NationStates Jolt Archive

I always here Americanos use "liberal" as an insult. Why is it bad? I think liberal is american for socialist in our country. Liberals are pro capitalist freedom in our country. And socialists are left wing. Anyhow, whats with the liberal bashing?

I may be wrong, but I believe the terms conservative and liberal are swapped in Europe.

In any case, American liberals support things like abortion, gay marriage, are against the death penalty, support easing restrictions on drugs...basically, I'd say socially progressive.

As well, most of them are financially socialist, and believe in the welfare state (there are exceptions, the libertarian party is distinctly lazze fare, pro-capitalist business type).

Also, liberals tend to be more pacifist when it comes to war.


The terms liberal is only used as insult as much as conservative is, obviously by those who are of the other persuasion, who lack a better comeback.

Liberal is a stupid insult. I am a classical liberal, at least in social issues.

I prefer the term "leftists".

Liberal is a stupid insult. I am a classical liberal, at least in social issues.

I prefer the term "leftists".


classical liberals are basically Libertarians, right?

They believe in small government, and above all, freedom of the individual. And so would not have a problem with gay marriage, pornography, etc.? But are against the welfare state and would agree more with Reagan's ideology of "personal responsibility" in terms of welfare.

I'm asking this because you come across as a conservative in other threads, but those are mainly foreign policy threads...I haven't seen your social positions yet.

By "leftists" you mean economic socialists, right?

classical liberals are basically Libertarians, right?

They believe in small government, and above all, freedom of the individual. And so would not have a problem with gay marriage, pornography, etc.? But are against the welfare state and would agree more with Reagan's ideology of "personal responsibility" in terms of welfare.

I'm asking this because you come across as a conservative in other threads, but those are mainly foreign policy threads...I haven't seen your social positions yet.

By "leftists" you mean economic socialists, right?

That is correct.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that, in many cases, liberals believe that the government should be a tool to enforce their moral philosophies. In some cases, they support forcing others to act in a fashion that they consider moral - forcing people to support the unemployed, for example. In other cases, they place their own morality over logic and economics - for example, spending large amounts on subsidies, or increasing funding for inefficent government programs rather than making said programs more efficient. He believes that those on the right fight it just as annoying as those on the left find attempts to ban homosexual marrage or abortion... possibly more so, since, in many cases, liberals accuse conservatives of trying to force their moralities on others, and as such, are hypocrites as well as irritants.

It annoys me that to Americans, liberal is synonymous with socialist and that conservative is synonymous with capitalist. What about Libertarians?

The answer is obvious. To Americans, "liberal" is an insult because they are authoritarians.

Americans believe that benefiting big business at the expense of the people is right, and everything else is communism.

The interesting thing is, if people ahead of business is communism, business ahead of people is fascism. It is only in the centre ground that you find any sense.

Liberal is an insult here because all 'o them smarterish people up top said so.

Short answer from an american: Its only an insult or bad if you let it be bad.

Long answer: Well, because liberals have been painted in recent times as being more prone toward redistribution of wealth. The belief that you should keep everything you work for is strong in a lot of americans...mainly upper middle and upper class. The robin hood ideal of "stealing" from the rich to give to the poor is not as highly looked upon in america as it used to be. Most likely our capitalist roots. Truth be told there are very very few differences between our two parties...politicians are politicians...theyre all going to take money...and meddle in the lives of the little guy. Government will get bigger until it collapses and reforms.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that, in many cases, liberals believe that the government should be a tool to enforce their moral philosophies. In some cases, they support forcing others to act in a fashion that they consider moral - forcing people to support the unemployed, for example. In other cases, they place their own morality over logic and economics - for example, spending large amounts on subsidies, or increasing funding for inefficent government programs rather than making said programs more efficient. He believes that those on the right fight it just as annoying as those on the left find attempts to ban homosexual marrage or abortion... possibly more so, since, in many cases, liberals accuse conservatives of trying to force their moralities on others, and as such, are hypocrites as well as irritants.

The great emporer of Terra Zetegenia is foolhardy at best. The employment of government is a position undertaken by both parties and viewpoints, albeit in different fashions. A great example of this would be the Bush tax cuts. Regardless of the questionable economics of supply-side policies, one could argue that the Right wishes to use policy as a tool to undercut essential government services. There is little to no debate that, had the tax cuts not been interacted, we would be in a better financial state. Yet, capital gains cutbacks are an imposition of the belief that those who make exorbitant amounts of money do not deserve to contribute to the society that allows their economic apparatus to continue.

Corporations in America are actually given personhood by law. The corporation is endowed with freedom of speech, property rights, and equal protection under the law as an entity of personhood. Under this legal arrangement, the argument that they are a strictly economic entity is null and void. Corporations are, for all intents and purposes, just the same as American citizens. They contribute economically, they produce taxable income, they receive tax breaks and shelters, bankruptcy protection, and in many cases face many of the same issues everyday Americans face. Issues of legality of work arrangements, origin, revenue reporting, etc.

"Welfare" given to corporations (in the form of tax breaks, exemptions, and shelters) exceeds that given to the average citizen by a magnitude of 3. Yet working and even nonworking citizens produce much of the economic stimulus and activity that drives our market apparatus. They create goods, consume goods, and provide the impetus for economic growth and stagnation, and are the greatest measurement of the American fiscal forecast.

Conservative American policies to essentially give breaks, handouts, and shelters to corporations are no different than giving the same aid to everyday citizens. The macro effects are roughly the same. One could say the government is imposing morality on its citizens by cutting essential services in favor of already ultra-rich corporate entities.

Besides, examples of imposition of morality through policy and actions of conservatives abound in large measure. Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives, the DOMA act, the "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban, the Assault Weapons Ban or its repeal, the Brady Bill, etc. Painting "liberals" as "those who use the government to advance moral beliefs or impose morality" is a wholly without merit argument.

I may be wrong, but I believe the terms conservative and liberal are swapped in Europe.




Not correct!

In the UK there are 3 main political parties:-

Conservatives
Liberals
Labour

Traditionally, each of these parties were formed to protect distinct groups:-

Conservatives - rich, upper classes, typically aristocracy (although not the Royal family as they can't vote) landowners & business men

Liberals:- Typically supported by the middle classes - who may also be rich business men and landowners, however, they felt a moral right to provide education, health care etc to those who couldnt afford it

Labour:- Working classes and trade unions. This gave the poor a voice within government.

However, over time trade union support of labour has waned (however, trade union membership itself has fallen dramatically). Labour has become less left wing and more econmic minded (and therefore given support to some businessness). This means that Labour are more liberal than ever, and so the traditional Liberal party has been left in the cold.

This is quite a turn of events when you think that originally the only political parties where the Conservatives and the Liberals (Labour as a politcal party has only been around for 100 yrs or so).

Having studied libertarianism and having a knowledge of Classical Liberalism in history, I think I should say that there is not the continuity between the two that is often claimed.

- Classical Liberal governments thought of tolerance mainly in terms of which Protestant Church you wanted to join. Laws against homosexuality, blasphemy, pornography, etc. were not repealed in Britain or any European country until into the 1960s. J.S. Mill was an exception, although he was thought to be very radical at the time.
- Many Classical Liberals supported imperialism.
- Women's rights was a joke to most of them.
- Support for the poor still remained. It was Gladstone - seen as the symbol of Classical Liberalism in Britain - who introduced public education.

The fact is that libertarianism is completely unique in the history of political thought; the nearest you come to it is anarchism, but that has usually been opposed to private property. Every government throughout history has made some provision for the poor. As libertarians tend to think of any government intervention as being "socialist", they have basically said that every government in history was "socialist"; this reminds me of that philosopher who decided that everything was made out of fire. A similar thing could be said for governments intervening in people's personal lives.

What really makes me laugh is when they start saying that America was a libertarian country for most of the 19th century. This is such an incredible lie that I don't know how they get away with it. There were large tariffs for all imports. Slavery was more brutal than anything in the British Empire and even free Blacks were denied all civil liberties for decades. Duels were notoriously bloody. Lynch law reigned. Public debts were ignored and assasinations were commonplace. Church and state were said to be separate, yet laws against sodomy, prostitution, blasphemy, etc. were present in every state. Laws which libertarians are campaigning against originate from an era that they look back to!

My view on it is that libertarians cannot say that their rights are "natural" or "intuitive". If that were the case, then they would be obvious to most people and they would not have been abused by every government in history, without the population kicking up much of a fuss about it. The way to defend liberty is by proving its utility, as J.S. Mill, Spinoza and Godwin did. A lot of government intervention is bad, but not all of it.

Also, in America we have a few powerful entities. Namely, the Fox News Channel, the Al-Jazeera of America, and Talk Radio, which is hugely Republican. They have created an environment in which "liberal" means "anti-Bush", which is "anti-patriotic" by association. Patriotism, in these times of 9/11 paranoia, means going with whatever George Bush believes is the mandate for society.

I always here Americanos use "liberal" as an insult. Why is it bad? I think liberal is american for socialist in our country. Liberals are pro capitalist freedom in our country. And socialists are left wing. Anyhow, whats with the liberal bashing?

Good one to bring up. I've mentioned this in other threads, I never understand this American use of the word liberal as an insult, as like you, the people who are using it is one would often be termed as liberals here.
I think you are right, the American definition of the word liberal is completely different to the European one.
Like whereever you are, here Liberals stand for open markets, less economic regulation etc.

Well, comparing the politics of the USA and Europe does not make much sense.

Living conditions differ so much, that we don't understand each other.

In Europe the term liberal is used for propaganda reasons.

Liberal used to be for individual and economic freedom.
In theory of course! The ideas of the French revolution.
Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood.
The point is, the liberal or libertarian wing evolved into a capitalist egocentric conservative kind of behaving.
They forgot about Equality and Brotherhood.
So in Europe Liberal and libertarian is in fact conservative.
They even are very pro police and other authoritarian things.

The social democrats, you call socialists, are boring in their way to serve both their supporters and the capitalists. It doesn't work either.
The social democrats and liberals even form goverments together,
that you can consider as corporatism. A mild form of fascism.
The idea is to have workers and employers under the smooth control of collective agreements.
The Christian democrats operate in politics between the liberals and the social democrats.

In Europe however, there is a growing number of anti globalist parties.
It's very hard to characterise them. Libertarian socialism or communalism would do. It has nothing to do with communism!
The idea is to have a decentralized government. But rather Euro nationalistic.

Also consider the difference between interior affairs and foreign policy.
A right wing government may use left wing foreign policy and vice versa.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that, in many cases, liberals believe that the government should be a tool to enforce their moral philosophies. In some cases, they support forcing others to act in a fashion that they consider moral - forcing people to support the unemployed, for example. In other cases, they place their own morality over logic and economics - for example, spending large amounts on subsidies, or increasing funding for inefficent government programs rather than making said programs more efficient. He believes that those on the right fight it just as annoying as those on the left find attempts to ban homosexual marrage or abortion... possibly more so, since, in many cases, liberals accuse conservatives of trying to force their moralities on others, and as such, are hypocrites as well as irritants.
So why is it that under republican rule all sorts of censoreships have risen? Pornography is a crime, selling dildos is illegal in texas, I'd say liberals in your country do the opposite, they let ppl deside wether they want to marry (gay or not gay)...republicans are against it so they are forcing their moral philosophies upon the ppl. So its rather stupid to say liberals force their philosophy while they just give more room to personal preferences, more freedom. They don't force abortion, they just let ppl deside wether they want abortion or not, unlike republicans who don't give ppl the freedom to abort an unwanted child. So your statement the liberals enforce their ideals and moral is totally incorrect, because their ideal is that ppl can chose their own ideal.

In british english and most of the european languages(my own, Danish) included, "Liberal" is comparable to neo-conservatism, ie. freedom for market powers, pro-capitalism and against state interference.

However, like the neo-cons, they seem to consider these notions a palatable front for discrimination, opression and state control.

In the US, a lot of people consider liberalism(ie. social-democratic leanings) bad, because of the McCarthy period and the extreme conservatism pervading their government at the moment. If you're liberal, don't take it so seriously, most don't even know what it is they're bashing ;)

/Tias

Well, comparing the politics of the USA and Europe does not make much sense.

Living conditions differ so much, that we don't understand each other.

In Europe the term liberal is used for propaganda reasons.

Liberal used to be for individual and economic freedom.
In theory of course! The ideas of the French revolution.
Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood.
The point is, the liberal or libertarian wing evolved into a capitalist egocentric conservative kind of behaving.
They forgot about Equality and Brotherhood.
So in Europe Liberal and libertarian is in fact conservative.
They even are very pro police and other authoritarian things.

The social democrats, you call socialists, are boring in their way to serve both their supporters and the capitalists. It doesn't work either.
The social democrats and liberals even form goverments together,
that you can consider as corporatism. A mild form of fascism.
The idea is to have workers and employers under the smooth control of collective agreements.
The Christian democrats operate in politics between the liberals and the social democrats.

In Europe however, there is a growing number of anti globalist parties.
It's very hard to characterise them. Libertarian socialism or communalism would do. It has nothing to do with communism!
The idea is to have a decentralized government. But rather Euro nationalistic.

Also consider the difference between interior affairs and foreign policy.
A right wing government may use left wing foreign policy and vice versa.

They became right wing to take votes from popular ultra right wing in order for them not to take power. Anyhow thats the shamefull way its in our region. Being in the opposition is ideal to grow and raise votes if the only thing you do is bash the government and play the victim of that very government they're trying to get in to. Fuck 'em the only reason they get votes is because they lie and use double standards and the fact that people who don't want to vote, but have to, vote on them. How stupid can you get, ruining the country because you don't want to vote. Twofaced piles of menure. Anyhow thats how I feel about our extreme right wing.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that, in many cases, liberals believe that the government should be a tool to enforce their moral philosophies. In some cases, they support forcing others to act in a fashion that they consider moral - forcing people to support the unemployed, for example. In other cases, they place their own morality over logic and economics - for example, spending large amounts on subsidies, or increasing funding for inefficent government programs rather than making said programs more efficient. He believes that those on the right fight it just as annoying as those on the left find attempts to ban homosexual marrage or abortion... possibly more so, since, in many cases, liberals accuse conservatives of trying to force their moralities on others, and as such, are hypocrites as well as irritants.

It seems we've come to a relatavistic crossroads already. Liberals wouldn't be trying to break out of the mold if it weren't for bible-based views such as illegalizing homosexuality, not allowing women to vote, and slavery. Laws, by definition, are based in morality and custom. If you don't want to morality being forced around, then be an anarchist. Otherwise, you'll always be dealing with relatavistic arguments in morality.

Oh, and back on topic, I see anti-liberal semantics stemming off from the cold war generation and the red scare. Racial equality? Communist. Economic equality? Communist. Carpooling? Communist. Nowadays, instead of communist, we use liberal. It's like how people use gay as a derogative outside of referring to homosexuality.

That is correct.

Well, holy crap. All this time I thought I had you pegged as a "neo-con". My mistake. :D

Why is being liberal bad?

It's not.

Actually I find that social conservativism, given that it implies strict government control over people's personal and private lives, is contrary to the ideal of liberty and thus unAmerican.

Liberals just want to make hierarchy pretty and tolerable. They refuse to get rid of it altogether, though. They fear genuine change.

Liberals just want to make hierarchy pretty and tolerable. They refuse to get rid of it altogether, though. They fear genuine change.

Well, without some form of hierarchy or order there is always going to be someone to fill the vaccuum. It's human nature.

I believe in small government, but not a total lack of one. Afterall, there has to be someone to protect the innocent from those that would prey upon them.

Well, holy crap. All this time I thought I had you pegged as a "neo-con". My mistake. :D
hes still a neocon...

hes still a neocon...

Really? That seems a bit silly having a self-proclaimed social liberal supporting Bush.
I mean Bush supports policies that undermine people's personal freedoms.

Really? That seems a bit silly having a self-proclaimed social liberal supporting Bush.
I mean Bush supports policies that undermine people's personal freedoms.
read the stuff pan-arab has posted before

In any case, American liberals support things like abortion, gay marriage, are against the death penalty, support easing restrictions on drugs...basically, I'd say socially progressive.

As well, most of them are financially socialist, and believe in the welfare state (there are exceptions, the libertarian party is distinctly lazze fare, pro-capitalist business type).

Also, liberals tend to be more pacifist when it comes to war.

The terms liberal is only used as insult as much as conservative is, obviously by those who are of the other persuasion, who lack a better comeback.

Agreed. Also, we Liberals don't like the fact that Republicans want to impose their moral beliefs onto others who don't share those same beliefs, especially when it comes to abortion and religion. Republicans want to tell people what they can/can't do, definitely showing their hypocricy (they want as little of a government as possible, yet they want the government to control what people do).

With that being said, I am proud to be a liberal!

I always wondered where the term 'pinko commie' came from and why people would yell it at me when I advocated a liberal idea. Where does the term pinko even come from?

I always wondered where the term 'pinko commie' came from and why people would yell it at me when I advocated a liberal idea. Where does the term pinko even come from?

It comes from Republicans, I'm sure. "Pinko" means :a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views.

Apparently that's a bad thing. :rolleyes:

Really? That seems a bit silly having a self-proclaimed social liberal supporting Bush.
I mean Bush supports policies that undermine people's personal freedoms.

I consider social issues to be secondary to fiscal policy and national security.

Kerry supports many policies which are detrimental to civil and economic liberties. Consider his hatred of firearms and his support of a single-payer government healthcare system.

Most people who compare liberalism to communism are ignorant and uneducated hicks who lack any sort of understand of liberal or communist ideals.

I lean far left on social issues, but I lean right of center on fiscal issues - hardly communist.

It comes from Republicans, I'm sure. "Pinko" means :a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views.

Apparently that's a bad thing. :rolleyes:

No, a pinko was used to describe a socialist, i.e. half-red or half-communist.

And yes, that is a bad thing.

Most people who compare liberalism to communism are ignorant and uneducated hicks who lack any sort of understand of liberal or communist ideals.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I consider social issues to be secondary to fiscal policy and national security.

Kerry supports many policies which are detrimental to civil and economic liberties. Consider his hatred of firearms and his support of a single-payer government healthcare system.

Me personally I hold the social issues as the most important (liberty or death,etc.), I lean mostly right as far as economics go, but that's secondary since I value people over money. I'm also for gun rights and national secuirty. However, I think Bush's foreign policies and the Iraqi war have only done more to breed more anti-american sentiment, hostility, terrorist, etc. Meddling in other countries puts ours at risk. I'm also not keen on Israel leeching off U.S. tax dollars, or any other nation for that matter. Also the Iraqi war needlessly is costing us American troops, resources, and capital. For what, to secure oil? Protect Isreal?

Well, without some form of hierarchy or order there is always going to be someone to fill the vaccuum. It's human nature.

That's what they used to say about slavery, sexism, and monarchy. "It can't be changed; there would be chaos, etc."

That's what they used to say about slavery, sexism, and monarchy. "It can't be changed; there would be chaos, etc."
government has to have a form of hierarchy, thats why it is government, anarchism doesnt work, and not to mention in an anarchic state (word), people would form individual hierarchies because people msut have something to follow

That's what they used to say about slavery, sexism, and monarchy. "It can't be changed; there would be chaos, etc."

What I'm saying is, what's going to stop someone with a vision and a mission from gathering an army of supporters and exerting their will over others?

government has to have a form of hierarchy, thats why it is government, anarchism doesnt work, and not to mention in an anarchic state (word), people would form individual hierarchies because people msut have something to follow

Libertarianism is similiar to anarchy in idealogy. The biggest differense is that libertarians believe that some form of government should exist to protect the innocent from injustices.

Libertarianism is similiar to anarchy in idealogy. The biggest differense is that libertarians believe that some form of government should exist to protect the innocent from injustices.
and who inflicts those injustices? the government. libertarians are too loose

Me personally I hold the social issues as the most important (liberty or death,etc.), I lean mostly right as far as economics go, but that's secondary since I value people over money. I'm also for gun rights and national secuirty. However, I think Bush's foreign policies and the Iraqi war have only done more to breed more anti-american sentiment, hostility, terrorist, etc. Meddling in other countries puts ours at risk. I'm also not keen on Israel leeching off U.S. tax dollars, or any other nation for that matter. Also the Iraqi war needlessly is costing us American troops, resources, and capital. For what, to secure oil? Protect Isreal?

Indeed, civil liberties are very important. However, the current complaints against the Patriot Act are mostly exaggerated. I believe there are certain parts of that legislation which are unconstitutional and should be removed immediately, but overall I believe the Patriot Act will enable law enforcement agencies to operate more effectively.

I also believe anti-American sentiment, especially in the Mideast, has always been extremely high and Gulf II will not change anything. Anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda has always been a tool of the Arab tyrants to distract the people from their own problems. A truly free Arab press will contribute more to Mideast peace than anything else. Gulf II will allow America to help build a role-model for other Arab nations, something they sorely need.

and who inflicts those injustices? the government. libertarians are too loose

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

But you say government. So, you're saying a small government is more dangerous than a large government? How so?

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

But you say government. So, you're saying a small government is more dangerous than a large government? How so?
... im saying ALL government can be and is dangerous, even more so without its power being checked. ever heard of power going to some one's head? there is no distinction between big and small government

Indeed, civil liberties are very important. However, the current complaints against the Patriot Act are mostly exaggerated. I believe there are certain parts of that legislation which are unconstitutional and should be removed immediately, but overall I believe the Patriot Act will enable law enforcement agencies to operate more effectively.

Be that as it may, Bush has a tendancy to support and push a religious agenda. As an atheist, I'm not too keen on the idea of legislating theology and morality. I'm an avid supporter of Seperation of Chuch and State. I mean, wasn't America mostly founded to escape the religious tyranny of Europe?

I also believe anti-American sentiment, especially in the Mideast, has always been extremely high and Gulf II will not change anything. Anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda has always been a tool of the Arab tyrants to distract the people from their own problems. A truly free Arab press will contribute more to Mideast peace than anything else. Gulf II will allow America to help build a role-model for other Arab nations, something they sorely need.

I'm curious to know how Israel's interests are our interests? In my eyes, they appear to be little more than a swollen parasite suckling from America's teat. I mean it seems like we're just being used and manipulated by the Zionist state and that our relationship is based entirely upon judeochristian connections.
I'd also like to note that I no love for the Palistinians, either, nor of the arab/moslem culture in general. It's like two primitive cultures fighting over scraps of land, and America is getting dragged into the mess.

... im saying ALL government can be and is dangerous, even more so without its power being checked. ever heard of power going to some one's head? there is no distinction between big and small government

Well, that raise again the question; what's going to stop someone with a vision and a mission from gathering an army of supporters and exerting their will over others? And without some sort of order, who's going to protect the innocent from injustice? Also, who said a libertarian style government wouldn't have checks and balances? It would still be of, for, and by the people.
Libertarians believe in putting more power into the hands of the people and less in the hands of government. If that's bad, what's a better alternative?

Well, that raise again the question; what's going to stop someone with a vision and a mission from gathering an army of supporters and exerting their will over others? And without some sort of order, who's going to protect the innocent from injustice? Also, who said a libertarian style government wouldn't have checks and balances? It would still be of, for, and by the people.
Libertarians believe in putting more power into the hands of the people and less in the hands of government. If that's bad, what's a better alternative?
people are stupid, and once power enters their hands it will be used by the majority to abuse and oppress the minority. power must be given to a balanced government with enough power given to the people to make them feel important and thus content and enough not given to them so they cant abuse it themselves

people are stupid, and once power enters their hands it will be used by the majority to abuse and oppress the minority. power must be given to a balanced government with enough power given to the people to make them feel important and thus content and enough not given to them so they cant abuse it themselves

So what sort of system do you propose that balances the scales of power between the government and the people?

Be that as it may, Bush has a tendancy to support and push a religious agenda. As an atheist, I'm not too keen on the idea of legislating theology and morality. I'm an avid supporter of Seperation of Chuch and State. I mean, wasn't America mostly founded to escape the religious tyranny of Europe?

I support the freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. The seperation of church and state does not guarantee freedom from religion. I watch the Christian right very closely; I consider them to be the weak link in the Republican Party.

I'm curious to know how Israel's interests are our interests? In my eyes, they appear to be little more than a swollen parasite suckling from America's teat. I mean it seems like we're just being used and manipulated by the Zionist state and that our relationship is based entirely upon judeochristian connections.
I'd also like to note that I no love for the Palistinians, either, nor of the arab/moslem culture in general. It's like two primitive cultures fighting over scraps of land, and America is getting dragged into the mess.

Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East. The fact that we support the existence is unacceptable to most Arab nations. I fail to see why we should abandon Israel simply to appease the tyrannical Arab regimes.

It's just like the word gay. It simply turned into an insult.

I support the freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. The seperation of church and state does not guarantee freedom from religion.

Care to elaborate? Endorsing and encouraging religion is detrimental to the advancement and progression of society. We should embrace freethought rather than turn a blind eye to reason.
The right exploits peoples' faith as a means to manipute them. Religion and patriotism alike have become vectors of propaganda.

I always here Americanos use "liberal" as an insult. Why is it bad? I think liberal is american for socialist in our country. Liberals are pro capitalist freedom in our country. And socialists are left wing. Anyhow, whats with the liberal bashing?
Liberals are not socialist. They are a large part of the nation that believes in a welfare state, regulations, and a graduated tax system, but they still support free enterprise. It's no insult, just a name.

Care to elaborate? Endorsing and encouraging religion is detrimental to the advancement and progression of society. We should embrace freethought rather than turn a blind eye to reason.
The right exploits peoples' faith as a means to manipute them. Religion and patriotism alike have become vectors of propaganda.

Being religious, in no way, means you're blind to reason. And neither does endorsing or supporting it.

There are millions of religious scientists still contributing to the scientific community today.

Care to elaborate? Endorsing and encouraging religion is detrimental to the advancement and progression of society. We should embrace freethought rather than turn a blind eye to reason.
The right exploits peoples' faith as a means to manipute them. Religion and patriotism alike have become vectors of propaganda.

I hear that a lot from radical atheists; it is an absurd generalization and highlights the bigotry of the "freedom from religion" gang.

If you are indeed in favor of personal liberties, why do you insist on preventing individuals who share a common faith to organize and associate with each other? And why do you think people of faith are detrimental to the "progression of society", whatever that means?

And why do you think people of faith are detrimental to the "progression of society", whatever that means?
Witch-burning, book-burning... crusades against Muslims, crusades against gays... banning Galileo’s theories, banning stem-cell research.

All throughout history and still in modern times, religion has been a barrier to progress.

I hear that a lot from radical atheists; it is an absurd generalization and highlights the bigotry of the "freedom from religion" gang.

If you are indeed in favor of personal liberties, why do you insist on preventing individuals who share a common faith to organize and associate with each other? And why do you think people of faith are detrimental to the "progression of society", whatever that means?

I never implied people shouldn't have the freedom to believe whatever they want. I was saying that I should have the freedom not to have that stuff forced upon me.
People are free to believe and practice as they wish, as long as they don't infringe upon other peoples' right to do the same.
I'm just saying religion shouldn't have a role in government. But in saying that I fail to see how that actomatically implies that the government has to do the direct opposite and forcefully seculartise everything. That would be just as abhorrent.

I hear that a lot from radical atheists; it is an absurd generalization and highlights the bigotry of the "freedom from religion" gang.

If you are indeed in favor of personal liberties, why do you insist on preventing individuals who share a common faith to organize and associate with each other? And why do you think people of faith are detrimental to the "progression of society", whatever that means?
speaking of absurd generalizations and misconceptions

"insist on preventing individuals who share a common faith to organsie and associate with each other"

who has suggested religion be outlawed? anyone? i havnt seen anyone say that. it is an absurd generalization to suggest that seperation of church and state means the outlaw of religion. it MEANS prventing the government from establishing an official religion which can be used to oppress others

imagine if christianity was the official religion, everybody would be required to pray at a certain time, and laws and rulings could be based on religious law, religious law rulings are competely detrimental to a free society. use your religion to ban everything your religion disagree with

christians running the country, lets ban homosexuals, abortions, contraceptives, sex education. and this is just GENERAL christianity, once you get into the sects they would start making laws against each other

what about jews running the country? no one would be allowed to eat non kosher products, everyone must follow random jewish laws

what about muslims? everyone must pray facing mecca at certain times during the day, you cant eat unclean animals ever, contraceptives are banned, woman must be covered at all times.


do you get the idea yet? you want to know why a theocracy is bad? reference afghanistan and iran and england after the anglican church was created, the whole of europe during the midevil period, early america before the founders realized creating ruels based on religion was a BAD idea

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Theocracay? WTF?

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but Christianity has improved a great deal in the past century. Islam on the other hand exemplifies everything bad in organized religion today.

No one should have religion forced upon them and no one should be forced to abandon religion. Government should not endorse any religion. That's my stance. Interpret it as you will.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Theocracay? WTF?

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but Christianity has improved a great deal in the past century. Islam on the other hand exemplifies everything bad in organized religion today.

No one should have religion forced upon them and no one should be forced to abandon religion. Government should not endorse any religion. That's my stance. Interpret it as you will.
there can be no improvement of religion--its a form of mental illness in all its forms and should be abolished and replaced with true spirituality

Not correct!

In the UK there are 3 main political parties:-

Conservatives
Liberals
Labour

Traditionally, each of these parties were formed to protect distinct groups:-

Conservatives - rich, upper classes, typically aristocracy (although not the Royal family as they can't vote) landowners & business men

Liberals:- Typically supported by the middle classes - who may also be rich business men and landowners, however, they felt a moral right to provide education, health care etc to those who couldnt afford it

Labour:- Working classes and trade unions. This gave the poor a voice within government.

However, over time trade union support of labour has waned (however, trade union membership itself has fallen dramatically). Labour has become less left wing and more econmic minded (and therefore given support to some businessness). This means that Labour are more liberal than ever, and so the traditional Liberal party has been left in the cold.

This is quite a turn of events when you think that originally the only political parties where the Conservatives and the Liberals (Labour as a politcal party has only been around for 100 yrs or so).

I think you are confusing Gladstone's "Liberal" party of the 19th century with the modern day "Liberal Democrats".
There is no connection, the original "Liberal" party no longer exists.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Theocracay? WTF?

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but Christianity has improved a great deal in the past century. Islam on the other hand exemplifies everything bad in organized religion today.

No one should have religion forced upon them and no one should be forced to abandon religion. Government should not endorse any religion. That's my stance. Interpret it as you will.
"I support the freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. The seperation of church and state does not guarantee freedom from religion. "

thats what you said

freedom of religion is a completely seperate thing from seperation of church and state. freedom of religion means you, yourself, can practice as you see fit as long as it does not infringe on some one else's rights or is illegal (ie sacrifices). seperation of church and state prevents the government from endorsing a religion OR supporting it. you cannot show favoritism for a certain religion

and you do not support freedom from religion but also dont support the government endorsement of religion or having religion forced on people. what is the difference, i assume you have one made up in your head

Liberal. Lefty. I get lefty a lot more than I get liberal labeled to myself as an insult.

I don't know why it's considered an insult or why it's considered bad. I'm a proud liberal, and I've never ecountered anyone in RL - only in places like NS - that use my liberalism as a label meaning bad.

It's conundrum to me, as well.

Liberal. Lefty. I get lefty a lot more than I get liberal labeled to myself as an insult.

I don't know why it's considered an insult or why it's considered bad. I'm a proud liberal, and I've never ecountered anyone in RL - only in places like NS - that use my liberalism as a label meaning bad.

It's conundrum to me, as well.
i live in alabama, liberal == the devil

i live in alabama, liberal == the devil

So what?

It doesn't matter, that's the point. There are Conservatives who are just as "liberal" on their end of the spectrum as liberalism is portrayed. It's just the other side doesn't seem to want to accept that.

In the blue-state enclaves of New York and Massachusetts, being called a "conservative" is generally considered an insult. When I was in college, people were often confused by the fact that I am an economically conservative foreigner who loves America. They expected a bible-thumping Jerry Falwell from Texas. Long Islanders and Bostonians are comforted by their intellectual circle-jerks.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are stupid insults used by people who have never encountered opposing viewpoints.

So what?

It doesn't matter, that's the point. There are Conservatives who are just as "liberal" on their end of the spectrum as liberalism is portrayed. It's just the other side doesn't seem to want to accept that.
the POINT was you said you have never met anyone who thought that but here, and im saying they are everywhere down here