempt to export American culture to other countries. I find it ironic that some would be in favor of such an export of our culture regarding this issue while insisting that US manipulation of world affairs with regards to other issues, namely national security, is evil and Imperialistic. However, the reverse stance also holds some irony.


                      Marc

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The American voter

                        The gap is enormous between the two. Which is why I regard the other side as dangerous. Perhaps not evil, in the sense that our enemies the terrorists are evil. But certainly deluded and set apart from reality at a time when clear thinking and rationality is required. REQUIRED, but not found in my political opponents.

                        Vote Republican. Because there is simply too much at stake, and the Democrats are absolutely eager to do things that are deadly. Not to our enemies, but to us.


                        I agree but with regards to economics in addition to terrorism. The Liberals I talked to have a corresponding theory that conservatism is evil and the cause of most evils in society. I'd be curious how wide spread that view is among Liberals. I tried to explain to them that in America many voters are forced to vote on one or two issues since it is difficult to agree with the party line on all issues. This seemed difficult for them to grasp since, in my view, they took the party line on all issues. Now admittedly I take a conservative stance on a good many issues but not the exact party line like I observed. I wonder if this was because they have been manipulated or hate conservatives so much as to be contrarian.

                        I believe the American voter is poised to vote Democratic in large numbers based on the war. However, these voters are forgetting that they will be encouraging a stance on many other issues which they may not agree with. For example, Nationalized Healthcare. We live in dangerous interesting times.

                        Marc

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          mcdelroy,

                          It appears that the Democratic party has evolved from a mostly Populist party acceptable to a wide range of the US population to a party dominated by ferocious anti-establishment ideals much further to the left. Examples would be the prominence of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan in the Democratic party. It appears the Democratic party may be reducing its appeal to many swing voters by embracing such far leftists. I'm sure the same could be said of the far right with regards to the Republicans. I'd be curious how an older Liberal feels about this since those individuals might have more classical Populist views. I'm also interested in why this apparent gap between Conservatives and Liberals appears to be widening.
                          that ignores the establishment of the DLC and the enormous influence of the clintons. part of the reason why conservatives love to rail against clinton was because he WAS a great political creature whom whipped the republicans despite the reagan revolution, and somehow also worked- ironically more effectively- after the 1994 revolution as well.

                          this was not done by appealing to the base.

                          the nomination of kerry in 2000, as well, also shows that the democratic party has not "embraced" far leftists as well. dean was not nominated, not to mention kucinich. on most positions i would say the democrats have shifted dramatically to the right since the 1960s, both as a political tool (to try to wipe out the stigma of being "san francisco democrats") and as a response to the populace's shift to the right following the excesses of the 1960s, as well.

                          However, these voters are forgetting that they will be encouraging a stance on many other issues which they may not agree with.
                          that applies to many within the republican party as well.

                          in the end, with our two party-polity, one of the sacrifices to be made in such a system is that you will have two parties that will be forced to embrace a large spectrum of beliefs.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mcdelroy View Post
                            The gap is enormous between the two. Which is why I regard the other side as dangerous. Perhaps not evil, in the sense that our enemies the terrorists are evil. But certainly deluded and set apart from reality at a time when clear thinking and rationality is required. REQUIRED, but not found in my political opponents.

                            Vote Republican. Because there is simply too much at stake, and the Democrats are absolutely eager to do things that are deadly. Not to our enemies, but to us.


                            I agree but with regards to economics in addition to terrorism. The Liberals I talked to have a corresponding theory that conservatism is evil and the cause of most evils in society. I'd be curious how wide spread that view is among Liberals. I tried to explain to them that in America many voters are forced to vote on one or two issues since it is difficult to agree with the party line on all issues. This seemed difficult for them to grasp since, in my view, they took the party line on all issues. Now admittedly I take a conservative stance on a good many issues but not the exact party line like I observed. I wonder if this was because they have been manipulated or hate conservatives so much as to be contrarian.

                            I believe the American voter is poised to vote Democratic in large numbers based on the war. However, these voters are forgetting that they will be encouraging a stance on many other issues which they may not agree with. For example, Nationalized Healthcare. We live in dangerous interesting times.

                            Marc
                            Too many voters are one issue voters. It is all too easy to focus on one issue and be in denial of a parties total platform. Both parties want this seanario as neither party is a one size fits all party. Neither party is willing to change their platform to be more in tune with the voting public because it is the extremist on either side that is doling out the money. I say both parties are disgustingly similer in what they do for their quest for power. Oh they do march down different paths, but given full reign either party is fully willing to run this country into the ground in the name of ideology.
                            Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101306A
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X