God, that shit is sooo annoying! But I guess it's easier for stupid people to grasp it, so it is fairly effective. Won him the presidency at least.
I cant be the only one...
- Thread starter madame_zora
- Start date
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I took this off a website I frequent and althouhg it has a theistic tilt, i think it has relevance:
Faith & Democracy
In America here can be a great deal of conflict between secularism and religion â specifically, religious fundamentalism. To what extent are the absolute and uncompromising positions of traditional faith compatible with the deliberative process of secular democracy?
The Advice Goddess quotes a letter that appeared in the LA Times:
"After reading Jonathan Sacks' commentary, "Religion's Eternal Life" (Nov. 19), I wished he had expanded more on his key premise. In describing why the world began to reject theocracy in the 18th century, he states, "men and women of goodwill lost faith in the ability of religious believers to live peaceably with one another." This a remarkable observation because it marks the point in history where the world split into two camps: Those who were sure they were right, and those who weren't so sure.
Theocracies are driven by dogmatic, uncompromising belief systems, while secular governments are more tolerant and accommodating. A democratic leader is, by definition, unsure of his decisions. He seeks the counsel of others, considers opposing views and frequently agonizes over the consequences of his decisions. His self-doubt governs his behavior, while the people who "know" have no such inhibiting mechanism.
Only those who are totally certain of their place in heaven can strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up on a busy street crowded with women and children. A person uncertain of his salvation, or even of God's existence, is more likely to seek understanding and place a higher value on his or her life.
The great irony here is that the person who is unsure is the one who is acting on faith, because real faith cannot exist without a seed of doubt. "
I disagree with the idea that a secular government is necessarily more tolerant and accommodating. Just because religion is absent doesn't mean that everyone will be nice, reasonable, rational, logical, tolerant, etc. None of these are virtues that necessarily adhere to "secularism." To think that they do commits the same error as religious believers who assume that just so long as a person is religious (or Christian, or Protestant, or whatever), then they must automatically be more moral, kind, generous, forgiving, etc.
While a secular government does not eliminate the possibility of dogmatism, it does set aside one of the biggest, most important, and most dangerous causes of being uncompromising â yes, religion. It wouldn't be fair to say that religion is to blame for all the problems in the world, but it is fair to point out just how much of a role religion can play in the creation of uncompromising attitudes. Religion places greater demands on people's loyalty and promises greater consequences for one's actions than the average secular worldview. Naturally, then, there are more opportunities for conflict, dogmatism, and problems.
Faith & Democracy
In America here can be a great deal of conflict between secularism and religion â specifically, religious fundamentalism. To what extent are the absolute and uncompromising positions of traditional faith compatible with the deliberative process of secular democracy?
The Advice Goddess quotes a letter that appeared in the LA Times:
"After reading Jonathan Sacks' commentary, "Religion's Eternal Life" (Nov. 19), I wished he had expanded more on his key premise. In describing why the world began to reject theocracy in the 18th century, he states, "men and women of goodwill lost faith in the ability of religious believers to live peaceably with one another." This a remarkable observation because it marks the point in history where the world split into two camps: Those who were sure they were right, and those who weren't so sure.
Theocracies are driven by dogmatic, uncompromising belief systems, while secular governments are more tolerant and accommodating. A democratic leader is, by definition, unsure of his decisions. He seeks the counsel of others, considers opposing views and frequently agonizes over the consequences of his decisions. His self-doubt governs his behavior, while the people who "know" have no such inhibiting mechanism.
Only those who are totally certain of their place in heaven can strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up on a busy street crowded with women and children. A person uncertain of his salvation, or even of God's existence, is more likely to seek understanding and place a higher value on his or her life.
The great irony here is that the person who is unsure is the one who is acting on faith, because real faith cannot exist without a seed of doubt. "
I disagree with the idea that a secular government is necessarily more tolerant and accommodating. Just because religion is absent doesn't mean that everyone will be nice, reasonable, rational, logical, tolerant, etc. None of these are virtues that necessarily adhere to "secularism." To think that they do commits the same error as religious believers who assume that just so long as a person is religious (or Christian, or Protestant, or whatever), then they must automatically be more moral, kind, generous, forgiving, etc.
While a secular government does not eliminate the possibility of dogmatism, it does set aside one of the biggest, most important, and most dangerous causes of being uncompromising â yes, religion. It wouldn't be fair to say that religion is to blame for all the problems in the world, but it is fair to point out just how much of a role religion can play in the creation of uncompromising attitudes. Religion places greater demands on people's loyalty and promises greater consequences for one's actions than the average secular worldview. Naturally, then, there are more opportunities for conflict, dogmatism, and problems.
Leave it to you GBO. That was certainly a good paradigm of what a secular government ought to be, and brings to light how unlike a true democracy our current government actually is. I like the idea of a person's self doubt governing their behavior, that seems like a gentler, more tenuous way of proceeding through life, and a role of leadership. We can dream.....
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
That was the thing that actually made me like John Kerry more, the fact that he was a "flip-flopper." I hate the idea of a president who continues to act decisively and consistently even though everything is going to shit. The ability to see where you went wrong and try to change things is the best quality of a true leader.
headbang8
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,628
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 821
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
On a slightly different tangent...a friend sent this to me. I'm not sure if the source is reliable.
State Avg. IQ and 2004 vote
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush
More fuel for the fire! hb8
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I don't know if those figures are acurate headbang but if they are then they do tell a lot. I think that the separation of blue and red states has more to do with population density. It seems to me that the more closely people are forced to interact with each other the more tolerant and experienced they are with dealing with many different people and many differing ideas. They seem more apt to try to compromise because they are used to doing it more often. They are okay with hearing dissagreement, because being so packed in with each other theres more of a chance of coming acroos someone who dissagrees. Seems in the red states, where the populace is more spread out leads to less conflict. People in red states (and I know I'm generalizing, but what can you do when talking about an entire state) maybe just don't understand quite fully what It means to live and let live. They see less gay people around them, and think they are a horrible minority and how dare they try to get the same rights as heteroes. I know that in New York City where I live there are segregated communities, and a person could go their whole life without really having to interact with another from a different culture, but that is a rarity only because of geography. There is China Town, and Spanish HArlem, but they are really only separated by a couple of miles, whereas in a more rural area the seperation may be many more miles, leading to less interaction. And In China Town, where almost all the stores and residences are inhabited by people of asian descent, the customers are as motley as can be, with blacks, whites, latinos, and asians all shopping together.
I was on the 7 train last night, coming home from work, and the trains were a little delayed which means that the cars were PACKED, I mean fucking packed. And I was in the middle of the car where there's less of a crowd, but at the doors there is hardly room to breathe (This is not an exaggaration, if you've ever been on the subway in rush hour you know what I mean) Every station we stopped at there would 30 more people outside the doors waiting to get in, and some of them force their way on. There was a black guy, an asian woman, and a latino male who basically jumped on into the car and pushed 4 people against each other trying to pack themselves in. ALthough it was rude, it makes a point about how we New Yorkers are a little more used to getting our private spaces intruded upon, and we realize that In order to live in this society we have to ake compormises to other people's wishes.
I''m not saying that people in blue states are smarter or better than people in red states, we just have a different mentality.
By the way I was watching "Hannity and Colmes"( which should be called "Hannity and what's his name" My gf calls it "God and Colmes" Because thats what Sean Hannity thinks he is) and they had Ann Coulter on. Now I've watched her before, and I know she is fucking out there, but last night she was basically saying that Canada should be graetful for existing on the same continent as America, and they are lucky we don't wipe them out. She's a crazy bitch man, a crazy fucking loon.
I was on the 7 train last night, coming home from work, and the trains were a little delayed which means that the cars were PACKED, I mean fucking packed. And I was in the middle of the car where there's less of a crowd, but at the doors there is hardly room to breathe (This is not an exaggaration, if you've ever been on the subway in rush hour you know what I mean) Every station we stopped at there would 30 more people outside the doors waiting to get in, and some of them force their way on. There was a black guy, an asian woman, and a latino male who basically jumped on into the car and pushed 4 people against each other trying to pack themselves in. ALthough it was rude, it makes a point about how we New Yorkers are a little more used to getting our private spaces intruded upon, and we realize that In order to live in this society we have to ake compormises to other people's wishes.
I''m not saying that people in blue states are smarter or better than people in red states, we just have a different mentality.
By the way I was watching "Hannity and Colmes"( which should be called "Hannity and what's his name" My gf calls it "God and Colmes" Because thats what Sean Hannity thinks he is) and they had Ann Coulter on. Now I've watched her before, and I know she is fucking out there, but last night she was basically saying that Canada should be graetful for existing on the same continent as America, and they are lucky we don't wipe them out. She's a crazy bitch man, a crazy fucking loon.
Interesting, it is no secret that average iqs tend to be higher in more densely populated areas, although I don't know if that is because of more funding available for education, or just the benefits of social interaction with others that accounts for it. I would be interested to see a list alongside that one of resident population of each state. If my opinion is correct, the US has a gross average iq of less than 100, which is beyond sad. There again, we don't know how accurate the information is, but it does give one pause.
Ann Coulter is a twat wipe! Why is it that there are so few vocal women in the public eye, yet so many who are are complete morons? It makes me ashamed of my gender.
Ann Coulter is a twat wipe! Why is it that there are so few vocal women in the public eye, yet so many who are are complete morons? It makes me ashamed of my gender.
