Describe your politics, a/theism, and interrelations between the two topics here

[rcronk]

I recently started a poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106438) here at JREF about politics and god-related non/beliefs and based on the posts in that thread, people felt the categories were too limited and didn’t represent their positions. I therefore am starting a new thread that will allow people to express their positions exactly.

I'd like you to somewhat briefly express your political leanings and then express your god-related non/beliefs. Then if you have found within yourself a correlation or influence between these two areas, express that connection or influence or express that there is none.

I'll start. Remember, this isn't a debate thread; it's a place for people to express their positions on these topics so we can all understand each other better. I want to learn more about how these two areas affect each other (or not) and I need to look outside myself for this learning. Thanks in advance for participating and helping us to understand each other better. I've been here for a while and have seen and been involved in arguments for and against many of my beliefs described below and I thank the people of this forum for helping me to see things from a different perspective. I have grown as a person through our discourse which is why I want more discourse.

----

Politics: I'm a (social and fiscal) conservative free market capitalist (maybe leaning a little libertarian). I believe government should provide for national defense, basic infrastructure (roads, police, fire protection, etc.), and protect people's freedoms (speech, assembly, property ownership, etc.) from being infringed upon by other people or by the government itself. I believe people should have the right to succeed or fail based on their choices rather than having a government bail them out. This allows people to learn to be self sufficient and learn what works and what doesn't. It also allows people to be motivated toward the most efficient use of their time (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609) and efforts. I think that forced wealth redistribution is not only immoral, but it disincentivizes behavior that works by motivating the "giver" to be more selfish and resentful and the receiver doesn't feel as much motivation to work hard if they can since it’s just a free check from the government. If it were their neighbor who was voluntarily, out of love and concern for them, helping them out when they were down (and I've seen a lot of this from both sides and it works very well), they would return the favor by working hard to become independent and less of a burden upon this person who has voluntarily sacrificed for them.

a/theism: Theist Christian. I'm a Mormon (http://www.mormon.org). I believe we are all children of God who came to earth out of necessity as part of our eternal progression. I believe that an important part of this plan is to have doubts about God so that I will do what I want to do instead of what God wants me to do – like children behaving when their parents are around, but doing what they want to do when the parents are not around. I think God lets us fail and succeed and thereby we can learn what works (good, right, etc.) and what doesn't (wrong, evil, etc.). I was raised Mormon, then became a weak atheist/agnostic (if that's the right term) for about 6 years and after some life changing events, I investigated and visited many religious groups before returning to Mormonism.

Correlations: I think my beliefs about God affect the way I look at politics. I tend to trust in God, church, charities, and family and therefore I don't feel as much of a need to depend upon the government for my needs. I have noticed that when I do things for my kids, they become weak in that area, but when I teach them to do things for themselves, they become strong and stand on their own, which is one of my main goals of child-rearing. I think this way of thinking matches how I think God deals with me and how it works in my family, and how I think it should work with government. I also believe in free will and that free will was given to me by God. I believe that the more power and choice I give to government, the less free will and choice I have.

[Darat]

No religious leanings and politically I am a pragmatist so I consider policies based on the stated goals of those policies i.e. decide if they are good or bad or neutral based on what the stated goals are and whether I believe the results are likely to be as planned.

[Darth Rotor]

I'd like you to somewhat briefly express your political leanings and then express your god-related non/beliefs. Then if you have found within yourself a correlation or influence between these two areas, express that connection or influence or express that there is none.

Politics. I vote.

Religion. I go to church.

I don't mix the two.

What's your angle here? Why do you demand that politics and religion be mixed? Do you hate the Constitution?
I'll start. Remember, this isn't a debate thread; it's a place for people to express their positions on these topics so we can all understand each other better.
I bought Playboy for the articles when I was a teenager.

DR

[rcronk]

No religious leanings and politically I am a pragmatist so I consider policies based on the stated goals of those policies i.e. decide if they are good or bad or neutral based on what the stated goals are and whether I believe the results are likely to be as planned.

Thanks for your post. Does "no religious leanings" mean "atheist" or "agnostic" or what? Do you look at historical outcomes of similar policies to compare outcomes to stated goals? I only mention that because I've seen a lot of stated goals turn out 180 degrees from the outcomes.

Politics. I vote.

Religion. I go to church.

I don't mix the two.

What's you angle here? Why do you demand that politics and religion be mixed? Do you hate the Constitution?

Thanks for your post. I'm not demanding a correlation and I'm not talking as much about religion as beliefs in god or not. If you see no correlation in your life between politics and a/theism, that's fine. I see a correlation in my life and I'm wondering what other people see in theirs, that's all. And, no, I don't hate the U.S. Constitution - I like it a lot actually. It states that congress shall make no law establishing or denying the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say anything about people's beliefs not being able to affect how they vote.

[Darat]

Thanks for your post. Does "no religious leanings" mean "atheist" or "agnostic" or what? Do you look at historical outcomes of similar policies to compare outcomes to stated goals? I only mention that because I've seen a lot of stated goals turn out 180 degrees from the outcomes.

...snip...

Hopefully I won't sound snide but "no religious leanings" means exactly what it says! I.e. I subscribe to no religious belief. (ETA) Which means that there can be no correlation between my religious beliefs and my views on policies.


And yes I will look at the past if it's applicable to a particular policy I am interested in.

[Sapien]

I am a complete nonbeliever, a total Atheist.

I am also Libertarian leaning (e.g. small government, limited taxation, personal liberty) Government should work for the people, hold individual rights and liberties paramount, stay out of our homes, bedrooms and relationships and should not create behemoth programs that give people womb to tomb protection from every ailment, calamity or circumstance. Fixing every woe and need of the citizens is not government's priority or purpose in a free society. The pursuit of happiness, no matter what form it takes, as long as it does not interfere with another person's liberty, is not government's province or purview.

[rcronk]

Hopefully I won't sound snide but "no religious leanings" means exactly what it says! I.e. I subscribe to no religious belief. And yes I will look at the past if it's applicable to a particular policy I am interested in.

So that would be atheism, right? Do you believe God exists? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, that's all. This thread isn't only for theists - I actually would like more responses from atheists than theists anyway.

ETA: I tweaked a thing or two in the OP to make it more clear that I'm not looking for religious leanings, but for non/belief regarding God.

[rcronk]

I am a complete nonbeliever, a total Atheist.

I am also Libertarian leaning (e.g. small government, limited taxation, personal liberty) Government should work for the people, hold individual rights and liberties paramount, stay out of our homes, bedrooms and relationships and should not create behemoth programs that give people womb to tomb protection from every ailment, calamity or circumstance. Fixing every woe and need of the citizens is not government's priority or purpose in a free society. The pursuit of happiness, no matter what form it takes, as long as it does not interfere with another person's liberty, is not government's province or purview.

You've listed a few things I also believe in with regard to politics but that I forgot to list. Thank you.

[Darat]

So that would be atheism, right? Do you believe God exists? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, that's all. This thread isn't only for theists - I actually would like more responses from atheists than theists anyway.

ETA: I tweaked a thing or two in the OP to make it more clear that I'm not looking for religious leanings, but for non/belief regarding God.

Well I perhaps believe in one less god than you do so does that make me an atheist for your definition? (Despite you presumably also being an atheist about many of the thousands of different gods people say or have said they believe in?)

[rcronk]

Well I perhaps believe in one less god than you do so does that make me an atheist for your definition? (Despite you presumably also being an atheist about many of the thousands of different gods people say or have said they believe in?)

Got it. I now understand your position. That was harder than it needed to be. Having similar word definitions is important for effective communication.

To prevent future misunderstanding, please know that my understanding of the word "atheist" matches the common usage of the English term as found in the following dictionaries. If your internal definition doesn't match these, please be more explicit to avoid confusion:

Merriam Webster: "one who believes that there is no deity." Random House: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." American Heritage: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." Online Etymology dictionary: "atheist 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god""

[Darat]

Got it. I now understand your position. That was harder than it needed to be. Having similar word definitions is important for effective communication.

To prevent future misunderstanding, please know that my understanding of the word "atheist" matches the common usage of the English term as found in the following dictionaries. If your internal definition doesn't match these, please be more explicit to avoid confusion:

Merriam Webster: "one who believes that there is no deity." Random House: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." American Heritage: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." Online Etymology dictionary: "atheist 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god""


Ah well then I'm not an atheist as I don't believe there is no "deity".

[rcronk]

Ah well then I'm not an atheist as I don't believe there is no "deity".

You just "don't have belief in a deity" rather than "believing that there is no diety", right? I've always been confused by this stance since that sounds more like just not knowing or caring whether there is a god, which I thought had more to do with agnosticism (definitions below) than atheism.

In any case, I think I get where you're coming from. Thanks.

Random House: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." American Heritage: "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." or "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." Word history from American Heritage: "Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals—"ists," as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."

[Darat]

You just "don't have belief in a deity" rather than "believing that there is no diety", right? I've always been confused by this stance since that sounds more like just not knowing or caring whether there is a god, which I thought had more to do with agnosticism (definitions below) than atheism.

In any case, I think I get where you're coming from. Thanks.

...snip...

Nope not an agnostic, but I'm glad to see you using the term correctly (well in IMO of course) - many people here keep thinking it is about a position in regards the existence or not of a god rather than a position regarding the knowledge of a god (or not).

[HereticHulk]

Paultard and Deist:cool:

[rcronk]

Nope not an agnostic, but I'm glad to see you using the term correctly (well in IMO of course) - many people here keep thinking it is about a position in regards the existence or not of a god rather than a position regarding the knowledge of a god (or not).

Hmm. Well, I'm glad I'm getting the definitions right. I think this is relevant to this thread since hopefully a large part of this thread can be about understanding each other better.

So, just to be completely clear, since you don't seem to match either "atheist" or "agnostic" by the common usage definitions, could you be explicit and direct about your position? Would the statement "you don't have a belief in any deity" be correct? If so, and that's neither atheist nor agnostic, then is there a word for that?

[Undesired Walrus]

rcronk, just out of interest, do you believe native americans were actually..er.. white people? Because I would have thought that would have a profound impact on your politics. Politics is after all, supposed to be based on reason.

But as you ask, I am an Atheist, and my lack of faith somewhat influences my political views (A strong belief in society), so I do have admiration for those who keep their religion away from the political arena.

P.S, I think Darat is probably a bit like Michael Shermer, who describes himself as a non-theist.

[rcronk]

Paultard and Deist:cool:

Paultard = supporter of Ron Paul?
Which deity do you believe in?

By the way, by deist, do you mean:

"There are two prominent views of God’s creation of the cosmos. First, Deism is the belief that God set up the universe, set it in motion, and left it at that. God is an observer, so to speak, Who does not take an active role in the universe He created. The other view is Theism. Theism is the belief that God set up the cosmos as He did in Deism, but maintains an active role in it. God actively intervenes in the lives that He created, in ways that He deems necessary."

[rcronk]

rcronk, just out of interest, do you believe native americans were actually..er.. white people? Because I would have thought that would have a profound impact on your politics. Politics is after all, supposed to be based on reason.

But as you ask, I am an Atheist, and my lack of faith somewhat influences my political views (A strong belief in society), so I do have admiration for those who keep their religion away from the political arena.

I don't have a belief with regard to the ancestry of the Native American people. I suppose you're referring to the introduction to the Book of Mormon written in 1981 and changed in the past year or so? There were many Native American ancestors that came from Asia, etc. as well as the few from the middle east who were discussed in the Book of Mormon. If you're really interested in this topic, you can search for DNA at www.fairlds.org (http://www.fairlds.org).

Atheist = you don't believe in any deity? Thanks for your direct and simple post with regard to your politics and positions. I appreciate it.

[Darat]

Hmm. Well, I'm glad I'm getting the definitions right. I think this is relevant to this thread since hopefully a large part of this thread can be about understanding each other better.

So, just to be completely clear, since you don't seem to match either "atheist" or "agnostic" by the common usage definitions, could you be explicit and direct about your position? Would the statement "you don't have a belief in any deity" be correct? If so, and that's neither atheist nor agnostic, then is there a word for that?

What would be more correct for my position is something along the lines of "There is either no evidence for any of the gods I've heard people define or there is evidence that directly contradicts the definition."

The reason I've been labouring this a bit is that I think your approach of wanting to define people's lack of beliefs by a simple label is the wrong approach if you really want to explore how peoples' lack of belief in something relates to their political stance.

[NewtonTrino]

Politics: I'm a (social and fiscal) conservative free market capitalist (maybe leaning a little libertarian). I believe government should provide for national defense, basic infrastructure (roads, police, fire protection, etc.), and protect people's freedoms (speech, assembly, property ownership, etc.) from being infringed upon by other people or by the government itself. I believe people should have the right to succeed or fail based on their choices rather than having a government bail them out. This allows people to learn to be self sufficient and learn what works and what doesn't. It also allows people to be motivated toward the most efficient use of their time (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609) and efforts. I think that forced wealth redistribution is not only immoral, but it disincentivizes behavior that works by motivating the "giver" to be more selfish and resentful and the receiver doesn't feel as much motivation to work hard if they can since it’s just a free check from the government. If it were their neighbor who was voluntarily, out of love and concern for them, helping them out when they were down (and I've seen a lot of this from both sides and it works very well), they would return the favor by working hard to become independent and less of a burden upon this person who has voluntarily sacrificed for them.



I'm on board with your politics although I want to make it clear that personal freedom is the highest ideal so I support complete legalization of drugs, porn etc.

As for as religion goes I'm an anti-theist (and an atheist which makes sense but isn't necessarily implied).

[rcronk]

What would be more correct for my position is something along the lines of "There is either no evidence for any of the gods I've heard people define or there is evidence that directly contradicts the definition."

The reason I've been labouring this a bit is that I think your approach of wanting to define people's lack of beliefs by a simple label is the wrong approach if you really want to explore how peoples' lack of belief in something relates to their political stance.

Actually, I want to know how Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Vaishnava (my brother-in-law is Vaishnava), Muslims, etc. and their particular beliefs interact with their politics. It's not necessarily about theism vs. atheism though the title infers that. Sorry, I just didn't know how to make the thread title short enough to not be too annoying but to get people here to check it out and post.

I'm on board with your politics although I want to make it clear that personal freedom is the highest ideal so I support complete legalization of drugs, porn etc.

As for as religion goes I'm an anti-theist (and an atheist which makes sense but isn't necessarily implied).

So you believe there is no God and therefore you actively oppose theism? I understand the drugs, etc. and I'm a bit fuzzy on that since someone high on drugs or porn could be more likely to molest my kids, steal my stuff, be a burden on the economy, etc. I work in addiction recovery programs that include substance and pornography addiction. Like I said, I'm still unsure on that whole area. Thanks for posting directly and simply.

[Sapien]

As for as religion goes I'm an anti-theist (and an atheist which makes sense but isn't necessarily implied).


Mee too. As the years have passed and I have witnessed and learned more about thinking and actions of believers, I have become less and less a passive non-believer and more anti-religious. I am by no means militant but I am much more vocal about how profoundly wrong I think fundamentalist actions have become.

[rcronk]

Mee too. As the years have passed and I have witnessed and learned more about thinking and actions of believers, I have become less and less a passive non-believer and more anti-religious. I am by no means militant but I am much more vocal about how profoundly wrong I think fundamentalist actions have become.

I think many things that people do in the name of God or their religion are reprehensible. I don't throw theism as a whole under the bus because of some broken people's actions though. I'm sure there are atheists who do reprehensible things too but I don't group them with all atheists either. I think to do so would be resorting to an association fallacy. What have you both thought about this? I hope not to derail too much, I'm just interested in your thoughts while we wait for others to post their political etc. leanings.

[HereticHulk]

Paultard = supporter of Ron Paul?
Which deity do you believe in?

By the way, by deist, do you mean:

"There are two prominent views of God’s creation of the cosmos. First, Deism is the belief that God set up the universe, set it in motion, and left it at that. God is an observer, so to speak, Who does not take an active role in the universe He created. The other view is Theism. Theism is the belief that God set up the cosmos as He did in Deism, but maintains an active role in it. God actively intervenes in the lives that He created, in ways that He deems necessary."

Yes.

We cannot know and do not know...yet. Deity is a man made term. What/Whom ever is behind the 'clock' is nothing that we could ever fully comprehend.

The former.

[Sapien]

I think many things that people do in the name of God or their religion are reprehensible. I don't throw theism as a whole under the bus because of some broken people's actions though. I'm sure there are atheists who do reprehensible things too but I don't group them with all atheists either. I think to do so would be resorting to an association fallacy. What have you both thought about this? I hope not to derail too much, I'm just interested in your thoughts while we wait for others to post their political etc. leanings.

To me, the danger of belief and unreasoned tolerance can no longer be considered totally benign even among believers that are not militant. For as long as I can remember we seem to give religions a pass in our discourse about the veracity of religious claims. If a republican makes a claim about a particular economic or foreign policy action, we ask for evidence or logic to support the claim. If a scientist claims to have discovered cold fusion, we ask for evidence. Scientists do not generally ask us to accept their claims on faith and in general they do not expect people to legislate or go to war on the basis of their beliefs. Scientists, Democrats and Republicans sometimes do make claims with little to no evidence, but they do not fly planes into the buildings of people that disagree with them.

I keep hearing that there are non-violent, moderate Muslims. I think that is true, but why aren't they speaking up? Tolerance? In the name of tolerance, even the dialog of the Catholic Church has become intolerantly tolerant. Remember a couple of years ago when the Danish newspaper published the cartoons depicting Mohamed? When Muslims all over Europe started setting fire to embassies and even killing people, the Pope issued a statement condemning the newspaper for it's lack of tolerance instead of condemning the religious arsonists and murderers.

Sam Harris pointed out that the Catholic Church is teaching abstinence as the sole form of birth control and condemning the use of condoms as a sin to villagers in Africa in an area where millions are dying of aids. So here is this seemingly naive belief about what god thinks people should do in their bedrooms or huts that has consequences which cost human life. Further, to bring politics into the picture and add insult to injury, the Catholic Church gets money from the US Government to support their "Faith-Based initiative". This means they are using money I earned to propagate a religious idea that I find abhorrent and is costing people their lives.

I think the time is long overdue for us to subject discussions about religious ideas to the same rigor of discourse we regularly apply to politics and science.

So yes, I am Anti-Religious or Anti-Theistic in the same way that I am against Communism or Fascism or Totalitarianism.

Of course there are good religious people (My Mother is one), but it is not the people I am against. It is the ideas.

[NewtonTrino]

Yes, I actively try to convert theists and I think theism is "bad". I do subscribe to the meme theory so I don't necessarily think people are weak willed, I think that mind viruses can be extremely virulent.

Keep in mind that part of my background is that my father was and still is involved in a cult like business. While not being a religion it is certainly a type of meme. Parents who were raised in the meme tradition by their parents, raise their children and the cycle continues. Some people break out but the ideas they are exposed to innoculate them against rational thought completely in some cases.

Mormonism is a good example. The fundamentals of the religion (golden plates, funky genetic history etc) are really crackpot. However, most of the mormons that I know (and I know a lot) are extremely nice warm people. So in this case the meme is strong at replication but doesn't seem to be causing an insane amount of harm (still harm but relatively weak compared to something like Islam). These thought systems evolved (and in some cases were designed) to sneak around peoples natural defenses and propagate themselves (e.g. they are replicators). This should be pointed out and actively fought IMHO. This makes me an anti-theist.


So you believe there is no God and therefore you actively oppose theism? I understand the drugs, etc. and I'm a bit fuzzy on that since someone high on drugs or porn could be more likely to molest my kids, steal my stuff, be a burden on the economy, etc. I work in addiction recovery programs that include substance and pornography addiction. Like I said, I'm still unsure on that whole area. Thanks for posting directly and simply.


If they DO molest or steal then punish them. However, killing yourself or doing drugs doesn't harm other people in and of itself so personal liberty applies. Being a burden on society is a strawman because not every economic system has to be setup in this way (e.g. I don't support public welfare etc anyway). I have no issue with private charity, but that's voluntary so there is no way they are burden on society. Maybe they aren't actively pitching in but it's arguable whether that's a bad thing (e.g. is economic growth the only thing life is about?).

Food for thought?

[Kopji]

I'd like you to somewhat briefly express your political leanings and then express your god-related non/beliefs. Then if you have found within yourself a correlation or influence between these two areas, express that connection or influence or express that there is none.

Humm, I dunno. Ok, this thread has been tugging at me for a couple days now. Time to be rid of it.

My religious upbringing taught that God's kingdom would someday exist on Earth in much a Utopian sense. It was always the 'spiritual' that was important and not the 'political'.

Having concluded that everything I'd ever been taught about God and religion was pretty much untrue, I really did not have much direction on how I should view politics without them to guide.

On some topics I might be called a 'Bohemian'. I may not agree with someone, but understand the value of having people around who disagree with me. 'Happiness' should be largely up to us as individuals to discover, but the 'life and liberty' allows plenty of opportunity for political activity.

I think that instead of being a great evil menace, corporations and their cultures can be a huge influence for positive change in the world. I view social entrepreneurs like Anoushea Ansari as the secular visionaries for change. Obama might also be classified as this kind of 'entrepreneurial' person. Not wrong or right, just coolly visionary. Do they make good politicians? Heck I have no idea.

http://www.anoushehansari.com/


But part of my post-religious legacy is that I am not a very good follower. When you reject all the false gods and prophets, politics tends to look false too. I admit my human flaws and try to move on.

I adhere to the social science and philosophy of Karl Popper more than others: we attempt to solve the problems at hand in a pragmatic way, without being dogmatic about it or thinking too far ahead. We recognize we might be wrong.

Mix Karl Popper in with some Lao Tzu and Edward Abbey, and that's about where I end up. "Resist much, obey little" - Whitman

:D

[Damien Evans]

Apatheist and Liberal. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I keep hearing that there are non-violent, moderate Muslims. I think that is true, but why aren't they speaking up? Tolerance? In the name of tolerance, even the dialog of the Catholic Church has become intolerantly tolerant. Remember a couple of years ago when the Danish newspaper published the cartoons depicting Mohamed? When Muslims all over Europe started setting fire to embassies and even killing people, the Pope issued a statement condemning the newspaper for it's lack of tolerance instead of condemning the religious arsonists and murderers.

Just for the record, I'm not aware of any embassy burnings in Europe. In Syria and Lebanon, yes, but that's another matter entirely. In Europe, the worst we got were strongly worded signs at protest marches, and attempts to go after the newspaper through the legal system.

[Sapien]

Just for the record, I'm not aware of any embassy burnings in Europe. In Syria and Lebanon, yes, but that's another matter entirely. In Europe, the worst we got were strongly worded signs at protest marches, and attempts to go after the newspaper through the legal system.

I stand corrected. The violence was mostly centered around Danish and Norwegian embassies in the middle east.

[Bikewer]

I'm Atheist, and mostly rather liberal (using the contemporary sense of the word...) Since few if any politicians express atheism, I only get concerned about religion/politics when the line of "separation" starts to get crossed, or when religious agendas start to inform public policy.

As in the constant attacks on teaching evolution in public schools.

I admit that I find myself wondering if libertarians are living in the same universe as the rest of us. The idea that without some sort of oversight everyone would settle down into a happy, egalitarian community where The Private Sector handles everything efficiently and cheaply....Absurd.

I fear that we humans are, as a result of our nature and heritage, in need of leadership and oversight for the most part. Lack of oversight results in abuse, on whatever level you care to talk about.

[Sapien]

I'm Atheist, and mostly rather liberal (using the contemporary sense of the word...) Since few if any politicians express atheism, I only get concerned about religion/politics when the line of "separation" starts to get crossed, or when religious agendas start to inform public policy.

As in the constant attacks on teaching evolution in public schools.

I admit that I find myself wondering if libertarians are living in the same universe as the rest of us. The idea that without some sort of oversight everyone would settle down into a happy, egalitarian community where The Private Sector handles everything efficiently and cheaply....Absurd.

I fear that we humans are, as a result of our nature and heritage, in need of leadership and oversight for the most part. Lack of oversight results in abuse, on whatever level you care to talk about.

You may be right that the Private Sector can't handle everything. However, I find the idea that government can handle everything efficiently and cheaply equally absurd. Assuming for a moment that there is some validity to each of our points, then isn't the question more about where the appropriate dividing line is? What system does the greatest good for the greatest number while still preserving individual liberty?

[Darth Rotor]

But part of my post-religious legacy is that I am not a very good follower. When you reject all the false gods and prophets, politics tends to look false too. I admit my human flaws and try to move on.

Well said. Why trade one cult of personality for another?

"Only you can set you free."

Good song lyric, and pithily canny as a comment on political movements, leaders, and parties.

DR

[rcronk]

For as long as I can remember we seem to give religions a pass in our discourse about the veracity of religious claims.

We give a lot of things a pass that aren't religion. String theory. Abiogenesis. Whether or not you love your children. Should we disallow things that currently cannot be proved or disproved?

Mormonism is a good example. The fundamentals of the religion (golden plates, funky genetic history etc) are really crackpot. However, most of the mormons that I know (and I know a lot) are extremely nice warm people. So in this case the meme is strong at replication but doesn't seem to be causing an insane amount of harm (still harm but relatively weak compared to something like Islam). These thought systems evolved (and in some cases were designed) to sneak around peoples natural defenses and propagate themselves (e.g. they are replicators). This should be pointed out and actively fought IMHO. This makes me an anti-theist.

I appreciate that you recognize that the Mormons you know are "extremely nice warm people" - I don't hear that often, thanks. I do, however, think you are misunderstanding what the fundamentals of Mormonism are. It appears that you are assuming that Mormonism is false and that the only way it could spread is through meme replication. I disagree with you (of course) but I don't want to derail this thread. If you want to discuss it further, PM me.

If they DO molest or steal then punish them. However, killing yourself or doing drugs doesn't harm other people in and of itself so personal liberty applies. Being a burden on society is a strawman because not every economic system has to be setup in this way (e.g. I don't support public welfare etc anyway). I have no issue with private charity, but that's voluntary so there is no way they are burden on society. Maybe they aren't actively pitching in but it's arguable whether that's a bad thing (e.g. is economic growth the only thing life is about?).

Economic growth is the least controversial reason for banning drugs, etc. Another reason is the human misery caused not only to the users, but to those affected by the users. Alcohol is legal in the U.S. and people who use it kill hundreds of thousands of themselves and other people per year here. The vast majority of domestic violence here involves alcohol or drugs. Perhaps we just don't have things set up correctly here to allow people to have legal access to harmful substances, I don't know. We also have guardrails on canyon roads. I guess it's a bit of a fuzzy line we draw as we decide to put up fences at the top of the cliff or ambulances at the bottom. As I said before, I'm still fuzzy on this one because I strongly believe in personal freedom while at the same time I am faced weekly with the devastation caused by substance and porn abuse among hundreds of people who I consider my friends.

There seems to be a struggle between what society is willing to put up with and personal freedom. We allow people to pick up rocks off the road or even have guns, but we don't allow them to have nuclear or chemical weapons. There's a line there somewhere where personal freedom and societal safety clash. I don't pretend to know where that line is or should be.

Apatheist and Liberal. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Apatheist isn't in my unabridged dictionary. It therefore doesn't have a commonly understood and agreed upon definition. I did find a wikipedia article on it, but for the purpose of clarity, what is your definition of it?

As in the constant attacks on teaching evolution in public schools.

Do you agree with teaching abiogenesis in schools?

[Damien Evans]

Apatheist isn't in my unabridged dictionary. It therefore doesn't have a commonly understood and agreed upon definition. I did find a wikipedia article on it, but for the purpose of clarity, what is your definition of it?

I don't believe in god and i don't care if he/she/it exists or does not exist.

[Bikewer]

Perhaps it's because of my long law-enforcement career, but I see governmental oversight to have the advantage of enforcement.
In a Libertarian society (as I understand it) the only curb on fraud, corruption, price-fixing, and the myriad of other abuses the "private sector" is heir to would be that upon discovery, folks would not do business with them.

At least, with governmental oversight, there is the likelyhood of fines or prison terms for individuals or corporations who engage in these practices.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that once government gets it's hands on something, it tends to veer wildly towards overkill. Thus we have some of the absolutely silly regulations that have been perpetrated by agencies such as OSHA.

At the same time, we must recognize that these regulations did not appear out of nowhere. I think it's fair to say that all these "growth stifling" regulations arose to address severe abuses that came to the attention of government by means of citizen complaint.
I listened to an hour of Grover Norquist on Diane Rehm last year. Norquist is very persuasive and seemed to have an answer for every argument as to how the private sector would handle everything with thrift and efficiency.
At the time, the news was full of little oddments like Enron, and half-a-dozen more examples of large scale abuse and fraud by this same private sector....

Difficult for me to buy into this.

[Nogbad]

Politics - left of centre economically (left of Scottish centre which I suppose is already left by some people's reckoning) and a social liberal. I believe that the State is there for the mutual commonwealth of all but that the State should refrain from dictating on issues of personal faith, sexual inclination etc.

Religion - Strong agnostic. I have no specific quarrel with those who hold religious views and although I do enjoy the debates in the religion and philosophy section I am not necessarily trying to unconvert people - but will question inconsistencies and what I consider the incredible.

I do not consider there to be a strong correlation between my politics and my religious standpoints. If I was very Christian I might have a view on sexuality (but maybe not) - but I am not so I don't. As a rule, in Scotland, Fabianism and Socialism are intertwined and it is not unusual to have people of faith on the left. Indeed some of the most confirmed atheists I know are of the right politically and some of the most committed Christians are Socialists. Hard nosed Capitalism can be very hard indeed in my experience.

[NeoRicen]

I'm an Atheist/Agnostic (I don't really believe in God, especially a theist one, and I can't disprove one as a 'first cause', so I won't).

Politically I'm socially liberal/libertarian. I'm for gay marriage, support abortion rights (not late-term though) and support freedom of religion/speech etc. etc.

Economically I'm a centrist (see Third Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29)). I believe Government should exist and be democratically elected. I support markets, but believe they are prone to hiccups and failures and an elected body that represents the people (Government) should act as an overseer but not intervene unless necessary. I believe they should be responsible for defense, infrastructure and the protection of liberty. I also believe they should provide opportunity by small wealth distribution through providing services such as Health and Education so anyone can succeed regardless of wealth (I believe complete privatization of these services will lead to aristocracy). That said, the government should not bail people out should they fail, but the opportunity to succeed should at least remain. Also, Government should not restrict private entities from providing these services also on the grounds they adhere to certain standards.


My religion (or lack thereof) doesn't strongly influence my politics (I had the same views when I was Christian). My lack of religion merely means I don't have a reason to oppose some things people of faith do oppose. I do strongly support separation of church and state, and my de-conversion to agnosticism/atheism has probably strengthened this.

[rcronk]

I'm an Atheist/Agnostic (I don't really believe in God, especially a theist one, and I can't disprove one as a 'first cause', so I won't).

Politically I'm socially liberal/libertarian. I'm for gay marriage, support abortion rights (not late-term though) and support freedom of religion/speech etc. etc.

Economically I'm a centrist (see Third Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29)). I believe Government should exist and be democratically elected. I support markets, but believe they are prone to hiccups and failures and an elected body that represents the people (Government) should act as an overseer but not intervene unless necessary. I believe they should be responsible for defense, infrastructure and the protection of liberty. I also believe they should provide opportunity by small wealth distribution through providing services such as Health and Education so anyone can succeed regardless of wealth (I believe complete privatization of these services will lead to aristocracy). That said, the government should not bail people out should they fail, but the opportunity to succeed should at least remain. Also, Government should not restrict private entities from providing these services also on the grounds they adhere to certain standards.


My religion (or lack thereof) doesn't strongly influence my politics (I had the same views when I was Christian). My lack of religion merely means I don't have a reason to oppose some things people of faith do oppose. I do strongly support separation of church and state, and my de-conversion to agnosticism/atheism has probably strengthened this.

Excellent post. This is the type of post I'm looking for. Detailed, sincere, and to the point. I especially like how you have changed from Christian to atheist/agnostic and have been able to see in what ways that has and hasn't affected your political leanings. Thank you for your post.

[Dave31]

I am severely disappointed with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and voters so I've gone Independent. I've gone from theist to atheist to mythicist.

I'm very conservative on spending and budget issues while Liberal on other issues. I think abortion is nobody else's business. And I think Islam should be prevented from having any power here at all. No new Mosques until Saudi Arabia allows churches, synagogues Temples and Freethinker structures.

Have you heard about St. Louis this week with the new minaret

"Huge minaret with loudspeakers rising in St. Louis"

"Islamic Prayer Tower Rises Over South St. Louis City"

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am severely disappointed with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and voters so I've gone Independent. I've gone from theist to atheist to mythicist.

I'm very conservative on spending and budget issues while Liberal on other issues. I think abortion is nobody else's business. And I think Islam should be prevented from having any power here at all. No new Mosques until Saudi Arabia allows churches, synagogues Temples and Freethinker structures.

Have you heard about St. Louis this week with the new minaret

"Huge minaret with loudspeakers rising in St. Louis"

"Islamic Prayer Tower Rises Over South St. Louis City"

... So we should oppress freedom of religion here to stop them from oppressing it over there?

[portlandatheist]

When I was young I was a theist and a liberal. Now that I'm older, I'm an atheist and a moderate/independent.

[rcronk]

When I was young I was a theist and a liberal. Now that I'm older, I'm an atheist and a moderate/independent.

Thanks - do you see any correlations between the religious and political changes you went through?

[portlandatheist]

Thanks - do you see any correlations between the religious and political changes you went through?

It's difficult to say. According to politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org/), there are 2 political dimensions they measure you: Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian of which I'm much more Libertarian than Authoritarian and smack in the middle for Left/Right. But I feel they are missing a 3rd dimension: Idealist/Realist of which I have made the biggest change of becoming much more of a realist/pragmatic and less of an ideologue which I think would correlate more to my religious views or lack thereof. I don't think that becoming an atheist had much of an impact on the other 2 dimensions of my politics and would have happened anyway. As far as social liberties such as abortion, gay marriage, et al, I always have been liberal but its my other views such as foreign policy that counter balances that to put me in the middle.

[Beerina]

Describe your politics, a/theism, and interrelations between the two topics here

Athiesm is to religion as libertarianism is to politics. "Go do whatever the f*** your little angry brain wants, but leave me the hell out of it."

When secularized power grabs removed the competition in religion, to the applause of the masses, it merely transferred the mass's rage from "those guys who don't believe as you do are making God mad, who makes your life miserable" to "those guys who earn more than you do are making God mad, who makes your life miserable."

The conclusion is the same: "Authorize me the power to konk them on the head, and I'll put in a good word with God steal from them and give to you."

They assuage their guilt by redefining it as not-theft because, get this, apparently if you have a large enough mob doing the stealing, you get to define it as not-theft.

Also, the placebo effect looms large as massive regulations and taxation slow development, harming everybody in the long run. But with no control group, who's to know? And that's the key to success in power!

A death in front of the cameras, now, is worth millions of hypothetical deaths due to slowed technology over the next 50 years. But who's to know? Hee hee! :)

[Soapy Sam]

I asked god once. He said he doesn't believe in me.

Politically, I like the trains to run on time, except when I'm running late, and I think the death penalty for anyone who annoys me seems reasonable.
I'll vote for anyone who can deliver, so long as I can do it online while logged onto JREF.
Thanks for the question, that will be $5.00 .
(Did I mention capitalism)?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm an atheist, or perhaps more precisely, a nontheist.

Politically I'm cautiously Libertarian, on the minarchist end: I don't consider anarchism a subset of Libertarianism, the anarchists are, at most, 'fellow travelers' who will oppose us as soon as we are no longer going in the same direction, ie, we are satisfied that the size of government is reasonable and they want to get rid of what's left. My reality check is that I would be quite happy for our government to stop mestastasizing, at this point actually cutting it back seems like a pipe dream.

My politics are shaped by my attitudes on liberty and economics, but I also think Libertarianism is the only political political philosophy that protects my right to be free from religous oppression by valuing everyone's right to make their own choices limited by the nonagression principle against initiating coercion or violence. In my state Libertarians tend to be more religious than most places, but even when they want the 'controversy taught' they want to achieve that by having more freedom to choose their children's schools, not by requiring the state legislature to impose it on public schools.

[christie malry]

Trotskyite revolutionary socialist & atheist.

Socially liberal I spose, in the sense that people's private lives are their own business as long as they're not harming anyone else.

Not really sure it's worth expanding further, I just didn't feel I could vote for 'liberal' in the poll, 'cos I'm not a liberal, politically.

[rcronk]

Trotskyite revolutionary socialist & atheist.

Socially liberal I spose, in the sense that people's private lives are their own business as long as they're not harming anyone else.

Not really sure it's worth expanding further, I just didn't feel I could vote for 'liberal' in the poll, 'cos I'm not a liberal, politically.

Do you see your atheism affecting your socialism or vice versa? Is there any connection there?

[christie malry]

Do you see your atheism affecting your socialism or vice versa? Is there any connection there?

Yes and no. I am an atheist in the usual sense - there is no reason to suppose the existence of a deity, so I don't. However, the structures of organised religion present political economies and social structures of their own which can impact on the attempt to pursue socialist goals.

In the matter of people's personal beliefs I tend to take the pragmatic view that, being as it's a big cold godless universe out there, it doesn't do any harm to believe it isn't if it will help you get through the day.*

In the matter of organisations and institutional beliefs then I tend to look at those institutions and organisations in so far as how much good and harm they do, and since I am ideologically committed to a socialist interpretation of social rights and wrongs, that influences my thoughts on their actions.

But again, just because I am politically a socialist that doesn't define everything about me. I am opposed to the Catholic church's stance on sex education and contraception because of the harm it does to large numbers of people, not particularly because of any effects that it may have on the rights of workers to control the means of production. And ultimately, if I became convinced that socialism was not the best way to organise society, I like to think that I would drop it because I am more concerned with social justice and equal and fair treatment than the absolute necessity for a spectre to haunt Europe. ;)

*That and a slightly more complicated idea about what 'beliefs' in the usual folk-psychological sense actually means, which I won't go into because (a) it's a bit of a derail, and (b) would drag on for longer than I could be bothered to go into and would probably involve me having to go back into my old notes from uni etc which would bore me just as much as anyone, let me assure you. :)

[Yoink]

I'm an Atheist/Agnostic (I don't really believe in God, especially a theist one, and I can't disprove one as a 'first cause', so I won't).

Politically I'm socially liberal/libertarian. I'm for gay marriage, support abortion rights (not late-term though) and support freedom of religion/speech etc. etc.

Economically I'm a centrist (see Third Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29)). I believe Government should exist and be democratically elected. I support markets, but believe they are prone to hiccups and failures and an elected body that represents the people (Government) should act as an overseer but not intervene unless necessary. I believe they should be responsible for defense, infrastructure and the protection of liberty. I also believe they should provide opportunity by small wealth distribution through providing services such as Health and Education so anyone can succeed regardless of wealth (I believe complete privatization of these services will lead to aristocracy). That said, the government should not bail people out should they fail, but the opportunity to succeed should at least remain. Also, Government should not restrict private entities from providing these services also on the grounds they adhere to certain standards.


My religion (or lack thereof) doesn't strongly influence my politics (I had the same views when I was Christian). My lack of religion merely means I don't have a reason to oppose some things people of faith do oppose. I do strongly support separation of church and state, and my de-conversion to agnosticism/atheism has probably strengthened this.

Wow--that sounds a lot like me. Maybe we should form a political party--or a religion!

Actually, the main difference I'd draw would be where you say "government should not bail people out should they fail." I think that's true only to a point (and I suspect you do too). I believe in some form of socialized medicine, for example because I think it is absurd that people can go from being perfectly productive members of society to being destitute simply because of the bad luck of disease or accident. Similarly, I think bankruptcy protections offer far more social benefit in terms of allowing for innovation and entrepreneurship than social cost in terms of allowing people to avoid the bad consequences of assuming risk. Finally, I think it is in the overall best interests of the state to take some steps to mitigate the risk working class and middle class people face from economic disruption; that is, it is good to allow markets to innovate, but one has to recognize that social pain and disruption sometimes follows (shrinking industries leaving communities ravaged by unemployment etc). I oppose attempting to micromanage markets by such measures as trade barriers, tariffs, subsidies and so forth, but I do think it useful for the government to provide unemployment benefits and retraining programs so as to help minimize the economic damage caused by structural economic change.

As to the role of my "agnostic atheism" in all of this (I might note in passing that I think that these words are almost meaningless in common usage and that it's about time to give up on them and come up with some new terms), I would say that it is almost nil. I know committed Christians and Jews and Buddhists whose politics are almost identical to mine.

[Mobyseven]

Eh, I don't really want to get into describing my politics here, because frankly I'm not sure how to class myself, and I don't feel like doing an in depth introspective political analysis right now. As for my atheism...it honestly has zero influence on my political ideas. Honestly.

My skepticism, however, is another matter. My skepticism led me to atheism, it's true, but in the grand scheme of things I could care less whether or not the people I vote for believe in god. If they want to force crazy ideas onto other people, then I'll have something to say about it - whether it's forcing religious beliefs onto others, trying to have creationism taught in schools, or promoting anti-vaccine woo, just to name a few. But it isn't my atheism that makes me think that way - it's my application of skepticism.

[christie malry]

rcronk - I have to ask, since this isn't a discussion topic, what it is you actually want to get out of this? I know you say in the OP that it's to help you get a better understanding and whatnot, but did you have anything firmer in mind?

I answered the other thread 'cos I'm bored, and lurking here has become something of a habit, and obviously I don't have an issue with talking about my politics (although something tells me I've not got many comrades on JREF ;) ) but how do you think it helps you?

[rcronk]

moby7 - Thanks for posting, nice haiku.

christie - When I see groups of people with like ideas, I look for an underlying factor that caused that group to develop. I currently think conservatism in the U.S. comes from an over developed sense of justice, and liberalism in the U.S. (socialism for the rest of the world) comes from an over developed sense of mercy. However, I think there might be ties to belief in God rather than government. For example, if I trust in God, myself, my family, and neighbors, I'm less likely to rely on government for my needs - which I think is healthy and a more safe situation, and more economically efficient (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204821228&sr=1-2). When I don't have God to trust in, family nearby, neighbors that I know and trust, I end up depending upon government more. This explains why there is a higher concentration of U.S. liberals (socialists) in larger cities where they can't plant a garden to support themselves, they don't usually know their neighbors because of overload, etc.

I have always been interested about why U.S. conservatives are usually aligned on a certain set of values while U.S. liberals (socialists) are generally aligned at 180 degrees on those same issues. Gun rights, abortion, socialism and welfare state, etc. What sets up that alignment? It seems like U.S. liberals (socialists) seem to dislike consequences when it comes to choices made that lead to abortion, which removes a consequence of bad choices, and when it comes to not having health insurance, we need to have the government provide it because they made poor choices dealing with education, insurance, etc. Whereas U.S. conservatives tend to be very much focused on making sure people take personal responsibility for their choices, etc. Of course there are situations outside of people's control, like low I.Q. or injury or disability. In these cases, with U.S. liberals, they just fall into the same groups that able people who make poor choices fall into - social welfare. In the U.S. conservative views, they tend to think that those who cannot take care of themselves should be taken care of by their families, friends, charities, etc. U.S. conservatives think that this helps people be more loving and generous by helping of their own free will and choice - I've seen this personally too. I read a study that showed that U.S. conservatives were more charitable personally than U.S. liberals - and that makes sense since conservatives don't rely on government as much to do this for them where U.S. liberals tend to think that the government will take care of the poor for them.

U.S. Conservatives generally think that doing things for people when they could do it for themselves makes them weaker. U.S. Liberals tend to demonize those who want people to take care of each other through charitable giving instead of through forced "sharing" by wealth redistribution. From what I see, (and David Crockett (http://rcronk.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/david-crockett-charity-and-congress/) agrees with me) wealth redistribution also opens up amazing avenues for corruption and vote buying. I think taxes should be collected and redistributed equally across all people.

Some people align through hatred. So if my parents are U.S. conservatives and I hate them, I could hate what they believe and then join with everything opposite to that, which would be U.S. liberalism. I've talked to people on both sides who are aligned through hate alone.

Anyway, that was a bit of a derail, but I'm just trying to understand better why people align in the groups they do to understand them better instead of just thinking anyone different than me is insane or dumb. That's common. It seems that justice and mercy are in a battle and each side thinks the other side is insane. I'd rather understand the other side so I can see things from their perspective. I really don't think most people are crazy or dumb, I think we all just have different perspectives and I want to understand the underpinnings of these differences because I have found that arguing the issues at the surface is fruitless without understanding the roots of those differences. I think dis/belief in God is a factor and I wanted to ask people about that here because I know I can get a good sampling of people on both sides who are perhaps a bit more deep thinking than average.

[thesyntaxera]

Personally, I am agnostic in the sense described earlier in this thread...I don't know, I am curious about it, but it doesn't really have any bearing on my reality.

I do have a sort of set sense of morals based upon "the golden rule" or whatever...I would have to agree with Darat and state pragmatist as well. Generally, things in the political realm are judged based upon the impacts they will likely have. For example, lately I am completely dissatisfied with world politics/economics because of it's effects on the third world, and their attempts to recover from colonialism. I know there are more points of view out there, and more ways to rationalize what is going on, but the bottom line for me is the effect it has....and it's not good.

[Yoink]

rcronk: a small point. US "liberalism" has very little in common with what is called "socialism" in the rest of the world. There are almost no mainstream politicians in the US who advocate positions embraced by "socialist" parties or thinkers in, say, Europe. If you think that, say, Barack Obama counts as a "liberal" then look at his health care proposals, you might say that they are in some sense "closer" to a socialist solution than the current US system, but in any country where you might define the health care system as based on "socialist" principles Obama's system would be regarded as a wild and unthinkable swing towards privatization.

I have always been interested about why U.S. conservatives are usually aligned on a certain set of values while U.S. liberals (socialists) are generally aligned at 180 degrees on those same issues. Gun rights, abortion, socialism and welfare state, etc. What sets up that alignment? It seems like U.S. liberals (socialists) seem to dislike consequences when it comes to choices made that lead to abortion, which removes a consequence of bad choices, and when it comes to not having health insurance, we need to have the government provide it because they made poor choices dealing with education, insurance, etc. Whereas U.S. conservatives tend to be very much focused on making sure people take personal responsibility for their choices, etc.
While you describe something of a real divide here I doubt that you could adequately trace all elements of US "conservatism" and "liberalism" back to any consistently applied philosophical core. The kind of "rugged individualism" that you're associating with conservatism here (get the state out of people's lives, let them discover the consequences of their own actions, their own choices) is certainly one strand of US conservatism. But it tends to evaporate when Conservatives start thinking about certain social issues. Who in the US is more likely to say "let people choose the romantic partners they want and if it works for them, what business is it of the state's?"--a self-described "conservative" or a self-described "liberal"? Who is more likely to ask "what business does the state have in deciding which religion to endorse or whether one should adopt any religion at all--let's just leave that up to individuals and let them face the consequences of their choices!"? Who in the US is more likely to say "if people want to smoke Marijuana let them make that choice themselves and face the consequences of their own decisions!"?

The problem with philosophies is that people are generally bad at applying them to their lives with any consistency. History keeps getting in the way. According to your definitions, should conservatives or liberals be more in favor of "free trade"? I suspect you'd say "conservatives." But look at the history--laissez faire economics was perhaps THE central defining policy objective of nineteenth century political "liberalism"--the philosophical movement that still underpins contemporary liberalism. Or look at the present day political landscape; lots of Republicans talk about "free trade" as a wonderful thing. But how many Republicans do you think you could find who would vote for a bill ending farm subsidies? Oh no, when Republicans talk about people facing the consequences of their economic decisions, they sure as hell don't mean giant agribusinesses who fund their re-election campaigns in safe "red" states.

Does any of this line up with religion? I'm not sure why it should. There are Christian socialists and Christian libertarians, for example. Jews in the US are overwhelmingly politically liberal on most points, but when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian politics they align much more closely with US conservatives. Is that anything to do with "philosophy"? No, it's just history tangling the threads yet again.

[rcronk]

rcronk: a small point. US "liberalism" has very little in common with what is called "socialism" in the rest of the world. There are almost no mainstream politicians in the US who advocate positions embraced by "socialist" parties or thinkers in, say, Europe. If you think that, say, Barack Obama counts as a "liberal" then look at his health care proposals, you might say that they are in some sense "closer" to a socialist solution than the current US system, but in any country where you might define the health care system as based on "socialist" principles Obama's system would be regarded as a wild and unthinkable swing towards privatization.

Thanks - I admit I'm fairly ignorant of what other countries' definitions of these words are. I'm going by the definition of socialism I posted earlier that came from wikipedia. I think the U.S. liberals would rush all the way to complete socialism if they could. I appreciate the input.

While you describe something of a real divide here I doubt that you could adequately trace all elements of US "conservatism" and "liberalism" back to any consistently applied philosophical core. The kind of "rugged individualism" that you're associating with conservatism here (get the state out of people's lives, let them discover the consequences of their own actions, their own choices) is certainly one strand of US conservatism. But it tends to evaporate when Conservatives start thinking about certain social issues. Who in the US is more likely to say "let people choose the romantic partners they want and if it works for them, what business is it of the state's?"--a self-described "conservative" or a self-described "liberal"? Who is more likely to ask "what business does the state have in deciding which religion to endorse or whether one should adopt any religion at all--let's just leave that up to individuals and let them face the consequences of their choices!"? Who in the US is more likely to say "if people want to smoke Marijuana let them make that choice themselves and face the consequences of their own decisions!"?

True - I think that might be where a/theism might come in rather than it just being an individualism or justice issue. And I know there are tons of exceptions and many people that don't align completely with one party or another. I just see some patterns and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it to get a better understanding.

The problem with philosophies is that people are generally bad at applying them to their lives with any consistency. History keeps getting in the way. According to your definitions, should conservatives or liberals be more in favor of "free trade"? I suspect you'd say "conservatives." But look at the history--laissez faire economics was perhaps THE central defining policy objective of nineteenth century political "liberalism"--the philosophical movement that still underpins contemporary liberalism. Or look at the present day political landscape; lots of Republicans talk about "free trade" as a wonderful thing. But how many Republicans do you think you could find who would vote for a bill ending farm subsidies? Oh no, when Republicans talk about people facing the consequences of their economic decisions, they sure as hell don't mean giant agribusinesses who fund their re-election campaigns in safe "red" states.

I'm pretty disgusted with republican politicians' actions at this point and they are seeming to move to the left and embracing more of that. Perhaps the division is only when they're talking about what they're going to do rather than what they actually do - in a lot of cases, they all look the same - power grabs from the people.

Does any of this line up with religion? I'm not sure why it should. There are Christian socialists and Christian libertarians, for example. Jews in the US are overwhelmingly politically liberal on most points, but when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian politics they align much more closely with US conservatives. Is that anything to do with "philosophy"? No, it's just history tangling the threads yet again.

Perhaps as a software engineer, I'm wanting things to line up a bit more cleanly than they do. Sure there are exceptions, but there are definitely patterns and I just want to understand better what's driving people and why if there is a "best way" we all aren't in agreement about it -there's something in the way.

Thanks again for your input - it is very helpful.

[christie malry]

I'm just trying to understand better why people align in the groups they do to understand them better

I think it's interesting, from a Marxist point of view, that you don't consider class in the forming of people's politics. Have you considered the influence that class plays on political attitudes? I would say, if you were asking and I'm going to assume that you are, that the material conditions that people face are likely to influence their actions and outlook. As Marx once said,

men make their own history, but they do not do it under conditions of their own choosing

*And by men, I think it's not putting too many words in his mouth to say that he meant 'people'


- there you go, bringing class into it again!

- That's what it's all about! If only people would listen!

[rcronk]

I think it's interesting, from a Marxist point of view, that you don't consider class in the forming of people's politics. Have you considered the influence that class plays on political attitudes? I would say, if you were asking and I'm going to assume that you are, that the material conditions that people face are likely to influence their actions and outlook.

Good point, I do think class is relevant though I haven't elaborated. If someone has needs that the government is promising to fulfill for them (which would be more likely to be the case the poorer you are), then I can see people voting money out of their neighbor's pockets and into theirs through the politician promising to do so.

[Kotatsu]

I couldn't be bothered to read through all the replies, as politics does not really interest me, but as I made comments in the other thread, I thought I'd qualify my comments here as a courtesy to rcronk.

I generally dislike "-isms", and thus --- with a few exceptions, as detailed below --- will not even try to place myself in one; I would appreciate if this distaste for the concept is respected, and no one else place we in one of them either, regardless of how "obvious" it might be that I would fit in. Further, I do not pretend that the society I would believe to be ideal would ever work. Indeed, no ideal society would, I believe, so any theoretical or hypothetical system one can envision is, I feel, doomed to be ludicrous and unattainable from the beginning.

Lastly --- and it is a blotch on the political climate in some areas (like Sweden) that this even happens, but such is the reality --- in reviewing my political and religious leanings, I do not see the logic in having to defend myself from accusations of implicitly or explicitly defending, endorsing, condoning, or applauding the acts done in the name of one political system or another, especially not when this has happened in the past, before I was born. Resorting to such tactics is the mark of an intellectual homunculus. I know no political division which has not engaged in bloodshed or other uncouth behaviour at some point in time, and such discussions lead no where but aggression.

With these reservations:

Politically, I am left-wing, and by that I don't mean the marginally-more-to-the-left-than-the-extreme-right variety you get in the US, but the kind the rest of the world is referring to when they speak of a left. I take this to mean that I am against things as royalty, poor conditions for workers, international solidarity, and so on, while at the same time being for free public education, free public healthcare, free public transportation, and so on. I am against privatisation of institutions which benefit all of society, such as infrastructure, water, electricity, and similar things.

I am for taxes, and see no reason why some people should be allowed to benefit hugely from the work of others; at least not while there are still people in the world who are suffering from malnutrition, diseases, and similar. If, as some claim, taxes can be likened to theft, then private profit is also theft, but from the common good.

Taxes, however, should be spent to the benefit of all. Politicians should be given salaries which are no higher than the average salary of the population they govern, so that career politicians with little or no experience of what life outside the well-paid halls of government is like can cease to exist. Public funds should never be used to boost ones own finances, and politics should preferably be done on a voluntary basis.

I am a pacifist, and do not understand how a civilised person could ever want to have weapons even in the hands of so-called professionals, let alone in the hands of just about anyone.

I am against the nation state, and the division of land into countries and other administrative areas in general. "Nation", to me, is an outdated concept useful only for pacifying the less educated in various competitive events like the Olympics or the Eurovision Song Contest (1). I don't understand how anyone can believe it is possible to own land which they are not living on, or how anyone can have the audacity to try to hinder you from walking about as you please in the countryside, unless there is a serious danger in the area, or similar.

Religiously, I don't believe there is much point in discussing the existence or non-existence of any given god or other alleged apparition before more evidence for its existence is presented than hearsay. I have heard of "ignosticism", which, as I understand it, hold "Is there a god?" to be a nonsense question, and though I am not either interested, nor educated enough in these matters to be a good judge of the veracity of this, I feel that this sentiment resonates with me to some extent.

I was not raised religiously, but have voluntarily been part of church youth activities, and have done that thing you do after a while in some churches to confirm your faith (is it actually called confirmation in English as well?), but did that mainly because we were given a discount when we went bowling.

Thus, to answer your primary question, I do not believe that my religious leanings have in any way influenced my political leaning, as I have none of the former, and only vaguely formed ones of the latter. However, I realise that my political and religious views are ones which often coincide.

---
(1) My father usually complains that the ESC is a farce these days, because the East Europeans just vote for each other, so no one else can win. Sweden usually gets 12 or 10 points from Denmark, Norway, and Finland, and apart from Finland, those are the exact countries we give high points to, regardless of the quality of their performance.