Upon thinking about this, I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned my local ordinance. I would prefer not to give the cite, because I have a general policy of not giving out my exact location on the internet. So, I am sorry that I can’t back it up.
I should amend my statement, anyway…it is a handgun ban, not “all guns,” which is what I think I said.
I don’t think that anyone could argue that gun bans are usually the work of lefties.
I didn’t say it’s what Catholic people do, I said it’s how SOME people USE Catholicism. My cite is my own life experience. I was raised in the RCC and went to Catholic schools. My wife and kids are Catholic. I’ve been around the Church and Catholic people all my lives. I’ve seen and heard what I’m talking about with my own eyes and ears. There are people who think if they say a few Hail Mary’s that everything is good. Do you deny this?
Go to Christian Forums some time, or read a Chick Tract. There have been fundies on this very board who have said things like all unconverted Jews go to Hell but Ted Bundy is going to heaven because he got Jesus. A lot of conservative evangelicals think that accepting Jesus is a psychological get-out-of-jail-free card. Not all of them think this way but an awful lot of them do, including some prominent leaders.
If you don’t think you did anything wrong then you don’t NEED the purpose. We’re talking about how some people use religion to relieve psychic guilt. If you don’t HAVE any psychic guilt then it’s a moot point.
Sure, but like I said, I make no attempt to absolve myself. I just accept that I can be an asshole and try to do better in the future. Since I make no attempt to relieve myself of psychic guilt (making amends to people I’ve harmed is about repairing THEIR damage, not my own) then I’m less likely to repeat the same errors. I still feel guilty about the last time and I don’t believe I can make anything ok by chanting magic words to a sky god…nor would I want to do that even if I believed it were possible.
Well the OP was talking about AUTHORITARIAN conservatives and I do think that authoritarians are more likely to use religion as a way to justify their actions as well as to twist it in a manner which will soothe whatever conscience they may have. These kinds of people are almost always social conservatives. Social conservatism is almost defined by lack of empathy, lack of tolerance and lack of self-reflection. I don’t think that social liberals often become tribalistic, bigoted and controlling enough to engage in the same kind of self-righteous, self-serving religiosity that Bush and his ilk are so known for.
Wow – a trifecta (defining away counterexamples as “not liberal”, defining away counterexamples as “not authoritarian”, and incorporating the alleged traits into the definition of the group under discussion) of True Scotsman fallacies.
DtC - I think by your measuring stick (gay marriage OK, pro-choice, pro-gun control and anti-death penalty), there has never been a liberal as a head of government.
So asking for one that’s authoritarian is pointless.
I go back to Elizabeth I - she pursued public education, avoided wars, was relatively tolerant of Catholics - but believed in a strong monarchy.
Not a political leader, but many of the SDS types I used to know might qualify. They were socially liberal (in terms of sex and drugs, at least) but a lot of them had an authoritarian streak, and I’d hate to think of what would have happened if any of them actually took power.
I agree with you about the Soviet Union. My understanding is that the Communists were quite puritanical. Not about LBJ, though. You’re asking for him to be radical, not liberal, in terms of the politics of the time. As far as civil rights went, he was quite liberal, especially considering his background. But I agree that I don’t see him as authoritarian - his Senate experience taught him how to compromise, which is something the current crop of “leaders” is not into.
ambushed, from your review I assume the Dean book includes the results of studies, and will provide the cites people are asking for. Is that right? And thanks for the OP.
I’m going to conced LBJ as a liberal but not as an authoritarian. QE1? Maybe. I’m not sure that either left-right politics or modern definitions of authoritarians are really applicable but I guess she technically fits the bill.
You define conservatism as lack of empathy, lack of tolerance, and lack of self-reflection, then anyone who lacks empathy, tolerance, and self-relfection is a conservative. Then you challenge anyone to find a liberal with a lack of etc…but that’s impossible, because anyone who lacks etc is a conservative…even Joseph Stalin was a conservative, because he lacked etc!
Lame. Lame. Lame.
Diogenes, if I had to pick a poster child for “lack of self-reflection” on the SDMB, it would be you. This is your crime…it is also your punishment.