Watchtower Right? (page 2)

imallgrowedup

Phantom -

Again, your argument just points to the fact that one side believes in a society where there is a God who needs to be taken into consideration, and another that doesn't. It flows down into the political beliefs.....

growedup

Phantom Stranger

Wow...I went back and re-read what I wrote... I don't think I said that, dude.

I'd like to suggest to you that some liberals might be living their lives in such as way that they believe they are considering what God wants them to do... I point out specifically some of the Quaker peace movements.

Check out the table, man.

Phantom Stranger

Oh, and to speak again to the original point, the WTS is "warlike" because that's what happens when you go for moral absolutism, black-and-white, right-or-wrong thinking.

Unconditional love is a nice phrase... but the WTS doesn't practice it, and they are not alone.

imallgrowedup

Phantom -

Wow...I went back and re-read what I wrote... I don't think I said that, dude.
I'd like to suggest to you that some liberals might be living their lives in such as way that they believe they are considering what God wants them to do... I point out specifically some of the Quaker peace movements.

It all comes down to interpretation.

growedup

patio34

Hi Imallgrowedup,

Thanks for your thoughtful--and respectful --reply. I hadn't thought of it as all boiled down to liberals vs. conservatives, as I don't picture myself as liberal in all ways. I had the issue boiled down to the Iraq invasion and continued support of it. And the issue of the morality of it all. Not all war, but "preventive" war--a new policy instituted by Pres. Bush. It wouldn't apply to all Republicans either, just those who continue to support the actions in face of newly learned facts about the evidence for the invasion.

Hi Phantom Stranger,

Thanks for the link to the list of which religions are in which party. I was the one who brought up parties, and it has to be considered, but more of what I was thinking I realize is what I referred to in the above paragraph about continued support for this war. I don't think all Republicans continue to support it now. One of my closest friends is a Republican but is appalled by Pres. Bush, et al. I am an independent probably.

Another assumption that is made on this board is that by pointing out all the problems with Clinton and now John Kerry somehow absolves Bush. It's not an either-or situation, imo, but getting at the truth of what the public was told as basis for the invasion.

Pat

Phantom Stranger

I thought this was intriguing... and a good reminder that public opinion does not predict history's verdict very well:

A series of Gallup Polls conducted during 1939 looked at public opinion relating to American involvement in the European War... the specific questions were:
March 1939 - " In case such a war [ German and Italy versus England and France] breaks out, how far should we go in helping England and France - should we send our army and navy abroad to fight the enemies of England and France? " 17% responded 'yes'; 83%'no'.
May 1939 - " In case Germany and Italy go to war against England and France, how far should we go in helping England and France? Should we send our army and navy abroad to fight Germany and France?" 16% responded 'yes' ; 84%'no'.
August 1939 - " Do you think the United States should declare war on Germany at once and send our army and navy abroad to help England, France, and Poland?" 8% said 'yes' ; 90% ' no' and 2%'don't know'.
September 1939 - " What should be the policy of the United States in the present European war - should we declare war and send our army and navy abroad to fight Germany? " 6% said 'yes' ; 94% 'no'.
A nationwide Gallup Poll conducted during the first week of December of 1940 asked Americans :
"If you were asked to vote on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote - to go into the war ot to stay out of the war?" 12% said 'go in' ; 88%'stay out' while 3% expressed no opinion.

patio34

That's really interesting Phantom--thanks for posting it. There are some real surprises in retrospect.

Pat

Sirius Dogma

I am bit confused by this.

Conservatives tend to believe that we all have free will and can make choices in our lives which affect the quality of our lives.

On the other hand, Liberals tend to believe that people are born into certain scenarios that preclude some from ever having any choices in life.

these definitions of free will (Conservativism) versus pre-destination (Liberalism)

I am not liberal or conservative, I admit I lean to the liberal side on social issues and to conservative side on fiscal and govermental issues, although on fiscal and governmetnal issues the conservatives have lately gone for big government. Anyway, I fall somewhere in the middle, however I have known many Liberals and conservative and I think these definitions might be backwords. As time has gone on the stands of democrats and republicans have often reversed. It seems the current definitions don't quite fit with what you wrote above.

If conservatives are for free will, then why are they against -

Gay marriage - Certaininly if conservatives believe in free will, someone should be free to choose who they marry?
Abortion - If conservatives believe in free will, a women should be able to exercise the free will of what happens to her body?
The drug war - Again, Where is the free will? I understand keeping this away from children, but shouldn't adults be able to exercise free will here?

As far as liberals being for pre-destination, I really don't understand that or where that could have come from. If anything, it would again be the opposite. Most liberals embrace the concept of personal freedom and self-expression. Pre-destination is a religious conecpt and as pointed out before, conservatives tend to be more religious.

I think the more generally excepted definitions are conservative - "supporting the status quo or opposed to change in tradition" and liberal - "progressive or not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms." Conservative want us to keep things the way they are and Liberals want us to continue evolving. Both paths could be dangerous, and both have their time and place in history. If a society or organism evolves at too fast a rate it could be detrimental and kill it. Also, if a society or organism becomes unable to evolve, it has already numbered its' days.

I think it similiar to the teachings of evolution and creation.

The tradition of creation says - God created everything. It is fact and therefore we offer no proof.

The theory of evolution says - Life evolved over time. This is how we think it happened and here is the proof.

The creationist and the evolutionist, both with different theories, niether really 100% provable, but one is tradition based on ancient texts and the other theory based on the progressing knowledge of humanity.

I think(hope) most people fall somewhere in between the liberal and the conservative, neither extreme makes much sense to me.

patio34

Hi Imallgrowedup and Sirius,

I didn't think the definition of conservatives and liberals definition offered was applicable. It seemed to have religious, rather than social overtones. Moreover, I don't really agree with them. I'll answer more later--as I'm at work now.

Thanks.

Pat

Phantom Stranger

Part of the issue might be that the terms are far too broad. For example, there are people who are political fiscal conservatives and social moderates or even social liberals - those who don't worry too much about what you do as long as you don't use their money to do it. Then there are social conservatives who are much more concerned with what other people do, and are every bit as intrusive as the worst social liberal - simply for different reasons.

I don't totally agree with Bob below, but it's good food for thought...

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Robert Anson Heinlein.

Watchtower Right?

Share this