[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Here are some observations I have made over the last several months and years, about the left. While they have valid ideas and policy wants the logic and reasoning use to promote the ideas lacks intellectual honesty.

Note that while I may be outspoken left-wing, I'm doing it from a European perspective, which is different from an American one. Also, I think Kerry isn't all that leftwing by my standards, but he's the closest candidate with an actual winning chance to the left there is. If I was an American, and depending on the political "colour" of the state overall, I'd prefer a different candidate.

1)We've all heard and read many times on this board, and in political conversations with others in RL, the fear/complants/yeah verely loathing of President Bush being an Evangelical Christian. (This board is full of threads suporting my statement) Yet, nairy a peep has been uttered by the same folks over John Kerry's quoting Bible verses in the debates, something I don't believe anyone will find President Bush has done. John Kerry quoted Bible verses, that if President Bush had quoted, he (President Bush) would have been accused of being a Bible thumper and trying to MAKE everybody follow his religious views. There is a discontect here in the logic, during this campaign, and the as far back as I can remember Democratic canidates have spoken in churches, John Kerry is doing it today, during church services. Not speaches about religious subjects but political speaches about political subjects. Where is the seperation of church and state for those on the left?

I'm completely atheist myself (I don't even feel the need to force those "beliefs" on anyone, and actually strongly reject the term "atheist" in itself, as it implies that not believing in a God actually merits a seperate word), though I will admit I feel uncomfortable when some of the more extreme and politically controversial issues are being discussed with a strong undertone of religion instead of a more rational approach (gay marriage, abortion, you name it). I couldn't really care less if candidates use a religious template for their overall, more "mainstream" policies though. To illustrate this, our own prime minister is an outspoken Christian - and while he may have certain thoughts regarding abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, drug laws etc, he realises a clear majority disagrees with his sentiments, and in result he doesn't flaunder with those beliefs and mostly uses the Christian schtick to preach compassion and trying to instill better norms and values in general. I feel that this is the best way to deal with religion anno 2004, but obviously, the situation in the US is wholly different from that in The Netherlands. The closest thing we've got to hardcore Christian conservatives is a political movement called the SGP, and they've got 2, sometimes 3 seats out of a potential 150, tops.
I realise there's a substantial part of the US's citizens who cherishes the comfort of religion and the traditional longing for a status quo that comes with it, and that's the obviously main reason politicians are so public about their religious beliefs over there during campaigns - as there are enough people who actually care about a candidate's religious beliefs. Many of them will be drawn to Bush for his background and flamboyant dweeping with God, so John Kerry is mostly trying to fight Bush at his own game with his Bible quoting et all (while I don't directly doubt his Catholic beliefs, I do believe there's a certain level of opportunism involved in his attitude regarding this - at least with Bush, I don't get the feeling it's as much of a calculated move as that it is genuine). I have to admit I can't really recall that many instances of Kerry actually mentioning his faith (the only time I can recall is when he mentioned his Catholic beliefs to discuss his stance on abortions), but it's basically part of the entire political game that's being played. I'm certainly an advocate of secularism, but unfortunately, it seems it's simply impossible in the US to leave religion out of the election campaigns or someone's actual policies or general attitude.
So do I worry if Kerry quotes from the Bible? Not really - in a true utopia, quoting from the Bible should be no different than quoting from any other source that operates as a moral compass, whether it's Confucius or an X-Men comic. Do I worry if Bush does the same thing? Again, no. What if Kerry wants to reshape a certain aspect of the nation in a controversial and archaiic Catholic image? I bloody well hope that the Democratic Party will keep him in check if that ever occurs. And let's not even touch that question with a ten feet pole in a Bush situation...
Either way, if the candidates keep their religious beliefs subtle and for the largest part isolated from their future policies in a non-forceful manner (especially on controversial issues), you won't hear a thing from me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

2)We've all heard and read about how the Republicans use dirty tricks to disrupt the opponets political meetings and campaigns, yet not a peep out of the left when several Bush campaign headquarters has been vandlized. Last friday Ann Coulter had pies thrown at her during a speach she was giving, people may not like what she says, that is fine, but to disprupt a speach is childish no matter if you agree with the speaker or not. Anybody that would knowing go to an opponets speach with the INTENT to disrupt it deserves what they get. There has been said and a belief professed that the right are a bunch of hate-mungers and dangerous gun-totters (just take the time to listen to many of those outspoken people on the left), yet during the Impeachment hearings of President Clinton activists(sp?) on the left called for the killing, shooting, and stoning of the families of politicans on the right. Oh the activists later came out and said they were joking, but anybody that is intellectualy honest knows that if the same type or simular things had been said by somebody on the right even with a "poop-eat'n grin" on their, there is noway the left would have allowed them to say they were just joking. If there is any doubt to this fact just look at Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, 90% of what either of them say is tounge-in-cheek, designed to make people think and look at their views.

Erm... I suppose this bit could have easily been said by a disgruntled liberal, with the arguments reversed, of course. If anything, the finger-pointing is a bit childish (hey, ever actually listened to the words coming out of Ann Coulter's mouth, when it isn't covered with pieces of pie? She could have been a liberal by your definition, bar the fact that she slanders them at every possible opportunity, of course ). Really John, this is the kind of ranting that could damage one's credibility, how sound the rest of one's argument may be.

4)There has been lots of blaiming from the left of President Bush for Enron, and Companies that through the leadership of the companies have caused the companies to fail/or illegal activities to transpire(sp?) Even though the companies are located hundreds if not thousands of miles away form where president Bush is at, and there is zero evidence that President Bush had any contact or meetings of sufficant length to be able to discuss any conspiracy with the company board members. Yet where is the cry from the left when there is evidence that a democratic adminstration actively took part in paving the way for Enron to do business in India? A busines adventure that the facts have show lead to, or at the very least was a major contributing factor the the colapse of Enron.

I never really followed the Enron circus, though I do feel that any judging of this case is the kind of thing that should transcend party affiliations - if people can be pointed out to be directly involved in all this, they deserve to be blamed; whether they're Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Oompa Loompas, or whatever.

Maybe I'll answer your other points later on, but really, for all of your efforts, I haven't seen anything in your post so far that actually appeals to my own attitude towards these subjects. Of course, I don't really fit your definition of a "lefty" either, I suppose...

[ 10-24-2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]