Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
A couple of things:
Good question. I have malice (to keep using that word - I wouldn't have chosen that word, but it suffices) towards the administration that starts programs, but doesn't fund them (no child left behind), or cuts workforce retraining programs, and claims to be expanding them, or works to limit the rights of people to marry.
I hold no malice towards people that support that administration. I just think they are foolish, shortsighted, or concerned about other issues. My dad is a single issue voter, and voted for Bush. He just doesn't care about the other stuff - he falls into the shortsighted camp...
|
There was something that you attributed to the current administration that I would disagree with, but that's irrelevant to the current subject matter.
You say you don't have malice toward people who agree with the administration, but you do think they are foolish and/or shortsighted. I personally don't see that as being much better.
Quote:
|
I have "malice" where I believe people are hurting other people in a varied and systematic way. I reserve the right to disagree with anyone that supports them, but "malice" (for me) is reserved for those that DO.
|
Fair enough. But maybe the author of the above book feels the same way about the secular humanists. He sees them as systematically trying to hurt society as a whole.
Quote:
In a connected way, the idea that someone can be a threat because of their THOUGHTS is amazingly frightening to me. I'm no spokesperson for the 'amoral left', but I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding someone that would tell you the "right" is a threat because of their beliefs.
The "right" is a threat because they seem to want their beliefs to be MY beliefs. From my persepective, you can believe what ever you want. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, or that Santa Claus is a blue alien that wears a costume and performs gay marriages in the off season for all I care. But when the "right" tries to legislate that, I have a problem. Not that I believe the "right" would try to legislate THAT. 
|
But would they still be a threat if their beliefs were the same as yours? If you think that you are correct in your beliefs (and I have yet to see someone who thinks they are wrong) why wouldn't you want everyone else to think that same way? You stated earlier that those without your beliefs are either foolish or shortsighted. Do you want people to be foolish and/or shortsighted?
And I belive that both sides work the same way-they seek to impose their beliefs on the public. Not trying to divert the current debate, but take homosexuality. Many people think that homosexuality is a sin. The secular humanists try to change that belief. They are clearly trying to put their beliefs on others.
Quote:
Do mean the part of the "left" that is amoral (in the way that there are moral and amoral members of any group)? Or do you mean that the entire left is amoral?
And if you mean the latter, don't you realize how insulting you are to everyone on this board that would call themselves "left"?? You are saying none of us has morals. How freakin' dare you??
If you don't like being characterized in a particular way because of your political beliefs, you should be calling people on it. Help people understand what is offensive, if anything. I sure don't see it here.
Assuming it's there at all, 2 wrongs sure don't make a right.
|
How dare I? I dare because I see the same treatment directed toward the right and Christians. Apparently name-calling and blanket statements should be the sole province of the left? I've personally found that simply saying that something is offensive won't stop it's use on these boards. So if the right/Christians can wear the labels bigots/racists/sheep/stupid/ignorant/foolish/facists/crazy I think the left can fairly be tagged with amoral.