Phil has agreed to find a cite for you. Your confusion between “I’ll look into it and let you know” and “No cite for you” is the source of his scorn.
Yes, one should back down from a comment that one cannot provide evidence for. But that is not the same thing as backing down unless you have the evidence right there and can provide it immediately.
>>>>>>>yawn<<<<<<< Are you still here?
I have never in 14 years as a Democratic voter seen any serious questioning of the proposition that keeping Jesse Jackson in the tent is very, very important to maintaining support among urban black voters. Only recently, with his out-of-wedlock child scandal, have I ever seen any serious examination of the idea that the Democrats should cut him loose. Why do you think that the Republicans are trying to actively court black voters in new ways? Because they know that as Jesse Jackson (and to a degree Al Sharpton and Kweisi Mfume) go, so go black voters. They aren’t about to court those three, so they have to look for new methods.
puddleglum’s linked poll is rather interesting, and I thank him(?) for it. It gives me ideas of where to look for further cites. In any case, it’s fascinating to see that, in a poll conducted by an organization founded by Alan Keyes (Alan Keyes!), Jackson receives overwhelming support. Interestingly, a majority of respondents also categorized themselves as “pro-life,” so we aren’t just talking about flaming liberal Democrats here.
If I don’t get to it tonight, don’t expect anything until at least Monday. I’ve got my open water checkout dives to get my certification card on Saturday and Sunday, and while I may have time at work to fart around on the SDMB, that’s about as far as it goes.
Hey, pldennison, mind if I have a go?
stuffinb
Okay, pldennison probably went out on a limb a little in saying he could “state absolutely unequivocally” that the Democrats need the support of Jackson, et al., but he did make a pretty plausible (if speculative) case to that effect. Your strident insistence that he prove his assertion right now beyond the shadow of a doubt seems a bit disingenuous.
In any case, if you think he is mistaken, can you provide a plausible alternative reason for the Democrats courting the fairly radical Jackson? I won’t ask for a cite.
puddleglum
That was an interesting poll, I can’t believe how many respondents didn’t know who Rice, Thomas, Mfume and so many others were. Sheesh tha’t spooky.
pld (and the me toos) I’m still unclear why I’m being singled out. If you go back and read the statement from you to myself, I see sarcasm and rolleyes smilies. That to me did not indicate a seriousness your part to provide citations. If I misunderstood your intent I stand corrected.
In regards to your last post. I’ve mentioned previously that most black voters are actually conservative. I’m glad to see that view backed up somewhat. Anyway, I’m black and a democrat (Moderate), most of my friends hate Jesse Jackson, as do I. Well hate is somewhat strong, but you get the idea.
I truly beleive that JJ gets invited to the DNC mainly in fear of the type of support he got in 1980 (and he had significant labor support as well), and his perceived approval among AA’s. That is of course my opinion.
In anycase I’ll take puddleglums poll as evidence in your favor as far as Jesse anyway, though I’m deeply saddened that a apparently significant portion of AA hasn’t seen through his charade.
NaSultainne said:
Gaudere beat me to Commandments 1 through 4. I’ve seen good faith efforts made on most of the others. For instance, Thou Shalt Not Kill can be worked over heavily if the strongest advocates for the TC are death penalty supporters.
Right, they’re called laws.
Not sure what you’re saying here. You seem to be arguing for an objective morality defined by god not a collective morality determined by humans by their interactions. How is it de-valuing human existence to include humans in determining right and wrong behavior? And please defend how it is de-valuing human existence to be non-judgemental and tolerant? (What do you mean by non-judgemental?)
Only if you’re an evil person. Good people do good because it is their nature and they do not wish to harm others, not because they are afraid of eternal torture. And just because death is the end of one person’s existence doesn’t mean there isn’t a future to contribute to - a future of humanity. I may not be there to see it, but I can help prepare for it and strive to make it better.
Religion can also provide the great disclaimer. A person can always ask for forgiveness. Then there’s predestination - if it is all part of God’s plan, then God needs an example every now an then as an object lesson. There are other ways to interpret it, so your statement is false. Also, religion is not the only way to instill a sense of consequences and responsibility.
Too late, you started it.
A true statement. But the implication is false. Your assumption is that your interpretation of the beginning of life is correct. That is where the fundamental breakdown in the argument is. Practically every pro-choice person out there would concede that murder is wrong. However, they disagree with your defining abortion as murder. As long as that fundamental discontinuity in the ground assumptions exists, the two sides of the abortion debate will never agree, because they are not arguing the same point. And until both sided understand where the disagreement really is, they can’t work to resolve it.
Perhaps, but again you assume too much. The definition of the problem above provides legitimate disagreement on the weight of the repurcussions. I hope you can see that.
I think most people agree society benefits from the positive contributions of each individual. However, the disagreement is in determining what is a positive contribution. It’s the details that bog everyone down.
I take exception to that statement. Religion may provide a support system to many people, but it is not the only guide for people who care about more than just themselves at just the moment.
I will concede that. To an extent.
Sorry for the hijack, but those statements were wholly ungrounded.
Regarding the OP, I consider myself an independent and not a Democrat. But in the last election I voted Democrat or Independent in all cases, because I can’t in good conscience support the Republican party as long as it caters to and takes leadership from the extremist religious right.
IMO, the Dems have a similar situation. The moderates have “moved the party” toward the middle to the extent that people in the farther left portions of the party are seriously disgruntled.
In the next Presidential election, if everyone in either of the big two parties who felt this way were to vote for a minor party candidate or a write-in candidate, the problem would be solved.
Czarcasm writes:
That was a detestable abuse of your position as a moderator. Such grossly insulting remarks belong in the Pit.
How dare you issue such insults!
This statement is the moral equivalent of saying “all Muslims are murdering terrorists who mutilate their daughters and kill infidels”.
Apologize, or move this thread to the Pit.
Nowhere in this thread does Czarcasm indicate he’s posting as a Moderator. Moderators are still posters, too. Generally, they will give some indication if they are “wearing their Moderator’s hat”.
Eh…Does all strongly-worded (but not vulgar or profane) criticism of a particular political group (and not another poster) belong in the Pit?
Here’s Czarcasm’s entire post:
Note that they “they” in the statement Shodan excerpted clearly refers to the “religious right”, and not to “Christians”, “conservative Christians”, or “fundamentalist Christians”. So I don’t think the comparison to generalized Muslim-bashing holds water. It’s closer to a criticism of the Taliban.
And, just to provide some evidence backing up the original statement:
From this column from the October 2000 Church & State magazine, there is an item headlined “Coalition Voter Guides Are Propaganda, Says Florida GOP Candidate”. It describes the complaints of Seminole County (FL) Commissioner Daryl McLain, a Republican seeking re-election, about the voter guides produced by the Christian Coalition (of which one of his opponents happened to be the local field director). McLain says that his views on the issues on which he sent “detailed, written responses to the Coalition’s survey” were reported as “unclear” on the resulting voter guide. For example, he says he wrote “I believe partial-birth abortions should be banned” in response to the survey; the voter guide listed his position on the issue as “unclear”.
This People for the American Way report also gives some specific examples of misleading statements or even outright falsehoods on Christian Coalition voter guides.
I’ll apologize when I see apologies from every single Far right-wing{not Republican!) member of the Christian Coalition who ran for school boards, small town elective offices, and Republican Party offices without revealing the fact that they were lackeys of the religious right. They subverted the Republican party one county after another, never revealing to the electorate before the fact that the enormous support shown for them came from national groups.
My ghod, I’m a liberal Democrat and I feel the Republican party got royally shafted.
So it is OK to call all members of the religious right liars, cheats, and thieves. I do not think such broad statements are fair, and reject them.
I would feel the same if someone referred to the Democratic party as a broad coalition of welfare cheats, lesbian man-haters, baby-killing witches, and pinko fellow travellers.
Perhaps it is a question of whose ox is being gored.
Keep the rest of your advice to yourself. A group that twice recommended a liar, cheat, and thief such as Clinton to the American electorate is not a group whose advice needs to be taked seriously in the best interests of the country.
Regards,
Shodan
According to at least one source(Seattle P-I, 9/25/01), Christianity is the world’s most practiced religion at about 34 percent of the world’s population. This gives value to the Ten Commandments. If you’re going to condition your acceptance of value on universal unanimity where ethics and morals are involved, that’s a whole 'nother argument.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tejota *
**
CITE?
See above. Prove me wrong, then roll your damn eyes.
*Originally posted by stuffinb *
NaSultainne says
Duh. Read my statement again. Read yours. Made my point. Thanks.
NaSultainne says
Right. Morality exists in a vacuum. Religion may not be essential to moral behavior in your judgment, but it can be the basis for morality beyond the self.
Which means that 66% of the world does not worship the God whom Christians believe the Ten Commandments command should be worshipped. You could maybe toss in the Muslims and say they also worship the God whom Christians believe the Ten Commandments command should be worshipped–although the Christian and Muslim conceptions of God differ in some pretty crucial ways–and raise that to 50%. That still means half the population of the planet have adopted systems of ethics and morals where the God of the Bible is not worshipped, which “gives value” to rejecting roughly half the Ten Commandments (and arguably, from a Biblical perspective, the more important half).
Fortunately, the Constitution of the United States ensures that in this country at least we don’t settle such disputes by counting noses; we leave them up to the individual conscience and to the reasoned arguments of individual citizens. To the extent the Religious Right wants to use the power of the state to enforce their idea of the proper relationship between humans and God, the Religious Right is wrong.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Irishman *
NaSultainne said:
Right. Based on moral judgments. Which have their origins in…religion?
I’m arguing that moral judgments are essential to a stable society. The collective morality isn’t in my POV necessarily an acceptable substitute for objective morality. It can be, and is, altered by change in culture. The events in Afghanistan amply illustrate my position.
Well, much as I’d like to agree with you, I just can’t. Good people do bad things all the time. Example? Drug use and adultery come to mind. Not just so-called ‘bad’ people use drugs to their own detriment and others’. And adultery? Hell. How many people are cheating on their spouses at any one time? How many have children? Don’t tell me you really want to argue that these people all do so because they wish to harm others? But it can and does harm others.
Asking for forgiveness usually requires not only sincere repentance for the behavior, but the intent to do better in the future. Predestination? Are you confusing this with God’s omniscience and omnipotence? Yes, there can be other ways to instill a sense of consequence and responsiblity in society. The difficulty comes when it’s left up to the individual to accept or reject this. And yes, laws do in part offer consequence.
How?
According to www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm, a slight majority of those polled believe that abortion is wrong. BTW, many polls are listed here, some appearing to conflict. I show this only to indicate that while many people appear to accept that abortion is wrong, they still support abortion access. This indicates to me an inner conflict between what they intuitively believe, and the
reluctance to live with the behavior required to adhere to this belief.
[QUOTE]
Perhaps, but again you assume too much. The definition of the problem above provides legitimate disagreement on the weight of the repurcussions. I hope you can see that.
[/QUOTE}
I see that. Again, I also see that good people have a difficult time doing the so-called right thing all the time. Speed in your car? Sure, why not? Cheat on your spouse? Sure, why not? Keep that extra ten dollar bill the cashier gave you by mistake? Sure, why not? Cheat on the test you forgot to study for? Sure, why not? After all, everybody does it. This is called subjective morality.
Ahh. Now’re you’re coming around. When this becomes a matter of individual determination, what do you get?
I was referring to life beyond this one. Not just a matter of this moment in time. It may not be the only guide, but a substantial number of people in this world depend on it. Does not that fact alone give incentive to listen to the point of view?
Good. It’s a place to start.
How does one even begin to counter such vitriol? And why would I bother?
I strongly disagree. Seems to me the Mods usually indicate when they’re not wearing the Mod hat, not vice versa. As long as all I see is Moderator under username with no disclaimer, I assume he’s got his Mod hat firmly on
Here’s Czarcasm’s entire post:
Wrong. The ‘religious right’, aka conservative Christians are essentially the same. To issue such blanket condemnations without evidence of a like nature is irresponsible. This is Great Debates, not the Pit, isn’t it?
Ahh, I see. Give a few examples, and blanket condemn anyone with like religious principles. Works for me. NOT.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
NaSultainne writes:
Which means that 66% of the world does not worship the God whom Christians believe the Ten Commandments command should be worshipped. You could maybe toss in the Muslims and say they also worship the God whom Christians believe the Ten Commandments command should be worshipped–although the Christian and Muslim conceptions of God differ in some pretty crucial ways–and raise that to 50%. That still means half the population of the planet have adopted systems of ethics and morals where the God of the Bible is not worshipped, which “gives value” to rejecting roughly half the Ten Commandments (and arguably, from a Biblical perspective, the more important half).
Still not getting the point. The vast majority of the world’s population worships a ‘creator’, which lends value to that belief, in my point of view. That’s why a simple casual dismissal of religious principles is lacking credibility.
Again, I disagree. Most decisions even in the United States are made by a vote of the majority. Vote for political offices? Congressional lawmaking? Supreme Court decisions? All made by majority vote. Almost every decision made is made by a majority of those responsible for the decision, from deciding which corner gets a streetlight, whether abortion is legal, whether a law is enacted, whether it’s constitutional. There is no unanimity in this country on any subject. That behooves those who disagree with a given decision to seek change. The Religious Right is hardly unique in that regard.
So, if 34% of the world’s population believed that Christians were dangerous, deluded fools, that belief would “have value” to you? Quite amusing to see a popular poll taken as evidence of the value of a moral belief from someone who argued regarding morality that:
and
Or is it just that once individual beliefs reach a certain density in the world population, the automatically become moral?
You asked, not simply for the value of a moral imperative–which few concede is solely based on popular acclaim–but also asked for a refutation of those imperatives. When I say I “refute” a moral imperative, I am not arguing “all people do not believe it is good, so it cannot be moral”–I am arguing that that belief is not neccessary for moral behavior, therefore it is not a valid moral imperative. For, indeed, I think a person can be perfectly moral even if they work on the Sabbath. If your request for refutation of a moral code meant only “show me that a less that 30% of people do give at least lip service to the tenets of the Ten Commandments”, I think your understanding of the word “refutation” could use a little brushing up.
“Doing bad things when other people do them” is not “subjective morality”. Subjective morality merely means that we depend on our possibly falliable human judgment to make moral decisions–just as every Christian does when he reads the Bible and makes a judgement that abortion/homosexuality/holy war/killing abortion doctors is/is not wrong. Your God may have provided you with an objective morality, but you must still interpret it through your subjective human perceptions, which inevitably will result in wildly varying morals despite the putative existence of an objective moral code. Of course, it may be that only you and those who believe precisely as you do understand God’s objective moral code and every other theist on the planet is willfully blinding themselves to the Crystal Clear Truth…but I doubt it. I suspect your beliefs are no less dependent on your personal perceptions than any other person’s.
Geez, where have you been posting all this time? I assure you it is most strongly vice-versa.