Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Donkeys and Elephants
Become active in politics. Help destroy the myth that “politics are dirty.” The fact is: politics are essential. The Lord has stressed that we ought to be concerned and involved in promoting good government. You simply have to realize that the political process is the way to attain that objective.
-D. James Cannon
-D. James Cannon
Book List
- I have granted every contributor admin privileges so that you can add your favorite political books yourself. Just follow the same format and be sure to keep this comment first in the list. Thanks!
- "The Constitution of Liberty" by F.A. Hayek (Jeff)
- "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (Devin)
- "1776" by David McCullough (Devin)
- "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek (Jeff)
- "A Matter of Interpretation" by Antonin Scalia (Devin)
- "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (Rich)
- "1984" by George Orwell (Devin)
- "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein (Devin)
- Very quick read: "The Curses of Entitlement: 30 Frightening Consequences of Government Payments" by Roger Fritz (Rich)
- "The Tempting of America" by Robert H. Bork (Devin)
Labels
- abortion (3)
- AIG bonus tax (1)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Books (1)
- BP (1)
- Budget (2)
- Bush (1)
- Cash for Clunkers (1)
- Change (1)
- common sense (1)
- Conservatism (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Democrats (1)
- economy (3)
- Fort Hood (1)
- Gay Marriage (1)
- global warming (1)
- GM (2)
- Health Care (11)
- Immigration (3)
- Jobs (1)
- KSM Trial (2)
- Language (1)
- LeBron James (1)
- libertarian (1)
- MA election (1)
- Media (1)
- Mid-term Election (1)
- military (1)
- Morals (1)
- Obama (7)
- Obama's Prime Time Speeches (2)
- Our Duty (1)
- Palin (1)
- Phil Davison (1)
- Political Correctness (1)
- Political swings (1)
- Propaganda (1)
- Public Unions (1)
- Reconciliation (1)
- Ron Paul (1)
- Social Justice (1)
- stimulus (2)
- Supreme Court Activism (1)
- Taxes (5)
- The War in Afghanistan (1)
- timeless principles (1)
- Tort Reform (1)
- Torture(d logic) (1)
- Utah politics (1)
12 comments:
All I can say is wow, and I'm not surprised.
How do you explain former 1st counselor in the first presidency James E. Faust being the chairperson at one time of the Utah Democratic party?
According to dictionary.com, Liberal means "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs." Oh hey, that sounds like what the Gospel is all about doesn't it? Let's see what else Liberal means. "Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant" Oh man, would God want us to be like that? "Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas."
I guess your right Ev, how dare I claim to be open to change, tolerant of other people, free from prejudice and bigotry, and open minded and claim to be a good member of the Church.
Ridiculous. I never attack your faith because of what your political opinions might be.
I actually dedicated the last 10 paragraphs of my original politics page (http://kappa.nichooton.com/aboutme/politics.php) to this very question.
@Creighton - I hear ya, but the post said 'liberal', not 'Democrat'. Yes, many general authorities are and have been Democrats, but the party represents something very different today than it used to, and 'liberal' even means something totally different today.
That being said, keep in mind that there are many liberal values that are consistent with Church doctrine, and many conservative values that aren't.
For instance, the teachings of the modern prophets have been largely opposed to proactive war-making. It is a gospel of peace, not aggression. The modern conservative stance on foreign policy is at incredible odds with the gospel in this respect.
On the other hand, how do LDS liberals justify the abortion thing? The Church is VERY clear about this issue, and it is one that can have eternal consequences as well as jeopardize Church membership. I especially wonder how those who belong to the Democratic Party can support an organization that encourages such a practice and wants to use tax dollars to pay for it.
It is dangerous to try to assign Church doctrine to any particular "ism". None of the philosophies are completely compatible with the Gospel (no, not even libertarianism).
@Creighton - I posted my last comment before I read your second one. I wholeheartedly concur with the content of that second comment you made. Amen, brother.
I think there's only two key issues the Church has made absolute statements about that are associated with left-wing liberalism.
Abortion - I believe abortion is morally wrong. I do not believe it is murder, but I do believe it is a very serious sin. However the country I live in says abortion is legal and that's something I have to live with. I will teach my family and any other people I ever have responsiblitiy over that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest or murder. (If we were VERY conservative the Church would not even allow for those exceptions. Those exceptions are to be approached with prayer and revelation, which is the right thing to do.) Therefore, because I cannot change that abortion is legal, and the legislation cannot change abortion is legal, for me it is not a huge issue. However I do NOT agree with using federal funds for abortion, and not all democrats do either.
2. Gay marriage - Having a gay uncle and his partner has certainly opened my eyes to this issue. It makes me feel bad to know that they cannot (in this state) have the same title, and even some of the same rights as I can as a heterosexual. I would be lying if I said I didn't wish they could. But I respect the government and voters of this state, and understand that in this state, it will probably always be like that. We could have a long debate about this issue but I think it's better that we don't.
These are the only two issues I can think of that would lead you to believe you cannot be liberal and LDS. Even VERY conservative people believe in not affording any rights at all to gays, and the church has made it clear that they support tolerance and some rights for gays, just not to the title of marriage.
I never attacked your faith, Creighton, so don't flip out and try to attack me in return. I merely asked someone to explain the logic. Yes, I'm aware of the more liberal principles, HOWEVER, as Nic, pointed out, liberal means something far different today than in years past. I actually had Harry Reid in mind when I posed this question. And when I asked this, I didn't assign anything in particular. It was an in- general type question. Sorry, that was my fault for not making it more clear, but I'm not apologizing for asking.
I don't really have time right this second to continue this debate as I have kids that got home from school a little while ago, and now I have dinner to get started. But let me explain something about myself to anyone who cares, just so I'm not entirely misunderstood in this. You see, I was born and raised in the church and in a pretty conservative family here in the great state of Texas. Growing up, I didn't really care about politics and I HATED listening to Rush whenever I was in the car with one or both of my parents. Then I hit about 15 and all hell broke loose. I was a TERRIBLE teenager and remained so until I graduated HS and joined the USMC and wanted NOTHING to do with the church. Then, being out in the world to form my opinions, I fell more to the left. So I'm not blind or ignorant to the ideas and line of thought when it comes to the left. It wasn't until I had my first child that the world suddenly seemed backwards. When they say having a baby changes everything...they mean it.
I'll be back later for more.
By the way, I like the REACTION rather than reason, Creighton.
Be more specific next time in you attack someone's belief.
Where to start? Oh, here's a great place. If liberal ideals are so sound, why would do liberals get so bent out of shape when they're questioned? Did I ever mention your name in particular? Did I add any sort of disclaimer saying that it was directed at you? The next time I have something to say, I'll be sure to add said disclaimer so you don't get your feelings hurt. And should you decide to attack MY beliefs (i.e.-anything of the conservative variety), I'll be sure to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself because, APPARENTLY, I shouldn't have singled you out the way I did.
The funny thing about this is that, spiritually, you and I believe the same things. I'm not even coming back to this one. It's a waste of time. Really, you could've just schooled me. That's all I was asking for. As much as I understand the liberal mind-set, this one eludes me. As do liberals in the military. BHO's treated them as an annoyance (as do most dems under any administraion) rather than any sort of priority.
Well played, Creighton. Knee-jerk reaction in true liberal fashion fueled by pure emotion. Awesome.
You asked the question in a very condescending, self-righteous way where you said how in the world can you be a member of the church and liberal. Well I did take offense, because I am a member of the church and liberal. So I'm sorry that I took offense where it was not meant, and I would not attack your beliefs. I might diasagree, but I won't call your status as a member of the church into question. But at least we do agree on religion, which is certainly a lot more than most people. It's just about everything else we disagree on, but this blog would be boring if we all thought the same thing.
I know I said I wouldn't be back, but I feel your last comment warrants my return. Then I hope to drop this subject permanently since we obviously can't discuss it.
If you took my post to be condescending and self-righteous, I'm still not apologizing because that's your problem. You blew it WAY out of proportion and blamed the way I phrased the question for your upset. Frankly, I believe you would've been unhappy regardless of the way in which I articulated it. Perhaps, if you felt attacked, you should've questioned me about it before flying off the handle. I was hoping for a quiet, intelligent and adult discussion because I genuinely AM curious. If you'll notice, I don't get on here but MAYBE once a month because I just don't have time for it. (I haven't even updated my personal blog in nearly 5 months.) I didn't feel the need for an 18 page saga, beginning with the moment of my conception and continuing all the way through my current thought process, to get to my point.
Furthermore, I NEVER called your status as a member of the church into question. (Honestly, I don't care about your status. That's entirely between you and the Lord. I assume you're a good, decent person and faithful member of the church.) If anything, I called your political persuassion into question, but I still wasn't going after you personally. If I WERE to go after you, I'd do it in private rather than in a public forum such as this.
Post a Comment