I get tired of people who think all it means to be liberal is:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

a) To concern one's self primarily with one or two hot button issues, and think that one's stance or opinion on those issues and those issues alone are what makes one a progressive or liberal.

AND

b) Use their purported status as a liberal to denegrate or ridicule people's religious beliefs or affliations. I'm serious. This happens way too much. Way too much.

I'm sorry, this is a bit of a rant, but I'm sick and tired of the single issuers, the ones who try to narrowly fashion or pidgeon hole the definition of what it means to be liberal/progressive into their own little pet issue.

Our country right now is messed up, seriously. We're stuck endlessly in two wars, people are losing their houses, way too many people don't have health insurance, we need to get serious about protecting the environment, and most importantly, the economy right now is a major, major disaster. Those are the things that I think everyone can agree on, and those are the things that need a liberal mindset the most: the idea that it is our government and it is the job of our government to work in the interests of its citizens to help make a better country. Right now, other issues take a back seat to this, and I'm not going to sit here and have the single issuers tell me something else needs to be issue number one.

I apologize for the rambling, I'm not looking to be on the greatest page with this thread or have 200 recs, but I'm just about fed up and wanted to get this off my chest.

:rant:

[mondo joe]

1. Clarifying questions:

1. What other issues do you consider secondary?

2. While the economic crisis might be the most urgent issue (the equivalent of putting out a fire), does that mean the secondary issues are on hold, or completely expendable?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. I'm not saying that issues other the main ones SHOULDN'T be considered or aren't important

And they should be discussed and debated and we as liberals should always have our own liberal mindset on those issues.

I guess my frustration is that for some, it comes off as those are the only issues that there are. And in a situation where so much is wrong with the country, I just can't agree on that.

[mondo joe]

18. I'll agree there are prgamatics that must be taken care of. But for me, civil rights are

not negotiable or negligible.

That is the core of being a liberal for me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. I'm with you 100% that support for civil rights is an inalienable part of being a liberal.

That being said, it is a important slice of the pie of being a liberal, but not necessarily the entire pie itself.

[bluedawg12]

53. The list of problems are long but choosing where to prioritize is not wrong.

Some problems have been unnattended to long.

[mondo joe]

72. Then I don't know how it becomes a "pet issue".

I really don't.

[patrice]

2. I strongly agree! But remember there's a difference between real Life and the internet.

Typing stuff about stuff on the internet doesn't make anyone anything except someone who types stuff on the internet.

The Liberals that I know in my Community are most definitely NOT single issuers.

[Deep13]

3. Well, I do my best to avoid denigrating religious PEOPLE, ...

...but the beliefs themselves are usually worthy of derision. The fact that people hold these beliefs so closely that they are offended by any criticism is part of the problem and not something that deserves respect.

How do you feel about religions whose dogma is to convert others and add them to the flock? If you respect that, you must necessarily disrespect the convert's previous religion which invariably opposes apostacy. Well, I have the same right to try and change people's minds as the missionaries do. The evidence is that humanity as a whole needs to think more and believe less.

[LynneSin]

19. Not all Christians are bad people, I am a Christian too

but I know what you're saying. It's annoying when people lump me into the stupidity that others of my kind do. Usually those who give my faith a bad name aren't even following the practice of what Jesus did but follow more along the lines of what Paul, the first fundie christian did.

[Deep13]

23. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I know that most Christians are good people. Most of my friends and family are Christians, at least nominally. I would not hang around with them if they were bad people. What I see happening is that in trying to be good, people will assume that means doing what god wants and to figure that out, it means reading their holy books and listening to their priests. So, one ends up with a situation where basically good people are supporting evil things because they equate "good" with "godly." I've done it myself. When I really began to take Christianity seriously in high school, my reading of the NT convinced me that it was my duty to oppose free thought, women's rights and to regard gays and Jews as evil. It is true, of course, that other dogmatic belief systems that are not religious can produce similar results.

I used to think the way you do in tat only the words and deeds of Jesus were truly imperative. The problem, of course, is that Paul's writings are actually older than the gospels and that the gospels contradict each other on important points and were not written by witnesses. Also, in my own opinion, many of Jesus' gospel teachings are not really very good ideas. Those that are arguably positive are not unique to Christianity and had existed in writing for centuries beforehand both in the West and in Asian cultures. For that reason, I have to agree with many writers in viewing the writings of Paul as the real, foundational documents of Christianity.

[WhollyHeretic]

4. What issue do you think needs to get pushed back?

I'm guessing civil rights.

[harun]

5. I see the "b)" problem all the time here

Religious does not mean one is stupid.

There is a difference between a church and a religion. A church is an institution and not all religions have church's or institutions.

[enlightenment]

9. A church (or synagogue, mosque, temple, shrine, etc)

is just a building. A building does nothing - the people who populate a building do.

Perhaps you meant to compare faith and religion?

Many people have faith in something but do not ascribe to a particular codified set of beliefs established by a religion. Those people may or may not refer to their faith as a 'religion'.

That said, MOST established religions with more than a handful of adherents are most certainly institutions.

From Merriam Webster:

Institution
Pronunciation:
\ˌin(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1: an act of instituting : establishment
2 a: a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage> ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character ; also : asylum 4


Religion
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date:
13th century

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[harun]

16. Institution defintion 2 b, Religion definition 4

b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character

The institution (Church) exists over generations and has an elaborate hierarchy with people who are "in charge".

Religion is what system of beliefs, creed, faith, etc. the people adhere to.


In Islam, for example, the Sunni's around the world have no institutionalized hierarchical authority. In Iran the Shiites do.

Mormons and Catholics have massive hierarchical institutions, Buddhists and Hindu's not so much.

Are Hinduism, Bhuddism and Islam (Majority Sunni) not religions because they don't have massive hierarchical organizations that have existed over generations like Mormons and Catholics? Of course not.


I draw the distinction here because people draw the incorrect assumption of separation of church and state meaning separation of anyone who is religious from being a politician. There is a reason it says separation of "church" and not separation of "religion" or "belief". They are different and the difference is important.

[Lyric]

89. Oooookay.

I draw the distinction here because people draw the incorrect assumption of separation of church and state meaning separation of anyone who is religious from being a politician.

There is no problem whatsoever with religious people being able to gain elected office. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true: there are enormous barriers to NON-RELIGIOUS people being able to gain elected office, even though the Constitution explicitly says that there shall be no "test" for religion. Other people thinking badly of you is not persecution unless and until their negative thoughts have an actual impact on your liberty. You just let me know when your rights and freedoms are being oppressed by the enormous Atheist majority, mkay?

There is a reason it says separation of "church" and not separation of "religion" or "belief". They are different and the difference is important.

They are indeed different, and the difference IS important, but I suspect that your reasons for why are different from mine.

Please tell me, why do YOU think the difference is "important?"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. True, but even to those who belong to an organized church...

....people are by nature pragmatic, and there are going to be things that people of a religious faith are going to take more out of the process than other things. And people who are both liberal and have a religious faith may take different things out of their religion than say, someone who is conservative.

Just using myself as an example. I'm a Catholic, and sure there are things of the church that may either embarass me (certainly the abuse scandal) or things I don't agree with, the most recent papal proclamation of issue being just one example. Am I fan of the current pope? Certainly not. But the pope isn't what gets me to church. I love the community, I love the spiritual principals of the church, I love the call for social justice the church requires of me, I love the sacraments, and there are priests out there who I'd pay money to see preach because they just click with me on my faith understanding. And the pope aside, there are even those in higher leadership positions of the church that I like and agree with. Nor do I subscribe to any black/white charactarizations of the church leadership as a whole.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't like being broad-brushed for who I am and what I believe in, or telling me that I am somehow less of a liberal or less of a Democrat for being a proud, practicing Catholic who loves his church. Nor do I want any one issue to dominate over others in how I am told to see things in the country and in the secular world.

[harun]

21. I see what you mean

I am with the Dem's because of social justice issues (non-existant on the other side) and the issues I want to see addressed most are:

* Health Care (real reform, Universal Coverage, for-profit insurance gone, etc.)
* Support of the Middle/Lower Class instead of oppression of it like we got with B*sh
* Affordable and attainable higher education for Middle/Lower class w'out MASSIVE debt
* Affordable and attainable housing for Middle/Lower class w'out MASSIVE debt
* End occupation of Iraq

I get nothing close on the Repuke side for any of those issues. Being a lefty and also having a faith is sort of being a minority within a minority. At least there are a few of us here :-).

[Zuni]

28. excellent post

compliments from a fellow Catholic Progressive and Ravens fan.

[BoneDaddy]

67. That is the flaw of many "liberals"

is that they simply make the same mistake as many fundamentalists in that they believe that their particular set of beliefs make them superior.

[JDwho]

63. Very true. I see no reason to alienate anyone with regard to their belief system.

After all, it is a personal thing. In addition, last time I checked, Dems were for freedom of choice. However, there are times when I feel DU is the most intolerant of Christians. I get that they believe otherwise, and respect that; and would probably be flamed if I laid into other beliefs, or lack of belief, as some love to do here. Then, I pose the question: If the subject matter doesn't matter to them, why talk about it sooo much? The ridicule factor seems to be way over the top, as we are grouped in with fundies. Anyway, to each his own. I think people of all belief systems deserve respect and tolerance, as long as they don't resort to violence against others or themselves. Just my humble opinion.

[ihavenobias]

88. I have to disagree with this sentence

"I think people of all belief systems deserve respect and tolerance, as long as they don't resort to violence against others or themselves."

Why should I respect the belief that women are inferior, that blowing yourself gives you 72 virgins, that people who don't believe will burn in hell for eternity, that stem cell research and or the right to choose is wrong/immoral/evil and the list goes on and on.

There are a LOT of things I don't respect that fall short of violence against others. The bottom line is that there's a difference between respecting the right of others to believe in whatever they want (fake moon landings, Elvis still being alive, gravity, evolution, God, unicorns---you can guess which I think are real but I don't want to go beyond the scope of this discussion) and actually respecting the beliefs themselves.

Respect the right to believe in unicorns? Yes.

Respect the belief that unicorns exist despite all evidence to the contrary? No.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Good post.

Social pragmatism is the only way to go. The ideological wars won't build bridges.

[Fumesucker]

8. People mostly are interested in those issues which effect them directly..

Not everyone is effected by the same issues, which is why people differ on what the most important issues are.

I have one issue which, while it gets some lip service here on DU, it's quite clear most liberals really don't care about all that much. I've basically learned to zip my lip about it unless someone else brings it up because nothing is likely to happen any time in the foreseeable future.

Not to mention there are a lot of people on DU who apparently are anything but liberal, even though they may call themselves that. I literally had a poster blame the eight years of the bushie administration on my fellow atheists only yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3635994#3637328


Part of this last eight years, eight years that will keep us tied to paying for its time for decades to come, was in goodly part due to the antagonistic undermining of all things religious in the public space.

[TexasObserver]

10. It's a marketplace of ideas, and each person sells their product.

People always tend to have one or two hot button issues. Those who insist on ragging everyone full time about theirs? I just ignore them and their threads, after about 4 exchanges, and move on.

[MedleyMisty]

11. Hmm - I wonder if I'm on your ignore list then

Because I do tend to point out stereotyping, generalizing, and prejudice when I see it, which is an awful lot.

[TexasObserver]

No, but every day is an audition.

I've never even seen your name before, that I recall.

I don't understand why you think your comment ("Hmm - I wonder if I'm on your ignore list then ... Because I do tend to point out stereotyping, generalizing, and prejudice when I see it, which is an awful lot.") has anything to do with mine.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I count people as liberals only if there are some economic issues in their package

I have no use for any "pro-business" Democrat (which means keep coddling the major corporations, not help struggling small businesses) who espouses "a strong defense" (keeping coddling the Pentagon) and "projection of American power" (keep meddling in the affairs of other countries) and is "liberal" only on personal issues. When I was younger, we called such people "moderate Republicans."

If your ENTIRE political viewpoint is based on personal issues, then you're probably a Libertarian at heart, not a Democrat.

If you don't support the interests of ordinary people over the interests of multinational corporations and major financial institutions, and international cooperation and respect over war, then you're really stretching the big tent.

I'd rather associate with an anti-choice politician who was against the military-industrial complex, pro-union, and anti-foreign-intervention than one who was pro-choice and thought that the Pentagon needed more money, that American workers were "spoiled" and that the U.S. had the right to tell other countries how to run their economies.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Pretty Good Lydia

I like your criteria quite a lot.
GAC

[bvar22]

24. I stand with Lydia Leftcoast.

Economic Justice is THE overriding issue facing America today.
Most "social" issues are a subset of the Economic Justice Issue.
In America, The RICH buy The Rules.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

25. Thank you.

That is exactly how I feel. I think some of these "liberals" are actually upper middle class yuppies who think being progressive is supporting gay marriage and abortion but at the same time trashing things like unions and single-payer healthcare.

[leftstreet]

27. Nicely done, Lydia

:thumbsup:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. Agreed nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. Amen to every single word.

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

40. Agreed.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

42. !

:applause:

Bravo!

[aikoaiko]

43. I have to agree that economic justice is a defining issue, but also civil rights.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. True, but without economic rights, it becomes Libertarianism

:-)

[bobbolink]

51. One question.....

Why is it that poverty and poor folk seldom make ANY of these lists?

We poor folk aren't the "ordinary people"... we're on the bottom of the heap, and forgotten there.

That makes it even scarier.

I'd really like to know why we are so invisible....UNTIL our votes are wanted.... then afterwards, invisible again.

Why is that?

[Creideiki]

56. I only count people as Lydians if they have a raised fourth

If you have a lowered seventh, you're a mixed up Lydian.

I'll decide who's Lydian and who's not, thank you.

And don't try to stretch that tent and assume that just because you've lowered that seventh, you're at least a mixed up Lydian. If you're also insisting on lowering the third, you're definitely Dorian. I'm not certain I'd want you in my Lydian tent if you're doing things that I disagree with.

This message has been brought to you by way too much music theory.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. LOL!

Very cute!

LTH<---7 semesters of theory

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

64. I agree somewhat, but I have two issues

First of all, Libertarians are a broad category of people and in many instances it is difficult to separate their libertarian positions on social issues with liberal positions on economic issues.

The War on Drugs is the perfect example of this. Sure when you think of libertarians opposing the War on Drugs you think of mostly affluent white college kids who just want easier access to drugs. And while that stereotype may fit, you can't ignore the fact that The War on Drugs impacts poor people far more than it does those affluent college kids. If they get busted with drugs their parents can afford a lawyer to get a plea bargain that doesn't involve prison time. If a poor person gets busted with drugs they do prison time and it basically ruins their financial future. So while it may be inadvertent, those libertarians are supporting policies that help ordinary people moreso than just the affluent or just themselves.

My second issue is more of a question. Do you think someone can be a liberal without being a class warrior? I ask this because I believe that the President-Elect is not a class warrior by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike class warriors he does not see the powerful interests as "enemies". He believes that they need to be better regulated and reigned in for the good of our country. And I also think that he believes that while those powerful interests will oppose any such regulating or reigning in kicking and screaming, they will 15 to 20 years from now realize that he was right and learn to accept the new status quo, and possibly even like it. Class warriors, on the other hand, generally do not see such outcomes where the people and the powerful can live in harmony like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. "Class warrior" was coined by the right wing, and they have used it

to try to stifle anyone who points out the unfairness of the current situation. Make no mistake, corporate interests and their ideological apologists see anyone who tries to regulate them AT ALL as "the enemy."

For the past 28 years, the right wing has perpetrated unashamed class war on the average American, but it's somehow not nice to fight back. The pendulum has swung so far in their direction that the top dogs are going to have to be whipped into shape, and Obama will have popular support if he does so.

Something like clamping down on H-1B visas during a recession will be popular with everyone except corporate top dogs. After all, companies are laying off workers by the thousands, and then to turn around and import other workers to replace them? Put a one-year moratorium on such practices, giving the excuse that unemployment rates are too high among skilled workers to allow companies to hire cheap labor abroad. Companies will be forced to hire Americans, and the educated people of other countries will be forced to stay home and develop their own countries.

I'm aware of the ramifications of the Drug War, and I have to note that there is more of a drug culture now than there was when the Drug War started.

However, there's a tendency among yuppie Democrats to see the party solely in terms of personal freedom and to take positions that are downright right wing with respect to business practices, poverty issues, and international relations.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. I was first introduced to the term after reading "What's the Matter With Kansas"

Where Frank basically argues that the Democratic Part was relegated to minority status once they stopped using class warfare. But again, I don't think Obama sees the future of the party in terms of class warfare.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. Woah!

"I'd rather associate with an anti-choice politician who was against the military-industrial complex, pro-union, and anti-foreign-intervention"

Anti-choice? Do you have any idea how hard we fought for reproductive rights? How quickly some choose just to throw that all away. I'm sorry, those are the kind of things that keep me awake at night. Just :wow:

[mondo joe]

78. Some consider civil rights luxuries rather than inalienable essentials. NT

[SidneyCarton]

86. When you're living under a freeway overpass Civil rights are luxuries, luxuries for other people.

If the majority of us end up destitute, then our civil rights become words on a paper as we will slip into the invisible underclass that is exploited at will when it is not merely ignored. Without civil rights economic justice is impossible, but without economic justice civil rights are worthless, as they cannot be eaten, or burned to keep one warm.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Take the other extreme:

I'm talking about extremes. My default position is pro-choice, BUT, if an election came down to

1) Pro-choice, cut taxes, cut government services except the military, cut social benefits, find more wars to wage, keep attacking the Constitution in the name of "keeping us safe" and "fighting crime and drugs" This is a not-uncommon DLC array of positions.

2) Anti-choice, raise corporate taxes, strengthen the safety net, cut back on the military, seek peaceful resolution whenever possible, get rid of all those violations of the first and fourth amendments, fight the conditions that cause crime and legalize and tax drugs.

I'd vote for 2).

[get the red out]

13. It all intersects

The conservatives have been running a scam on people, getting them to vote against all the issues you mention as important and then some by playing on their fears through aligning themselves with the most repulsive elements of Christianity in this country. The preachers aligned with the Republicans tell people they MUST vote Republican because the existence of reproductive rights and gay rights in this country will threaten their everlasting life or the everlasting life of their loved ones. Then they cannot make a reasoned choice about voting so they also vote, in effect, against labor rights, against environmental issues, against education, against health-care....against their lives and the lives of their children. All because some greedy monster has been placed as a spiritual authority over them.

The disgusting marriage between hard-right religion (which also works toward "steeple-jacking" more mainline churches to increase their power) and the financial big-wigs, who want to destroy the middle class, has produced nothing but devastation for our country and the world. There is no way to separate any of these issues because they have become so closely entwined. They feed off each other, as people become more desperate and less educated they turn to the shady clerics for comfort, who in turn ensure their allegiance to the greedy bastards who have reduced their lives to misery to start with.

[LynneSin]

17. OMG PeterU - I'm agreeing with you

:loveya:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Wow...who would of thunk it?

Could it be because of Delaware's greatest, Joe Flacco? :)

[LynneSin]

22. Well maybe he can be #5

#1 Greatest Delawarean - LynneSin
#2 Greatest Delawarean - Joe Biden
#3 Greatest Delawarean - Ryan Phillipe
#4 Greatest Delawarean - Rich Gannon

[freestyle]

30. It sounds like you advocating against working for civil rights.

That is very narrow, and ultimately dangerous thinking. If the economy improves, which is critical, but people can still be fired for their sexual orientation or gender identity, not all are able to share in the good fortune. If we gain universal health care, as we must, but I can be denied seeing my partner in the hospital if he gets ill in the wrong state and we do not have our legal documents with us, quality care is being denied. If we neglect equal pay legislation and reproductive freedom, a majority of the population continues to be negatively impacted. If we work on the environment, but neglect environmental racism, communities of color are still being poisoned.

It is not only possible to work on numerous important issues at the same time, it is essential.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. I'm not advocating that at all.

That being said, I don't think there is one single issue or related cluster of issues that constitutes the end all, be all of being a liberal. Moreso, in advocating for things such as civil rights, we must not cut off our noses to spite our faces in denegrating people's faith or religious belief and/or affiliation, because I don't see that behavior as being a liberal attitude.

[Maven]

50. It's called NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

It is not sufficient to call oneself a liberal if you only support social equality. However, it is NECESSARY to support social equality to call oneself a liberal.

In fact, the whole point of your whining, dishonest OP is to claim ground to which you're not entitled, i.e., to argue that is possible to call oneself a liberal without supporting equal rights for gay people and women.

[bluedawg12]

59. Notably civil rights issues did not even make the OP "to do" list.

[guruoo]

52. Keep in mind that those forced to struggle, perhaps working two or three jobs

just to survive won't have much time or energy left to
effectively advocate for other issues, (such as civil rights for GLBT).

[bluedawg12]

55. Keep in mind that those facing the long list problems the OP mentioned

may also have the added burden of facing daily struggles involving their civil rights and perhaps working two jobs.

[guruoo]

81. I believe you missed my point, which is

that whether we like it or not, until it's fixed,
the problem economy is going to be the predominant(#1)issue.

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. And I also can agree on the fact that the civil rights of many of

friends and neighbors are being trampled upon. Surely, I can have room for that. Surely I can express sadness, rage, or irritation when I am told it's not important enough. After all, we're all progressive free thinkers here. :hi:

[AmyCamus]

33. Peace and human rights are "little pet issues"?

Thanks for apologizing for your rant. It's still a little pet issue rant, though.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. Wholeheartedly agree

It's nice to know there are still some good posts on DU these days. K&R

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

37. Holy mackerel!! Is there some personal history between the OP and you?

Otherwise I think you may have contracted rabies.

[TahitiNut]

38. The "politics of self-interest" is almost NEVER liberal. "Identity politics" is that.

I tired long ago of DUers proclaiming themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive' whose SOLE ax to grind has to do with their own "identity." They demonstrate a 'veil of ignorance' but it sure ain't the one Rawls described.

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

39. I'm tired of folks who think that EVERY issue will change in a nanosecond

simply because we elected Obama. There is not one issue that isn't messed up to some degree because of the last 8 years. It's going to take time to straighten them all out and it will certainly not happen all at once.

[noiretextatique]

41. can't agree about religion

given the morphing of church and state. even liberal religious people need to be able to talk about that reality without defensiveness. but let's face it: some people's religious beliefs are vile, dangerous and utterly disgusting. they should be challenged loudly.

[LeftyMom]

45. I'm not using my status as a liberal to denigrate anybody's religion.

I will however mock anybody of any political viewpoint who insists on believing something that's obviously dumb.

[Gwendolyn]

46. Or how about that "jack boots" theme and somehow doing something means

you're right wing. :crazy:

[Bobbie Jo]

47. Nicely done! K&R!

:kick:

[Maven]

48. Oh, you again.

Why don't you at least have the balls to name the two "pet issues" you think are unimportant?

You know what I'm getting tired of? People who think they can get away with calling themselves liberals without supporting human rights.

[Uzybone]

49. I'll rec it, because I agree

especially with Point A.

[Creideiki]

54. Personally, I have no animosity at all for Christians

I have great animosity for the Paulines.

If you find yourself obsessing over the Epistles and ignoring the Gospels, you're a Pauline.

If you find yourself choosing what Paul said over what Jesus said, you're a Pauline.

If you're following the Gospel of Prosperity instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or some variation of the Gnostic Gospels, you're a Pauline.

If that's you, then, sorry, you've done the work in developing the animosity people are showing you. Now, if you were a Christian instead of a Pauline, you'd turn the other cheek--ask what you've done that is so offensive to drive someone to have animosity toward you, apologize, and find a way to make amends. The reason why Jesus tears apart humanity is because too many of "His" followers, are actually self-righteously following Paul.

Those people, well, not so politely, can kiss my gay behind.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. Great point! I agree 100%.

One problem with some Christians out there is that they do focus too much on obscure Old Testament books which served more as a institution of morays for the ancient Israeli civilization centuries ago, and the epistles (mainly of St. Paul) which served as one man's interpretation of his faith and how he thinks it should be applied to society. In doing so, they actually put a lot of the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus on the back burner. And that should be front and central.

Not to get too into my personal religious beliefs, but as someone who is a practicing Christian I do think it is important to focus mainly on the Gospels, and less so on the other books. Genesis serves an interesting allegorical tale as to how human beings ended up with free will, a conscience, and knowledge of right and wrong (in that respect, ironically I think it is a great evolutionary tale; basically its moral is that humans "evolved" from the blissfully ignorant animals into self-aware creatures capable of judging their own actions). Revelation I still don't understand and I don't think I ever will; frankly, I don't know why it is still included in the Bible at all. The rest of it I think you can take valuable things from, but there's still a lot of extraneous stuff in there that just should have never been intended to apply to modern society.

[bluedawg12]

57. "Right now, other issues take a back seat to " the OP's pet issue's

so who's lecturing whom?

It's clear that civil rights issues are not on the OP's list.

[FreeState]

84. Agree 100% n/t

[saltpoint]

58. I like the Mario Cuomo model of a Democrat. And the Bella Abzug model.

Also the John F. and Robert F. Kennedy model, and of late the daughter of the former and the son of the latter.

I like a bit of Mo Udall. A bit of Russ Feingold. Some Barbara Boxer, Barbara Jordan, and Shirley Chisholm.

I like the union-identified Democrats and the Educaton-and-Health Care Democrats too.

[JackBeck]

60. Maybe you should edit your OP.

"To concern one's self primarily with one or two hot button issues"

and then you try to define them as

"but I'm sick and tired of the single issuers"

How many is that, again? Two or one?

Regardless of the nitpicking, if you'd just take off the blinders you'd realize that the great majority of these "single issuers" are actually actively involved with the other issues that you have listed, while also working to educate others on issues that are intimately affecting their every day lives.

It could likely be that you are the one that has pigeon holed themself into some narrow definition that you accuse others of doing with their pet issues.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

87. Well, thinking back I think I would have to clarify certain things.

First and foremost, I'd stress the fact that I am not arguing that issues concerning civil rights are somehow not important, or otherwise not worthy of discussion or advocacy. That was not my intent, and if anyone got that false impression, I do sincerely apologize.

What I was trying to get at was that we should never let one single issue define who the entire liberal/progressive movement is. We're an aching nation right now. We have a lot of problems on a lot of front. Fortunately, we have a lot of people who can bring a lot of good ideas to the table, and they come from all walks of life. I think everyone does have that "pet issue", that one issue where they are especially passionate about. And that is a truly great thing. And it may even define one's own self as an identity, but when we have to look at ourselves in the broad political spectrum as liberals and progressives, we can't just identify ourselves as focusing primarily on one or two narrow issues.

I'll use myself as a guinea pig. There are some things I feel very strongly about. For example, I am very strongly oppposed to the death penalty. It is one of the few things to which I have an absolute opposition--there is no circumstance that I can fathom where the death penalty is justified or morally acceptable. And I'll admit I get rather heated when confronted with someone who vocally feels the death penalty is justified and that I'm somehow foolish for thinking otherwise. So needless to say, I feel very strongly on that one issue.

But all that being said, I don't think of being liberal as just about being opposed to the death penalty or even having the general mindset that justice shouldn't be about shallow measures meant to explain away evil. There's multiple components to the liberal agenda, and different times call for different matters to take the forefront. For the time being, given that we are in a recession and IMHO in danger of an actual depression, the FDR New Deal mindset is going to have to take the lead. That isn't to denegrate other components of liberalism; it just is a matter of time and place as to what is going to be that "Issue Number One"

I also think that in order for us to be able to define ourselves as to who we are, it also helps as to how we define the opposition. The question is always asked, "Why are Republicans bad? Why are Republicans wrong?" The problem is, I don't think there is just one answer to that. Yet, I think there are some who want to oversimply it, and the most common answer inevitably is, "Republicans are bad and wrong because they are a bunch of Fundie religious wackos who are against gay rights/abortion rights/issue x." And I'm not saying it's a bad thing to state your opposition to Republicans on any given issue; I just think it is wrong to say that those issues alone are why they are wrong and we are right, or throwing in the red herring of religion to boot.

Not to mention the fact that there is nothing intrisincally wrong with being a "fundie" in and of itself. Having a literal interpretation of the Bible--while here most of us would disagree with that--is not in and of itself wrong. It is only when they use their interpretation to promote intolerance against others where that it becomes a problem. And that's where I've always drawn the line, and I'd encourage others to do the same as well.

[Solon]

61. Screw pidgeonholding the definition of Liberal, how about the definition of being a Decent Human...

being. Knowing what I know about these "hot topic" issues that you are so mysterious about, let me be frank, you are NOT a decent human being.

[NuttyFluffers]

62. i'm tired of the histrionic Greek Chorus over the daily "Shiny Object, Outrage du Jour"

it's like a fog bank sized stench of failed thespians trying to get their last screeching monologue in before the lock. it's endlessly tiresome. and like we all know, every closing act needs great calls of castigation against "The Wrongdoers (R)" and a rousing audience rally before the curtain falls.

in fighting over the limelight, actual listening -- let alone civility and general common courtesy (even in disagreement) -- has been tossed aside. it's been comical for a while, but now with serious problems culminating and small but tangible successes building up it is starting to look more sad than funny lately. it's really time to develop perspective -- we're going to need each other for help quite soon. so, as fun as it may be, now is not the time for 'purity purges' over current events fluff pieces.

[JDwho]

65. PeterU, rec, and rec. I wish I could more than once.

Obviously, you know what others are going through. I don't for a second think that you are giving a "back seat" to civil rights. You just didn't mention it, and that is cause for a BBQ here. Anyway, I have been slightly guilty of 'A', and utterly agree with you on 'B'. Excellent thread.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. you're an idiot if you think civil rights issues are pet issues. nt

[bigtree]

68. most folks here spend their time here defining others

. . . defining folks who would rather be identified by the one or two issues they strongly support.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. If by "single issue"

you are referring to the denial of civil rights of the LGBT community, then there IS no more important issue. If one group's civil rights are denied or jeopardized, then ALL of our civil rights are jeopardized. And THAT hatefest has been enthusiastically brought to us BY the oh-so-religious right -- the same ones that are screaming that their pantries are empty yet could spend MILLIONS on hate legislation.

Look, it was RELIGION that got in OUR faces, not the other way around. I don't give a shit if people want to worship lime jello, just stay the hell out of politics. And if they INSIST on shoving their religion down our throats (birth control, abortion, homophobia) then they deserve whatever is coming to them (short of violence, of course).

[mondo joe]

71. Thankyou for calling it out. What is liberalism with no committment to civil rights?

I don't know, but I don't want to be part of it.

[bluedawg12]

82. Well said!

Civil rights issues happen to be the issue where we can effect a change by education and attitudes, no taxes, no subsidies, no new technology, just do the right thing. That costs nothing, doesn't pollute and won't take away our jobs.

[FreeState]

85. Exactly - all religions are subject to scrutiny when they take rights away from others n/t

[QC]

76. I get tired of the people posting all these Sit Down and Shut Up!!! threads.

Not very liberal, are they?

[saltpoint]

77. But concerning religious conduct in the public square, let's put it where it goes.

Beginning with visible extremists like Rev. Fred Phelps, for example, I think a bit of bashing on a Forum board is entirely appropriate.

The man's an idiot. Anybody you know raised to show up at funerals screaming homophobic slogans?

On up the scale we get the anti-stem cell folks and the anti-Science folks in the Bush administration. We get the Bob Jones University officials, we get the library censors, and the prayer-in-the-school 10 Commandment types.

I think they need a serious butt-kicking, have for a long time. If they want to retain their tax-exempt status to operate as a religion, they need to stay the hell out of the public schools and the library.

And so forth. You could make one of those evolutionary visuals where Humans evolved from monkeys but instead, use specific socio--political figures. Phelps would be at the low end of the visual. Someone like Bill Moyers or Matthew Fox at the high end.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. I agree. Hypocrites will be hypocrites.

But I would stay away from throwing away the baby with the bathwater. And when you start condemning entire religions, that gets to be problematic.

And lumping in anyone who belongs to a religious faith as a "fundie freeper" or similar terminology, or subtly insinuating that they are all together in one boat, is not the way to go about it. This Catholic wants absolutely nothing to do with Fred Phelps. Hell, there are Southern Baptists who want nothing to do with Fred Phelps, believe it or not.

[saltpoint]

80. It can be, yes. I think public religious conduct is no longer private

faith expression.

At the instant a Catholic bishop or archbishop says, "Oh no, we can't give communion to Senator Kerry," they have stepped far afield from the sanctioned private faith of their church and have entered, as if on the back of a donkey, the political arena.

And as such are accountable for what they say and do, what they do and don't support, etc.

The sweeping generalization was a concept much-used (and still much-used) by Protestants and Catholics of many denominations and stripes to demonize sub-populations. Not all but many church hgher-ups practice blatantly private views in the public square. If I do not block their path to a church of their choosing I in turn want THEIR butts out of my library and public schools.