The Communist Left

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

I tend to agree - I don't know very many people, to be honest, who would propose an outright theocracy. I wouldn't for lots of reasons, among them legalism.

But take the abortion issue, for example. You mentioned no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone and generally that's something I and we all agree on, but it gets murky because there isn't a fixed meaning for imposing one's views on another. My pro life stance is dictated by two things: my religious views as well as my belief that the baby, in a rather harsh and horrible way, is being imposed upon. It can't even argue back (for its worth, I suppose, or that it could be adopted or that it could become a valuable member of sociey), let alone fight back (especially in the case of partial birth abortions). Now someone of a liberal persuasion would say no, a pro life stance imposes on the right of a woman to choose. Choose to do what, many would say, kill?

I guess there's no end to it because there are so many points of view. And one could probably argue (rhetorically or theoretically, at least) that any time a public policy is adopted someone's views are being imposed upon.

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

I tend to agree - I don't know very many people, to be honest, who would propose an outright theocracy. I wouldn't for lots of reasons, among them legalism.

But take the abortion issue, for example. You mentioned no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone and generally that's something I and we all agree on, but it gets murky because there isn't a fixed meaning for imposing one's views on another. My pro life stance is dictated by two things: my religious views as well as my belief that the baby, in a rather harsh and horrible way, is being imposed upon. It can't even argue back (for its worth, I suppose, or that it could be adopted or that it could become a valuable member of sociey), let alone fight back (especially in the case of partial birth abortions). Now someone of a liberal persuasion would say no, a pro life stance imposes on the right of a woman to choose. Choose to do what, many would say, kill?

I guess there's no end to it because there are so many points of view. And one could probably argue (rhetorically or theoretically, at least) that any time a public policy is adapted someone's views are being imposed upon.

I don't have a problem with people being pro-life, just as long as they can give a logical reason for why they're that way.  What I think that Nym was saying was that he just doesn't want people to point to, say, a Bible verse as their sole reason for advocating or opposing something.  He wants them to be able to logically explain their position.  There's room for disagreement; we just want it to be logical disagreement, not "brick wall" disagreement.

As long as your opinions are your own and you can explain them in your own words, I can respect that.

And I agree with him - I don't want a man-made theocracy either.

There are certainly Democrats who are respectful and open to other opinions like you guys. That's great. But there is that wing of the left, that hard constructionist type, that simply views the religious right folks as a kind of cancer. I guess my comments were more directed at them than you guys!

Oh, and the religious right folks probably view the hard constructionist leftists as a kind of cancer too. I think they like to draw a lot of paralells with the Soviet Union, for instance.

All good points and well taken!
Somehow, I like discussing things with people who don't resort to things like "f**ck you" when there's a difference of opinion.