"There was a time" is the operative part of your statement."
"Now it is the common view." ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Common or not..doesn't make it correct. And I think the argument could be made that certain "views" aren't as "common" as some would like us to think. There is evidence that suggests....that when all the smoke clears..this countries population is quite a bit more socially conservative...than your take on the subject.
There was also a time when believing that the earth was round and it revolved around the sun was considered extremely dangerous. Just like there was a time when Witches were burned at the stake here in America, and the right to own another human as a piece of property was considered commonplace. There was a time when allowing women to vote was considered socially dangerous as well.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
And you find something wrong with those practices? Just kidding....(g). Yes, humans have a wealth?? of negative examples to pull from. On the flip side.....good moral people eventually stood up..fought,...and died, to end those and other like practices.
For better or for worse, society continues to move beyond beliefs and ideas that it once held, and accept those new "dangerous" ideas. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
I "feel" you mocking me...hehehe. No problem....if you are. My mistake if you aren't. What I deem to be "dangerous"...I'm fairly sure, ( based upon what you've previously wrote...) you wouldn't. It might be just the proverbial "slippery slope" of incrementalism...that I fear. You know once you've crossed the Rubicon...it's real hard to go back.
Now I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to by "social world-view", but I am assuming you mean my position that as society relaxes its social restrictions, people must come to accept it, rather than to fight against what has already happened. I am assuming you are not accusing me of being a socialist.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Of course I don't "know" you well enough to label you a socialist yet. :O) But from a purely anecdotal perspective..it wouldn't be intellectually honest of me...to say that you didn't certainly have some characteristics of one. Nothing personal...just a incomplete observation...at this point.
As far as demanding that we just accept certain behavior, just accept irresponsibility....I will never do that. I think your position is wrong, and ultimately very dangerous.
I support anyone in their own privately held religious beliefs, whatever they may be. But I think religion is between you, your family, and your place of worship. Period. I do get antagonistic when people try to shove it in my face, act holier-than-thou, assume that their beliefs of blind faith are somehow more valid than someone else's beliefs of blind faith (especially those who choose not to believe blindly at all), or want to legislate based on arbitrary religious mores.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
I suspected as much.....And I've sympathy for your tone..and stance. I had much the same attitude at one time........It is my contention that religious folks have turned more people away from God..than towards Him. It is a travesty..and for that I am ashamed. While I believe one's faith to be a personal relationship...I also understand that sharing that relationship with others is part of the Great Commission..It is how one undertakes that Commission that makes all the difference. It would be my pleasure to expound on the subject with you in private...if you are willing. If not...I certainly understand. I've no problem with that..as I've been there...in a manner of speaking.
You must realize...that much of your rebuttal and original arguments have a distinct Democrat flavor to them. And thusly I can understand your debating stance/style better. and your attraction to Arnold...As I think you've mentioned...he's appealing to many Democrats. You know..many Dems in both Houses "call" themselves "Progressives"...and "Moderates"...and "Conservatives" too. When in "fact", and in "action" they are anything but.......And it most certainly happens on the "Grey" side of the aisle too.
Fwiw-
I wasn't mocking you. I was just trying to place it in the context of your post. There was a touch of humor, but it was intended as good natured.
What I deem to be "dangerous"...I'm fairly sure, ( based upon what you've previously wrote...) you wouldn't. It might be just the proverbial "slippery slope" of incrementalism...that I fear. You know once you've crossed the Rubicon...it's real hard to go back.
Well, this is very interesting indeed.
We seem to be making the same argument here, but approaching it from opposite sides.
My contention is that we've already crossed the threshhold, and we as a society cannot and will not go back.
Trying to turn back the clock on these things only drives you further out on a limb, and drives the bulk of society away.
I also don't think there is any such "Rubicon".
100 years ago the Suffrage movement was viewed as a "Rubicon" by the socially conservative.
Societal change is an ever advancing march.
There may be milestones along the way, but there is no great "Rubicon".
Now despite what you may be thinking, I am a reasonable person. I understand you fear that all hell may just break loose at any moment, and I feel it too at times.
But what I'm saying is you are fighting against something that you cannot stop. You are fighting against the very march of history.
I am simply advocating that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular let some of these issues go, at least for now, and concentrate on what we *can* change. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot over some politician's position on abortion when we all know damn well it doesn't matter what he thinks personally, he has no power over the issue and it is not going to change at this point.
It's like Republicans keep losing elections over this red herring issue but the conservatives don't care because they are going down as martyrs!
Of course I don't "know" you well enough to label you a socialist yet. :O) But from a purely anecdotal perspective..it wouldn't be intellectually honest of me...to say that you didn't certainly have some characteristics of one. Nothing personal...just a incomplete observation...at this point.
Well, lets get something straight. Socialism is an economic system that consists of partial or total wealth redistribution through a large bureaucratic apparatus.
It is Communism-lite, both of which being the epitome of Big Government. Your take on me seems to put me leaning much more in the direction of an anarchist. Anarchists believe in NO government. Communists and Anarchists are polar opposites. I of course consider myself pretty mainstream in my social views in reality, though. Perhaps slightly more libertarian than some, but that's it.
As far as demanding that we just accept certain behavior, just accept irresponsibility....I will never do that. I think your position is wrong, and ultimately very dangerous.
Just which behavior specifically?
Premarital sex? Shooting up smack? Playing video games and watching TV?
It would probably aid the discussion greatly to approach the individual issues that we see as central.
It would be my pleasure to expound on the subject with you in private...if you are willing. If not...I certainly understand.
It is a tempting offer, though I must warn you, I am set in my beliefs and they will not change. That much I can assure you.
And I should also warn you, I have studied world religions and universal symbolism quite extensively. This includes things like esoteric interpritation such as the Kabbalah, suffism, and Hermetica.
My approach is completely opposite from yours, and I don't think we are compatable for such a discussion.
I look at the larger evolutions of belief systems, how the beliefs came to enter the culture, and what was the benefit to the culture by introducing it. Things like that.
I would just end up telling you that that you have a political revolt against the Babylonians to ultimately thank for monotheism and you have the Zoroastrians to thank for Satan, Heaven, and Hell. I would also probably tell you that you are mispronoucing YHWH.
It would only frustrate you, I'm sure.