Go to Thoughts of the moments
- Add a comment
- Go to So anyway, here is what I had said
Kooka
like you and probably most Westerners I had a liberal education. So my political attitudes are probably not so different from yours. Upbringing shall produce you - but it does not
determine who you are (though it does determine many people far more than it should). I understand the essence of human being to be the capacity to question - hence those that question will always exceed and are always in excess of whatever beliefs and values they happen to possess. What I am attacking is the philosophy of liberalism, not necessarily the particular beliefs. You could say I am attacking it because all faiths (call it an ideology) when accepted are barriers to questioning.
posted by
pg_scott
on December 31, 2003 at 6:59 AM
| link to this | reply
pg scott
So am I a liberal then?
I have no idea if I am or not. My ideas seem to flow in that direction, yet I know I have values. I would never consider Liberalism my faith, since to me faith is what you put your trust into. My trust as I have said goes into my family, friends and self. Yet I am obviously liberal minded. What you are saying takes away a human element and says that we are nothing beyond our beliefs and faith.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 30, 2003 at 11:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
I course I should not want Christians to be forcing their beliefs on others, that is why I oppose them. But I oppose their beliefs, not their desire for a good society organized around proper values. I simply disagree that the beliefs and values of Christianity make for a good heathly society. As to faith, my point is that Liberalism is a faith no less than Christianity. The difference lies in the fact that whilst the faith of Christianity has (regardless of how much I am opposed to it) substance, whereas the faith of Liberalism is empty and without substance. Hence it produces - and liberalism very much produces - individuals without substance, without value.
posted by
pg_scott
on December 29, 2003 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply
pg scott
Yet you would have the Christian force their beliefs on everyone else?
Where do you draw the line? Who's beliefs are to be the ones to follow?
My way of thinking says that it should be the ones that take away the least amount of freedom from the individual.
And the is no proof that homosexuality is harmful. So far from what I have seen it is very harmless. In fact it has caused many, many less wars that Christianity. And it has been around a lot longer.
Your quote at the beginning of your post says that liberals have no faith, or at least nothing worth having faith in. You did change that a little in the post, but the idea is still the same.
You want to know something? I hate talking politics.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 29, 2003 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
go back and read my post. i did not say that liberals have no faith. I said that Liberalism is a faith. And yes, the idea of freedom as it is understood by liberalism is a sham. It does not mean that I do not believe that freedom is possible. Only that my idea of freedom is radically different from Liberalism - which by the way it inherited from Christianity. Who chooses the rules are those who acquire the power to do so. Which at the present time are people of liberal persuasion (even people who profess Christian beliefs are essentially liberal, people who are not are called religious fanatics and fundamentalists). Lastly, to convince me otherwise, you will have to address the argument I put forward regarding homosexuality being harmless. That is a belief, and one that is opposed to what Christian believe. To say that you cannot discrimminate against acts of which you regard as grave depravity is to be imposing your beliefs (that homosexuality is harmless)on those who think and believe differently.
posted by
pg_scott
on December 29, 2003 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply