An Open Letter To My Children
An Open Letter To My Children.
Recently I read on one of my children's blogs that he stated he was a devout atheist. This troubled me some.
I do not wish to condemn this child, for much of my life I was at least an agnostic. But an atheist?
My children are now pretty much "grown up" and I sit back and reflect with pride at how good a job I did of raising them. Of course, I can also point with pride back at how I had figured out how to dump most of the job of raising these kids in my wife's lap. I might still claim some of the credit, but my wife did most of the work!
However, I look back at the way things transpired with some regret. Why did I not introduce my kids to Jesus? I know my kids know about Jesus, but do they really understand who Jesus was/is?
First let me explain my own understanding of Jesus:
1. Once upon this earth tread a man by the name of Jesus.
2. Jesus was a good man who may or who may not have been God.
3. Jesus changed the world, I would describe this change as being for the better.
4. The words that Jesus preached were so powerful that these words continue to ring today. Even if one does not believe Jesus was God, one must sit back while a politician screams "Jesus saves" and changes your laws.
I wish I had done more to teach my kids about Jesus, or enlisted the assistance of someone else to do the teaching. I wish my children understood who Jesus was and how his words impacts upon that which is best about our society.
I wish my kids would open up the Bible and read the Gospels. I would not encourage them to go to church and expect the Gospels to be preached. You see, most preachers avoid preaching the Gospels. Why? Because then they would hear the words "Practice what you preach", so the preachers just avoid preaching about them. Yes, the Gospels are that good.
I encourage my children to start with the Gospel of John. This Gospel is the easiest to digest and does not contain as much of the hocus pocus as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I will specifically point out to them that there is more then one "Book of John" in the Bible. I am pointing them towards the Gospel of John and not 1st John, 2nd John or 3rd John.
After they have completed the Gospel of John they could/should start on the other Gospels in no particular order, although I would suggest they leave Luke for last. Luke is the Gospel with which I myself have the most problems. When they get to Parable of the Shrewd Manager, Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse, I would recommend they take a black magic marker and blacken that one out. But as they read these three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, I would tell them to be ready to become bored as they read slightly different variations upon the same events.
I encourage my now grown children to complete or continue their education and to include learning about Jesus in this education. You see, I have paid for or I am in the midst of paying for their college education. But while I was so busy doing this, I neglected to teach my kids about Jesus.
Maybe if my child understood Jesus, not just knew about him, he would not be an atheist. An agnostic? That I could swallow. But an atheist? Where did I go wrong in raising my kids? I can engage in self criticism. I forgot to teach my kids about Jesus.
Life is full of regrets. One of my regrets is that I did not teach my children about Jesus.
My child who is an atheist claims to love Christmas. I will point out to him that when he comes home for Christmas, under his parents' Christmas tree he will still see a nativity scene with the baby Jesus sitting in the manger.
Recently I read on one of my children's blogs that he stated he was a devout atheist. This troubled me some.
I do not wish to condemn this child, for much of my life I was at least an agnostic. But an atheist?
My children are now pretty much "grown up" and I sit back and reflect with pride at how good a job I did of raising them. Of course, I can also point with pride back at how I had figured out how to dump most of the job of raising these kids in my wife's lap. I might still claim some of the credit, but my wife did most of the work!
However, I look back at the way things transpired with some regret. Why did I not introduce my kids to Jesus? I know my kids know about Jesus, but do they really understand who Jesus was/is?
First let me explain my own understanding of Jesus:
1. Once upon this earth tread a man by the name of Jesus.
2. Jesus was a good man who may or who may not have been God.
3. Jesus changed the world, I would describe this change as being for the better.
4. The words that Jesus preached were so powerful that these words continue to ring today. Even if one does not believe Jesus was God, one must sit back while a politician screams "Jesus saves" and changes your laws.
I wish I had done more to teach my kids about Jesus, or enlisted the assistance of someone else to do the teaching. I wish my children understood who Jesus was and how his words impacts upon that which is best about our society.
I wish my kids would open up the Bible and read the Gospels. I would not encourage them to go to church and expect the Gospels to be preached. You see, most preachers avoid preaching the Gospels. Why? Because then they would hear the words "Practice what you preach", so the preachers just avoid preaching about them. Yes, the Gospels are that good.
I encourage my children to start with the Gospel of John. This Gospel is the easiest to digest and does not contain as much of the hocus pocus as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I will specifically point out to them that there is more then one "Book of John" in the Bible. I am pointing them towards the Gospel of John and not 1st John, 2nd John or 3rd John.
After they have completed the Gospel of John they could/should start on the other Gospels in no particular order, although I would suggest they leave Luke for last. Luke is the Gospel with which I myself have the most problems. When they get to Parable of the Shrewd Manager, Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse, I would recommend they take a black magic marker and blacken that one out. But as they read these three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, I would tell them to be ready to become bored as they read slightly different variations upon the same events.
I encourage my now grown children to complete or continue their education and to include learning about Jesus in this education. You see, I have paid for or I am in the midst of paying for their college education. But while I was so busy doing this, I neglected to teach my kids about Jesus.
Maybe if my child understood Jesus, not just knew about him, he would not be an atheist. An agnostic? That I could swallow. But an atheist? Where did I go wrong in raising my kids? I can engage in self criticism. I forgot to teach my kids about Jesus.
Life is full of regrets. One of my regrets is that I did not teach my children about Jesus.
My child who is an atheist claims to love Christmas. I will point out to him that when he comes home for Christmas, under his parents' Christmas tree he will still see a nativity scene with the baby Jesus sitting in the manger.
posted by Little David at 11/20/2006 04:55:00 PM
78 Comments:
1. Recently I read on one of my children's blogs that he stated he was a devout atheist. This troubled me some.
and
2. Of course, I can also point with pride back at how I had figured out how to dump most of the job of raising these kids in my wife's lap. I might still claim some of the credit, but my wife did most of the work!
Reply- How much do you really know about your children, if it is a surprise to you that they are atheist?
3. However, I look back at the way things transpired with some regret. Why did I not introduce my kids to Jesus? I know my kids know about Jesus, but do they really understand who Jesus was/is?
Reply- Maybe your children did learn who "Jesus" was, and chose not to believe it? It is possible that your children are able to think for themselves, and, gasp, come to their own conclusions about the world. I find it hard to believe that if your son is an atheist, that any amount of your "teachings" could sway that belief. Atheism is not something adapted without consideration.
4. 1. Once upon this earth tread a man by the name of Jesus.
2. Jesus was a good man who may or who may not have been God.
3. Jesus changed the world, I would describe this change as being for the better.
4. The words that Jesus preached were so powerful that these words continue to ring today. Even if one does not believe Jesus was God, one must sit back while a politician screams "Jesus saves" and changes your laws.
Reply- Jesus may, or may not have existed, well leave that up to historians to debate. He may or may not have been a good man, well also leave that up to debate.
Then again David Koresh, and Jim "Purple Kool Aid" Jones, both led hundreds of people, and took them to the "promised land".
5. I wish my kids would open up the Bible and read the Gospels. I would not encourage them to go to church and expect the Gospels to be preached. You see, most preachers avoid preaching the Gospels. Why? Because then they would hear the words "Practice what you preach", so the preachers just avoid preaching about them. Yes, the Gospels are that good.
Reply- Atheists are usually more familiar with the bible then many "Christians". Atheists are constantly staving off attacks from the hypocrites of Christianity, and the bible often is their best weapon.
I personally, have read much scripture, and have arrived at the conclusion, that it is a work of fiction, edited many times, reflecting the historical period it was in. Conveniently ironic dont you think?
Its amazing to watch the progression of these "Holy Books" on their views on women, opposing religions, and people of color.
Now, wouldnt you think that such an "omniprecent" being would lack such terrible prejudices? Pretty fishy.
Thats not even including the scientifically impossible, and unduplicable fantasmal acts, such as Noahs Ark, or the water into wine episode.
Anyone with common sense can see this is a crock. Even some Christians have abandoned the literal interpretation of just about everything in the bible, because theyve admittedly discounted it as rubbish.
Furthermore, where does Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and every other religion fit? Are they just heathens because a seperate entity acts as their "wish" grantor?
6. I encourage my now grown children to complete or continue their education and to include learning about Jesus in this education. You see, I have paid for or I am in the midst of paying for their college education. But while I was so busy doing this, I neglected to teach my kids about Jesus.
Reply- Jesus has no place in modern society. We do not need some spook in the sky to grant our wishes or to make the sun rise every morning. Science has explained these things, and will continue to explain something new every day. I should hope modern man has the intellegence to gather that "wishes" are only granted in Disney flicks, and not in real life. Hopeless, ignorant people bend on to their knees when the situation is bleak and "wish" for a lotto win or better health. Reasonable, logical people, take the situation in to their own hands and do their best to improve the situation.
We do not need religion to teach us "morals". Each and every man is their own "god" and is responsible for his own actions. Jesus does not need to instruct me how to live my life, I need to instruct me on how I live my life.
Jesus does not have to live my life, or live with the reprocutions of any action anyone does.
7. Maybe if my child understood Jesus, not just knew about him, he would not be an atheist.
Reply- Did you ever think that maybe your child DOES understand, and has chosen to reject the fantasmal tall tales of the gospel? Why do you assume it is "ignorance" that leads him to come to that conclusion?
8. An agnostic? That I could swallow. But an atheist? Where did I go wrong in raising my kids? I can engage in self criticism. I forgot to teach my kids about Jesus.
Reply- So, your son is a college graduate, probably very intellegent, I assume has a professional career, I assume has kept a clean nose, yet you contend that you "failed" because he rejects organized religion and the notion of a supreme being? Nice.
Did you know that an overwhelming number of convicts, including those on death row, are "Christian". Would you take pride in such a child? Is it all "ok" because he believes in Jesus Christ as his savior?
9. Life is full of regrets. One of my regrets is that I did not teach my children about Jesus.
Reply- Why do you continuously assume that your children cannot make up their own minds about things. They must be led like sheep into "what is right". Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt that the philosophies of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
10. My child who is an atheist claims to love Christmas.
Reply- It is not neccessary for "Christmas" to have any religious meaning. If you remember, Christmas Day was actually incorporated to cover up pagan feasting days of the same type of nature during that time.
Atheists who come from Christian homes, often continue to celebrate such a holiday out of tradition rather then underlying meaning.
11. I will point out to him that when he comes home for Christmas, under his parents' Christmas tree he will still see a nativity scene with the baby Jesus sitting in the manger.
Reply- Atheist are amongst the most tolerant of all people. They do not wish to shove their beliefs down others throats, as main stream religions tend to do. They also are not driven to such zealotry as to kill for their beliefs.
Im sure, your son has no intention of trying to "fix" you, as you have the notion that he is "broken" and needs to be fixed.
You made many assumptions in your post... such as my trying to force organized religion down someone's throat. Where in my piece did I say anything laudatory about organized religion? I seem to recall stating how many if not most preachers seem to avoid preaching the Gospels.
You are saying that many organized religions are abandoning thinking the Bible is infallible. Let me educate you on that. This is not something new. The Roman Catholic church long ago abandoned that the Bible is inerrant in everything it says. It does teach the Bible is infallible, however they have a rather narrow definition of the word infallible. That being that the Bible is infallible (inerrant) only when it speaks of the "Good News" of Jesus.
Many long time Christian sects, such as the Presbetyrians, have always felt that anything that is in the Bible must also pass the test of human reason.
For your information, I do not even today describe myself as a Christian, for a number of reasons.
1. such as my trying to force organized religion down someone's throat.
Reply- Youre right, you simply believe that because you didnt shove religion down someones throat, that you made a grave terrible error in raising your children. They would be much better off, and youd have a clear conscience if you would have just "taught them Jesus".
2. For your information, I do not even today describe myself as a Christian, for a number of reasons.
Reply- Those who accept Jesus Christ as their "savior" and follow his "teachings" are Christian by definition.
But when the subject of tolerance of homosexuals comes up, it is OK for this to be taught in schools, to be shoved down the student's throat, however somehow it would be wrong for a parent to include a little religion in a child's education? Hmmm, what's the word most people use to describe such an attitude. Slips my mind for the moment.
Your definition of Christian leaves out one important part. Christians are supposed to believe that Jesus was God, and I am uncertain that this is true. Personally, I feel there is as much evidence Jesus was not God as there is that he was.
Perhaps I could be a Jeffersonian Christian or something. I admire the teachings of Jesus and I am struck by how much good that which he started resulted in, however still within my mind lingers doubt he was God. Thomas Jefferson seemed to have a similar mindset, and he still called himself a Christian. However Thomas Jefferson was forced to defend his thus calling himself to other Christians during his day. If I were to walk into most Christian churches and explain my beliefs, they would tell me "You are no Christian." So I do not call myself a Christian. I also happen to think I am unworthy of the label... but also think many if not most who do take up the label are not worthy either.
1. But when the subject of tolerance of homosexuals comes up, it is OK for this to be taught in schools, to be shoved down the student's throat, however somehow it would be wrong for a parent to include a little religion in a child's education? Hmmm, what's the word most people use to describe such an attitude. Slips my mind for the moment.
Reply-
I think its amazing that one can build so many straw men and attack them victoriously in the course of one blog.
I want you to do me a favor and highlight where I said it was acceptable to teach "tolerance of homosexuals" in school?
Second, tolerance of people is not even close to equivalent to acceptance of religion. Dont even begin to compare the two. That is outright rediculous, and bluntly, B.S.
How can you even begin to suggest that teaching kids not to hate others simply because of their creed, is even remotely the same as teaching bullshit as truth, even though it completely conflicts with actual truth, and still keep a straight face.
You sound like a clueless right winger who goes about spouting "Dont give the homosexuals rights, because before you know it people will be porking goats".
I find your last post extremely offensive.
You will be tolerant of homosexuals while displaying an abject hatred of anyone with religious beliefs.
1. You will be tolerant of homosexuals while displaying an abject hatred of anyone with religious beliefs.
Reply- Again, a straw man.
Have I ever ONCE stated that I "hate" people with religious beliefs?
I dont "hate" anyone who hasnt given me a personal reason to hate them.
I certainly do not "hate" people based on their creed.
I can disagree with beliefs, or behaviors without hating the person expressing them, and without trying to legislate them from participating in those behaviors.
Perhaps hate was too strong a word.
However you too then used the same word too strongly. Let me quote:
"How can you even begin to suggest that teaching kids not to hate others simply because of their creed, is even remotely the same as teaching bullshit as truth, even though it completely conflicts with actual truth, and still keep a straight face."
Notice how you imply schools are teaching kids not to hate, while the other side is teaching bullshit.
Ahem. Nuf said.
1. Notice how you imply schools are teaching kids not to hate, while the other side is teaching bullshit.
Reply- Because religion is bullshit. Tolerance deals with situations that actually exist, religion deals with spacial beliefs.
You can not prove God does not exist, so it might not be bullshit.
That is where my concern about the difference between being an agnostic and an atheist comes in.
1. You can not prove God does not exist, so it might not be bullshit.
That is where my concern about the difference between being an agnostic and an atheist comes in.
Reply- God cannot be proven to exist, therefore, it remains "faith" and has no business in serious conversation, especially in an institution which is supposed to teach fact.
But then why do the schools insist on teaching tolerance of homosexuality when science has not yet proven that it is OK.
A common sense viewpoint of human sexuality and evolution would indicate that homosexuality is "wrong". Until science can prove otherwise, it should not be taught that it is "OK to be gay".
Human instinct, the instinct to provide for the preservation of the species, tells me homosexuality is a threat to species preservation. Until science can prove my human instinct wrong, I am going to go with my instincts.
Perhaps "common sense" and "human instinct" have something in common?
Look, the reason society gets away with "discriminating" against cigarette smokers is that smokers "choose" to smoke. So they can always choose not to smoke.
No science has come forth that PROVES homosexuals are born that way. There have been many theories and hypothesis, but nothing has been proven. Show me the genes!
You yourself that open homosexuality is a recent phenomenom. Therefor, up until recently, homosexuals were able to resist the temptation to be openly gay so that they would not be persecuted. Seems to me that the "born that way" urge to be gay must not be so strong that homosexuals can not be expected to at least be a little discrete at how they go about living their lifestyle!
While preservation of the species might not be the "sole" purpose of human existance, I do believe that preservation of the species is a noble endeavor. I sure hope that we never descend from this noble endeavor so far that we reach the point of electing an individual to be President who just pushes the nuclear button because there is no point to existance anyway.
1. Look, the reason society gets away with "discriminating" against cigarette smokers is that smokers "choose" to smoke. So they can always choose not to smoke.
Reply- Second hand smoke is a legit danger to those who choose not to smoke themselves. Homosexuals are only dangers to themselves and those who they have relations with that dont choose to be protected.
2. Seems to me that the "born that way" urge to be gay must not be so strong that homosexuals can not be expected to at least be a little discrete at how they go about living their lifestyle!
Reply- It might be "that strong", but if you faced the persecution they have in the past, and happened to be gay, would you paint a target on yourself? If you were a homosexual in some towns centuries ago, youd surely be burned at the stake. I dont blame them for a second for being "underground" for most of their existance.
3. While preservation of the species might not be the "sole" purpose of human existance, I do believe that preservation of the species is a noble endeavor.
Reply- Last time I checked less then 5% of the population practices homosexuality, so I doubt they are a "threat" to the preservation of the human species, or will be, ever. Im sorry, the whole "natural preservation" argument doesnt hold any water with me, unless you also want to say that ALL demographics that have some sort of handicap that doesnt lend itself to ideal posterity, should also be equally legislated against.
However the liberals (the same group that advocate for homosexuality) are making it, within the state of California, so that low income cigarette smokers are not even allowed to go outside and smoke where there is no danger to other occupants from second hand smoke.
By the way, homosexuals and homosexual advocates almost universally claim they are 10% of the population. Not sure where you come up with your figures from.
It is my viewpoint that if it becomes "OK to be Gay" that this proportion will increase. Why should a sexually charged up young man have to put up with courting a young lady for sex when he can ALWAYS find a gay guy that is willing to give him a blowjob without all the work involved?
1. However the liberals (the same group that advocate for homosexuality) are making it, within the state of California, so that low income cigarette smokers are not even allowed to go outside and smoke where there is no danger to other occupants from second hand smoke.
Reply-
1. I dont think anyone is "advocating" homosexuality.
2. As long as it isnt public property, I dont agree with this at all. Its an error to make such an association fallacy between those who support one cause and those who support another.
3. By the way, homosexuals and homosexual advocates almost universally claim they are 10% of the population. Not sure where you come up with your figures from.
Reply- I have a psychology book that listed the totals as something like 3.2% of all men and 2.something of all women. Again, I said, "Last time I checked".
Second, the exact numbers are probably almost impossible to pinpoint, so Id question the validity of that "10%".
4. It is my viewpoint that if it becomes "OK to be Gay" that this proportion will increase. Why should a sexually charged up young man have to put up with courting a young lady for sex when he can ALWAYS find a gay guy that is willing to give him a blowjob without all the work involved?
Reply- So, what you are saying is that youd except a blowjob from a man if you couldnt get one from a female?
Somehow, I dont think many "sexually charged up males" that arent members of the correctional population would agree with that. The ones that do are no doubt already participating in that activity.
I also do not believe that people will just start "turning" gay, because its more accepted. Its possible that some people might "come out", which would seem to increase the gay population on paper, but really, it would just be bringing an underground culture to the street.
Contrary to what the right spouts, I seriously doubt everyone is going to just hop into some gay orgy if gay marriage was allowed.
Massachusetts allows gay marriage, and outside of the people who flocked there to get married, I doubt the natural population is any "gayer" then any other state in the region.
I know for one, even if gays moved in all around me, Im certainly not going next door to get a "man-job" if my wife refuses sex one night. Thanks but no thanks. Im willing to assume that most straight males would have similiar views on the subject.
First off, I found it extremely difficult to read anything you had to say after you stated: "I dont think anyone is "advocating" homosexuality."
If you are that big a fool, it would be foolish for me to read anything else you had to say. However I just figured you did not really mean what you said and read on. Was I wrong?
Part of the reason that I embarked on a heterosexual lifestyle is that I was taught from a young age to desire girls if I wanted to have sex. Truthfully, if all the alternatives were put in front of me, I might have chosen girls anyway (they are alot of fun) however in my adolescent experimentation with sex, boys were easier.
Young men are hyper charged with sexuality. Women, who are different, are not so thus charged at such an early age. Young men allow sex drive to overcome human reason while they are thus so overcome with hormones.
I am saying that if society allows for it to become "OK to be Gay" and it becomes OK for a young man to have sex with the closest willing partner, he is going to find that the most willing partner is another oversexed young man.
These are the facts, the truths, that I have observed in my own lifetime. Young men must be taught to desire sex with a woman instead of desiring to release their desire with the closest willing animal which would be another male.
Damn it, what teaches a child to keep their clothes on in the first place if they are not taught to keep those clothes on? As the hormones kick in, the desire is to throw the clothes off. But we teach our children they must keep their clothes on in order to live in a civilized society.
In the same manner we teach our young boys that sex with each other is not an option. If they want release, they are going to have to find a willing girl to get the release.
If my beliefs are wrong, I expect the scientists to "show me the gene" that proves that homosexuals have no other choice.
My science, the "science" of human experience, proves to me that "faggots" just want an excuse to be perverts. Show me the science!
1. First off, I found it extremely difficult to read anything you had to say after you stated: "I dont think anyone is "advocating" homosexuality."
If you are that big a fool, it would be foolish for me to read anything else you had to say. However I just figured you did not really mean what you said and read on. Was I wrong?
Reply- What the hell are you talking about? Nobody advocates "homosexuality". Advocating it would be saying that its good, and everyone should do it. Supporting and advocating are two COMPLETELY different cans of worms. Most people who support homosexual rights do not pass ANY type of judgement. In fact some, such as myself, completely disagree with the practice altogether. To just assume that "liberals that advocate banning smoking", "advocate homosexuality", is ignorant and reaks of Donald Rumsfield.
2. Young men are hyper charged with sexuality. Women, who are different, are not so thus charged at such an early age. Young men allow sex drive to overcome human reason while they are thus so overcome with hormones.
Reply- Wait a second, are you saying that "not" being a homosexual takes a conscious effort? That a male will screw anything with a hole, and the only thing that stops them is the stigma of not being accepted by society?
Im sorry, but thats bullshit.
3. In the same manner we teach our young boys that sex with each other is not an option. If they want release, they are going to have to find a willing girl to get the release.
Reply- More bullshit. I was never ONCE instructed in my life that "sex with boys" was not an option, and neither was my younger brother, yet AMAZINGLY we are attracted to females, and as far as I know, havent had the slighest inclination to have a "fling" with a male.
As long as I can remember Ive been attracted to girls.
Apparantley, that is completely impossible though, because I had to be "trained" and "conditioned" not to stick my dick in anything walking.....yeah right. Ok.
This time I could not get past what you had to say. I'll try to get back to the rest of what you had to say later.
However we need to explore this point. Is "advocating" and "supporting" homosexuality two different things? Do I need to go to Merriam-Webster and start quoting definitions to convince you?
By the way...
You are so sure of your brother's sexuality. Are you aware that your brother's parents had to discourage him from going to gay bars?
Just wondering. Are you now so certain?
1. However we need to explore this point. Is "advocating" and "supporting" homosexuality two different things? Do I need to go to Merriam-Webster and start quoting definitions to convince you?
Reply-
I think the first thing you need to do is explore your asserted fact that those who are supporting homosexual marriage or rights, are supporting homosexuality.
Then, you can check dictionary.com
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.
–noun 2. a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. (usually fol. by of): an advocate of peace.
3. a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor.
4. a person who pleads the cause of another in a court of law.
----
1. Homosexuality is not a "cause", it is a state of being. Homosexual RIGHTS are a cause. Definitions 3 and 4 pretty much dont apply.
2. That leaves us 1 and 2. There is nobody, that I know of that "urges" or "recommends" homosexuality.
That leaves us number 2, which is no doubt what you are trying to use as the basis of your argument.
The only problem is, the "cause" they are speaking out for is NOT homosexuality, it is RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS. Unfortunatley, you are unable to recognize the difference, or are unwilling to concede that there is a difference.
3. You are so sure of your brother's sexuality. Are you aware that your brother's parents had to discourage him from going to gay bars?
Just wondering. Are you now so certain?
Reply- First thing, I was aware of no such thing, outside of one incidence which was nothing to worry about in my opinion.
Second thing, I am not willing to accept simply "going to a gay bar" as a beacon of homosexuality.
What were the circumstances? What were the surrounding details.
Im sure many, or even most straight people would be completely deterred from going anywhere near one, but I think its acceptable if a straight person were going with a gay friend? What is the harm of that? After all, is there some law that says that to go in a bar of homosexual persuasion, that you HAVE to be a homosexual?
First off, let me share with you my own time I went into a gay bar. I went in there with my friend Fred. Fred was wearing an "Angel Shirt" long after it was no longer fashionable. An Angel Shirt is one with puffed up sleeves.
Anyway, we were in Providence, Rhode Island and we did not immediatlely realize into which type of establishment we had walked. We bought our drinks and started playing the pinball machine. Later, we noticed that there were no women in the crowd, and that the men hanging around the bar were hanging onto each other. We bailed out. When we met a cop on the street he gave us a knowing wink and directed us towards the red light district where we could find girls taking their clothes off onstage.
This is my only experience with a gay bar.
1. Anyway, we were in Providence, Rhode Island and we did not immediatlely realize into which type of establishment we had walked. We bought our drinks and started playing the pinball machine. Later, we noticed that there were no women in the crowd, and that the men hanging around the bar were hanging onto each other. We bailed out. When we met a cop on the street he gave us a knowing wink and directed us towards the red light district where we could find girls taking their clothes off onstage.
Reply- Ok, so, because you went in that bar, did that make you "gay"?
No, it didnt. Like I said, simply going into a "gay bar" is not enough for me to write someone off as gay.
Now that we have gotten past my experiences at a gay bar, let us examine your own statement, which follows:
"I think the first thing you need to do is explore your asserted fact that those who are supporting homosexual marriage or rights, are supporting homosexuality."
I would put forth that someone that supports homosexual marriage or rights is supporting homosexuality. Pardon me if I describe this as being common sense.
1. I would put forth that someone that supports homosexual marriage or rights is supporting homosexuality. Pardon me if I describe this as being common sense.
Reply- How is that "common sense"? Explain to me how you arrive at that fact?
I know you hate when I use me as an example, but I DONT support homosexuality, yet I DO support homosexuals having the same rights and priveledges as everyone else.
How do you explain that quagmire?
If you can not explain it, how can you demand that I do it for you?
1. If you can not explain it, how can you demand that I do it for you?
Reply- You are the one saying that there "is no difference", you are the one who is in a position to explain abnormalities to your "law".
My "law" is that we will try to be tolerant of homosexuals, while not "blessing" that which they do through granting their unions the status of marriage.
I think I have never said anything other then this.
1. My "law" is that we will try to be tolerant of homosexuals, while not "blessing" that which they do through granting their unions the status of marriage.
Reply- The "law" I was referring to is your statement...
"......someone that supports homosexual marriage or rights is supporting homosexuality."
I think my law, as stated, is less hypocritical then your law.
I will support the rights of homosexuals within reason.
You will support homosexual rights without reason.
It is a fine line, but it is a line I am unwilling to cross.
1. Why does your "instinct" tell you homosexuality is so wrong that you must acknowledge "abhoring" it while you argue for it.
Reply-
This is simple.
I dont believe my beliefs or "insticts" as you label it, should be legislated on someone else. I dont care if its "naturally" or "biologically" wrong.
I, nor anyone else, has any right to legislate this, in so much as its not physically, or financially harming another.
Thats my position on that, bottom line.
In continuance of the above, it is my belief that all people should be able to practice whatever they want, however they want, and no person should be given preference over another, based on those practices, or their creed, as so much as it doesnt harm another individual.
However this is not what society does.
Let us examine where left wing do gooders think they have a right to limit personal freedoms "for the good of society".
1. Smoking: While a valid argument can be made that non-smokers should not have to endure second hand smoke in public places, this is not enough for the anti-smoking nazis. They have been raising tobacco taxes to outrageously high rates in an economic blackmail attempt to force smokers to quit. Since the result has not been smoking rates going down quickly enough, they now have indicated they would like to completely outlaw smoking. This is despite the fact that a reasonable and valid argument can be made that smokers actually save society money without even taking into account the outrageous taxes they pay.
Seatbelts: It is now illegal to operate a motorvehicle without a seatbelt. While a good case can be made for why this (wearing a seatbelt) should be required for a child riding in an ordinary automobile, why is is necessary for the adult driver of a 40 ton tractor trailer truck to wear one? For the protection of the motoring public? If my truck is involved in an accident with a vehicle operated by the general public, I am not going to need a seatbelt. The impact is not going to be enough to throw me forward. The only instance where a seatbelt might save me is if I collide with another truck or a bridge abutment or something. I must wear it for my own good? Then why is it OK in many states to operate a motorcycle without a helmet?
If society has the right to try and control peoples behavior "for the good of society" in these instances, then society certainly has the right deny homosexuals the recognition of their unions through marriage. Monogamous, heterosexual relationships are good for society and it is these types of relationships that society should be encouraging.
1. While a valid argument can be made that non-smokers should not have to endure second hand smoke in public places, this is not enough for the anti-smoking nazis.
Reply- There is a very slim minority who are so called "anti smoking" nazis.
2.They have been raising tobacco taxes to outrageously high rates in an economic blackmail attempt to force smokers to quit.
Reply- Are you sure the taxes on tobacco are solely for "outlawing tobacco", or maybe its just because they can tax a "luxury" that some people cant do without, such as gasoline.
3. Since the result has not been smoking rates going down quickly enough, they now have indicated they would like to completely outlaw smoking.
Reply- I would like to see a list of 10 people currently in congress, or even serious contenders for political office at all, who have introduced a bill or supported a bill to completely ban smoking. I think you are projecting a few vocal "smoking nazis" views on to the left as a whole, when in reality, that is completely opposite to what many, and Im willing to say MOST, on the left actually believe.
4. This is despite the fact that a reasonable and valid argument can be made that smokers actually save society money without even taking into account the outrageous taxes they pay.
Reply- Hold on, smokers SAVE society money? Thats funny, because, insurance companies view themjust as costly as the obese as far as medical costs. Smokers also tend to be the number one polluters of public fareways with their cigarette butts. Not to mention the countless fires smoking is attributed to.
5. It is now illegal to operate a motorvehicle without a seatbelt. While a good case can be made for why this (wearing a seatbelt) should be required for a child riding in an ordinary automobile, why is is necessary for the adult driver of a 40 ton tractor trailer truck to wear one? For the protection of the motoring public? If my truck is involved in an accident with a vehicle operated by the general public, I am not going to need a seatbelt. The impact is not going to be enough to throw me forward. The only instance where a seatbelt might save me is if I collide with another truck or a bridge abutment or something. I must wear it for my own good? Then why is it OK in many states to operate a motorcycle without a helmet?
Reply- Personally, I think it should be everyones right to risk their own lives how they should see fit. Again, you are projecting.
Seat belt laws, in most localities, are bipartisan in support and rejection.
6. If society has the right to try and control peoples behavior "for the good of society" in these instances, then society certainly has the right deny homosexuals the recognition of their unions through marriage.
Reply- Again, projecting and assumptions get you into serious logical trouble. Who said that those issues you enumerated are justifiable, yet banning homosexuality isnt? I say those are hypocrites.
Again, it is my belief that ANYTHING that doesnt harm someone else physically, or financially, should be permissable.
7. Monogamous, heterosexual relationships are good for society and it is these types of relationships that society should be encouraging.
Reply- I challenge this assertion. I dont think that simply because its "biologically" legit, that its neccessarily "good" for society.
A far more proportionate number of domestic assaults occur in monotomous hetereosexual relationships then any other set up. Far more children live in poverty as a result of these relationships as well.
You are absurd in your arguments.
For example, you claim seatbelt laws are opposed by a bipartisan majority, yet seatbelt laws have been passed in each of our united states.
You claim the anti-smoking nazis are a minority yet in California they can already make rules that smokers can not smoke ANYWHERE (not just indoors) on the property they inhabit (low income housing).
The left will try to legislate my "freedoms" into the dirt while pushing their "freedoms" upon me.
It is absurd to argue that while society will try to make society better through legislation, that society should not take the same bent when it comes to homosexuality.
Homosexuality is un-natural. It hinders natural selection. Male homosexuals are a health risk to the general public at large. If we allow homosexuality then allowing polygamy is next. I am drawing the line at homosexuality. I will tolerate them. I will not go further.
1. For example, you claim seatbelt laws are opposed by a bipartisan majority, yet seatbelt laws have been passed in each of our united states.
Reply- Try reading....if you bothered to, youd realize I said no such thing. You might find that I said this
"Seat belt laws, in most localities, are bipartisan in support and rejection."
Which means that seat belt laws are opposed and supported by both leftist and rightist, and for similiar reasoning. In other words seat belts are not a "liberal" cause, as you suggest. Seat belt laws are bipartisan.
2. You claim the anti-smoking nazis are a minority yet in California they can already make rules that smokers can not smoke ANYWHERE (not just indoors) on the property they inhabit (low income housing).
Reply- Vocal minorities NORMALLY make the rules. That is what happens in a Republican form of government. Again, I ask for a list of 10 national figures that have written, or supported a universal anti smoking bill.
3. It is absurd to argue that while society will try to make society better through legislation, that society should not take the same bent when it comes to homosexuality.
Reply- I never once argued this. Stop putting whole straw man arguments in to my mouth. For the 6,000th time, I believe if it doesnt harm another physically or financially, it should be permissable, and should not be legislated towards unequally.
4. Homosexuality is un-natural. It hinders natural selection.
Reply- So doesnt allowing sick or handicapped people to survive. You continuously fail to address that, dispite me bringing it up multiple times.
5. If we allow homosexuality then allowing polygamy is next.
Reply-
A. That is a slipperly slope fallacy, which can be expected from rightist.
B. Why are you banning polygamy? Again, because it doesnt sit well with you? Rediculous.
I pointed out how polygamist mini societies are raising little baby boys and baby girls at near equal rates. Then within these societies, the excessive number of boys, after they are grown, are forced out of these societies while the lucky few get multiple wives. There are not enough women to go around to meet the demand for multiple wives.
Polygamist societies are "sick".
Polygamists are trying to get their "rights" to legally practice their preferences using the same tactics and arguments as the homosexual community. This is not some wild eyed "slippery slope" argument, these are the facts. It is already happening. If the line can not be drawn at homosexuality then where can the line be drawn?
OK, so a bipartisan majority are in favor of seat belt laws. Well a bipartisan majority also opposes approval of gay marriage. Witness that the Virginia gay marriage ban amendment passed with majority approval even while a majority of voters still choose Democrat Jim Webb over Republican incumbent George Allen.
The proposal to make smoking completely illegal is only in the infant stages. It is being introduced by ant-smoking advocacy groups with their justification being that government actions to ban smoking in public places and raised tobacco taxes have not resulted in the smoking decline rates they had targetted.
1. I pointed out how polygamist mini societies are raising little baby boys and baby girls at near equal rates. Then within these societies, the excessive number of boys, after they are grown, are forced out of these societies while the lucky few get multiple wives. There are not enough women to go around to meet the demand for multiple wives.
Reply- So? All this is affecting you how? I dont think anyone is being kept in those societies at gun point. They choose them on their own free will.
As for being "thrown out of the society", so what? Should we start arresting parents for tossing their kid out at 18?
Their parents are not required to raise them or be responsible for them past a certain age applicable by their respective states law. Is it not an ideal situation? Maybe not, but its not really that different then thousands of young adults deal with every day.
2. Polygamists are trying to get their "rights" to legally practice their preferences using the same tactics and arguments as the homosexual community.
Reply- I completely agree with their reasoning. I think they should be able to practice as they wish, as long as its not harming anyone else financially or physically.
3. If the line can not be drawn at homosexuality then where can the line be drawn?
Reply- the only place the line should be drawn is when it is no longer consenting beings. In that case, you are then trampling someone elses rights. The line should never be drawn at a place where another being simply "doesnt agree".
4. OK, so a bipartisan majority are in favor of seat belt laws. Well a bipartisan majority also opposes approval of gay marriage.
Reply- So what? At what point did I say seat belt laws are cool? You are trying your best to paint me as a hypocrite, but its not going to work. Youll find my beliefs are always extremely consistant. I have spent a great amount of time reading and formulating my political beliefs.
5. It is being introduced by ant-smoking advocacy groups with their justification being that government actions to ban smoking in public places and raised tobacco taxes have not resulted in the smoking decline rates they had targetted.
Reply- Anti smoking advocacy groups? So another words it IS a vocal minority puppeteering government officials.
You should think of describing yourself as a Libertarian. Much of your thinking seems to mirror many of their beliefs.
Those thrown out of polygamist societies are taught from birth that their society's fundamentalist religious beliefs are correct. That in order to get to heaven, one must have multiple wives. However when these young men get to be old enough to be a threat to the special few that are allowed to take on multiple they are run out of these societies. You don't see a problem with this? These young men did not get the right to choose where they were born or how they were raised.
As for the anti-smoking groups, yes it is a vocal minority now speaking. The same vocal minority that has led the charge to raise taxes on minority smokers. The same minority that were successful in getting the majority to agree to these tax increases. The same vocal minority that is gaining some success in the courts in defending their unreasonable restrictions on smokers' rights.
As for the sick or handicapped (a group that I would suggest homosexuals belong to if they are truly "born that way) I would look at them as being the byproducts of natural selection. With natural selection, sometimes good results happen and sometimes the results are not so good.
Should those that possess genetic diseases be allowed to procreate? I guess we can not stop them anymore then we can stop a lesbian couple from doing so. However, sometimes it should be suggested to those with genetic disorders that it would be wiser for them to avoid giving birth to children until medical research comes up with a way to determine which eggs and which sperm contain the disorders and which do not.
I know I have recommended to my children that if they want to raise kids, they should consider adoption. There, still, it would be a roll of the dice as to whether their children had genetic problems. However with the genes that have been passed on to them, it would be like betting against a sure thing.
1. You should think of describing yourself as a Libertarian. Much of your thinking seems to mirror many of their beliefs.
Reply- That is where you are wrong my friend. It is true that libertarians and I think much the same on SOCIAL issues, but we are completely opposite on FISCAL issues. That is why I dont label myself, and if I must, Id label myself as a communist, since it is Marxism that most closely resembles my beliefs.
As a matter of fact, I completely dispise Libertarians for their fiscal policies. They are the people that most annoy me on the whole of the political spectrum.
2. However when these young men get to be old enough to be a threat to the special few that are allowed to take on multiple they are run out of these societies. You don't see a problem with this?
Reply- No more then I see a problem with any other parental choices. As long as they adhere to the laws governing what does and doesnt constitute child abuse or neglect, I have no problem with it.
3. Should those that possess genetic diseases be allowed to procreate? I guess we can not stop them anymore then we can stop a lesbian couple from doing so. However, sometimes it should be suggested to those with genetic disorders that it would be wiser for them to avoid giving birth to children until medical research comes up with a way to determine which eggs and which sperm contain the disorders and which do not.
Reply- Wow, didnt Adolf Hitler try that? What did he call it....a Master Race?
4. I know I have recommended to my children that if they want to raise kids, they should consider adoption.
Reply- To recommend doing something like this as if it is as simple as picking one up from the store is propostorous.
This "investment" often runs well over 20k, and thats in addition to all the normal costs of raising a child.
Unless your children were insanely wealthy, Im supposing adoption would be a completely ludicrous suggestion to pursue, and theyd probably be better off, financially, rolling the dice.
1. You dare to describe yourself as a communist after having said that you do not care if 4 million Chinese starved to death for the sake of a single American job?
Reply- I am a communist in the pipes of the nationalist school of thought. I disagree with the notion that communism cannot have borders. I believe if the proper resources and infrastructure exists, it can certainly operate within a single national border. I believe the people within that border should be self sufficient and supportive of each other, and noone else.
I do not believe in "globalism".
I do not care about the Chinese, Japanese, South Africans, or British. I view the peoples of those countries as problems of those countries. I think it is a positive to have as little contact with them as possible, only trading for things we absolutely cannot get ourselves. Period.
2. I think that is either a sign of ignorance or complete hypocrisy. Who raised you boy? I think your father might be ashamed of you right now!
Reply- If only I gave a damn what my father thinks of me......or anyone for that matter. If I lived my life to that affect, I might as well tie a bell around my neck and start bahhhhing right now.
As for ignorance. Does it make you feel good insulting people? Some how better?
You have a whole lot to learn about political philosophy, and I suggest you start reading before labeling anyone as "ignorant".
Trust me, there is a whole world of knowledge that doesnt come out of Rush Limbaughs mouth that you are clearly oblivious to.
Amazing, you can condemn insults and then launch into insults of your own in the same breath.
1. Amazing, you can condemn insults and then launch into insults of your own in the same breath.
Reply- Nothing I stated in that reply was an "insult", it was an observation. You continuously display a knowledge of Communism of no higher degree then the demonized western media babble spoon fed to "good capitalist" kids from birth, the "Evil Pinko Curtain", if you will. You then project that bastardized partisan bunk as truth, when it is often not even close to the philosophies Communism espouses.
So either you have a blistful ignorance of the subject, or you purposely ignore the truth of the matter to fuel your rhetoric.
You seem to be highly educated on subjects you have interest in, but your lack of knowledge of subjects that interest you less, does not absolve you from conversing as an expert in those subjects, as it would most average people.
Heh heh, so if communism is such a great thing, can you point to one society where communism has been a roaring success?
I am saying "the American Way" has withstood the test of time. I am not against a society trying communism if they want, for example, Italy has flirted with communism through democratic elections. Great Britian flirted with a highly socialized economy, again through democratic elections, and had to step back.
Perhaps one could point to Scandanavian countries such as Sweden as being a success story, however the longterm survivability of this social experiment still has to be proven. But even Sweden is not "communist", their experiment would be more accurately described as highly socialized capitalism.
Communism does not provide motivation to the individual like capitalism does.
If a society chooses to dabble with socialism or even communism through democratic elections, I have nothing against them, as long as they retain democracy. Personally I think "going too far" would be destructive to such a society in that it would be extremely difficult to return to a free enterprise system after having nationalized everything, but if that is what the majority chose to do, so be it.
I wish to comment on your "observations". It is interesting that you can describe calling someone ignorant as only being an observation and not being an insult. That sure gives you a lot of leeway. You can say whatever you want, no matter how critical it is, because it is merely an observation. However if someone else says something critical, well, by gosh, that's an insult.
1. Heh heh, so if communism is such a great thing, can you point to one society where communism has been a roaring success?
Reply- Communism has several pillars which must be present to have it operate successfully. Amongst those are....
1. An industrialized infrastructure with a high level of education
2. A populace which establishes it from the bottom up by their own will.
3. An incredible mix of resources which renders it able to distance itself from the global resource market.
In other words you cannot do the following
1. Force it top down on the population
2. Force it onto a largely aggrarian peasant society
3. Create it in a location completely devoid of natural resources, which forces interaction with global capitalism, inevitably changing your own country into a state run capitalism, or a dirt poor hell hole.
Every single country that has attempted "Communism" directly violated atleast 1 (usually all) of these principles. Therefore they were not "Communism" they were a bastardized dictatorship or plutocracy which called themselves "Communist".
2. I am saying "the American Way" has withstood the test of time. I am not against a society trying communism if they want, for example, Italy has flirted with communism through democratic elections. Great Britian flirted with a highly socialized economy, again through democratic elections, and had to step back.
Reply- Actually, if you check your history books, pure capitalism failed, and will continue to fail time and time again. Turns out, capitalism is required to keep a permanent undertoe of people in poverty, and it also turns out, when that number grows to a large enough number, and gets pissed off enough, they revolt.
3. Communism does not provide motivation to the individual like capitalism does.
Reply- You know what would motivate me? Getting paid the value I provide to a company. Begging for a wage high enough to even afford the basics in life does not motivate me, it just pisses me off. At points, Im actually motivated to slack off and do absolutely nothing, because I feel it is my duty to give the capitalist exactly what I feel hes paying for.
If youve ever been to McDonalds, you can tell just how "motivated" capitalism makes them. I wonder how much better of job theyd do, say if, their pay depended on the quality and quantity of their production.........Lets see
Communism
I make 10 burgers in an hour, Im paid the labor value of ten burgers.
Capitalism
I make 10 burgers in an hour, and Im paid 5.15, which is significantly below the labor value of those ten burgers.
Gee, I wonder which worker is more motivated.
I bet you get 100 perfect burgers an hour out of worker one. I bet youre lucky to get the other one to perform much above the rate he would be terminated at.
4. If a society chooses to dabble with socialism or even communism through democratic elections, I have nothing against them, as long as they retain democracy.
Reply- Contrary to popular beliefs, Communism is required to form bottom up. It is the most democratic form of representive government at its final step that you can possibly achieve on a wide level.
Russia tried communism. Russia was heavily industrialized, more so after the revolution then prior to it.
There were alot of mistakes made in Russia, but even absent the mistakes you would have had an economy that was unable to meet the consumer demands of the society.
There was no motivation for the individual to help meet these consumer demands. No buck to be made by being an entrepreneur.
Communism is a wonderful philosophy, however it does not work in the real world.
As far as people getting pissed off enough and "revolting", that too is part of the American Way. However in America, the revolution occurs peacefully in the voting booth. No need to take up arms to throw the bums out, no one needs to die, just pull the election lever. If you can not muster enough votes, you could not muster enough support to achieve a successful violent revolution!
1. Russia tried communism. Russia was heavily industrialized, more so after the revolution then prior to it.
Reply- Russia was an aggragrian peasant society before "Bolshivism" was forced top down on the society. It was then industrialized on the backs of thousands of workers used as little more then slaves. "Communist Russia" was a plutocratic state run capitalism. A handful of elites, hand picked by the leadership, controlled everything, and filtered the wealth of the country into their pockets.
2. There were alot of mistakes made in Russia, but even absent the mistakes you would have had an economy that was unable to meet the consumer demands of the society.
Reply- Impossible. Given that a country has adequate natural resources, demand can be met and even predicted just as well in a planned economy as a free market.
3. There was no motivation for the individual to help meet these consumer demands. No buck to be made by being an entrepreneur.
Reply- Meeting consumer demand does not require a private entrepreneur.
4. However in America, the revolution occurs peacefully in the voting booth.
Reply- The voting booth will NEVER enact serious change in this country, you and I both know this. The same silver spoon fed sons of the capitalist oligarchal plutocracy are recycled over and over, with noone else having a polar bears chance in hell.
5. If you can not muster enough votes, you could not muster enough support to achieve a successful violent revolution!
Reply- I agree with that completely. I would never advocate a change that the majority did not support. It is wrong and stupid to force anything top down on a population.
The Bolshevik revolution was supported from the bottom. Actually, if Lenin had lived a little longer, and had not Stalin taken power, it would have been interesting to watch if the results of the "great social experiment" might not have been successful.
Russia has available enough natural resources, both then and now, to put the United States to shame. Russia (the USSR) attempted to industrialize and meet consumer demand through communism. They were unsuccessful in meeting this consumer demand despite the abundance of natural resources available.
Planned economies do not work. They are unable to quickly adopt to shifting market forces to efficiently meet the needs of the populace. They have not worked in large scale societies such as Russia and China, nor even in smaller socieities such as Cuba. While these societies have achieved some attributes that are laudable, in the end, they are unable to meet the real demands of their societies.
Raw capitalism is wrong. Even Ronald Reagan saw the need for socialist safety nets. However soft capitalism, motivating the individual to meet the needs of society through the expectation of personal gain, is part of the answer. At least that is how I see it.
1. The Bolshevik revolution was supported from the bottom. Actually, if Lenin had lived a little longer, and had not Stalin taken power, it would have been interesting to watch if the results of the "great social experiment" might not have been successful.
Reply- It was not supported from the bottom, it was only supported by a fraction of the population, which managed to eject another fraction of the population out. Most Russians had nothing to do with it, and many were completely opposed. In fact, if you remember, a civil war broke out after Lenin took power.
The Bolshevik party then proceeded to forcefully put down anyone who disagreed. That doesnt sound much like a "bottom-up" revolution to me.
2. Russia has available enough natural resources, both then and now, to put the United States to shame.
Reply- That is true they do, but they didnt have effective ways to take advantage of their resources.
3. Russia (the USSR) attempted to industrialize and meet consumer demand through communism.
Reply- This is a violation of a pillar. You cannot attempt to "industrialize" after Communism. Communism requires existing industrial infrastructure.
4. They were unsuccessful in meeting this consumer demand despite the abundance of natural resources available.
Reply- Ineffective leadership.
5. They are unable to quickly adopt to shifting market forces to efficiently meet the needs of the populace.
Reply- Yes they can, they can shift just as quickly as any large company, with the right leadership. Unfortunatley, in most planned economies, the dictator is too concerned with pocketing funds and putting ineffective people in positions of power to realize this.
6. However soft capitalism, motivating the individual to meet the needs of society through the expectation of personal gain, is part of the answer. At least that is how I see it.
Reply- Most people are NOT motivated in capitalism. That is the problem you arent seeing. Most people view themselves as wage slaves, and nothing more. No matter how hard they work, no matter how much they produce, they are NEVER going to be properly rewarded for their efforts, because some capitalist is scraping money off their production so he can purchase a new Bentley Continental.
That is a HUGE deflation to the rank and file worker of capitalism. This is why time and time again, capitalism ends in revolution. Its just a matter of how long the rank and file are willing to eat shit.
First, this thread is getting way off track of the article I posted.
My intent with this article was to "request", to "ask" (not demand) that my children read the Gospels so that they might learn about the philosophy of Jesus.
However in closing this thread (at least from me) I am going to state that there is nothing better about communism then capitalism. In fact it is quite the opposite. Communism offers no better protections then capitalism against corruption and greed.
Perhaps communism would be viable under a democratic society. However NEVER has a society sprung forth that has withstood the test of time that allows for both to flourish simultaneously. In every society where communists were allowed to compete democratically, and even given some power, the electorate has eventually chosen to run the bums out of office.
Communism can not withstand the test of democracy. This has been proven. It is great as a philosophy, just like the philosophy of Jesus is great. However communism does not meet the challenge of the real world. It was tried and it failed.
1. Communism can not withstand the test of democracy. This has been proven.
Reply- Actually, Communism MUST stand the test of democracy or it cannot operate. You cant "elect" a communist government.
Communism is a complete socio-economical philosophy, you cant just throw a "Communist" party line tower in to a position of power in a competing socio-economical set up, and expect things to work out.
1. However communism does not meet the challenge of the real world. It was tried and it failed.
Reply- You have yet to provide an example of ACTUAL Communism being tried, and then failing. Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc etc, are NOT Communist nations, they all violated one or many cornerstones of Communism.
You are hyper-ventilating or something. Go back and read what you posted:
"Actually, Communism MUST stand the test of democracy or it cannot operate. You cant "elect" a communist government."
You are sending me contradictory signals here. Can communism exist in a Democracry or not?
1. You are sending me contradictory signals here. Can communism exist in a Democracry or not?
Reply- Communism IS the emodiement of Democracy, but again it CANNOT be forced top down on people.
In other words, if the majority of people wanted to shift to communism, and the revolution began, upon its completion, the people would be offered the ultimate in representitive government.
You contend that, because some random Communist party line tower gets elected in say, a capitalist socio-economic system, and fails, that means that communism doesnt work in democracy. This is kind of like saying that because capitalist in elected posts ultimately fail in "communist" nations, such as North Korea or Cuba, that capitalism is a failure. No, its because their system is not set up to support free market capitalism, and their complete country would have to be turned on its ass for it to be so.
Yeah, youre right, Communism NEVER works in a capitalistic socio-economic system. The whole structure of the nation must be Communist, for communist democracy to work.
Yeah right. You stated:
"In other words, if the majority of people wanted to shift to communism, and the revolution began, upon its completion, the people would be offered the ultimate in representitive government."
America, in response to the threat of "workers of the world unite" offered labor broad protections towards the labor movement. The labor movement itself proved itself to be subject to corruption.
In no society has Communism proven itself to be preferable to a democratic capitalist society. Capitalism, with high taxes on the wealthy (but not so high as to allow the successful a certain amount of wealth and enjoyment of that wealth) offers the greatest potential for any society and mankind at large.
With Mr Marx "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" there is no motivation for the capable to excel. No matter how hard they try their efforts will not be rewarded and only their needs will be met no matter how hard they work.
Capitalism is not perfect, but it offers motivation to the individual which communism does not.
1. America, in response to the threat of "workers of the world unite" offered labor broad protections towards the labor movement. The labor movement itself proved itself to be subject to corruption.
Reply- A labor union is not "communism". AGAIN, for the hundreth time, you CANNOT operate communism under the guise of capitalism, EVER, under ANY situation or circumstance. The decline of labor union membership, and the undermining it of big business is exactly what happens.
2. Capitalism, with high taxes on the wealthy (but not so high as to allow the successful a certain amount of wealth and enjoyment of that wealth) offers the greatest potential for any society and mankind at large.
Reply- Society at large? Or just certain sectors of society. Last time I checked, capitalism depended on a slave class, and various low classes, to do the work of the higher classes. That is a fact of capitalism. The richer the rich become, the worse everyone else becomes.
As far as taxes, they dont mean diddly. Wow, you handed a poor person food stamps and section 8 subsidized housing in the ghetto, I bet thats really advancing them.........wait, you say there is job training? So youre training even MORE professionals for jobs that dont exist, arent needed, or are being wholesale handed out to Mexicans? Wow, I bet thats helping them out too......you think maybe the best thing to do might be able to allow them to achieve an acceptable minumum standard of living in their CURRENT jobs?
3. With Mr Marx "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs"......No matter how hard they try their efforts will not be rewarded and only their needs will be met no matter how hard they work.
Reply- If you read ANYTHING by Marx, youd realize that quote is not what it means on the surface. Furthermore, no modern communist that I know of has, or would ever buy in to that theory at face value.
Finally, most in capitalism are currently not rewarded based on the difficulty of their work.
4. Capitalism is not perfect, but it offers motivation to the individual which communism does not.
Reply-
1. The system currently supported by most communist and left leaning socialist parties and groups does offer structured financial motivation within the communist system. ALthough, the money can NEVER be spent on capital, large piles of it would not amount into distinctive classes.
2. Only the wealthy, commission paid, and brainwashed are motivated by capitalism. The average rank and file worker is doing just enough to not get fired. Go into any fast food restaurant, any non-sales office, and work site. Youll see people standing around, goofing off, cruising the internet, and talking.
I encourage you to read about the Best Buy company, and what they did at their home office in Minnesota.
They completely took all employees off of the "time clock" system, and put them on a production system, in other words, they are paid for producing x amount of work, and the rest of the time they can come and go as they please. Productivity went UP 15%. Turns out, amazing as this sounds, people are motivated when they are directly compensated for what they produce, and not what some suit making way too much money has dictated to them as a wage. People certainly arent motivated by punching a clock and exchanging whatever work they do in an 8 hour day for the equivalent determined compensation. If you are paying me x dollars for this days work, and I get it done in 2 hours, I shouldnt have to give you more work for the same money, just because Im efficient, and THAT my friend, is how most people think.
Again, if a worker was paid for the quantity and quality of hamburger made, and all "profits" were distributed to the workers, rather then the pocket of the capitalist, I bet you your burger would be perfect every time, and youd never get food poisoning.
Instead, you got $5.15 an hour guy, who couldnt give a damn about your burger, and is already planning ahead to what hes going to do when he gets off. Sounds like motivation to me.
The decline of labor unions is due to the corruption and excesses of the labor union members such as becoming overly greedy and driving the enterprises they work for out of business.
Sounds to me like you are not preaching true communism. You give an example of what Best Buy was able to accomplish, but Best Buy is only practicing good capitalism. Under free enterprise, they are able to adapt to changing market conditions as it suits the share holders and continue or abandon these practices as they are found to increase or decrease productivity. What Best Buy achieved serves as a fantastic example of what is possible under the free market system, not what is possible under a planned economy.
As for the rest of your post, sounds to me like it is you who are not aware of what communism stands for. Central to the idea is "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". Once you introduce that some will be rewarded more then others for their unique abilities or their willingness to work hard you are talking about a free market, capitalist system.
1. The decline of labor unions is due to the corruption and excesses of the labor union members such as becoming overly greedy and driving the enterprises they work for out of business.
Reply- Uh no, the decline in unions is due to businesses like Walmart actively destroying them and ignoring them and hiring around them. Unfortunatley, the employer has nearly all the cards in the "employee contract", and that makes it kind of a one sided negotiation. The only unions that have been able to stay alive are ones with highly skilled members, or ones so massive that it would be impossible to hire enough scabs to do the job. Common Joe needs his Walmart job a whole lot more then Walmart needs him.
2. What Best Buy achieved serves as a fantastic example of what is possible under the free market system, not what is possible under a planned economy.
Reply- Current espousements of Communism almost universally embrace a "pay for work" system. You make 5 chairs, youre paid the labor value of 5 chairs. You make 2 chairs, youre paid the labor value of 2 chairs.
Of course, to limit the system from turning into capitalism all over, there would be minimum and maximum ceilings on what could be earned, for what production, and of course, there would be no private ownership of the means of production.
3. Once you introduce that some will be rewarded more then others for their unique abilities or their willingness to work hard you are talking about a free market, capitalist system.
Reply- This is not so. Just like there are MANY versions of capitalism, which run the gauntlet from socialism to facism, their are many versions of communism.
Paramount to communism is the state progressing to the society owned means of production. In other words, the abolishment of the control of means of production, and as such, a classless society, in which one class does not own another by their economical nuts. The phrase attributed to Marx that you bring up, is not a pillar of most strains of communism, in fact, its a pillar of almost no modern strains of communism.
Nobody with half a brain cell would suggest that a man would work, simply for the good of everyone, while others did not have to work as hard and received the same benefit. Most modern communists have long abandoned any ties to that in its literal sense. When Im not at work and positive my computer use is not being monitored, I will give you links to many platforms of modern communist and far left socialist parties that have no marriage to that at all.
As far as your suggestion that "anything that has motivation must be capitalism", there is nothing further from the truth.
On the contrary, capital is not owned, or exploited by a private owner of said capital. It is technically owned by the state in name, but is controlled by its workers.
The economy is planned, and each factory is given a minimum order, and the quality/quantity of their production would determine which factory received more orders, and therefore more money to distribute.
Of course, non-production jobs, would be treated differently as they cant be paid for specific production.
In order to restrict class development, max and min wages would be forced in to a reasonable window, and ownership of the means of production would be eliminated.
Uh no.
The decline of the unions is based upon the willingness of "average Americans" like me (a truck driver) to deliver freight and keep the business going despite the picket lines.
Why do I do it? Because I have experienced maltreatment from union workers who were making more money per year then I was. They did not just toy with me, they played dirty tricks upon me that cost me money. They did not fear being fired for mistreatment of of others who served their employer because they had the union behind them. Meanwhile the Teamsters retirement fund is so small (due to corruption)it can not by any measurable means meet the promised benefits to retired Teamster members.
If Walmart workers thought they could get a better deal from Walmart with the unions, they would vote for the unions. Do you think these "average Joe" members are stupid or something? Walmart workers have faced union organization efforts in the past and have even been able to vote on becoming organized. Never once have the employees voted in favor of the unions (thus far).
Of course, in the case of Walmart, this success is also due to Walmart taking great steps to curb union organization. However, the only reason Walmart's efforts have met with success are at least partially due to the track record of the unions themselves.
As for your defense of communism, do not bother.
During my lifetime, I have watched while communist societies have sprung up with great promise and who have been unable to deliver the promise.
Meanwhile, I have watched capitalist societies, such as my own, deliver more rewards to those who exist in their societies.
Besides, any "new communist" who supports what you seem to support is actually just preaching "improved capitalism". To them I would offer a welcoming hand and ask us to make the "American Way" better. However I would warn them to stuff the label of communism. Being labeled a "dirty communist" is not going to help you win public support even today. Karl Marx was a wonderful philosopher who's philosophy was proven unable to work in the real world when you factor in the human motivations of the average "worker of the world".
1. The decline of the unions is based upon the willingness of "average Americans" like me (a truck driver) to deliver freight and keep the business going despite the picket lines.
Reply- Because those average Americans are willing to accept less in order to keep and or progress in their job. They found when they strike, they get laid off, their department gets closed, and replacements are hired. Again, the employer has all the cards in the "employee contract". Companies are also able to constantly spin the publicity in their favor. For instance, when pilots strike, its "Those damn pilots, theyve stranded all you wonderful folks here." Its never "fucking greedy airline who watched its bottom line go up 56% yet salaries were frozen, flight hours were increased, and benefits were cut. Oh by the way the CEO got a big fat raise because of this."
2. Meanwhile, I have watched capitalist societies, such as my own, deliver more rewards to those who exist in their societies.
Reply- I have been delivered nothing. If the US was a communist society, I, as well as most Americans would be doing far better financially, at the expense of the 1,000 or so people with over 250 million in assets.
3. Besides, any "new communist" who supports what you seem to support is actually just preaching "improved capitalism".
Reply- What part of the definition of "capitalism" are you missing? The part that it relies on market pricing? The part that it requires the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production? The part that it requires profit and a permanent slave class to operate? Nothing about planned economies and the communal ownership of the means of production, and fully distributed income can be referred to as ANY form of capitalism.
Again, if you actually read Marx and his followers work you would find that the "too each" B.S. has been dropped at its literal interpretation for a very long time.
4. Being labeled a "dirty communist" is not going to help you win public support even today.
Reply- This is the result of decades of western propaganda, and a general misinformation about what Russia, China, Vietnam etc actually were/are.
5. Karl Marx was a wonderful philosopher who's philosophy was proven unable to work in the real world when you factor in the human motivations of the average "worker of the world".
Reply- That is an unfair statement. How can something that hasnt been succesfully attempted, be proven "unable to work in the real world"?
I am going to take advantage of the considerable weakness of your last post.
You gave as an example the airlines.
Almost every airline is facing bankruptcy while airline pilots receive wages that drive them into the level that most of us might describe as wealthy. Airline mechanics receive wages that drive them into the upper level middle income while most of us have to work harder for less then they receive.
Meanwhile, these same "above average" wage earners object when they have to pay "above average" taxes.
Get my point?
1. You gave as an example the airlines.
Almost every airline is facing bankruptcy while airline pilots receive wages that drive them into the level that most of us might describe as wealthy.
Reply- This was a generalization....it happens in every industry.
2. Airline mechanics receive wages that drive them into the upper level middle income while most of us have to work harder for less then they receive.
Reply- So? The reason all the rest of us receive garbage wages is BECAUSE we are all competing with ourselves to drive down the wage. Union members are all allied together, and as such are not competing against eachother to sell their services cheaper just to have a job.
The solution is not to disolve the unions, so we can all bid down eachothers wages to nothing, but unionize everybody. US companies wont be able to bring in enough Mexicans to scab all the jobs that would be striking.
As long as people like you (and I guess me too, I also am guilty) are making our purchase decisions with an extremely strong weight given to the price of the item?
Even if we threw up trade barriers, wouldn't this just raise the price of goods for everyone? You might get an increased wage, but the increased wage wouldn't get you increased purchasing power because the price of everything will just have gone up.
I do think our society does scream for improvements. You make many valid complaints about how our society works. However, I chuckle that you think communism is the answer to our problems. That would be like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Perhaps in your own blog, you could attempt to explore the strengths of the "new communism" (I put it in quotes because evidently it differs from the "old communism") in some of your postings. I would enjoy reading as you attempt to make a case for how American society might be improved by "going communist".
1. As long as people like you (and I guess me too, I also am guilty) are making our purchase decisions with an extremely strong weight given to the price of the item?
Reply- If I wasnt restricted to being able to afford only a certain range of goods because of my pitiful wage, maybe I wouldnt have to give as much weight to price? Ever think of that?
2. Even if we threw up trade barriers, wouldn't this just raise the price of goods for everyone? You might get an increased wage, but the increased wage wouldn't get you increased purchasing power because the price of everything will just have gone up.
Reply- I disagree, and the reason is much higher level economic theories which Id be happy to explain if you are so inclinded to read.
3. I do think our society does scream for improvements. You make many valid complaints about how our society works. However, I chuckle that you think communism is the answer to our problems. That would be like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Reply- Communism would improve atleast 75% of peoples lives at the expense of about 5%, while the other 20% probably wouldnt see much change. I think thats good. Anyone who is currently making less then the mean wage would see their income go up. That is certainly my wife and I both, and possibly you as well.
4. Perhaps in your own blog, you could attempt to explore the strengths of the "new communism" (I put it in quotes because evidently it differs from the "old communism") in some of your postings.
Reply- Actually, it doesnt differ any from the "old communism". The difference is that the "old communism" is simply mislabeled state run capitalism. The communism I suggest is pretty much 95% straight Marxism with some minor adjustments to correct for the things he never could quite explain.
5. I would enjoy reading as you attempt to make a case for how American society might be improved by "going communist".
Reply- I actually decided not to be very political on my blog.
You decided not to be political on your own blog but seek to spread your garbage here on mine.
You tell me that you would explain it to me if I was so inclined to read, however refuse to provide the words I can read.
In American society, you must be able to convince people by the power of your argument that you are correct. Thus far I have not witnessed any evidence that you possess this capability.
As for me? I will say that communism is a wonderful philosophy, however it will not work in the real world when it encounters real human beings.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1. You decided not to be political on your own blog but seek to spread your garbage here on mine.
Reply- Your blog is already political in nature. I guess though, the only people who are welcome to post are people who do not post "garbage", aka, your thoughts. I guess its so much easier to require others to be robots when one is such themself.
2. Thus far I have not witnessed any evidence that you possess this capability.
Reply- You are hilarious. Obviously, I should spend my time explaining theories to someone who
1. Cant comprehend even half of what Im saying on any given post, and has demonstrated as much.
2. Blatantly ignores or misreads large chunks of my posts
3. Requires something to be readdressed and reexplained multiple times. I believe this to be closely related to number two.
4. Is locked in his own preconceived false notions, of which, he refuses to surrender.
5. Discounts my thoughts as "garbage".
Get real. You are full of propaganda and pre conceived notions which act as a barrier to you actually openly understanding anything that isnt parallel to your beliefs.
By the way, did you have a poster of McCarthy secretly pasted to your door as a child?
Watch out, the big red boogie man is coming for you! Better hide under your desk!
You do me an injustice.
Go back several months in my blog and read some of the debates I had with Michael Tam here. We frequently disagreed, I would not think it would be wrong to say we disagreed more often then we agreed. However, Michael Tam was willing to post his opinions on his own blog. I even linked to his blog because while I frequently disagreed with him, I respected his opinions even while I disagreed. (I probably am going to delete the link however, I just have not gotten around to it. His blog has had only one entry in the last several months, I think he abandoned it.)
As for your criticizing my unwillingness to take every thing you say as being Gospel... well, let me just state I am unwilling to take even what the President of the United States says as being Gospel. I most certainly am not going to give your statements that weight.
The reason you have to repeat yourself is because the first time you said it, your statements were unconvincing and failed to prove your point. Given a second chance, you most times just repeat the same unsubstantiated, unconvincing argument.
I will give you an example of your unsuccessful arguments. You stated communism would only work in a society that was already industrialized. First I was rather dismissive of this statement because of my biases. However I attempted to think about it again and not be a bigot. I thought about how "industrialized" Italy flirted with what they called communism in the seventies. The Italian Communist Party was quite successful in winning elections in Italy back then. They had significant representation in the Italian Parliament and were winning a stunning number of victories in local elections. However the Italian Communist Party proved unable to deliver on their promises and even those who once supported them started voting for someone else.
I have nothing against communists, as long as they agree to play by the rules and win power through peaceful elections and not through violent revolutions. However, once they are victorious, they must continue to allow free political opposition and truly free elections so that "the masses" can throw them out of office as well when they, too, prove unable to deliver the Nirvana they promised to these same masses.
By the way, note how your hero down in Venezuela is starting to violate my rules. From what I have heard he is dominating the air waves with his one sided propaganda while denying his opposition "equal time" to debate him. Immediately after the failed coup, he gave every member of the military a pocket size of the Venezuelian Constitution to win their support for him as the rightful ruler. However, now he thinks it is necessary for him to change the constitution so that he can become "President for Life" or something. You see, the Venezuela Constitution limits the number of terms a President can serve like our own does. However Hugo seems to think his "revolution" can nog exist without him. Like Castro's experimental revolution, everything is going to depend on one man. Nothing like what happened here in America with George Washington and our own revolution.
George Washington served as our President back in our early years. He served with his leadership long enough to get us started and then retired, living under the laws he helped shape, handing the reigns back over to "the masses" to elect another to serve in the office he vacated.
Hugo Chavez is no George Washington. Venezuela deserves something better in my opinion.
1. The Italian Communist Party was quite successful in winning elections in Italy back then.
Reply- You cannot "elect" a communist party. I believe I mentioned this before. Communism requires a whole entire reversal of socio-political set ups, and a "communist party", cannot operate within restraints, most often which, previous capitalism has lumped on them. For instance, in order for a "communist party" to be "elected" in the US, they would have to get into office, completely trash the Constitution , and rebuild the set up of the complete and total foundation of the country. It is not as simple as "getting elected".
2. However the Italian Communist Party proved unable to deliver on their promises and even those who once supported them started voting for someone else.
Reply- All politicians rarely deliver on anything, but when you are expecting someone preaching about changing the complete government, you are asking for dissapointment.
3. I have nothing against communists, as long as they agree to play by the rules and win power through peaceful elections and not through violent revolutions
Reply- Again, elections are not going to do anything. The country must be turned on its head, and unfortunatley, some people arent fans of that, and will violently defend their old way of life, and that is why it usually requires a violent revolution.
4. However, once they are victorious, they must continue to allow free political opposition and truly free elections so that "the masses" can throw them out of office as well when they, too, prove unable to deliver the Nirvana they promised to these same masses.
Reply- I completely agree, as long as it is already within a communist socio-economic structure, and not some version of capitalism.
5. By the way, note how your hero down in Venezuela is starting to violate my rules.
Reply- Chavez is not my "hero". I said he did, and has done, more for Venezuela then capitalism ever did.
6. However, now he thinks it is necessary for him to change the constitution so that he can become "President for Life" or something. You see, the Venezuela Constitution limits the number of terms a President can serve like our own does.
Reply- I dont have a problem with him changing the term limitations. So what? If he keeps getting elected by the people of Venezuela until eternity, what is the problem? Obviously he is doing something good there.
7. Hugo Chavez is no George Washington. Venezuela deserves something better in my opinion.
Reply- Yeah, like being exploited for its oil by Exxon, while its people dont see a dime of the proceeds. Nice. Atleast Chavez is building public housing, utilities and schools with the cash.
I am completely confused by your comments. You seem to speak out of both sides of you mouth.
You claim that previous governments that claimed to be communist where just dictatorships. However you then state that a communist society can not be elected. You state that the communists must be put into power through revolution. So you then are in favor of the minority (that could not win a peaceful election) forcing their will through violence on the majority?
Sorry. Sounds like the the "new" communism is just as unreasonable as the "old" communism. I myself would be motivated to take up arms and lead the charge of the majority to lead our own violent revolution and restore that which was taken away from us.
In America, every individual has the power to lead his own revolution at the ballot box every couple years. It happens with a whole lot less destruction and inconvenience to the revolutionaries. Everything that the violent revolutionist promises to achieve through violence can be achieved in my society through non-violence.
Do you want an example? I am going to point to Martin Luther King. MLK did not achieve the banishment of racism in America. However MLK achieved so much progress that if a black man (Colin Powell) would agree to be our President, he could rule the nation.
1. You state that the communists must be put into power through revolution. So you then are in favor of the minority (that could not win a peaceful election) forcing their will through violence on the majority?
Reply-
A. Communists MUST be put into power through revolution, because you can not elect them IN a capitalist system, and expect things to work. Communism is its own socio-economic system. So whether it is peaceful or not, removing the old is always required.
B. One of the pillars of communism is that it must come from the bottom, up, not top down. In other words, nobody would suggest, nor am I, that a "minority" force anything on a "majority". Its actually quite the opposite, an overwhelming majority would come to clash with the wealthy elite minority, who would have their red carpet jet set lives pulled out from under them, and the disillusioned others who think capitalism is good for them.
2. I myself would be motivated to take up arms and lead the charge of the majority to lead our own violent revolution and restore that which was taken away from us.
Reply- If and when the US is ready for communism, you and those who cling to the capitalist beast will be in a tiny minority. If you wish, you can fight side by side by with Bill Gates, Ross Perot, and the Walton family. That is if theyd want to breath the same air as a blue collar worker.
Remember, the have nots already outnumber the haves by a huge majority, and it grows by the day.
3. In America, every individual has the power to lead his own revolution at the ballot box every couple years.
Reply- Yeah, we can vote for some prick from the moneyed elites, or a different prick, with nearly identical views, equally as corrupted, and from the same moneyed elites.
Wow what a choice. I bet they have my interests at heart.
Even if by some stroke of luck, a large number of the same third party was voted into office, theyd likely be able to accomplish nothing more then the pork filled B.S. that goes through now.
4. Everything that the violent revolutionist promises to achieve through violence can be achieved in my society through non-violence.
Reply- By definition, a revolution brings about huge change. The US has been treading the EXACT same water since FDR died. The ruling class of the US will continue to tread that water until the end of time, because it benefits them almost exclusively. The only way a revolution would ever happen in the US, is if the ruling class is robbed of their power, primarily their control of capital. If that doesnt happen, we all will continue to keep voting for officials from the same country club.
5. Do you want an example? I am going to point to Martin Luther King. MLK did not achieve the banishment of racism in America.
Reply- This is not the same thing at all. Civil rights for a minority is not the same as a complete socio-economic overhaul. Blacks having rights interfered with peoples personal lives very little, and therefore, a majority didnt care. Most still maintain the same level of racism as they did, they just arent allowed to express that in public venues.
A socio-economic overhaul would affect every single person in this country. Most would see their lifes greatly improve, a few would see their lives greatly diminished. All would be forced to look out for society, instead of their own selfish pursuits, and every able bodied person would have to pull their own weight, not simply pay someone else to pull their weight. It would be a completely different life, not simply just acknowledging that someone you dont like has the same rights as you.
You are blathering nonsense.
You say communism could only take power through a violent revolution that would be comprised of a majority of the citizens.
Well then, why couldn't they just take power through a non-violent revolution at the voting booth if they truly are the majority?
If all "communists" think like you, then perhaps the extremes of the Joseph McCarthy hearings back in the 50's really were necessary.
1. You say communism could only take power through a violent revolution that would be comprised of a majority of the citizens.
Reply- I didnt say they could only take power through a VIOLENT revolution, as a matter of fact, Ive discounted that notion on several occassions. In theory, it could be peaceful, the fact is, that is rarely the case. The minority who own all the capital assets dont often surrender them without a fight. That is the problem.
2. Well then, why couldn't they just take power through a non-violent revolution at the voting booth if they truly are the majority?
Reply- Because theyd just be electing Communists in to a capitalist system. That is not going to work, ever. You cant just put a few Communists in to a capitalist government and expect anything to happen.
3. If all "communists" think like you, then perhaps the extremes of the Joseph McCarthy hearings back in the 50's really were necessary.
Reply- How dare anyone question the oligarchal plutocracy! What a sin. We should continue to keep recycling the same exact country club members. Hell, we are almost to a point where "royal" families control everything. I can hardly wait for the next Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, etc that I can vote in to office......then I can ring my hands about all the ills of the world while we continue the same status quo weve been following for the past 60 years. Nice solution. Maybe if we give them another 60 years, theyll change something, or do something that doesnt line their pockets?
As long as the military stayed out of election results, or rather only became involved if it became necessary to defend the results of the election, your "revolution" could occur peacefully through the ballot box.
1. As long as the military stayed out of election results, or rather only became involved if it became necessary to defend the results of the election, your "revolution" could occur peacefully through the ballot box.
Reply- Again, I pose the question, if 85% of the people voted to trash the constitution and start over, and also confiscate all property, especially capital assets, would you be "peaceful" with that? Im sure people like Bill Gates certainly wouldnt be.
There is little to no chance of the transfer of ownership of capital assets from private hands to public hands without terrific violence. That is regardles of what the "ballot box" says.
If you could muster 85% of "the people" to modify the Constitution you could muster enough power to change the Constitution within the rules of the Constitution. Since you already have 85% popular support, and at least 85% of the military is comprised of the sons and daughters of this popular majority, I think you would hold in your hands the power to do anything. That is, as long as what you did maintained popular support.
I'm going to add to that last one.
In order to maintain popular support, you would have to keep telling the truth. You would have to be willing to keep telling the truth even if it led you to that place that he who I call saviour came to be. It's called "the cross".
I love Jesus, can you tell? But even Jesus, while he hung up there on the cross said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."
Post a Comment
<< Home