Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Definition of a liberal and a conservative

And how do you define socialism, JBryan, that you see seeking social justice as a short road to it?

Are you opposed to social justice? If not, how do you see it being achieved?

Do you see it as basically Social Darwinism? Survival of the economic fittest and let the weakest fall be the wayside?

I believe "social justice" to be a shiboleth. No one can seem to define exactly what it means but the mere utterance of the term places you on the side of the angels in the view of certain people. "Social justice" is a common theme that runs throughout all of the socialist and communist reveolutions. Much misery and death has been wrought in the name of "social justice". The only real "justice" that results is that all people live in perfect equality when they share equal misery. No, I do not believe in "social justice" any more than I believe in utopia.

This, of course, is the perfect example of why labels become a problem. It is assumed that because someone uses a term like social justice, that it involves a whole host of preconceived opinons. If we get away from pre-defined labels, we migh actually get somewhere.

As an example, I assume that you do not see allowing elderly people to be made to live on the street if they have been financially ruined for some reason. Neither do I. To me, this is a social justice issue.

I also believe preserving the life of the unborn is a social justice issue because it is part of the entire fabric of respecting the sanctity of life in all of its stages. This is why I oppose abortion. But then, I also see the death penalty as a social justice issue and I oppose it, because like abortion it is an attack on the sanctity of human life.

If we always put people into preconceived boxes and assume there is no gray area between them, we end up with perpetual arguing of who is right and who is wrong, and no movement to resolving any of the problems we face.

Okay, now you have identified three issues that, in your opinion, involve "social justiice". I could just as easily say that the first issue involves common decency and for the second two there is no concensus on what "social justice" means with respect to these issues. You still have not provided for me an exact definition of "social justice" and by exact I mean one that all could agree upon. Furthermore, by identifying the first of these as a "social justice" issue you are actually the one who is labelling because if I were to say that I do not believe in the concept of "social justice" then I have just identified myself as someone who does not have a problem with old people being kicked out into the street by your definition. Like I said, "social justice" is a shiboleth and you are only proving my point.

Since this isn't music or horses, and I'm unable to contribute much to this thread, I'd just like to say that I'm really enjoying reading the posts of George and JBryan. It is definitely "food for thought". Thanks.

Then I believe we are both proving each other's point. It is an issue by issue thing -- the real disagreement for most people is how to achieve goals and objectives, not whether their viewpoint is conservative or liberal, socialist or capitalist, part of an overall social justice viewpoint or common decency.

A case in point, since we have agreement, is that elderly people should not live on the streets. If we agree with this, we then have a common goal -- to keep elderly people from living on the street. So, the question we would discuss is how to achieve this goal. But we cannot do that at all if we spend our time arguing what "camp" we are in.

Bingo!!!

The real issue is not to assume any political or social bias in finding a solution, but to become as pragmatic as possible and find one that works. Unfortunately, too many are unwilling to consider possible solutions because they are more interested in maintaining their bona fides as a member of a group than they are in doing what needs to be done. To reject possible solutons simply because they do not fit into some ideological box is to close one's mind, stop discussion towards a solution and guarantee failure.

I can agree with that. I have never been particularly interested in pigeonholing you as a liberal or socialist or whatever (except in fun maybe) but I have been in sharp disagreement with specific points that you have made. Also, there are certain terms used by those on the left (and, I suppose, there are similar ones on the right) intended to close off debate on an issue. Terms such as "social justice" or "diversity" or "homophobia" that mean nothing by themselves but are intended to be accepted without question. By casting your opponent as being against (or for as the case may be) one of these shiboleths then nothing more needs to be said about the specific issues involved. Of course everyone must be for "social justice" and "diversity" and against "homophobia". That is until you unravel what any of these things actually mean.

I believe one of the biggest problems our country has is politicians, as well as the media, use terms such as Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative, (among others), as an insult to those people who have a different political viewpoint. i.e. "those Democrats who favor....." It irks me to no end that a politician from one political party will not support a GOOD idea from another party just because someone in their party disagrees. Party lines should only go so far. If politicians would look past the party line and past labels of liberalism and conservatism, our government could get much more done, and in less time, and more than likely, serve the American people, as a whole better. We waste too much time posturing and "name calling". If I spent as much time at MY job posturing and name calling, you can bet I wouldn't be employed long at all.***************************************** As to the subject of whether Bush2 is the legitamate President, I say GET OVER IT. And no I did not vote for Bush. The election is over and Bush is now President, right or wrong. Slavery was once a part of America. It was wrong but there is nothing we can do to change it now. It happened, we abolished it, it is history now. It is the same with Bush2. Right or wrong he is president. Time to move forward, and correct any problem that may exist, so that America will not have that embarising event again. As a side note, I do not care for Gore either, but I believe Bush2 handled the terrorist issue better than Gore would have, although I was rather supprised Bush2 handled it so well. We are at war, and should support our President. He is after all, an American. Not a Republican-American, or Texas-American. But an AMERICAN. I may not agree with his politics, but I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him to defend OUR nation. Want to label me with a title? Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative? Label me American. Anything else is just a political slur.

oops... double post

isn't it interesting that it is OK for an elected public official to interject his own personal convictions into affairs of state when it is his religion, but not when asserting his personal convictions means he doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag?

if it concerns pledging to the flag, he should leave his personal convictions at home and act as an elected official. if it concerns jesus, it is ok to insult non-christians by excluding them from his constituency because he has "freedom of religion" and can assert his personal religious views in public, even in his official capacities.

this is highly hypocritical, in my view. what you are saying is we can have freedom of speech and freedom of religion for our elected officials only so long as their expressions agree with your own views.

how many of you would be defending freedom of religious expression of elected officials if joe lieberman had been elected president and during the inaugural ceremonies started reciting "baruch atah adonai..." ??

if he asked ALL americans to bow their heads with him and recite a JEWISH prayer to honor his election to the white house?

that's how i felt about bush asking me to pray to his god with him. disenfranchised.

I never had a problem with Joe Liebermann's expressions of faith and I really don't feel uncomfortable with anything I've heard from George Bush or John Ashcroft. As I've stated before, I don't align myself with any particular religion and have never considered myself as a religious person.

We do require our elected officials to take oaths of office (which, by the way, often mention God in some way) that affirm their commitments to the defense of the Constitution and I don't see the pledge of allegiance as being a whole lot different. I would have a problem with oaths or pledges required from others not in elective or appointed office. I would find them eerily reminiscent of loyalty oaths which may be what is at heart of what you find troubling about the pledge of allegiance requirement.

Perhaps the oath of office should be good enough while a reluctance to pledge allegiance maybe only troubling. I do not find anything hypocritical about requiring oaths of affirmation from public officials while tolerating injections of religious views within their discourse. It's not as if Bush were saying "Now let us all bow our heads in prayer to our lord Jesus Christ". That I would find troubling.

"disenfranchised".....

This is why I say that most liberals can't think for themselves. Someone in the leftist "leadership" introduces a new word into their vocabulary, and all the liberals begin to use it. This word wasn't used at all until the election, when one of the democratic hit men introduced it. Now any time something happens that they don't like, a liberal will drag it out and toss it in your face. "Disenfranchised"..

Let me give you a much better example of "disenfranchisement". We live in a country that was established by people looking for a place to practice their Christian faith in peace. In the course of protecting their own rights to worship as they chose, they offered this same protection to any other religion. Then they proceeded to construct a government designed to protect these rights and freedoms, and based it on the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.

Every time these freedoms have been put in danger, men and women have stood up and put their lives on the line to protect those rights. Many of them have died doing it. Our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Republic, and the Flag that stands as a symbol of these things, were all earned through the blood, sweat, tears, and literally the lives of thousands of Americans. They died trying to preserve and protect the rights contained in these documents, and the flag which stands in honor of them.

Now, we have people who don't like hearing how our country was founded, or how our form of government was shaped. They don't like the fact that we are a Christian nation. And they have no respect for the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Republic, or the Flag that stands as a symbol of honor to all these things, and to the people who died protecting them. And they have no respect for the majority of the citizens who continue to hold to those same basic Christian principles. They only know that the freedoms provided are so broad that they also include the freedom for people to be disrespectful, ungrateful, and act like spoiled children too, if they wish.

So they create a stink when the word God is spoken in public. This disenfranchises almost the entire nation. And they refuse to show their respect for the people who died so that they could be free, and think the majority of Americans should accept the fact that they despise America and what it stands for. They think they have a *right* not to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag, thus honoring our nation, and all those people who died to give them the right to refuse. In doing so, they disenfranchise almost the entire country.

Saying the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with religion. It is a simple act of respect and appreciation to the country which provides you with the freedom to hold such bizarre views, and to the people who died protecting that right. To dishonor them by refusing to say the pledge is rude, shows a complete lack of appreciation for what you have been given, and disenfranchises every American who cares about his/her country. In your refusal, you are taking advantage of the freedoms people died to give you, and throwing it in their faces. And you're throwing it in the face of every American who is proud of the freedoms and rights we have because of the sacrifices made.

Refusing to say the pledge of allegiance to the American Flag is not the place to try and make a political statement. It is an act of respect toward the people who died to protect your freedoms. It is an act to show you appreciate being able to live in a free country. A liberal should be the first to say the pledge, because no other country would put up with some of the off the wall stuff you find to be divisive about.

Among the freedoms we have of course is the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion. This means that if a public official wants to express his faith in God, he has that right.

To make a long story short, anyone who doesn't like the fact that God is a part of this nation, and anyone who doesn't appreciate the freedoms this country has given them enough to show their respect by a simple act of saying the pledge of allegiance should simply get out. You are disrespecting the majority of our nation's people when you do so, and you are disenfranchising those Americans who *do* appreciate what they have been given, who do respect those who died giving it to them, and who understand what those freedoms mean enough to realize that anyone who wants to mention God has the right to do so. And anyone who can't understand these two simple concepts doesn't deserve the benefits our country offers its people.

that is exactly what i recall him doing.

larry,
what a lot of babbling. believe it or not, i knew how to use the word "disenfranchised" before i heard it related to the election.

the essence of your post is: "if you don't see the world the way i see it, get out of this country."

how unamerican can you get?

just because christians came to this continent seeking religious freedom does not make this a christian country. just because the majority of people living here are christian does not make this a christian country.

you and those who see the world as you do do not "own" this country. this country belongs to everyone who lives here, even people who don't think like you do.

and no where in the pledge of allegiance does it say a single thing about people fighting wars and dying for their country. so how you construe that refusing to say it is disrespectful to them is beyond reason.

no matter how much social pressure is applied to think a certain way, act a certain way, our constitution guarantees us freedoms that social pressure (like yours) would take away. that's what makes this a great country, that i don't have to believe what you believe or conduct my life like you do to be an american. thankfully!

Please direct me to where you heard this (other than the national prayer breakfast of course) as I have never heard him make such a statement in a public venue and would be very surprised if he had.

I didn't expect you to be able to understand it as anything else, Pique.

Quote

the essence of your post is: "if you don't see the world the way i see it, get out of this country."

No, the essence of my post is: "The pledge of allegiance is a time honored tradition meant as a way of paying respect to this country, its freedom, and those who died to protect it. And if your personal agenda is such that you can't show enough respect for those things to take the 3 seconds it takes to participate, preferring instead to turn it into a divisive political statement, then you should move to a country where things like this aren't asked of you.

Quote

how unamerican can you get?

I see. You consider it American to disrespect the flag and what it stands for, and you consider it unamerican to tell someone who is disrespecting the flag and what it stands for that they are being disrespectful. Interesting, but not surprising.

Quote

just because christians came to this continent seeking religious freedom does not make this a christian country. just because the majority of people living here are christian does not make this a christian country.

So what does that make it, Pique? A Hindu country? America is, whether you like it or not, a Christian nation, in the same way Israel is a Jewish nation, Pakistan is an Islamic nation, and on and on. No amount of liberal revisionism can erase this fact - though they have certainly tried their best.

Quote

you and those who see the world as you do do not "own" this country. this country belongs to everyone who lives here, even people who don't think like you do.

Only an extremely narrow mind would make that connection based on what I've said. I did not say I "owned" the country, nor did I say people had to think like I do. We all have the exact same freedoms. But there are certain things you just don't do if you want to be counted as a member of a society. It's called civility, politeness, manners, etc. You don't go to a football game for instance, and lead a protest over contact sports. You don't fart in elevators. You don't pinch other men's wives on the butt, and you don't disrespect the institutions and symbols of freedom of an entire nation just to make a political statement.

Quote

and no where in the pledge of allegiance does it say a single thing about people fighting wars and dying for their country. so how you construe that refusing to say it is disrespectful to them is beyond reason.

You did study American History when you were in school didn't you? There's nothing to construe.

"And to the Republic, for which it stands" - thousands of people gave their lives for that Republic. So when you decide to make your political statement by disrespecting the Republic they fought and died to protect, you are disrespecting those who died to protect it. 1+1 is still 2.

Quote

no matter how much social pressure is applied to think a certain way, act a certain way, our constitution guarantees us freedoms that social pressure (like yours) would take away. that's what makes this a great country, that i don't have to believe what you believe or conduct my life like you do to be an american. thankfully!

You're right. That *is* what makes this country great. A person is free to make a complete fool out of themselves by adamantly defending their right to disrespect those who fought and died to give them the right to do it, and I can't stop you. All I can try to do is reason with you and educate you. If you are too dogmatic to approach it with an open mind, all I can do is continue to explain it to you, in the hopes that others read it and understand.

I would be willing to bet a year's income that if the two of us went from one end of this country to the other, hitting every state in the Union, on a well publicized speaking tour, that before we even got started good I would be the toast of the nation, and there would be petitions started to have your citizenship revoked. That's just how far out of touch you are, Pique. No offense, of course.

I read this article yesterday in the NYT.
The headline read:

Bush Strikes Religious Note in an Address for Holidays

The article begins with this paragraph:

President Bush reached out today to Christians and Jews celebrating Easter and Passover with some of the most religious language he has ever used in public.

"We feel our reliance on the creator who made us," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address. "We place our sorrows and cares before him, seeking God's mercy. We ask for forgiveness for our failures, seeking the renewal he can bring."

"For those who observe Easter and Passover," Mr. Bush said, "faith brings confidence that failure is never final, and suffering is temporary, and the pains of the earth will be overcome. We can be confident, too, that evil may be present and it may be strong, but it will not prevail."

Mr. Bush was raised an Episcopalian and became a Methodist after he married. In 1986, the year he stopped drinking, he joined a men's Bible study and said he was recommitting his heart to Jesus Christ.

Mr. Bush often mentions God and faith in his speeches and public remarks, but rarely as emphatically as he did today. As if mindful of that, Mr. Bush took care to point out in his remarks, however briefly, that "many good people practice no faith at all."

"In this season, we are assured that history is of moral design," Mr. Bush said. "Justice and cruelty have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. His purposes are often defied, but never defeated."

Mr. Bush concluded, "I hope that this holy season will bring renewal of faith to those who seek it, and comfort to those who need it."

On Sunday, Mr. Bush is to attend an Easter sunrise service with his wife and parents near his 1600-acre ranch here before returning to Washington.

Just a dumb observation:

There weren't any U.S. flags burned on the mall in D.C. on September, 12, 2001, by any type of anti-U.S. protester.

Courage of one's convictions is always more appreciated, when one's convictions can land one in the hospital, or when one an suffer immediate financial loss.

Everyone remembers the gentleman who stood in front of the tank in Beijing. I wonder if the county commisioner who spawned this part of the debate is imbued with that kind of moral turpitude?