What is your political stance?

Post Reply New Topic

Classical liberalism
Euroscepticism
UK unionism
Libertarianism
National conservatism

What is Euroskepticism?

ruveyn

I was brought up in a Conservative family, and when I voted for the first time, I voted for Conservative. The following election years later, I voted for the British National Party. I hate hate Labour and do give my support to the "neutral" Liberal Democrats.
I didn't bother voting this time, but it would have fallen between the British National Party and to the greater, Liberal Democrats. As of late, although not really political, I have been looking at and supporting the English Defence League. The group that actively oppose Muslim radicalism and hate the Muslim Defence League with a burning passion.

Sure. Jefferson was a noted fundamentalist Christian, as was Thomas Paine. And we all know how pious Ben Franklin, who never attended church, must have been.


Correct, the phrase comes from a Supreme Court decision, which is, according to our constitutional system, regarded as a valid interpretation of American law until the decision is overturned. Perhaps I have not been following the Supreme Court very closely in the past couple years, but I think I would have heard about it if they overturned such a major decision.


Hostile to religion? Have you been investigated by the police because of the church you attend? What evidence do you have of state hostility to religion?


I attended a public school and my teachers advocated young Earth creationism, promoted the same absurd myths about the Founders that you seem to believe, and vocally approved of torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention of "terrorists."

Real leftist whackos.


There can be a just war, but is there one going on right now? And are the alternatives to entering into a war adequately considered?

Opposition to British involvement in the European Union.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts132392-start60.html

People are certainly ENCOURAGING government to be hostile to religion.

OK, but I suspect thechadmaster really means "Christianity" when he says "religion." Is there any serious movement that is working to deny rights to American Christians?

Yes. The court is requiring christian religious groups that meet on college campuses to accept leaders that are anti-christian. They do not enforce this rule for other groups that meet on campus.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/juneweb-only/36-11.0.html

1st Ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts are supposed to support freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

You're going to have to find a much better example than that. This is the court allowing a university to require that groups allow anyone to join—hardly discrimination against Christians or anyone else. Now, I don't know how leaders for the group are determined; probably some sort of election within the group and I don't anticipate that they would choose an non-Christian leader for themselves (or that many non-Christians would be terribly interested in the group). The selective enforcement of the policy is the only legitimate complaint, and the court agreed that the issue needed to be looked into to ensure the policy was applied fairly.

Your own quote also fails to support your case: let's go ahead and take a myopic, literalistic interpretation of the Constitution as many right-wingers (especially anti-"Separation of church and state" folks) like to do. "Congress shall make no law," meaning that a university, or even a state or local government, is free to discriminate against any religious organization as much as they damn well please. The 1st Amendment as written only appears to limit the power of Congress to abuse people's civil liberties. Thus, state governments can censor mercilessly, local municipalities can implement Sharia or OT Judaic law as they see fit, and universities can outright ban religious groups from meeting on campus.

Your "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" point is just a tired, meaningless cliché. What do you even mean by it? Do you even know, or are you just repeating something you heard/read somewhere else?

Apolitical.

I have more liberal leanings, but I don't participate in elections because I have no problem with my local laws, and as for the president and Congress...waste of paper.

I know, I was more using it to bring up a real-life matter of how one's right to religion is being encroached upon rather than the paranoia of some Christian sects whose preachers manufacture a sense of crisis to motivate and mobilize their zomb...err...followers. I guess it's not much different than the whole "sinners in the hands of an angry god" spiel other than adding in a defensive level of perceived conflict against your fellow man. Have to wonder who the next Hypatia will be.

Technically, it first comes from a writing by Jefferson, and then from a supreme court judgment. Beyond that you are right, however, modern supreme courts haven't overturned the idea so much as softened it up. Basically, many modern interpreters just seek neutrality of government to religion, which means treating it like a secular party, but I don't think a full-reversal of the earlier policy has existed.


Well, that's an interpretation of legal actions taken by the supreme court based upon the doctrine you referenced earlier.


Most conservatives are really actually the ones misinformed on a lot of these issues. This isn't say that the average liberal is great either, but the right wing has been turning itself into an intellectual ghetto, and like the term "ghetto" tends to imply in our society, there is real impoverishment and isolation.

Well.... right. That's kind of true. As it stands, the current supreme court rule is selective incorporation, but the issue is that selective incorporation lacks any clear lines on what should be incorporated, what shouldn't be, or how to distinguish between *any* of it. That's not something most right-wingers like about it.

I personally tend to align more with what is labeled "right-libertarian".

but government almost always will: the people who hold elected positions are rarely the best equipped to make advances in political science.

I'm what I used to refer to as "enlightened anarchist", a term I coined back when it seemed to me that god had fashioned the universe according to some unfathomable plan that was working out to as yet inconceivable ends.

These days I'm atheist, aspie and still, at heart, anarchist.