JenellYB Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 So where does faith and things like God come into any and all this? What of those still trying to keep their politics separate from matters of faith and religion. I think we are being forced from that position. Much as any would like to keep their concerns about social justice and morality and religion and religious freedoms, separate from their politics, I just don't see how we can continue doing so. If in no 'direct' way, it is still through matters of our faith and values that at least for some of us are rooted in our faith, that we are going to have to make voting choices that is going to shape our country's political future. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I really think if GOP candidates go down hard in 2012 to a Democrat landslide, which I'm suspecting they will, they are really going to be shocked, in disbelief. Which of course will open up a whole new blast of conspiracy theories for how the liberal communist Democrats pulled off the fraud, the eigged elections. And which, I'm sad to say this, but have been feeling increasing concerns about it, may also be the point at which conservative frustration could take up a new tack...have "lost" on the basis of the 1st Amendment, the majority of their fellow Americans' voice through the vote, it may be their precious claims to their 2nd amendment rights as they interpret that, intheir next desperate step. Jenell But just look at how Mitt Romney has done a complete 180 on all his positions ever since he started running for president. When he was in office in his state, he passed a health care bill that was identitical to Obama's health care reform plan and now all of a sudden that he's running for president, suddenly he was always against health care reform and he thinks it's all evil. Back in the 90s, Romney vowed he would be even more liberal than JFK and he promised the gay community that he would support equal rights for gays. Again, now that he's running for president, suddenly he was always a social conservative and has flip flopped on all his political beliefs to appease the extremist right. All the surveys shows that younger evangelical Christians are far more moderate in their beliefs and more supportive of gay rights and they don't care as much about forcing their moral beliefs on others like the older generation, and so they have to beg corporations and the Koch brothers for their sleazy money so they can try and convince Americans they really want to live in their Leave It To Beaver fantasy world. I don't doubt that there are lots of conservative Christians who sincerely believe their beliefs, but if the GOP really believed the things they said they did, Romney would have at least one consistent belief, Gingrich wouldn't have a dozen wives and open marriages, and the divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates would be a lot lower among evangelical Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Neon, good and valid points, I think. Does it all just boil down to no different than courting any other voting block, tellthem what they want to hear, be the cameleon? Be what it takes to get the votes? I think that's likely. I also agree a lot of them are as someone else here put it, by their absurd extremes, trying to impress a noisy few, coming off as bufoons....shooting themselves in the foot. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I have to disagree with you here. No, I don't think they do know, at least not consciously that they are losing the majority. O think that's part of their frustration, even growing desperation. They just can't believe most people don't agree with them, aren't on board with them in the ever increasing tilt to the right. I agree. IMO, the more ideologically extreme one becomes (left as well as right), the more one becomes blinded to the reality of the world and the realization that others can honestly hold different views. This rightness of their worldview is so consuming and self evident that they think that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, uninformed, naive, or selfishly serving their own interest. For the great uninformed, all they need to do is explain their position and the truth will become obvious. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 George, I think your observation here is spot on a very important point. The key, "extreme." That can be to right or left, just as well, doesn't even have to involve these ideas of left or right at all. I'd say the distinguishing feature is rigidity within a very tight, narrow reality, way of being/doing in a very narrow range of circumstance. 'unable to see beyond the end of one's own nose?' Whether any tend to either far right or far left, the only obvious difference being, if things have seemed good for them they way they were, to the right, if not so good, without a "better to go back to," to the left? In both, a reacting to some weakness or failure in being able to change themselves to adapt to what is the reality, by trying to force the reality to adapt to themselves? and...to turn the finger around, to really consider upon it, I can find some of that in even my own self, in someways at some times. Maybe that's where to start...try to understand that in myself? How, if I might, address it in myself? Perhaps in this IS the whole left vs right, conservative vs liberal, there is a push-pull always going on, within individual in the micro, society in the macro....toward some 'ideal balance points?' In trying to change BOTH in ourselves, our adapatations, AND the reality as well. Jenell Ps...Ahhhh...getting down to something here i can see might be brought down from the mountaintop into the valley of my own reality where I live.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 A link here...something I find interesting not so much about what it says about Rick Santorium per se, but some within it cause me to consider reading his book mentioned in this, as it might reveal some understanding of his thinking, might provide beyond that, something of insight into the conservative/religious right mindset itself, how and why they think as they do, why what seems crazy to some of us makes sense to them. Jenell http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-mysterious-paradoxical-manifesto-takes-family-character-122819958.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I agree. IMO, the more ideologically extreme one becomes (left as well as right), the more one becomes blinded to the reality of the world and the realization that others can honestly hold different views. This rightness of their worldview is so consuming and self evident that they think that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, uninformed, naive, or selfishly serving their own interest. For the great uninformed, all they need to do is explain their position and the truth will become obvious. George I don't know though that merely thinking your worldview is correct is neccessarily always an extremist position. If nobody thought their position was the correct one, we wouldn't have political activists who fight passionately for social justice. MLK Jr was certain that his worldview was the correct one and he campaigned passionately for it but I don't think anyone would call him a religious extremist in modern times. Though consider this quote by MLK Jr himself on the topic of extremism that I really like:Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I don't know though that merely thinking your worldview is correct is neccessarily always an extremist position. If nobody thought their position was the correct one, we wouldn't have political activists who fight passionately for social justice. MLK Jr was certain that his worldview was the correct one and he campaigned passionately for it but I don't think anyone would call him a religious extremist in modern times. Though consider this quote by MLK Jr himself on the topic of extremism that I really like: I did not intend to imply that an 'extremist' position was inherently wrong. What I intended was that the more extremist the view, the less likely someone would understand another's point of view or recognize any possible validity. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Maybe relevant is not only the depth of the extremism, but how narrow or broad? One might have a relatively broad world view in many ways, but feel quite extremely about some one or few things? As well as, measuring differences in how that one or few things affect a lot else? and of course, how well thought out, how much considered, in the position? I think its easy to get all fired up about how something seems, but feel differently when we get a little more information? Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think its easy to get all fired up about how something seems, but feel differently when we get a little more information? The problem is (1) the selectivity of the information we receive, and (2) the processing of the information through our worldview filter. When we read something that supports our worldview, we automatically react with 'yes, that's right.' When we read something that is contrary to our views, we tend to look for flaws or omissions in the argument - 'yeah, but.' George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Ah, yes, the inherent danger in "knowing." As long as we "know", we can't learn. we must first "unknow." To hold all "knowledge" as tentative and conditional;, always open to challenge and reconsideration, to test. Ideal, but hard to do. Especially in a culture that highly values "being right." Or, "more right." Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimYoungman Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 According to the American Taliban, Obama is the most godless anti-religious president we've ever had and he's out to force his godless communism on Christians. According to the American Taliban, Obama is the most godless anti-religious president we've ever had and he's out to force his godless communism on Christians. We do hear down under that the American Taliban clain Obama is a closet Muslim - a long way from being anti-religious. On the subject ofmedicine: in Austrlaia we do have trouble understanding why it is such an issue in the USA. Can someone explain it to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 We do hear down under that the American Taliban clain Obama is a closet Muslim - a long way from being anti-religious. Gingrich has a whole book devoted to the subject which for reasons unknown has a three and a half star rating on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Save-America-Stopping-Secular-Socialist-Machine/dp/B0055X52NC/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329704329&sr=1-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Jim asked On the subject ofmedicine: in Austrlaia we do have trouble understanding why it is such an issue in the USA. Can someone explain it to me? Jim, it is really so complicated and convoluted, it cannot possibly be explained within a reasonably brief account. But I'll try. To you where you are , it is going to sound pretty crazy. I'm trying to not get into so many really lengthy posts, but there's no short way to even begin in this. Health care and health insurance industries are basically private for-profit industries. Tax payers do pay to provide subsidized health care to a few, such as the elderly qualfied for government worker retirement or disability inurance..social security, Medicaid, to subsidize care for certain of the very poor, mainly children, pregnant women, people with certain profound lifetime disabilities such as blindness, and elderly over 65 in nursing homes or other long term care facilities. Children covered are generaly the very very poor, or, such as 2 of my daughter's 3 foster children, since they meet state requirements as being both under state CPS/courts oversight, and being non-related through blood or marriage, do qualify for Medicaid for their health care, including dental and limited mental health/counseling, that later only becasue they were from an abusive home, and born drug addicted. However, my daughter often has a very hard time finding doctors, and especially dentists, that will accept them, because the Medicaid rate of pay to providers is very low. Her 3rd foster child, however, is not eligible for Medicaid, becasue she is not overseen by the courts, the mother voluntarily terminated parental rights and my daughter legally adopted her...as adopted, that child is elibable for coverage under my son in law's insurance subsidzed by his employer. Some employers offer susidized group insurance as a benefit. Group insurnce such as that is much cheaper than private polcies, both becasue of negotiating power of a group, plus 'cherry picking'...people employed are obviously likely to be healthy and well enough to work, lol. The Federal Medicaid operate on a matching funds with each state, and most is managed and distributed by states. Some states participate more than others. Here in Texas, for example, except those just mentioned specific categories, by far MOST Medicaid dollars go directly to hospitals, emergency rooms, and longer term care facilities, to 'make up for' what they 'lose' in 'getting stuck with' patients that required critical emergency care and hospitalization, too sick or injured to possibly be released, such as on ventilators or something, whose resources have been entirely depleted. There's some very spotty coverage of the low income and very poor, provided through some states, counties, or cities. Some counties have voter chosen and supported hosptial districts, that cover the poor residents in that district only. Other areas have nothing, a MAJOR problem in the politics of this mess is that many not poor, that are so far able to pay for health insruance which is extemely expensive, are convinced it is so high because there is so much 'free care' for every unemployed lazy bum, unwed mother, and illegal immigrant, which simply is not true. Recent Congressional hearings revealed health insruance companies spend as little at 40% of the premium dollars they collet, to pay customer medical bills. And yet, many americans are so convinced 'socialized medicine' is bad, they still want this a private capitalist industry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimYoungman Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Thank you Jenell. It does seem to me that many Americans have an irrational fear of anything smelling of socialism - a consequence, perhaps of the cold war? Throwing out the socialist baby with the communist bathwater? It leaves an impression, in the minds of some of us at least, of a country lacking in compassion even though this is probably not true of the majority of Americans. There is a person of Australian origin in your country spreading viscious rumours through his control of the media and it is the rich minority who benefit from the lack of an effective medical welfare system. Of course, the Australian system is not perfect. I continue to pay for private insurance as well even now as I live on an age pension and the monthly premiums are a bit of a stretch. When emergency medical service is needed, I get taken straight away into a public hospital as I did a few years ago with acute appendicitis. I also have developed a couple of chronic conditions that I can receive treatment for in private hospital if and when needed without having to join a very long queue for "elective" surgery. The problem with any private system is that it is there to make money for the shareholders as a priority over providing service to its clients who, in the case of health insurance services, are also investors. Hope I haven't rambled on too long. —Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 There is a person of Australian origin in your country spreading viscious rumours through his control of the media and it is the rich minority who benefit from the lack of an effective medical welfare system. Watch out! He will hack into your email and telephone messages. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I don't know how much merit there is to this, but on the NNDB website there is an article on the earlier-referenced fellow, which says down the bottom: Asked if there is any truth to recent press describing his newfound piety, Murdoch replies: "No. They say I'm a born again Christian and a Catholic convert and so on. I'm certainly a practicing Christian, I go to church quite a bit but not every Sunday and I tend to go to Catholic church -- because my wife is Catholic, I have not formally converted. And I get increasingly disenchanted with the C of E or Episcopalians as they call themselves here. But no, I'm not intensely religious as I'm sometimes described." Interviewed in 1992. Nicholas Coleridge, Paper Tigers (1993), p. 487. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 A perfect example, perhaps, of any means for profit greed within the present capitalist mindset and systems, boosted by a good dose of inbred Aussie ingenuity and determination? Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A perfect example, perhaps, of any means for profit greed within the present capitalist mindset and systems, boosted by a good dose of inbred Aussie ingenuity and determination? Jenell He was educated in the UK, so can we blame him on the English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Ah, da-burned multinational corporatists! Yeah, we can spread the blame around a bit! He's a product of our world. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.