Ok, what the hell is this "liberal fascism" thing I've been hearing about? [Archive]

JimmyJazz

12th October 2008, 17:38

I believe the author of the book "Liberal Fascism", Jonah Goldberg, has the same warped view of "liberalism" that the American media has (liberal meaning "member of the Democratic Party" and "for" bigger government). So when he reviews the Wilson and FDR administrations, both Democrats, he sees their restrictions on markets and greater state control over institutions (ie, the FTC with Wilson and the New Deal with Roosevelt) as being fascist. He also asserts the claim that both Liberalism (again, in the American sense) and Fascism have their roots in Progressivism.

I think Lightning is the only one who's got the right answer here, because I never heard that phrase before Jonah Goldberg's book came out. I haven't read it, but I saw Goldberg interviewed on the Colbert Report, and his argument basically boils down to equating restaurant smoking bans with the holocaust as equal examples of statist intervention in the lives of individuals. It's the same argument as Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which was already a joke, except now instead of socialists he's targeting American liberals (apparently he didn't get the memo that Democrats are enthusiastic capitalists). He's a right-wing "libertarian" blowhard of the worst type, it's beyond sad that some middle class white people are actually buying his books.

Schrödinger's Cat

12th October 2008, 17:54

Liberal fascism is an oxymoron; Mussolini would have not approved. :D

Schrödinger's Cat

12th October 2008, 17:57

Hello! This is your daily Neo-Conservative Feed! Chocolate rations will decrease by three percent due to the growing skirmishes with rebel dogs. Remember to get your chores done for Hate Week. Drink up on your Victory Gin, comrades.

---

Remember, chocolate rations will decrease by five percent due to troubles with transport!

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th October 2008, 18:18

I too would be interested in what sort of things TomK is talking about.

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 18:45

I too would be interested in what sort of things TomK is talking about. I don't mean to steal this thread--I misunderstood what the OP was talking about so I'm faced with an angst ridden existential moment here. ;)

What the hell!

TomK, what the hell? Parents aren't universally right, parents can teach alot of stupid shit.
Teaching morality is absurd! Morality isn't absurd. It's almost all there is. Communism is ONLY a moral or rather ethical doctrine. there's little else to it--all that economic stuff is just the "how to" of making the world fair. The essence of Communism is moral "fairness". The rest is just the building blocks of how it is done. As an aside, it's the moral application of Communism that I'm attracted to--the emphisis on a complete and across the board fairness for all people. If it were just about supply and demand and all that economic stuff GeneCosta keeps talking about (no offense) I would have been out of here a long time ago.

And if the kids don't have good parents, what then? There's an ethical issue for you. I seem to be individualist enough to say that my "society" is my family. My and my wife's beliefs taught to my kids. We try to bring them up in a way that (through some trial and error) works for us. We have put together a pretty gracious and wonderful life for ourselves--and I'm not talking about money or what we own--but a general inner harmonious way of living that brings a lot of joy and spontaneity to each day of our lives. We'd like to pass that kind of life on to our kids, we love them, and I rather it not be spoilt by the general run of the mill thinking that is so pervasive in the world today.

And about the other kids--I don't know. But I'm not for a leveling out of the world to its lowest common denominator.

What do you mean by "nasty stuff"?

Abortion--we're against it. Long story why...maybe some other time. ;)

Killfacer

12th October 2008, 18:49

So in your school they were going to tell the kids "abortion is good, everyone have abortions!" until you stepped in?

Bud Struggle

12th October 2008, 19:22

So in your school they were going to tell the kids "abortion is good, everyone have abortions!" until you stepped in?

I don't want it discussed in school. Such things are for parents to discuss with their children. I guess there's a little Stalin in me. :D

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/raduf/happychildhood.gif

Killfacer

12th October 2008, 20:41

I cannot see the harm in it being taught at school. Better that all children know all the facts about something as important as abortion. I beleive you would be able to teach your children that abortion is wrong (not that i beleive you should), without depriving children whos parents take a less active role in their children's upbringing.

Pirate turtle the 11th

12th October 2008, 20:51

In our school we argue about it in class (after been showing anti abortion videos). Also while i go to a religious school in the heart of protestantism around 75% of my class are atheists!

RGacky3

12th October 2008, 21:02

TomK, what the hell? Parents aren't universally right, parents can teach alot of stupid shit.
Teaching morality is absurd!

Thats true, but so can the state (i.e. public schools), the difference is who has more of a right to teach morals, the state or the parents, I submit the parents. That being said, I think its good for schools to teach children, or teens about their options, while not teaching morality.

As for this Liberal fascism thing, as far as I can tell its a baseless buzzword for conservatives. That being said, its not impossible to be fascist and liberal at the same time.

Jazzratt

12th October 2008, 21:30

I don't want it discussed in school. Such things are for parents to discuss with their children. I guess there's a little Stalin in me. :D

Don't be silly. One of the reasons for widespread political apathy on the part of the general population is that no one is taught enough about the society they live in when they're young and it all becomes bewildering afterwards. Also consider that if you're studying any form of literature (for example) you should be able to look at it in the context of the time which could mean discussion lots of "nasty" stuff (attitudes to women, sexual and ethnic minorities, violence and so on), as well (of course) as any study in most modern forms of art.

To simply think as schools as a simple place for training people in the three Rs, divorced entirely from the outside world is laughably archaic. Being literate and numerate, obviously, should be expected of students but a greater understanding of the world around them is also needed - not only in the literal sense of physics, chemistry and biology but also in the more abstract sense of sociology and politics.

Your "leave it to the parents" idea is outstandingly stupid. The parents will generally spend a lot more time with a child (especially a younger one) than any schoolteacher (for the most part), so any fear about their opinions not being heard is a complete absurdity. Consider, also, that not every teacher will have the same views on everything (true, they tend toward leftism [at least in the UK], but there are always exceptions) and exposing a child to discussion and healthy debate does do wonders to clear people's heads of frightful ignorance. I would be happy if parents, teachers and pupils all shared their thoughts on a discussion but demanding that a subject should not be discussed?! That is unacceptable. Do you ever wonder why toothless fuckwits that were "homeskooled gud" are such ignorant dicks? Do you not think that, maybe, a complete shut out from reality in order to learn the idiot beliefs of their abusive (sorry, pious) parents is part of that?

#FF0000

12th October 2008, 21:38

That being said, its not impossible to be fascist and liberal at the same time.

How do you figure? Fascists are pretty big on their hate of liberalism.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th October 2008, 22:00

There's an ethical issue for you. I seem to be individualist enough to say that my "society" is my family. My and my wife's beliefs taught to my kids. We try to bring them up in a way that (through some trial and error) works for us. We have put together a pretty gracious and wonderful life for ourselves--and I'm not talking about money or what we own--but a general inner harmonious way of living that brings a lot of joy and spontaneity to each day of our lives. We'd like to pass that kind of life on to our kids, we love them, and I rather it not be spoilt by the general run of the mill thinking that is so pervasive in the world today.

And about the other kids--I don't know. But I'm not for a leveling out of the world to its lowest common denominator.
Tom, that sounds pretty damn close to "And about the other kids - I don't care." I'm not saying that's what you meant, but I am saying you should be careful not to slip into that sort of thinking.

Now, we can all agree that kids deserve the best upbringing they can get. The problem is that some kids have parents that are better than their teachers, while other kids have parents that are worse than their teachers. Ideally, the parents should play a primary role in bringing up the first group and the teachers and educators should play a primary role in bringing up the second group. And then of course you have the many kids that would fit somewhere in between. We should try to devise an educational system flexible enough to respond differently to kids with different home environments. I don't know how, but it's something to think about.

Also, since we're going off-topic, maybe a mod could split off the posts talking about schools and children's education into another thread?

Killfacer

12th October 2008, 22:18

More to the point, your kids shouldn't just have exactly the same opinions as you. Children should be exposed to a broad spectrum of ideas not just that of their parents, then they should be able to form their own moral beliefs.

Demogorgon

13th October 2008, 00:46

How do you figure? Fascists are pretty big on their hate of liberalism.

Some fascists have strongly neo-liberal economic policies.

Or to perhaps put it better, some neo-liberals follow their economic ideas into social areas and become fascists.

danyboy27

13th October 2008, 00:52

TomK, what the hell? Parents aren't universally right, parents can teach alot of stupid shit.
Teaching morality is absurd!

yes but the idea of having the governement telling you what wrong and what are the good values in class is absurd too. I think the state should do his job of state you know, welfare, road, healtcare, stuff he should really do! when you ask the state to take care of small things like that, you give away responsability to the parents, and with time, its create a verry bad habit of always turning to the governement for everything, making people irresponsable.
i know what i am talking about, its happening right now where i live!

Chapter 24

13th October 2008, 01:21

yes but the idea of having the governement telling you what wrong and what are the good values in class is absurd too. I think the state should do his job of state you know, welfare, road, healtcare, stuff he should really do! when you ask the state to take care of small things like that, you give away responsability to the parents, and with time, its create a verry bad habit of always turning to the governement for everything, making people irresponsable.
i know what i am talking about, its happening right now where i live!

We're not advocating for a nanny state that tells us the difference between right and wrong, but rather making the argument that parents do not always responsibly teach their children.

Sendo

13th October 2008, 07:20

Some may argue that parents have a moral right to be the ones to educate their kids on sex matters over the school. That works in white bread suburbia, but I think that school sex ed does more good than the "harm" of enforcing a family-less sex ed on kids who do not want/need it.

In real life we have to acknowledge these programs are needed. TomK's arguments are fine within their own world, so really we have a difference not of opinion as much as of idealism vs. non-idealism.

Decolonize The Left

13th October 2008, 07:50

There is a huge difference between 'teaching morals' and 'teaching.' For example, on the issue of abortion, I can 'teach that abortion is wrong/right' or I can 'teach the material realities of abortion (what it entails, how it is performed, the benefits/costs, etc...).'

TomK, it seems as though you are thoroughly confusing the two. Furthermore, the idea of 'teaching morals' seems to reek of indoctrination. For if you're morals are so sound, why not expose them to discussion and debate in an educational atmosphere, like, say, a school...?

- August

TheCultofAbeLincoln

13th October 2008, 08:06

To people who would use this phrase, the terms Liberal/Fascist/Nazi/Communist/Socialist/Drug user/pornstar are all interchangeable because they're all united against Jesus.

Pirate turtle the 11th

13th October 2008, 16:48

/Drug user

Yeah those heretics taking that wine n all. Who the fuck do they thing they are! i mean bread on its own is fine but wine is just ungodly.

Also for the record rastas are quite found of weed and jesus.

Jesus however was a pornstar and got it on with various people using his powers. - It was a big hit among fetishists.

Invader Zim

13th October 2008, 17:11

Goldberg is a total fucking loon, and his book is wrong on just about every level. When it was published, and was reviewed, historians tore it to shreds because it was so utterly off the mark.

Kwisatz Haderach

13th October 2008, 17:28

Actually, do you have any links to some of those reviews? They might come in handy...

RGacky3

13th October 2008, 17:46

How do you figure? Fascists are pretty big on their hate of liberalism.

Depends what you mean my fascist and liberal. If by fascist you mean the socio-economic policies of corporatism, and nationalism, then definately you could be liberal and fascist. Just because historically the fascists many times were against 'liberals' does'nt mean the 2 are exclusive.

GPDP

13th October 2008, 18:15

Actually, do you have any links to some of those reviews? They might come in handy...

http://banjo.macrochan.org/source/5/Y/5YZWR4PF3B53NJQAVJVG3TES77PN3CSR.jpg

Bud Struggle

14th October 2008, 19:52

Don't be silly. One of the reasons for widespread political apathy on the part of the general population is that no one is taught enough about the society they live in when they're young and it all becomes bewildering afterwards. Also consider that if you're studying any form of literature (for example) you should be able to look at it in the context of the time which could mean discussion lots of "nasty" stuff (attitudes to women, sexual and ethnic minorities, violence and so on), as well (of course) as any study in most modern forms of art. Oh I don't mind the nast stuff being discussed--it's just that I want to be the one to explain those kinds of things to m children. Tha is the responsibility of a parent--not a school system that seems to do a pretty bad job of explaining math and science and language arts to the students--what makes you think they could do a good job with issues like sex education or abortion?

To simply think as schools as a simple place for training people in the three Rs, divorced entirely from the outside world is laughably archaic. Being literate and numerate, obviously, should be expected of students but a greater understanding of the world around them is also needed - not only in the literal sense of physics, chemistry and biology but also in the more abstract sense of sociology and politics. Oh, I agree here--but moral issues are something that belong in the home--not in school. Since they were 11 my children have been reading the Harvard Classics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics which we discuss every day at dinner. It's my job as a parent to teach these things to my kids--and unlike most schools--I take my job seriously.

Your "leave it to the parents" idea is outstandingly stupid. The parents will generally spend a lot more time with a child (especially a younger one) than any schoolteacher (for the most part), so any fear about their opinions not being heard is a complete absurdity. Consider, also, that not every teacher will have the same views on everything (true, they tend toward leftism [at least in the UK], but there are always exceptions) and exposing a child to discussion and healthy debate does do wonders to clear people's heads of frightful ignorance. I would be happy if parents, teachers and pupils all shared their thoughts on a discussion but demanding that a subject should not be discussed?! That is unacceptable. Do you ever wonder why toothless fuckwits that were "homeskooled gud" are such ignorant dicks? Do you not think that, maybe, a complete shut out from reality in order to learn the idiot beliefs of their abusive (sorry, pious) parents is part of that? Homeschooled kids are as much dicks as kids taught only by a school system. There should be a mix to geve the best education to kids. The school should do it's part and leave parent to do their part.

Tom, that sounds pretty damn close to "And about the other kids - I don't care." I'm not saying that's what you meant, but I am saying you should be careful not to slip into that sort of thinking. Now that IS a valid criticism. And it is very problematical, I agree. But, I don't want my beliefs to be forced on other people's kids--I also don't want their beliefs to be taught to my kid. And yes there are are children caught in the middle. But my FIRST job is that of a Paterfamelias--my next job is that of a citizen. My family comes first.

Now, we can all agree that kids deserve the best upbringing they can get. The problem is that some kids have parents that are better than their teachers, while other kids have parents that are worse than their teachers. Ideally, the parents should play a primary role in bringing up the first group and the teachers and educators should play a primary role in bringing up the second group. And then of course you have the many kids that would fit somewhere in between. We should try to devise an educational system flexible enough to respond differently to kids with different home environments. I don't know how, but it's something to think about. I couldn't agree more.

More to the point, your kids shouldn't just have exactly the same opinions as you. Children should be exposed to a broad spectrum of ideas not just that of their parents, then they should be able to form their own moral beliefs. Certaily they should be exposed to all sorts of stuff--but they also have to have a critial framework to judge good from bad--and that is something that should be developed before more contoversal topics are discussed.

There is a huge difference between 'teaching morals' and 'teaching.' For example, on the issue of abortion, I can 'teach that abortion is wrong/right' or I can 'teach the material realities of abortion (what it entails, how it is performed, the benefits/costs, etc...).'

TomK, it seems as though you are thoroughly confusing the two. Furthermore, the idea of 'teaching morals' seems to reek of indoctrination. For if you're morals are so sound, why not expose them to discussion and debate in an educational atmosphere, like, say, a school...?

- August Because the nurturing process takes place over time and I want to be in control of the process. That's what school boards are for and that's what school board elections are for and that's why school board members ask for money from guys like me to pay for campaign.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

14th October 2008, 19:59

Goldberg is a total fucking loon, and his book is wrong on just about every level. When it was published, and was reviewed, historians tore it to shreds because it was so utterly off the mark.

I enjoy reading it, just so I can feel the hate pumping thru my veins.

Demogorgon

14th October 2008, 22:46

Tom, the problem with saying that you don't want certain things discussed in school is that even if the topic is no longer raised at school, you will still not be able to control your children's access to such information or explain it in your way. When I think of all the kind of stuff we are discussing here, whether it be abortion, sex or whatever, and where my primary source of information for these things was when I was younger, it was neither school nor my parents, it was the media.

Schools are not ideal sources of information for these things, but they are a damn site better than journalists. And of course, as others have noted, some parents simply will not discuss these issues with their children, should such children be getting their information on these topics entirely from the media? Schools are generally a better place to learn.

Invader Zim

18th October 2008, 12:47

Actually, do you have any links to some of those reviews? They might come in handy...

Not to hand. However there are plenty of reviews, even by Goldberg's fellow conservatives, who rather tellingly think the book is shit.

Such as this (http://amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/).

Eric Alterman, a journalist but trained historian, also blasted the work here (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/alterman).

Jazzratt

18th October 2008, 17:24

Oh I don't mind the nast stuff being discussed--it's just that I want to be the one to explain those kinds of things to m children.

Then explain it to them early, they'll have a headstart on their peers at school. The point of teaching the kids at school is because some parents will neglect to tell their children about the "nasty" stuff and thus leave them at a disadvantage when dealing with the real world.

Tha is the responsibility of a parent--not a school system that seems to do a pretty bad job of explaining math and science and language arts to the students--what makes you think they could do a good job with issues like sex education or abortion?

Balls. The parent has no right to vet the education of a child for things they find personally offensive. As for the "bad job" schools do of explaining maths, science and so on the reasons are not because school is inherently bad at teaching things but because teachers are under paid, overworked, stressed, miserable, attacked on all sides by pay cutting governments, aggressive & lazy pupils, and empty headed and ignorant parents. I know how good a job they can do of teaching sex education and moral issues because I remember lessons in which they did from five years ago. While areas can be improved on (they generally don't teach girls about periods until most of them have been having them for years, they teach only the barest basics to boys about sex, abortion is the only sexuality-related moral issue that is raised [nothing on age of consent etc...] and so on) they generally do very well (accurate discussions on the pros and cons of contraceptives, advice on healthy sex, in depth discussion of non sex-related moral issues and so forth).

Oh, I agree here--but moral issues are something that belong in the home--not in school.

Then either you don't agree or you don't understand my point. How do you teach the arts to pupils who do not fully understand the social context of the art? To pupils who have only a vague and confused understanding of the motivations of characters depicted in literature and drama? How do explain the mating habits of animals to pupils who are only peripherally aware of where babies come from? A knowledge of society, sex and civics is, alongside reading, writing, arthimetic and scientific thinking, absolutely essentail for a rounded education.

Since they were 11 my children have been reading the Harvard Classics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics which we discuss every day at dinner.

They read them, but do they understand them? Not just in the sense that they can (impressively I'm sure) regurgitate the precise literal meanings of each one but instead, do they understand the hows and whys of the books? Without understanding of greek society (in all its sordid detail, and there was a lot of very sordid detail) how do they hope to understand the scrawlings of plato or the epic tradgedies presented in the five foot bookshelf? How can someone have read and understood Rousseau's "On Inequality..." without moving on to consider its application today and thus consider the moral inequality around us, therefore considering, amongst other things, feminism which is steeped in sexual politics.

It's my job as a parent to teach these things to my kids--and unlike most schools--I take my job seriously.

Your job is to feed and clothe your kids, maybe - just maybe - if you had at least a tiny knowledge of pedagougery you would be able to claim that you were able to teach these children anything. Saying that schools do not take their job seriously makes you ignorant to claim that you're going to do better than them despite your distinct lack of training in education makes you arrogant and your fervent belief that a school deprived of its right to teach about society would be better makes you stupid.

Homeschooled kids are as much dicks as kids taught only by a school system.

Yes, but they're also the most ignorant. Either because they are deliberately taught that way (fundamentalist christian parents for example) or because they have recieved only a partial education. Dicks or not at least people who've been to school are less ignorant (unless, apparently, it was a school in America).

There should be a mix to geve the best education to kids.

Why the hell would a mix do that?

The school should do it's part and leave parent to do their part.

The parents' part is auxillary and supportive - to discuss with children as they learn at school. Sure they can teach kids whatever the hell they like as long as they realise that their ideas will not be the olnly ones their child is going to hear.

Bud Struggle

18th October 2008, 22:59

Then explain it to them early, they'll have a headstart on their peers at school. The point of teaching the kids at school is because some parents will neglect to tell their children about the "nasty" stuff and thus leave them at a disadvantage when dealing with the real world. This is a discussion really about what is the center of the world. You (correctme if I'm wrong, of course,) seems to think it's "society." I would rather posit it's MY HOME. At least for me: my family. that's my job in this world--to take care of them, my obligation as a citizen of the world comes second.

Balls. The parent has no right to vet the education of a child for things they find personally offensive. I have EVERY right--my family, my job.

As for the "bad job" schools do of explaining maths, science and so on the reasons are not because school is inherently bad at teaching things but because teachers are under paid, overworked, stressed, miserable, attacked on all sides by pay cutting governments, aggressive & lazy pupils, and empty headed and ignorant parents. I'll be fair--of course, eachers diserve more and are not always treated well.

I know how good a job they can do of teaching sex education and moral issues because I remember lessons in which they did from five years ago. While areas can be improved on (they generally don't teach girls about periods until most of them have been having them for years, they teach only the barest basics to boys about sex, abortion is the only sexuality-related moral issue that is raised [nothing on age of consent etc...] and so on) they generally do very well (accurate discussions on the pros and cons of contraceptives, advice on healthy sex, in depth discussion of non sex-related moral issues and so forth). My wife and I have discussed sex and all of that with our children (periods--babies, etc.) We spoke of what we appove of (sex within marriage) and what we disaprove of ( contraception, abortion, etc.) in no uncertain terms. Nothing more to be said to our children.

Then either you don't agree or you don't understand my point. How do you teach the arts to pupils who do not fully understand the social context of the art? To pupils who have only a vague and confused understanding of the motivations of characters depicted in literature and drama? How do explain the mating habits of animals to pupils who are only peripherally aware of where babies come from? A knowledge of society, sex and civics is, alongside reading, writing, arthimetic and scientific thinking, absolutely essentail for a rounded education. Agreed. But, as a Catholic--I think I can understand the humanism of the
Renaissance and the rethinking of the understanding of the world that that took, better than some latter day athiest. We play the Benedictine hymns of the church and then constract them with someone like Palinestra and then Bach to show the progression of thought and understanding of history and scripture. I see Marxism as an injection from the outside of culture--nothing in the mainstream.

They read them, but do they understand them? Not just in the sense that they can (impressively I'm sure) regurgitate the precise literal meanings of each one but instead, do they understand the hows and whys of the books? Without understanding of greek society (in all its sordid detail, and there was a lot of very sordid detail) how do they hope to understand the scrawlings of plato or the epic tradgedies presented in the five foot bookshelf? How can someone have read and understood Rousseau's "On Inequality..." without moving on to consider its application today and thus consider the moral inequality around us, therefore considering, amongst other things, feminism which is steeped in sexual politics. As I said we discuss. Reading for the sake of reading is for the most part--pretty much worthless. Interesting point is that we a Catholics, have no fear of sex. In fact we revel in it. (All Christians not being equal.) Our children see (not explicitly, of course) my wife and my love and affection for each other--as a man and a woman. We have a farm--horses and sheep and goats (goats :rolleyes:!) are doing it to each other daily. And baby's are being born. and FWIW Catholicism is steeped in the earth--things being born and things leaving. The changing of the seasons of the litergical year reflect all that quite nicely. we are living life as people have done so for the last 2000 years. With our little twists and turns, but married to the earth and all it represents. I don't want anyone messing with that.

Your job is to feed and clothe your kids, maybe - just maybe - if you had at least a tiny knowledge of pedagougery you would be able to claim that you were able to teach these children anything. Saying that schools do not take their job seriously makes you ignorant to claim that you're going to do better than them despite your distinct lack of training in education makes you arrogant and your fervent belief that a school deprived of its right to teach about society would be better makes you stupid. Fair argument. But I personally at least have done my work in becoming a parent--as I have done my work in becoming a businessman when I do business. I want for them the happiness that i have had. Nothing more nothing less. A good full life. I know how to do it--I will teach my children to life the good life that I have had. Schools are for imparting knowledge--but how to life life and how to derive quality out of life--that's the job of a parent.

Yes, but they're also the most ignorant. Either because they are deliberately taught that way (fundamentalist christian parents for example) or because they have recieved only a partial education. Dicks or not at least people who've been to school are less ignorant (unless, apparently, it was a school in America). Yes there are a lot of assholes out there. Fundamentalist Christians are on my list.

The parents' part is auxillary and supportive - to discuss with children as they learn at school. Sure they can teach kids whatever the hell they like as long as they realise that their ideas will not be the olnly ones their child is going to hear.

Just the opposite--the school is auxillary and supportive. The school augments the really important moral teaching the kids learn at home with inportant information.

It's quality of life that's important. Not quantity of information.

Jazzratt

19th October 2008, 13:05

This is a discussion really about what is the center of the world. You (correctme if I'm wrong, of course,) seems to think it's "society." I would rather posit it's MY HOME. At least for me: my family. that's my job in this world--to take care of them, my obligation as a citizen of the world comes second.

It doesn't matter what you think of as being the centre of the world, people still have to function in and understand the society around them and should be taught as much about it as possible.

I have EVERY right--my family, my job.

You have the right to look after your family's health but to encroach on their freedom of education? No. You have no more right to censor teachers than you do to censor newspapers.

I'll be fair--of course, eachers diserve more and are not always treated well.

Understatement of the week perhaps?

My wife and I have discussed sex and all of that with our children (periods--babies, etc.) We spoke of what we appove of (sex within marriage) and what we disaprove of ( contraception, abortion, etc.) in no uncertain terms. Nothing more to be said to our children.

So you've given them a fairly one-sided story of things but you've still taught them. What is your fear, then, of them learning other views of the same subject is school? Why keep them clear of frank discussion on subjects in which they are (presumably) furnished with sufficient knowledge to be part of the discussion? Is it because you are afraid of any challenge to the validity of the ideas you are implanting in your children?

What of other things they may encounter later in life (that you doubtless disapprove of) that you are unlikely to have taught them about - for example polyamory, transgender people, paraphilias and so on.

Agreed. But, as a Catholic--I think I can understand the humanism of the Renaissance and the rethinking of the understanding of the world that that took, better than some latter day athiest.

What utter bollocks. Perhaps as someone who has studied it with greater depth you could know more about it than me but a historian (atheist or religious) of the era would certainly know more than either of us. If you insist that beliefs might have an affect on ones understanding of the Renaissance then why Catholicism? Why not one of the many philosophies that originated in the Renaissance.

We play the Benedictine hymns of the church and then constract them with someone like Palinestra and then Bach to show the progression of thought and understanding of history and scripture.

Fascinating, but irrelevant.

I see Marxism as an injection from the outside of culture--nothing in the mainstream.

I'm sure you do, but it is also irrelevant. Up until your post Marxism wasn't even being mentioned.

As I said we discuss. Reading for the sake of reading is for the most part--pretty much worthless. Interesting point is that we a Catholics, have no fear of sex. In fact we revel in it. (All Christians not being equal.) Our children see (not explicitly, of course) my wife and my love and affection for each other--as a man and a woman. We have a farm--horses and sheep and goats (goats :rolleyes:!) are doing it to each other daily. And baby's are being born. and FWIW Catholicism is steeped in the earth--things being born and things leaving. The changing of the seasons of the litergical year reflect all that quite nicely. we are living life as people have done so for the last 2000 years. With our little twists and turns, but married to the earth and all it represents.

What a life you must lead :rolleyes: but why the hell are you telling me this?

I don't want anyone messing with that.

If all it takes for someone to mess with your life and belief system is for them to mention that there are other viewpoints and lifestyles then the foundations of your life and beliefs is weak.

Fair argument. But I personally at least have done my work in becoming a parent--as I have done my work in becoming a businessman when I do business. I want for them the happiness that i have had. Nothing more nothing less. A good full life. I know how to do it--I will teach my children to life the good life that I have had. Schools are for imparting knowledge--but how to life life and how to derive quality out of life--that's the job of a parent.

Has it ever occurred yo you that your kids aren't you? That their hopes, dreams and sources of fulfilment are seperate to yours? No one is suggesting that schools teach them how to live life (outside, of course, of the obvious teaching them about the rights and responsibilities of citizens) and I am certainly not suggesting that the school knows any better than you how to ensure a child derives pleasure out of life - in that respect both you and the school know fuck all; it is the child, and only the child, who knows what they derive pleasure from in life.

Yes there are a lot of assholes out there. Fundamentalist Christians are on my list.

You missed my point. Home-schooling, especially religious (fundamentalist or liberal), has a greater chance for gaps in knowledge or implanting of false information (deliberately or not).

Just the opposite--the school is auxillary and supportive. The school augments the really important moral teaching the kids learn at home with inportant information.

A decent morality is not passed from parent to child, nor from teacher to pupil. It comes from discussion, from understanding moral precepts, from learning. In that respect being taught about morality is much better than being given a list of things that are moral and a list of things that aren't. Parents are incapable of giving a true presentation of lots of different moral viewpoints, whereas teachers can by dint of the fact that they teach in larger groups with a larger spread of backgrounds and morality.

It's quality of life that's important. Not quantity of information.

False dichotomy. The more you know, the easier and better your life becomes.

Bud Struggle

19th October 2008, 21:09

It doesn't matter what you think of as being the centre of the world, people still have to function in and understand the society around them and should be taught as much about it as possible. I agree--but what they are taught is the improtant thing.

You have the right to look after your family's health but to encroach on their freedom of education? No. You have no more right to censor teachers than you do to censor newspapers. Freedom of education? I have no problem with education--my problem is with indoctrination. Education the schools can do all they want--but the socialization of my children is my concern.

Understatement of the week perhaps? True--but the best and the brightest certainly don't go into teaching. as GB Shaw said: "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

So you've given them a fairly one-sided story of things but you've still taught them. What is your fear, then, of them learning other views of the same subject is school? Why keep them clear of frank discussion on subjects in which they are (presumably) furnished with sufficient knowledge to be part of the discussion? Is it because you are afraid of any challenge to the validity of the ideas you are implanting in your children? again I have no fear of education--I don't like people explaining things with a sufficient moral backdrop to the thing they are discussing. I rather they leave such things up to the parents.

What of other things they may encounter later in life (that you doubtless disapprove of) that you are unlikely to have taught them about - for example polyamory, transgender people, paraphilias and so on. Knowing the names an practices of nonnormative sexual practices I think falls pretty far down on the list of thing I feel are important in education, infact such things are more socialization than education. So, I'm not interested in the schools teaching those things.

What utter bollocks. Perhaps as someone who has studied it with greater depth you could know more about it than me but a historian (atheist or religious) of the era would certainly know more than either of us. If you insist that beliefs might have an affect on ones understanding of the Renaissance then why Catholicism? Why not one of the many philosophies that originated in the Renaissance. Well that's a story best not gone into now.

I'm sure you do, but it is also irrelevant. Up until your post Marxism wasn't even being mentioned. Well, sorry. I didn't think it was a dirty word. I won't mention it again. :D

If all it takes for someone to mess with your life and belief system is for them to mention that there are other viewpoints and lifestyles then the foundations of your life and beliefs is weak. Again It's fine they know lots of things, but until the schools get down the basics of education, I find precious little time for them to be discussing things like sex practices. Ultimately unless it's used for some sort of indoctrination, it's worthless.

Has it ever occurred yo you that your kids aren't you? That their hopes, dreams and sources of fulfilment are seperate to yours? No one is suggesting that schools teach them how to live life (outside, of course, of the obvious teaching them about the rights and responsibilities of citizens) and I am certainly not suggesting that the school knows any better than you how to ensure a child derives pleasure out of life - in that respect both you and the school know fuck all; it is the child, and only the child, who knows what they derive pleasure from in life. Anyone could do whatever they want. The schools certainly can--but so can I. And if I want to give a few dollars to someone running for the school board 9with the hope they may see things my way once elected)--it's my dollars and my right to do so.

You missed my point. Home-schooling, especially religious (fundamentalist or liberal), has a greater chance for gaps in knowledge or implanting of false information (deliberately or not). I agree a bit--that's why we don't homeschool.

A decent morality is not passed from parent to child, nor from teacher to pupil. It comes from discussion, from understanding moral precepts, from learning. In that respect being taught about morality is much better than being given a list of things that are moral and a list of things that aren't. I disagree there--there have been finely wrought moralities that have come down through the ages that have seen all sorts of rials and tribulations--and have been made etter for it--at least better than those hashed out in a class by a slightley educated teacher and slightly less educated students.

Parents are incapable of giving a true presentation of lots of different moral viewpoints, whereas teachers can by dint of the fact that they teach in larger groups with a larger spread of backgrounds and morality. I don't see the point there.

False dichotomy. The more you know, the easier and better your life becomes.Ignorance is bliss. ;):) (Meant as a joke--not what I actually believe.)

Jazzratt

20th October 2008, 13:27

Freedom of education? I have no problem with education--my problem is with indoctrination. Education the schools can do all they want--but the socialization of my children is my concern.

Teaching someone about society, furnishing them only with facts, is different from indoctrination - giving them a moral conclusion as well. It seems to me that throughout your post you have been doggedly arguing for indoctrination as long as someone with arbitrary power over the children in question is doing it.

True--but the best and the brightest certainly don't go into teaching. as GB Shaw said: "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

False. George Bernard Shaw (intelligent though he was) was simply bastardising a (now) much lesser known phrase: "Those that can, do. Those that know, teach.". And one which makes much more sense to me, after all I knew that and now I have taught you.

again I have no fear of education--I don't like people explaining things with a sufficient moral backdrop to the thing they are discussing. I rather they leave such things up to the parents.

Could you explain the bit in bold for me? It's not very clearly written.

Knowing the names an practices of nonnormative sexual practices I think falls pretty far down on the list of thing I feel are important in education, infact such things are more socialization than education. So, I'm not interested in the schools teaching those things.

There you go with another false dichotomy. As I have been trying to explain to you from the beginning of this discussion socialisation should be part of the curriculum. A lot of it is also required so that, for example, a transgendered pupil can be understood by hir peers rather than hated and/or feared which is tragically the case all too often. Also remember that a lot of this stuff is likely to be taught in Religious Education and a lot of religions that pupils are likely to learn about give explicit opinions on some of these practices [your bible for example has a character that is in a polygynys relationship, another's Qu'ran has examples of the same and allows for them in its holy laws. Not really a "nonnstandard sexual practice" is it].

Well, sorry. I didn't think it was a dirty word. I won't mention it again. :D

The point is that you seemed to be implying that I wished for Marxist ethics to be taught in schools. This is very close to the opposite of my wishes - I want to see children taught about moral and sociatal issues such that they can come to their own conculsions. This will weed out the less sound moralities that could be implanted in them by well meaning parents.

Again It's fine they know lots of things, but until the schools get down the basics of education, I find precious little time for them to be discussing things like sex practices. Ultimately unless it's used for some sort of indoctrination, it's worthless.

The maximum amount of time you can reliably keep a young person's attention such that they'll remember what you're saying is about an hour and a half - after that you should be moving on to something different or you're just pissing into the wind. For this reason the amount you can teach them about "essential" is limited throughout the week. Personal & Social Health Education act to "cleanse the pallette" so to speak after more academically intensive lessons, whilst still teaching the pupils (but teaching something they have a great deal of interest in as growing and curious individuals (PSHE was a favourite of mine for this reason)). If nothing else discussions on whether a practice (say, abortion) is moral helps raise critical thinking capacities.

Anyone could do whatever they want. The schools certainly can--but so can I. And if I want to give a few dollars to someone running for the school board 9with the hope they may see things my way once elected)--it's my dollars and my right to do so.

I'm sure you can. Which is why your education system has such a bourgeois slant (not, I hasten to add, because of you personally but because yours is an education system where money has a lot of leverage over the curriculum).

I disagree there--there have been finely wrought moralities that have come down through the ages that have seen all sorts of rials and tribulations--and have been made etter for it--at least better than those hashed out in a class by a slightley educated teacher and slightly less educated students.

Again, I ask if this morality is so superior what threat is there from other ideas?

I don't see the point there.

Of course you don't, it relies on you understanding that stagnant morality is a bad thing.

Ignorance is bliss. ;):)

I'll take your word for it ;).

Chambered Word

4th June 2009, 15:25

X person/party/ideology has something in common with Hitler. Therefore X is evil fascist scum!

Examples:

1. Some liberals are gay. Some Nazis were gay. Therefore liberals are Nazis.
2. Liberals support some kind of state intervention in the economy (i.e. they oppose laissez-faire). Fascists also opposed laissez-faire. Therefore fascists are liberals (or "left-wing," since we all know that the right-wing is composed entirely of hardcore libertarians).
3. Hitler was a vegetarian and a wannabe painter in his youth. Hippies are often associated with vegetarianism and being artist-types. Therefore Hitler was a hippie, and hippies are Nazis.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW, JEWS DID WTC

I myself am getting quite tired of liberal policies on sex and 'racism'. I'm pro gay rights, pro sex ed etc, but it's stupid how these days it seems acceptable for kids to be screwing, and neither liberal policies of 'tolerance' or conservative policies of abstinence-only education (and all that bible-thumping bullshit they try to peddle) are going to fix up the problems with teenage motherhood and the like. As for liberal policies on racism, over where I live in Western Australia recently a man was jailed for 14 years for making racist comments against Jews. I'm against racism but 14 years is incredible, I would have asked antifa to give him a beating and leave it at that - the government has practically repressed free speech here, no matter how utterly stupid this guy's speech was - especially when over here we can't seem to put someone in jail for a proper sentence after they kill 3 people in drink driving accidents (apparently the argument that it might not have been the alcohol that caused it holds up here). If I remember correctly a mother who drove drunk and got into an accident which killed her two kids got 3 years, and the newspaper was saying 'how horrible it must have seemed that she got jailed for 3 WHOLE YEARS! when her family is already grieving' or something along those lines.

I'm going off on a tangent, but I'm pretty tired of all this so-called 'tolerance' and politically correct bullshit that liberals seem to always be peddling, although conservatives are only worse. So now I consider myself a communist and not really a liberal. I'm all for tolerating people who are born of a different race, culture or sexuality, but it gets outrageous when society is allowed to degenerate because we have to be extra nice to criminals (and people who prevent their children from receiving medical care - I'm also sick of religious 'tolerance').

Still, I wouldn't call liberalism fascist at all, as people have said before it's just name calling and using the hack 'ad Hitlerum' argument.

As for education, I don't think people are educated enough about society, especially politics. If you ever wonder why people keep electing the same old capitalist scumbags who end up screwing them over, it's probably because people aren't taught how to vote for themselves and they're too easily influenced by political campaigns and appearances.

Any feedback appreciated.

-L

trivas7

4th June 2009, 15:39

Still, I wouldn't call liberalism fascist at all, as people have said before it's just name calling and using the hack 'ad Hitlerum' argument.

It's a tactic exploited by conservatives like Jonas Goldberg to equate fascism w/ liberalism. It's just stupidity.

Angry Young Man

4th June 2009, 19:42

I saw another bloody stupid book in a shop called liberal fascism or somesuch. Is this the one you're talking about? Has a picture of a smiley face with a Hitler tache?

ÑóẊîöŉ

4th June 2009, 20:38

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW, JEWS DID WTC

I myself am getting quite tired of liberal policies on sex and 'racism'. I'm pro gay rights, pro sex ed etc, but it's stupid how these days it seems acceptable for kids to be screwing, and neither liberal policies of 'tolerance' or conservative policies of abstinence-only education (and all that bible-thumping bullshit they try to peddle) are going to fix up the problems with teenage motherhood and the like.

It's "liberal" policies on sex education and the provision of contraceptives/birth control that are correlated with lower rates of teenage pregnancies and STD infection, so I don't quite get what you're griping about.

As for liberal policies on racism, over where I live in Western Australia recently a man was jailed for 14 years for making racist comments against Jews. I'm against racism but 14 years is incredible, I would have asked antifa to give him a beating and leave it at that - the government has practically repressed free speech here, no matter how utterly stupid this guy's speech was - especially when over here we can't seem to put someone in jail for a proper sentence after they kill 3 people in drink driving accidents (apparently the argument that it might not have been the alcohol that caused it holds up here).You know, beating someone up for voicing their opinion doesn't strike me as particularly in favour of "free speech" either. What is the difference between being jailed for 14 years (the Western Australian government's reaction to hate speech) and having one's head kicked in?

Sounds more like you have problems with the execution of speech restriction than the concept of same.

Which is fair enough, but don't be fooled into thinking that just because you prefer a more rough and ready approach (others would call it vigilantism), you're more in favour of free speech. Everone has a form of expression which they find objectionable, to the point where they would repress it with violence if they could.

If I remember correctly a mother who drove drunk and got into an accident which killed her two kids got 3 years, and the newspaper was saying 'how horrible it must have seemed that she got jailed for 3 WHOLE YEARS! when her family is already grieving' or something along those lines.
Have you considered the possibility of there being mitigating circumstances that you were perhaps unaware of? It wasn't the newspaper that passed sentence, so their opinion seems kind of irrelevant to me.

I'm going off on a tangent, but I'm pretty tired of all this so-called 'tolerance' and politically correct bullshit that liberals seem to always be peddling, although conservatives are only worse. So now I consider myself a communist and not really a liberal. I'm all for tolerating people who are born of a different race, culture or sexuality, but it gets outrageous when society is allowed to degenerate because we have to be extra nice to criminals (and people who prevent their children from receiving medical care - I'm also sick of religious 'tolerance').About being "nice" to criminals; not everyone who breaks the law and gets caught is a hardened career criminal, and to punish someone's one-time misdemeanour on the same level is to utterly trample on any civilised concept of justice.

Not only that, but it's counterproductive. Shoving a petty criminals into a jailhouse full of career criminals has no rehabilitative function whatsoever. They simply end up learning the "tricks of the trade", so to speak.

AztecCommunist

4th June 2009, 21:27

Lol!!!!!!!!!
The conservative revolution.
That's a great joke.
And you know, yes it's the war on Christmas that us communists are focused on.

I expect such ridiculous remarks from an "objectivist".

:laugh:

Robert

5th June 2009, 03:20

As for liberal policies on racism, over where I live in Western Australia recently a man was jailed for 14 years for making racist comments against Jews.

14 years, eh? Are you sure there isn't more to that story?

I thought the most time you could get for hate speech alone in Australia is 6 months.

Robert

5th June 2009, 03:26

Il Medico

5th June 2009, 06:33

. I will teach my kids what I want them taught when it comes to morality.
Then your children will have no morals, no choice in what they believe, only greed and the misconception that their Dad cares about them. Morals and ethics should be thought at every school. Waiting to college is often to late. Enjoy indoctrinating your kids with beliefs that, according to your religion, will send them to hell.

RGacky3

5th June 2009, 08:00

14 years, eh? Are you sure there isn't more to that story?

I thought the most time you could get for hate speech alone in Australia is 6 months.

If there is any possible leagal action for "speach" then you don't have free speach.

Jazzratt

5th June 2009, 19:02

If there is any possible leagal action for "speach" then you don't have free speach.

There is no free speech. As NoXion pointed out:

Everone has a form of expression which they find objectionable, to the point where they would repress it with violence if they could.

Bud Struggle

5th June 2009, 22:16

Then your children will have no morals, no choice in what they believe, only greed and the misconception that their Dad cares about them. Morals and ethics should be thought at every school. Waiting to college is often to late. Enjoy indoctrinating your kids with beliefs that, according to your religion, will send them to hell.

Sweet! :D

Besides we already live in Hell. (Florida, that is. ;) )

Dimentio

5th June 2009, 22:25

Sweet! :D

Besides we already live in Hell. (Florida, that is. ;) )

I think that both parents and society has a duty to teach children how to act on empathy, that compassion is essential, and to treat others with dignity and respect.

I haven't seen any school which is encouraging abortion or "lewdness". But schools have an obligation to try to be as neutral as possible in a secular society. Therefore, they cannot force down religious values on children.

Robert

5th June 2009, 22:37

If there is any possible leagal action for "speach" then you don't have free speach.

<speech>

Well, maybe not, but there are forms of protected speech, and I'll bet you ten beers to one that nobody in Australia ever got 14 years in prison, or even 7 years, for simply expressing an opinion about Jews, no matter how hateful it was.

What speech would I repress with violence? Hmmmm. I suppose that if a guy went into the public square, hooked up a microphone to a P.A. system and started farting The Internationale into it, I would have him removed.

Or if he began singing "Feelings" or "People" through his mouth or any other orifice. That would have to be stopped at all cost.

Robert

5th June 2009, 22:40

But schools have an obligation to try to be as neutral as possible in a secular society.

In other words, not try to teach children the superiority of communism to capitalism?

Thanks, man. Glad to have you on board!

Bud Struggle

5th June 2009, 22:48

I think that both parents and society has a duty to teach children how to act on empathy, that compassion is essential, and to treat others with dignity and respect.

I haven't seen any school which is encouraging abortion or "lewdness". But schools have an obligation to try to be as neutral as possible in a secular society. Therefore, they cannot force down religious values on children.

As as parent of children in real life public schools in America--I can tell you they are totally non religious and morally neutral. Ther's no good and bad, right and wrong. Just "nice and not nice." One thing Liberalism has done to exclude religion form the classroom is to denude the schools of any moral authority whatsoever.

"Don't call the African-American person the N-word, it's not nice and we may be sued."

Robert

5th June 2009, 23:07

One thing Liberalism has done to exclude religion form the classroom is to denude the schools of any moral authority whatsoever.

Denuded? Wow, you mean naked teachers like this one in Tennessee? That's terrible. We never had any of those in my high school. Believe me, I checked.

http://www.wbir.com/genthumb.ashx?e=3&h=240&w=320&i=/assetpool/images/0641595046_PamelaRodgers.jpg

This one is from Texas. She got busted too. I'm glad she didn't get me in her blonde crosshairs.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/06-06/0602amy.jpg

Dimentio

5th June 2009, 23:14

As as parent of children in real life public schools in America--I can tell you they are totally non religious and morally neutral. Ther's no good and bad, right and wrong. Just "nice and not nice." One thing Liberalism has done to exclude religion form the classroom is to denude the schools of any moral authority whatsoever.

"Don't call the African-American person the N-word, it's not nice and we may be sued."

Swedish public schools are a bit similar. But I remember that we had some kind of ethics subject in primary (year 4 --> 6) which taught us not too steal, bully those who are different or be racist. It was in the form of an illustrated course book with cuddly fluffy main characters.

Bud Struggle

5th June 2009, 23:16

Swedish public schools are a bit similar. But I remember that we had some kind of ethics subject in primary (year 4 --> 6) which taught us not too steal, bully those who are different or be racist. It was in the form of an illustrated course book with cuddly fluffy main characters.

The real question is then, where do we get a "moral code" is indeed God is dead? Why not oppress people or own slaves for that matter?

Do you think Communism could offer something where Liberalism has failed? You know, Kronos/Nietsche makes a lot of sense without God.

Dimentio

5th June 2009, 23:34

The real question is then, where do we get a "moral code" is indeed God is dead? Why not oppress people or own slaves for that matter?

Do you think Communism could offer something where Liberalism has failed? You know, Kronos/Nietsche makes a lot of sense without God.

Napoleon once said that God was the only thing which kept the poor from killing the rich. No other meaning intended with quoting him.

I am not a militant atheist in the sense that I "oh HATE religion and wants to see christians tortured". I do dislike the herd behaviour espoused by some christians, muslims and other believers. But this same behaviour could develop within secular movements as well. I think its partially a psychological and partially a social trait. Humans are conditioned to wanting to believe something. No matter if its Jesus, Allah, JHVH, Buddha, Mao or Alex Jones.

But I think that morality and ethics could exist without religion. I think human beings have a natural empathy for one another, and that empathy could exist without religion. I think actually that religion - in some ways - is an evidence that people want to believe in values like kindness and compassion.

While most religions are patriarchal and have streaks of cruelty, I think that the basis for religion is that we seek to understand and have some sort of wholity in our existence. God (whether such a being exists or not) fills a role like some sort of cosmic father for the believers. Someone who could approve or disapprove of their actions, and care about them.

I may sound terribly confused, and I do not have a good reply about this I admit that, but I think that the qualities espoused in catholicism which you are fond of are not because of christianity alone, but a general propensity in us to respect human beings who are sacrificing themselves to save others. We are a race which is inclined towards looking up to generosity and compassion.

If we weren't, a lot of the world's religions and ideologies would simply be scoffed at. No one would be able to relate to them or look up to them. Even in pagan religions pre-dating the christian era, there were forms of moral norms. Buddhism and eastern philosophies also espouses this.

So yes, I do think that morality could exist without the kinds of religions we are used to today. But in the same time, I think society needs a common mythos and some common, basic values and norms. Otherwise, conflicting norms and values could appear and tear the fabric of community down.

That is my answer.

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 00:59

Napoleon once said that God was the only thing which kept the poor from killing the rich. No other meaning intended with quoting him. Now God hae been replaced by 15 mins of fame. You could be the next Paris Hilton. People would rather win the lottery then be the same as the people next door.

I am not a militant atheist in the sense that I "oh HATE religion and wants to see christians tortured". I do dislike the herd behaviour espoused by some christians, muslims and other believers. But this same behaviour could develop within secular movements as well. I think its partially a psychological and partially a social trait. Humans are conditioned to wanting to believe something. No matter if its Jesus, Allah, JHVH, Buddha, Mao or Alex Jones. You seem to have missed Marx, Stalin, Lenin and the rest. We need to stop being Marxist and Stalinists and any sort of cultists. Each of those people in their way do a diservice to the cause they believed in. For example as a Catholic I'm not a John-Paulist, or a Piusist or a Benedictist. I'm a Catholic. Now Catholics may have an interest in some Saint or Pope--but it never surmounts their Catholicism. Maybe Communists could take a lesson from them.

But I think that morality and ethics could exist without religion. I think human beings have a natural empathy for one another, and that empathy could exist without religion. I think actually that religion - in some ways - is an evidence that people want to believe in values like kindness and compassion. Granted they want to take something of kindness and compassion--but from all the religions that come before us--people don't wnat to take "ownership" of those things. They rather they come from someplace else. I'm not a compassionate person on my own--I don't give away things to the poor on my own, it's illogical--I'm out for myself. To be compassionate is illogical. That's why we have a God--He trancends the illogocal. We give because HE commands us. God makes the illogical logical by devine command. That's why God works for so many people.

While most religions are patriarchal and have streaks of cruelty, I think that the basis for religion is that we seek to understand and have some sort of wholity in our existence. God (whether such a being exists or not) fills a role like some sort of cosmic father for the believers. Someone who could approve or disapprove of their actions, and care about them. Exactly. That's the true beauty of God...the world is filled with meaningless people that only God can love, without Him they would have no hope. And to that matter--it's why religion always seems to win and Communism always seems to loose. It never was or never will be about money or economics. It always was and always wll be--about love. (And not sex love, but real human connection love.)

I may sound terribly confused, and I do not have a good reply about this I admit that, but I think that the qualities espoused in catholicism which you are fond of are not because of christianity alone, but a general propensity in us to respect human beings who are sacrificing themselves to save others. We are a race which is inclined towards looking up to generosity and compassion. You are not confused at all. You have come to the taproot of human existance.

If we weren't, a lot of the world's religions and ideologies would simply be scoffed at. No one would be able to relate to them or look up to them. Even in pagan religions pre-dating the christian era, there were forms of moral norms. Buddhism and eastern philosophies also espouses this. Very few Russians related to the Soviet Union--most of them are relating to Jesus in the Russian Orthodox Chruch. What Technocrat could believe such a thing? :D But the Church gives something to the human spitrit that economics and class equality can't. It's not about money--otherwise so many rich Americans would be freakin' happy by now. There's something else to life and it's NOT quantifiable.

So yes, I do think that morality could exist without the kinds of religions we are used to today. But in the same time, I think society needs a common mythos and some common, basic values and norms. Otherwise, conflicting norms and values could appear and tear the fabric of community down. Indeed!

That is my answer.Great post. There might be hope for Communism yet. ;)

Dimentio

6th June 2009, 01:47

I'll return later.

Ciao.

redSHARP

6th June 2009, 02:18

I don't want it discussed in school. Such things are for parents to discuss with their children. I guess there's a little Stalin in me. :D

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/raduf/happychildhood.gif

hahahahahaha!!! thats why i love your posts tomk.

i think schools should keep to the basics. however, they should be a guiding light for kids with the basic ideas of, tolerance, exploring, and asking questions. with that, a kid can pick his own fate.

Il Medico

6th June 2009, 05:31

Sweet! :D

Besides we already live in Hell. (Florida, that is. ;) )
You live in hell too??? I am glad you share my pain! ;)

RHIZOMES

6th June 2009, 06:28

As shown the by disenrolments of my WPNZ comrades for burning the flag, PC liberalism can be just as repressive as conservativism. Oooo *health and safety*!!

Jazzratt

6th June 2009, 18:14

The real question is then, where do we get a "moral code" is indeed God is dead? Why not oppress people or own slaves for that matter?

If someone convinced you there was no god would you go out and be a total arsehole?

Bud Struggle

6th June 2009, 18:18

If someone convinced you there was no god would you go out and be a total arsehole?

Believing in God never stopped me from being an arsehole before. :D

Seriously though--There's something out there that makes men in power get GREEDY. I've seen it, I've been minor league tempted at times--I do OK, but to make BILLIONS you have to change gears and "do thing." Maybe you and your Commie Comrades think of capitalists as all the same--but there is a differnce between not paying someone what a Marxist would think as a fair wage and fucking someone over.

And there's opportunities out there for a businessman. Mostly they just show up. I have to say--honestly--most businessmen are made decent people by being Christians. Without Christ you'd be eating shit for dinner--or we would have the Revolution already--either way Christ is a major factor in this world. For anyone to think Jesus just going to "go away" by getting a better payscale and more sanitary housing in missing the point of the mysteries of the human heart.

Really.

Robert

7th June 2009, 00:51

If someone convinced you there was no god would you go out and be a total arsehole?

Um, do I have to answer that question?:blushing:

RGacky3

8th June 2009, 08:43

but there is a differnce between not paying someone what a Marxist would think as a fair wage and fucking someone over.

What is that difference?

I have to say--honestly--most businessmen are made decent people by being Christians. Without Christ you'd be eating shit for dinner--or we would have the Revolution already--

What? Why is that the case?

Bud Struggle

8th June 2009, 12:46

What is that difference? Because paying a working person a good living wage for what he does is much difference than having people working in a swet shop. One of the reason that America is so "un-Revolutionary" is that a good number (though not all) of the workers recieve a good wage for the jobs they do. A working guy in America can home, have a couple of cars a big screen TV and maybe a bass boat to go fishing with on the weekend--that's better than any working man in the history of the world. and it's a good life.

What? Why is that the case? Because it would be so easy NOT to give people a good wage, and yet many (again not all) enloyers do so. And I blame the better wages on Jesus. I don't know if you've ever gone to a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Well we all are there to make money off of each other--but we pray first and if one of us is screwing over our employees, the guy is shunned from the group and often he's repremanded in a religious way.

It's an interesting dynamic.

RGacky3

8th June 2009, 12:56

Because paying a working person a good living wage for what he does is much difference than having people working in a swet shop. One of the reason that America is so "un-Revolutionary" is that a good number (though not all) of the workers recieve a good wage for the jobs they do. A working guy in America can home, have a couple of cars a big screen TV and maybe a bass boat to go fishing with on the weekend--that's better than any working man in the history of the world. and it's a good life.

A: That does'nt mean that they are not being screwed over
B: As said before Capitalism must be judged globally, so while capitalists rae paying some American workers living wages, they are still exploiting to a much higher degree most of the world.

Because it would be so easy NOT to give people a good wage, and yet many (again not all) enloyers do so

TomK, are you high? Do you think employers are CHOOSING to give people living wages? Do you know how long workers had to struggle to get that, how much class warfare went into that? Are you saying that just suddenly Capitalists found Jesus and decided to pay their workers somewhat living wages?

This is probably one of the dumbest things you have said, that Capitalists, out of the goodness of their hearts, pay living wages.

Bud Struggle

8th June 2009, 13:08

TomK, are you high? Do you think employers are CHOOSING to give people living wages? Do you know how long workers had to struggle to get that, how much class warfare went into that? Are you saying that just suddenly Capitalists found Jesus and decided to pay their workers somewhat living wages?

This is probably one of the dumbest things you have said, that Capitalists, out of the goodness of their hearts, pay living wages.

You have no idea how easy it is to screw workers over-- years of "worker's struggles" or no years of "worker's struggles," but most employers don't do it. It's bad for business and it's bad humanity. Generally most employers (again not all) do take the welfare of their employees into consideration. You'd be suprised how often things like how best to supply benefits or raises or bonuses to employees comes up in conversation with owners of companies. I can only speak of what I see in Florida, but we are fairly unionless here and there is little tension between owners and employees. It's a generally conflictless situation--and we'd like to keep it that way.

RGacky3

8th June 2009, 13:14

You have no idea how easy it is to screw workers over-- years of "worker's struggles" or no years of "worker's struggles," but most employers don't do it. It's bad for business and it's bad humanity.

Really? So employers have just suddenly been becoming more "moral" thoughout the decades? Were employers back in the early 1900s just giant assholes? Are only employers in certain industries moral?

I can only speak of what I see in Florida, but we are fairly unionless here and there is little tension between owners and employees. It's a generally conflictless situation--and we'd like to keep it that way.

There can be many reasons for that. One is just the other option.
I'll put it too you this way, if a king gives his peasants some extra land they can use, they will be greatfull, clearly, however it still does'nt change the fact that that land should'nt be his to begin with and that the peasents are still being screwed over.

Also the reason its good to have a conflictless workplace is because now, if there is conflict, workers can do something about that, bosses can't just lay down the iron fist as easily as they used to, why is that? Decades of workers struggle.

What your saying is akin to saying the US government just suddenly "realized" that racism and segregation was wrong, and out of the goodness of their heart stopped it.

Bud Struggle

8th June 2009, 13:45

Really? So employers have just suddenly been becoming more "moral" thoughout the decades? Were employers back in the early 1900s just giant assholes? Are only employers in certain industries moral? I have as much to do with 1900 Industrialist as you have to do with Kim Il Jung. Industries do make a difference, also the size of the business make a difference. But those big industrial companieslike GM, etc. are dying--so they are a thing of the past. On the other hand from what I've seen unionized workplaces are usually high tension affairs and often disagreeable to both workers and the manaement. They make any change or reaction to markets very difficult to do. In a static industrial world I think they will work, but in a dynamic marketplace they are unworkable.

There can be many reasons for that. One is just the other option.
I'll put it too you this way, if a king gives his peasants some extra land they can use, they will be greatfull, clearly, however it still does'nt change the fact that that land should'nt be his to begin with and that the peasents are still being screwed over.Again--my business is my creation. I started it in my garage and I grew it. If someone wants to work with me, fine well work together and I'll do my best to treat him/her fairly and pay them AND give them a very pleasent work enviornment. If they don't like what I have to offer then they need to find their own garage....

Also the reason its good to have a conflictless workplace is because now, if there is conflict, workers can do something about that, bosses can't just lay down the iron fist as easily as they used to, why is that? Decades of workers struggle. I'm sure it has a bit to do with it, but generally the workers and the management have become more liberalized by the general liberalization of society. Everyone's got to eat and enjoy their lives a bit. If people aren't fairly they don't do a good job. We all work toether.

What your saying is akin to saying the US government just suddenly "realized" that racism and segregation was wrong, and out of the goodness of their heart stopped it.It's doesn't matter WHY they did it--it's done and it's pretty obvious to everyone nowadays that blacks and whites are the same. I and you and mosteveryone treats the races the same not because some law tells us to but because everyone's human. Same goes with workers--maybe things got better for the workers because of the wrong reasons--but that fight's over for the most part. Worker's struggles I'm sure had something to do with it--but over all it's just human progress.

Unions have decreased from something like 30% to just 10% of the American workforce--they had their shot and they did some good, but their day is over.

RGacky3

8th June 2009, 14:07

I have as much to do with 1900 Industrialist as you have to do with Kim Il Jung.

The difference between me and Kim Il Jung, is I am not a dictator of a country, he is. The difference between Capitalists of old and new Capitalists, is that some new Capitalists live in countries where workers have more power over the workplace.

THATS the difference, no one has gotten more "moral".

But those big industrial companieslike GM, etc. are dying--so they are a thing of the past.

Big companies are not dying, some have died (not because of how they treat their workers, its the marketplace), but its not like small mom and pop shops are taking over.

On the other hand from what I've seen unionized workplaces are usually high tension affairs and often disagreeable to both workers and the manaement.

Yes, there is generally more disagreements in a democracy than in a dictatorship.

If someone wants to work with me, fine well work together and I'll do my best to treat him/her fairly and pay them AND give them a very pleasent work enviornment.

YOU are not Capitalis. Also, by the way, don't use this bullshit language like "work together" what you mean is work for you.

I'm sure it has a bit to do with it, but generally the workers and the management have become more liberalized by the general liberalization of society. Everyone's got to eat and enjoy their lives a bit. If people aren't fairly they don't do a good job. We all work toether.

I wonder why it is then that western companies, don't treat their third world workers the same way they do their first world? Could it be that it is because they can get away with it?

Society becoming liberal or not has nothing to do with it, first of all the economy has become MORE controlled and the concentration of wealth is more severe.

This stuff about working together. What are you talking about? When 5% own 95% of the wealth, how can you "work together". Your either "working for someone" or "having people work for you." You either have wealth or you dont.

It's doesn't matter WHY they did it--it's done and it's pretty obvious to everyone nowadays that blacks and whites are the same. I and you and mosteveryone treats the races the same not because some law tells us to but because everyone's human.

Back then racism was institutionalized, the same with Capitalism today, it has nothing to do with how people treat others individually.

Same goes with workers--maybe things got better for the workers because of the wrong reasons--but that fight's over for the most part.

Things got better for the right reasons, the workers fought for it.

The fight is FAR from over, look at the world, look at the distribution of wealth, look at the poverty, Capitalism isn't geting better for most people, Capitalism is'nt becoming more equal.

Essencially your assuming that nower days people with power are just giving it up because they want to be nice.

Unions have decreased from something like 30% to just 10% of the American workforce--they had their shot and they did some good, but their day is over.

Says you,

Whos day is it now? The benevolent dictator? The Charitable philanthropist? The Nice Boss?