Purposeful Ramblings Through My Mind

I was highly distracted by the "Impeach the President" banner and the quote by Cindy Sheehan. But then, I am probably the token conservative on your flist. :p

In regards to the article - yeah. Total bullshit.

From:

Be prepared - you're definitely in the minority around here, depending on exactly how conservative you are. :) I'm a full-blown Canadian ~~commie~~ socialist type, myself. You're welcome, as are your views - I'm sure we'll manage to express our disagreements in ways that respect everyone's dignity.

From:

It's a fact of life in LJ land that I am in the minority - heck, most of the people on MY flist are liberals! But it would be boring if we all thought the same, right? ;)

From:

I'm a Christian Liberal. I believe in helping those less fortunate through a combination of government and private means. I believe that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is between them and God, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, and should not be mandated by the State. I believe that two men in a loving, long-term relationship should have the right to call that relationship a marriage, and that such a relationship is more moral than many marriages where the partners have agreed to fidelity but don't practise it. I could never in a million years have an abortion myself for any reason, but I'm not going to force anyone else to make the same choice because I also know what pregnancy can do to a woman's body and spirit. I believe it's immoral for a nation to leave more than a quarter of their population without medical care when such care is available. I believe we're responsible for ourselves, but also to and for each other. We are our brother's keepers, just as he is ours.

That's my liberalism. And yes, it would be boring if we all thought the same. :)

From:

Are there any good Christian Left communities? I think there is a need for our voice to get louder...I think I am a bit more conservative than you (I could be wrong) but Im sure as heck not a Right Winger. And you are one of the few Christian Left that consistently speaks out and I think there should be more. BUT WHERE ARE THEY?

From: (Anonymous)

I think we should go looking for them, or maybe start one.

From:

Um, that was me, forgetting to log in.

From:

I think there is at least one but there is one person who frequents those communities that rubs me the wrong way, very patronizing and annoying and he kind of objectifies 'oppressed' people, and it's a whole long story and maybe that is petty of me but he tends to attack people and send his people to personal journals and other REALLY ugly, foul, disgusting stuff.

But yeah I should poke around when I can, and will let you know what I find. I should check the flist of someone I know who is a member of CPT and I bet she has some great ideas. :) (Christian Peacemaker Teams)

From:

I heartily agree that your voices should be heard. I am almost embarrassed to admit I was starting to wonder if there were any non-fundamentalist, rational-sounding christians left. It was a tremendous relief to stumble across Velvetpage's LJ, and folks who could argue with each other respectfully. ;)

From:

Oh, there are quite a few groups known for being left of center.

Quakers (First because I am one heh heh)
United Church of Christ (did you hear of their commercials embracing gays that got them in trouble?)
Unitarian Universalists (not always Christian but definately liberal)
And other historical peace churches like Mennonites nad Brethern. I know there are Old Order Mennonites but there are groups like Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) that are not what you think of when you think of Mennonites. /seomthing like Metropolitain Church too?
And I know that some Christian churches have openly gay clergy (I dont remember who tho) and other ones that are anti-war, and other ones that are very into peace and social justice.

And really, there are still some Dorothy Day-type Catholics out there, we happen to have quite a bit of them here in Dubuque, suprisingly.

From:

Episcopals have gotten a lot of press lately for having openly gay priests and bishops. :)

From:

Good for them, then! Were I christian I'd be happy to add my voice to theirs. ;)

From:

See, this is part of the problem I have, and I can't help but wonder if I'm not alone in this: I've heard of most of the groups you mention, but I've seen absolutely nothing about them in the press in the last few years. I don't even know who Dorothy Day is, let alone her "type." But there's always, always another crazy screaming on the news that he and only he knows what Jesus really wants us to do to the {fill in: hated group du jour} -- and it always involves fear, loathing, and harming those who are unlike us.

If I hadn't actually read the New Testament and talked to folks I consider to be genuinely trying to follow Christ (as opposed to those who simply label themselves christian), I'd only have the word of the "dominionists" as to what the christian religion was about. Frankly, if they were the only ones who got to define what christianity truly was, it would be almost -- almost -- as bloodthirsty and reprehensible a religion as the Aztec human sacrificers -- and I know I'd be horrified if that happened to my personal belief system.

So yes, I think it's incredibly important that people like Velvetpage get to speak up and be heard as to what christianity truly is. It's their religion -- not the religion of frightened and insecure sick people, you know?

From:

Unfortunatly, that is the nature of being at the fringes. It is like thinkging Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand are the spokespeople for liberalism, or that Rush Limbaugh is the spokesperson for Conservatism. People who actually follow Christ's path? Not newsworthy, unless it is a glurge article.

From:

Okay, now I've gotta ask: who is Dorothy Day? and what is a "glurge" article? :)

From:

Dorothy Day -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day Essentially a Catholic social activist.

A glurge article is one of those icky sticky feel good pieces that would kill a diabetic.

From:

Oh, foo, I'm a dope! I should have thought of wikipedia. Fortunately my insulin's still working just fine. ;) Thank you!

From:

CPT (they have a website CPT.org) is the Christian group that the Quaker guy who was kidnapped and killed worked with. They go all over the place.

The Quaker Meeting in Brooklyn had a vigil every week for something like nine years to abolish the death penalty in NYS, and would send lobbyists to Albany to do the same. There is even a Quaker envoy to the UN and Quakers were a nice chunk of the underground railroad...Susan B Anthony was raised Quaker. Elizabeth Fox worked hard for prison reform ages ago. They are active with helping out soldiers who want to be conscientious objectors and are active with letting parents know their kid's information is being given to recruiters unless you opt out, and letting people know about CO status before it becomes an issue (in case there is ever a draft).

I am only speaking so much about this because it is what I know about. But I also know the UCC had trouble running its commercials on major networks, but had some success, 30 second spots about how their church welcomes EVERYONE and they simply hinted at letting homosexuals in. There was a pretty big uproar last year when they put it out.

And is it the Anglicans or Episcopalians that may wind up splitting because of homosexual clergy? That gets in the news now and then.

Dorothy Day was an anarchist and a devout Catholic. She founded the Catholic Worker Movement, which still is active here, I think we have a Catholic Worker House here (I forget what it is called) or at least have a presence here in Dubuque (and other places). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement explains it better, I'm not very well versed in what they do, but I hear about the more than I used to in NYC which is mostly Italian and Irish Catholic and more conservative.

I don't think these groups are quiet as much as the conservatives are so damn loud. And I know that in the case of the Liberal Quakers (there are other kinds) they don't believe in evangelizing, so they are loathe to talk about themselves for fear of being what they hate. And yes I have (and others have) debated and discussed how it is not only killing our religion slowly but we aren't doing the good we can do by keeping silent in this manner. Ahhh, religious infighting. Gotta love it! :D

From:

Anglicans and Episcopals are the same denomination. Anglican is what they are called in England, Episcopal is the American version. ;)

From:

Ah, there you go then.

I can't google because for whatever reason, all mediacom customers in Iowa who have cablephone modems are having various sites blocked and mediacom is 'working on it'. So that is why I was confused.

I thought it was CoE there and Anglican here. Shows what I know!

From:

And you're right about them being the ones that may split over homosexuality. The African Anglicans are particularly upset over having the Episcopalians remain if they allow homosexuals as clergy and/or allow them to marry in the church. It's splitting the entire Church of England worldwide.

From:

It is CoE over there as well. Confusing, isn't it?

From:

Oh boy. Lets see. I'm a Catholic Conservative. I believe that people should be encouraged to help themselves as much as possible, and that the Government is not a nanny state. I believe aid SHOULD be available through private charities. I believe what people do in the privacy of their own home is usually between them and God, except when they are plotting to blow up airliners and government buildings, in which case it is perfectly fine for the NSA to check their phone records, etc. I believe that two men in a loving long term relationship have the right to a civil union, but not a marriage, as that is a religious contract. I also believe that any state that wants to legalize same sex civil unions should, but that the constitution should not be ammended to do so. I, also, could never have an abortion, and I support the right to choose up until about 20 weeks. AFter that, the fetus is viable, and his rights should be taken into account as well. Religously, I believe life begins at conception, but I also believe that God will take care of the matter in the afterlife, and it is not my place to morally judge someone. I don't believe it is immoral to leave 25% of the country wihtout healthcare (it is a businaess after all) but I DO believe it needs to be overhauled to reduce costs. I also believe we, personally, are responsible to and for each other, but the government is not.

Um...I'll watch for the boot off your friends' list now. :)

From:

No boot. I prefer FLYlady's lace-up shoes, and they're never used to kick people. :) I basically agree on abortion, disagree on the NSA because what they're doing infringes too much on rights for way, way too little benefit (there are better ways to track down terrorists) and I don't believe that primary health care and urgent care should be a business at all. (Other things, like dental care, are open for debate, but basic preventative care and urgent care are necessities of life that should be available to everyone regardless of their insurance status.)

My reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, or even homosexual sex. Centuries of mistranslation and misinterpretation have gone into creating that doctrine, and it's questionable at best. The Catholic position on sex is the most consistent and at the same time the least workable in modern life, but for the most part I find the North American Christian obsession with sexual sins to be a sign of their deep repression. I'd like to see the church pay more attention to the poor (which Christ talked about incessantly) and less to sex (which he hardly mentioned at all.) If marriage were to become a purely religious institution, and all couples needed two ceremonies - the civil union at City Hall and the religious one at their place of worship - then I would support any church's right to deny the latter to homosexuals. As long as the word "marriage" has a legal connotation outside of its religious one - and it is possible to get married without setting foot in a church - then it is not solely a religious contract and the word can apply to homosexual unions. And, when you've studied as much history and anthropology as I have, it becomes difficult to say the phrase "traditional marriage" without a snort of derision.

What is the value of a government, if it is not at least somewhat responsible for its citizens?

From:

NSA - you would be surprised at how effective their monitering has been. There have been countless arrests and cells broken up becasue of their monitering of international (they don't moniter domestic) calls (as I said, my husband works in counter terrorism).

I agree that homosexuality is probably not a sin. I am not a bible literalist, by any means. My problem is ammending the constitution. I think we tend to do it too easily, when the same thing can be accomplished by state laws.

What is the value of government? Well, the JOB of the federal governement is to take care of things on a national level - defense/homeland security, infrastructure, environment, printing and regulation of money, etc. Not to make sure every person has groceries in their cupboard. I would actually like to see national welfare completely eliminated, and have it at the local and state level, with emphasis on privately funded charities. The government should be the last resort. It can be much more effectively administered, as each community truly knows what the needs are, and it would eliminate a ton of waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the faceless national system.

From:

A few years ago, our provincial government "downloaded" social services (read: welfare) to the cities, with the exact same rhetoric behind it as you just expressed. It turned out to be a disaster. The big cities, like Hamilton, have much lower costs of living than neighbouring small towns, so when people are down-and-out, they immediately move into the poorer areas of the nearest big city. The tax base of the city is not big enough to support the influx, so taxes within the city get raised to compensate. The upshot of it is that I'm paying more property taxes on my $100 000 home than a friend of mine in a neighbouring community pays on her $200 000 home, and I'm not getting as many services for it. Before the download, the system was administered by the provincial government, who sent the funds needed to each municipality according to their need. The same thing has happened in many parts of the U.S. in school district funding. The districts are too small to spread out the funding effectively. This isn't to say it has to be federal, but it should at least be statewide to account for those disparities.

The reason it must remain public, IMO, is because of the effect of regular economic downturns on charitable donations. The worse the economy is, the less money is flowing into charities from private sources. So as long as the economy is fine, the charities can do their work, but when more people need it, that's when it dries up. There has to be a failsafe. There are going to be people who abuse the system, but they're very rare compared to the people who feel extremely guilty for their temporary need to leech public monies and would do anything to get off of welfare. (As a teacher in schools in poor neighbourhoods, I've seen a lot of this - people who are dreadfully embarrassed, trying desperately to find a way to work AND pay for childcare AND get their highschool diploma AND navigate the bureaucracy that surrounds the welfare, because heaven forbid they get one cent more than they need to survive. The ones who, at first glance, appear to be abusing the system are usually unemployable - no literacy, no skills, and no jobs that will even look at them.) Frankly, I'd rather have my taxes support a leech or two, than cut off a single family who really needs the help.

I question how much actual fraud exists, and how much people are forced into fraud in order to manage the system. I've heard of people who can't live with the child of the baby they're carrying, because if they're single parents they qualify for medicaid but if they're with someone, his salary plus theirs isn't enough to pay their medical bills. So they lie, live separately or pretend to, and "abuse the system." That's not abuse of the system - it's a broken system.

From:

That's not abuse of the system - it's a broken system</i. And I agree with that completely. I didn't know about the history of welfare in your country- very interesting. I'm honestly not quite sure what should be done, I just know that what we have now ISN'T working. Too much money is being wasted. And when I say fraud, waste, and abuse, I am talking more about mistakes on the part of the government.

From:

Ya know, I have no idea what happened to the whole rest of my reply. o.O LJ ate it. Probably a good thing, as I am not particularly coherent tonight. Revisit this later, perhaps?

From:

Absolutely. I had a feeling there was more. :)

From: