Where do we begin to co-exist?

[A_Wanderer]

I never said it was compassion; I said it was government social regulation.

 

[verte76]

I haven't been here as much lately either. One basic premise of FYM is agreeing to disagree. I've agreed with disagree with supporters of the Iraq action. I posted notes about my protests and they posted notes telling me things I didn't know about Saddam's brutality. It's not a black and white picture, we're leaving the colors out.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If we could all be like Mrs. Springsteen was, the forum would be a much more peaceful place. Mrs. Springsteen knew how to really respect other people's views, which is a quality that many of us are sorely lacking.

 

[Irvine511]

the only place we can all co-exist is in the hands of a modern liberal secular democracy.

what strikes me as odd about very religious people -- of all faiths -- is that they don't understand that it is secularism that allows for the robust practice of any faith to begin with. christianism - politicized Christianity ... i'm trying to find new words so i don't piss off all self-identified Christians - argues for the imposition of one religion's values over the entire society. the example that leaps to mind would be preventing gay couples from getting civil marriages or unions and prevent pregnant women from seeking an abortion. secularism, by contrast, does not say "marraige for gay people and federally funded abortions." what secularism does is allow Christians, and any other religious faith, to affirm religious values, live exactly as they see fit, and avoid abortion and gay civil unions in their own lives. secularism says that, because the government represents all citizens equally, it must be as neutral as possible in regards to theological issues. the Church and the state shall coexist independently.

this does not mean that all displays of faith should be removed from the public arena. secularists can be immoderate too. however, it's hilarious when fundamentalists to say that they are being persecuted merely because others are treated equally in the public square. i.e., it's ludicrous for Rick Santorum to say that gay marriage is an attack on his marriage.

and the irony of this is that secularism is not only compatible with aggressive and proud Christian faith, secularism actually allows the practice of that faith in as free a form as those who live in a secular society might wish. secularism does not regard the rights of minorities as somehow only achievable at someone else's expense -- and if Christianists were in the minority, they might come to value secularism in the ways that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and atheists currently do.

essentially, the difference between secularism and Christianism is that one side is happy to let people make their own moral choices; and one side isn't.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I think one of the problems about us coexisting in here, Im not talking broadly
Is that people come in here with an agenda a lot of the time and therefore are automatically on the defense of that agenda.
Does anybody honestly come in FYM with the intent of having their views changed?
I can honestly say I dont, but my goal in coming in here is more to learn than to speak.
For the most part I dont know enough about most of the topics brought up to even comment on them but its a learning experience seeing everybody debate them
I think we can coexist in here, but its something that isnt likely to come easily

Maybe if republicans and democrats werent so afraid of one another they could actually work together and get something good done with their differing strong points

 

[financeguy]

I think we do coexist, and do so peacefully. If you take a look around the world, you will see what the flip side of this is.

Exactly, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. I don't want a cosy consensus on here, it would be mind-numbingly boring. Actually recently I'm almost starting to hope their were more (reasonable) right of centre people on here as the liberal wing probably has come to dominate.

Dreadsox raises a legitimate point regarding the language that we sometimes use. That is a fair point.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox raises a legitimate point regarding the language that we sometimes use. That is a fair point.

For me in this forum, I feel pressure when it comes to language. I have felt it from both sides because I like to think I am not able to be pegged into a pigeon hole. I like to look at the issue from other angles, and the language (EXTREME LANGUAGE) just sets me down a road and I head into that direction more because I am upset at what I feel is extreme.

Both sides do it. I have felt it when I argue for homosexual marriage. I feel it when I argue in favor of American foreign policy.

 

[verte76]

One problem I have, not here in this forum but in politics in general these days is that both sides are too cocksure they're *right* and the others are *wrong*. This is where you can run into problems co-existing. It's important to realize that you can screw up big time.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That's certainly quite true, verte .

Also, Dread, yeah, both sides are definitely guilty of that kind of thing. Hence why I try and avoid doing that as much as possible.

Angela