United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

Originally Posted by Andross

The problem doesn't lie in religion; it lies in human nature itself. People, at first, naturally feel discomfort when they encounter things that are extremely different or contradict the way they normally percieve things; everyone can agree on this.

I agree. This is one of the tragedies of the human condition. There is strong out-group hostility. I myself am guilty of occasional implicit racism, sexism, and various other kinds of prejudice. I think this innate tendency may explain the appeal of team sports.

Nonetheless, religion is just one more vehicle through which this phenomenon can manifest, and one of the more powerful ones at that.

I've encountered many atheist or agnostic homophobes

Really? Of course, there's no reason why there can't be non-religiously motivated homophobia, but I don't think I've ever observed it in practice (casual teasing notwithstanding). Surely religion is the primary cause of homophobia and anti-evolution sentiment.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

I'm also alluding to the often retold joke: "An EU poll has shown that a large number of Europeans do not have a high opinion of the French. This may have something to do with the fact that the French do not have high opinions of everyone else." Of course, this is just a joke, but I think you understand in which direction I'm headed. ^_^;

And, yes, while France is multi-cultural - I'm ready to admit that - I also feel that France is not particularly friendly towards people of other nations and cultures, especially if one's an immigrant. You've alluded towards it yourself. But I suppose that mentality is prevalent in the vast majority of all the world's countries. ^_^;



Not at all untrue~ While the U.S. had it better than certain places - such as South Africa - remember that they once supported segregation too; I think the current "salad bowl" mentality is a hangover from this concept. I hope this will be washed out by the time the next generation takes over, but I may be too optimistic here. ^_^;

Idly, Calypso, you have an awesome Raiden avatar/signature. Dengeki Raiden Action go~ X3

The unfriendliness has something to do with a strange sort of inversly- jingoistic mindset that many French have--a sort of self-hating, yet pretentious way of thinking that has always puzzled me. The issues really aren't as bad as they seem to those outside of our society (and it is not because I am too close to see it--being both French and American nationality, I am able to see both from an objective viewpoint), however, I do agree with what you are saying. It is unfortunate, but one must remember that the hostility is not always one-sided.

I've experienced the products of such adversity and even had a brick thrown through my window due to an uprising over some Algerian youths who were chased to a gruesome death by police officer (living in Parisian ghettos kinda suck, to say the least). Knowing how both sides often act, while I find any acts of racism intolerable, I do not care for the way many use their race as a kind of security blanket for whenever they get in trouble.

I am honestly not sure when we will all become "color blind". It will be a wonderful thing to see, for sure. I find the prudent way people treat issues dealing with ethnicity and all that rather exhausting--I am of North African, Middle Eastern, Caribbean/West Indian, West African, and European descent, so I see things like this perhaps slightly differently than someone of pure blood would, but eh. We all still have a long way to go.

And glad you like them! I <3 Raiden so much. XD

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

First, Republicans swept a series of elections last night . . .

As I am ignorant to the specific players and circumstances of these races, I won't say too much about them, aside from saying that this is a bad sign for President Obama. They are being interpreted--by those eager to do so--as a referendum against the president. Whether or not these races are indicative of a larger trend remains to be seen, but it cannot be promising that the democrats lost the governorship of solidly blue New Jersey.

Its hardly surprising. Whenever things don't go well, people automatically switch sides. Since Obama hasn't magically fixed the economy in two seconds like most of his voters thought he would, they are now voting Republican, hoping that somehow makes a difference. What this trend shows is that people have very little patience, not that they are more conservative.

What I'm more concerned about is this:

Maine Overturns Same-Sex Marriage

For me, the most disturbing fact from that article is that out of 31 states that have had a popular vote on the issue, not ONE has voted in favor of gay marriage.*

I've long held that gay marriage is a rather trivial issue in itself, but strongly reflective of a deeper cultural divide.

From my standpoint, the perspective of hate, ignorance, and superstition is clearly winning the "culture wars" in America. At the center of this--let's be clear--is religion. That's why I am hostile towards religion, even "moderate" religion. Rationalists cannot remain idle and indifferent if they hope to preserve a secular society. Christians will never stop their "missions", which means rationalists cannot either. They must engage them in discussions and confront them politically. And they must do a better job of making their voice heard.
__________________________________________________ _

You do realize that homophobia goes far deeper than political parties, right? Homophobia has been ingrained in western (as well as middle eastern) culture for a very long time. There are many Democrats I know that don't like gay marriage, despite the fact that they are liberal on all other issues.

*I spoke with my fairly conservative grandma shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa. She was obviously disappointed and wished the state would simply give the citizens a chance to vote. That's the only "fair" thing to do, right? Sounds reasonable, until you consider the days of slavery and legalized segregation. How barbaric would it be to have a popular vote on these matters? It is not much less so with same-sex marriage. As they did with slavery, the federal government needs to realize that the doctrine "majority rules" is sometimes broken. There needs to be federal protection of same sex marriage

That analogy isn't really comparable. If you had taken slavery and segregation to nation wide majority votes, you would find that only 1/3 of the states promoted those ideas.

However, I agree with you that at times the federal government needs to force an issue, including this one.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

You do realize that homophobia goes far deeper than political parties, right? Homophobia has been ingrained in western (as well as middle eastern) culture for a very long time. There are many Democrats I know that don't like gay marriage, despite the fact that they are liberal on all other issues.

Of course. In fact, I noted this while you were probably in the middle of your post:

By the way, perhaps in reality I am, but I don't see myself as a partisan. I think most of the democrats are too socially conservative too. I just see them as a lesser evil in that department. After all, most of them, including President Obama, do not support same-sex marriage either. But at least their opposition is not as virulent. Or perhaps it is merely for political reasons; they understand the political culture--they understand that certain beliefs disqualify you from winning in this country.

That analogy isn't really comparable. If you had taken slavery and segregation to nation wide majority votes, you would find that only 1/3 of the states promoted those ideas.

It is comparable. If you had taken a state wide vote, the southern states would have upheld the institution of slavery (in the mid-1800s) and legalized segregation (in the mid-1900s). My grandma was advocating a state wide vote.

Originally Posted by Andross

The problem doesn't lie in religion; it lies in human nature itself. People, at first, naturally feel discomfort when they encounter things that are extremely different or contradict the way they normally percieve things; everyone can agree on this. Some people are able to get past this discomfort, accept that people who are different to them exist, and get along with those people; these are socially progressive individuals. Plenty of people, unfortunately, are not able to overcome this discomfort, and their discomfort eventually grows in to hate.

Let's be fair about this; even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to hate eachother for stupid reasons. I've encountered many atheist or agnostic homophobes, so religion isn't the root of the problem (Religion may, however, be "sustaining" the root of the problem for religious people, as people who hate homosexuals will most likely look to religion to somehow justify their views).

It's true that religion isn't necessarily a requisite for homophobia. However, it does seem to be a very strong factor.

Originally Posted by Calypso

I am honestly not sure when we will all become "color blind". It will be a wonderful thing to see, for sure. I find the prudent way people treat issues dealing with ethnicity and all that rather exhausting--I am of North African, Middle Eastern, Caribbean/West Indian, West African, and European descent, so I see things like this perhaps slightly differently than someone of pure blood would, but eh. We all still have a long way to go.

Yes, because ignoring difference between culture is a wonderful thing to do. Treat everyone the same, no matter what historical injustices they have undergone and no matter how unequal their life chances are!

I have nothing much else to contribute to this thread, save for the fact that generally the entire human race has proved itself worthy of annihilation by its own idiot hand, and little else.

Originally Posted by sea

Yes, because ignoring difference between culture is a wonderful thing to do. Treat everyone the same, no matter what historical injustices they have undergone and no matter how unequal their life chances are!

I don't think that's really what Calypso meant - treat everyone as individuals, rather than make sweeping generalizations based on culture or race.

Originally Posted by Astarael

I don't think that's really what Calypso meant - treat everyone as individuals, rather than make sweeping generalizations based on culture or race.

Either way, I pointed it out because it's a very common thing these days to say that "racism no longer exists" or that "we are now all treated equally" because that is clearly not the case, and will never be the case, since our society, and arguably all societies, are necessarily founded upon power difference. Equity is important because it takes that problem into account, and saying that we merely need to treat everyone the same does not do justice to the reality we live in.

Originally Posted by Astarael

It's true that religion isn't necessarily a requisite for homophobia. However, it does seem to be a very strong factor.

More like an excuse or taking dogma too literally. I don't blame religion for the cause of homophobia, but people like to shield their prejudices by pretending to be good, and they instead contradict the teachings from the main source. In Christianity's case, I'm talking about Jesus being the main source of Christianity's teachings, and he hanged out with some despised people and sinners all the time while preaching tolerance. Nowadays we have people claiming the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong, and most of this comes from Leviticus, a Jewish book that most Christians don't follow except for the Fundamentalists taking one verse out of context to help their propaganda. This old discussion is very helpful in realizing that the Bible (or more specifically Christianity) does not condemn homosexuality.

Religion is not the root of these problems. As Andross said, the problem lies in human nature. Homosexuality has been feared for a long time in many civilizations because people were uncomfortable with it. In more recent times, people have been becoming better educated on the subject, and are losing their fear of homosexuality. Religion itself will change with the opinions of people over time. The increase in Fundamentalism will drop again, and we will see a rise in progressive, left religion, which does and has always existed. The powers of right and left always shift, and while America has seen a rise in right politics, the balance will shift yet again to left.

FYI Obama's **** is looking more and more like Bush's **** as time goes by.

Originally Posted by Black_Mamba

Yeah, it is. What does that have to do with what you said before?

That was mostly regarding what I had to say about the smear.

You claimed that it was "inaccurate," which didn't make much sense given that we're dealing with a subjective matter. To me, opposing same-sex marriage is characteristic of a prick. You may disagree with that assessment. Whether or not America is a conservative nation is a matter of fact, and my contention that it is demonstrably accurate.

I do disagree, because you aren't a prick just because you disagree with same sex marriage, you would be a prick if you had demeaned them and treated them sub-human.

The nation isn't entirely conservative. Many people voted for Obama didn't they, I think that's substantial evidence. Many people here aren't conservative, and calling this a conservative nation is like calling this a Christian nation. It isn't fair to label the country by the majority, otherwise, you need to refer to us as a Christian nation don't you?

Which contention specifically?

It's the entire point of the thread, isn't it?

In regards to the international level.

After the thumping the Republicans were dealt in the 2006 and 2008 elections, it seemed possible that the nation's politics and culture had shifted to the left. What I'm arguing here, which should be clear from the title, is that this is not the case. My main explanation for why America remains a conservative nation is religion.

The only thing clear from the title is that you don't like conservatives and openly mock them.

Here's the thing. It is an intolerant title. But ask yourself, what is the original source of the intolerance. I don't believe the act of tolerance should be extended to those who themselves are intolerant. No matter how you dress it up, the opposition of same-sex marriage is intolerant. It is rooted in hate and fear.

Okay, then let's torture war criminals, after all, why not torture people who torture us right?

I think our problem here would be Republicans

NOT conservatives.
republicans are not conservatives, not anymore.
and the Democrats aren't any better.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The only thing clear from the title is that you don't like conservatives and openly mock them.

And why shouldn't he? From the opening thread, to my understanding he was not mocking people who vote conservative, or who are in the conservative party, but people who oppose change on the basis of tradition, oppose progress on the basis of maintaining the status quo.

Okay, then let's torture war criminals, after all, why not torture people who torture us right?

He didn't say that the common rules of decency do not apply to those who are intolerant, nor that those who are intolerant have no human rights, all he said is that we are under no obligation to tolerate the views and actions of people who are intolerant for no good reason.

Then again, "tolerance" is a stupid concept anyway. Imagine if I were to say "yeah, I tolerate black people". It makes me sound like I don't like them, but that I still think myself a good person for putting up with them. This should not be the case - it's not a matter of tolerance, nor is it a matter of acceptance, because there is nothing to "tolerate" or "accept". A more appropriate word doesn't really come to mind right now but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

I think our problem here would be Republicans

NOT conservatives.
republicans are not conservatives, not anymore.
and the Democrats aren't any better.

Social conservatives are precisely what he's talking about, and Republicans pretty much embody the definition of conservatism, so yeah.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Social conservatives are precisely what he's talking about, and Republicans pretty much embody the definition of conservatism, so yeah.

isn't obama, the anti freedom antiprivacy, let's controll everything guy?

Really? Of course, there's no reason why there can't be non-religiously motivated homophobia, but I don't think I've ever observed it in practice (casual teasing notwithstanding). Surely religion is the primary cause of homophobia and anti-evolution sentiment.

Maybe anti-evolution, but certainly not homophobia. Indeed, there are atheists who hate homosexuals. In addition, there is really no reason to doubt that homophobia existed long before the advent of the Abrahamic religions. Think about it this way: before major religions began to exist, why do you think the starters of those major religions included anti-homosexuality as part of their people's religious doctrine? Why, because they were originally homophobic for secular reasons; whatever poor reasons they might have been.

Individuals took advantage of emerging world religions, because in the eyes of the masses, believing that homosexuality is bad because your loving, benevolent deity says it is is a much better reason for believing that it is instead of believing that it is because a couple of guys thought it was "nasty."

In addition, seeing as there is homophobia present in all countries, whether it be the United States, Middle Eastern nations, or even more secular countries like China, as well as homophobia being present in countries where the dominant religion doesn't have anti-homosexual leanings, it's hard to call religion the "primary cause."

So yeah, I'm not religious or anything, but religion isn't the source of homophobia; rather, homophobia influenced religion, and made religion a way of distributing itself. Religion isn't going to be disappearing for quite some time; rather, liberal spiritualism and social progress will slowly shape religion.

It's true that religion isn't necessarily a requisite for homophobia. However, it does seem to be a very strong factor.

It's a strong vehicle for spreading homophobia, indeed, but homophobia would still exist even if it never evolved. Maybe to a slightly lesser extent.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

isn't obama, the anti freedom antiprivacy, let's controll everything guy?

No he isn't, so please pull your skull from deep within your sphincter. But even if he was, that's a completely nonsequitur statement that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I described conservatives as people who have a preference for tradition and maintaining the status quo, Republicans tend to be conservatives in this regard since any change that the Democrats propose, they start wailing and pissing and moaning that any such change would be the downfall of the United States and the end of the world as they know it.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

No he isn't, so please pull your skull from deep within your sphincter. But even if he was, that's a completely nonsequitur statement that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I described conservatives as people who have a preference for tradition and maintaining the status quo, Republicans tend to be conservatives in this regard since any change that the Democrats propose, they start wailing and pissing and moaning that any such change would be the downfall of the United States and the end of the world as they know it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...q=f&oq=&aqi=g3

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...=f&oq=&aqi=g10

I'll let you draw your own conclusions
if google is a biased source try bing or yahoo.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...q=f&oq=&aqi=g3

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...=f&oq=&aqi=g10

I'll let you draw your own conclusions
if google is a biased source try bing or yahoo.

Firstly again that has nothing to do with what I was saying earlier about conservatives or conservatism, so you're just trying to turn this discussion into a "wail-on-Obama-fest" when it isn't even relevant to what is being discussed. Stop that, if you want to get on your soapbox about Obama I'd rather you didn't try to derail a topic to do so.

Secondly anti-privacy is not conservative, it's not anti-freedom, nor is it a demonstration of a willingness to control everything in our society, and Bush was probably more anti-privacy given that he was the one who advocated the PATRIOT ACT, so again, head, arse, do the extraction thereof. Reasonable surveillance is hardly "anti-privacy", unreasonable surveillance maybe would be.

Thirdly, according to the first few of these articles the reason Obama "gets failing grades" from privacy advocates is because he hasn't done anything to change things such as the PATRIOT ACT and disavow things that the Bush administration introduced. So he's not limiting privacy himself, he's simply not doing anything to undo the limits of privacy that Bush introduced because he's too busy concentrating on the economy and healthcare.

Fourthly this whole thing about harvesting personal information from social networking sites is hardly an invasion of privacy given this is stuff that you publicize yourself. You choose to publicize it, and while it's highly dubious that the government wants this information for whatever reason, I don't think you can honestly argue it's an invasion of privacy when it's information you volunteer onto the internet.

So actually read the articles you link me to before trying to use them as evidence to support your agenda. It's not that your sources are biased, it's that they don't actually support what you're claiming. Now let's get back on the topic of social conservatism please.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Thirdly, according to the first few of these articles the reason Obama "gets failing grades" from privacy advocates is because he hasn't done anything to change things such as the PATRIOT ACT and disavow things that the Bush administration introduced. So he's not limiting privacy himself, he's simply not doing anything to undo the limits of privacy that Bush introduced because he's too busy concentrating on the economy and healthcare. So actually read the articles you link me to before trying to use them as evidence to support your agenda. It's not that your sources are biased, it's that they don't actually support what you're claiming.

Obama voted to renew the patriot act and has since done a lot of things to extend upon it.

and a few of those links off google...
http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/08/...orking-website
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1768.html
http://www.broowaha.com/articles/154...ublicans-shrug
and let's not forget the Freudian "rise of privacy" remark...

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

Obama voted to renew the patriot act and has since done a lot of things to extend upon it.

None of these articles appear to be saying that, even a columns that came up only seemed to be complaining that Obama wasn't concerned enough about privacy, not that he was invading it.

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/08/...orking-website

I actually addressed this very article in my fourth point above - this is stuff you volunteer onto the internet, and any potential employers may take it into account as well when considering whether or not to hire you, which affects far more than the government simply keeping logs of it. The fact that the government wants it is to me dubious but it is not an invasion of privacy given that this is information you volunteer on a daily basis. The most he'd get from my Facebook, were I an American citizen, is the repeated statement that I'm tired or bored, because I'm not stupid enough to put anything else up there.

http://www.broowaha.com/articles/154...ublicans-shrug

That's just complaining about taxes and says more about the conservative opposition to privacy than Obama's.

and let's not forget the Freudian "rise of privacy" remark...

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Freud himself said, and sometimes a use of a wrong word is a mistaken use of a word. You are hardly one to be psychoanalysing a single mistaken word because you've probably made as many similar mistakes while speaking to your friends that haven't been "Freudian slips".


But you don't seem to be understanding that none of this has any relevance to the topic of social conservatism and as such this very thread, so if you want to complain about Obama and your perception that he wants to watch you masturbate, start your own thread about it instead of trying to derail every topic, no matter how peripherally related it may be, to turn it into a forum to attack Obama.