Faith and politics

[frank ryan]

Know what Babs? Screw you. I tried.

Go to hell. Babs is holding back because she is nice she could verbally kick your ass into next week. Wuap is one of the friendlier people on here. You add nothing and hate all. So you piss off

[wuapinmon]

Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit your income.

[wuapinmon]

Know what Babs? Screw you. I tried.

Screw her? You can't even approach her.

[TripletDaddy]

In 5th or 6th grade, we all went to "Outdoor School." It was a weeklong spring camp, but instead of going with scouts, you went with everyone in your class at school. It was a blast. We didn't really camp, it was cabins and the like. We went hiking, campfires, canoes, all that jazz. The best thing about it was that there were usually about 2 or 3 other classes there the same week....always from different schools. Lots of choice opportunities to say hello to the ladies (even in 5th grade we had some hormones)

On the first day, one guy in my cabin decides he likes one of the girls from a different school, so he wrangles his way into her night hike group that evening. Not sure what he was trying to accomplish, but in elementary school, time is money, so he immediately asks this girl if she would "go" with him. iirc, this was the common parlance term du jour for "going steady." To nobody's surprise, he was shot down right then and there. What happened next is open to debate, but all that matters is that she felt that this guy got upset and called her some names.....female dog, amongst others (this was when hip hop consisted of Sugar Hill gang rapping about jeans and dancing, so "ho" wasn't a common pejorative back then).

The next day at breakfast, we are all at the assembly waiting to go into the mess hall when this rather big dude comes up to the guy in my cabin. This rather big dude was the girl's boyfriend. He also attended the same school as this mystery girl, but none of us knew it. I guess she went and told the boyfriend the whole story and the boyfriend was not pleased about the name calling.

To put it bluntly, this rather big dude made is quite clear that he was going to harm the guy in my cabin. In elementary school, not sure what "harm" would entail, but even at that age, I was having none of it.

For the rest of the week, the guy in my cabin was subjected to a series of intimidations and pranks....his backpack was taken from his cabin and submerged in the nearby stream....his sleeping bag was filled with a can of tuna....and on the evening of the dance (Thursday night...final night to make your moves on the women, etc) they gave him a good old fashioned swirlie (ah....the days of innocence!). Within minutes, it was all around the dance that his head had been in the toilet. No girls danced with him and for the rest of elementary school, everyone teased him about his misadventures at Outdoor School.

JohnnyLingo's awkward attempts in this thread to engage others reminds me of the guy in my cabin. His heart was in the right place, but the execution was a bit poorly researched, he didn't really know what he was doing when he set out to do it, and he grossly over-estimated his chances. However, his biggest mistake was crossing the rather big dude(s) that don't enjoy misguided shenanigans.

JohnnyLingo...you need to be careful, unless you want to sleep with the fishes! (this was a reference to tuna in your sleeping bag, not a threat, btw).

[YOhio]

All that fun aside, the topic of faith and politics is one that interests me. Not necessarily in the way Johnny Lingo describes, that of having "faith" in a political theory. But rather how our religious faith influences our political beliefs.

I'll use Healthcare as an example because Johnny Lingo brought it up. There is sufficient empirical evidence on the effect of Universal Healthcare that can either bolster or harm ones support. There are European systems, the Canadian system and Asian systems of Universal Healthcare and the United States would likely implement a variation of the the three. We can look to the success (or failure) of these models and pretty accurately predict the costs and benefits, at least in the short term. It's a matter of choices, whether one would prefer a government run system or not. I don't see faith involved here, instead I see a decision based on personal preference.

But I am interested in how personal faith influences those preferences. SU's favorite author Dostoevsky claimed that socialism was more than a mechanism of labor organization, but that it was intrinsically linked to atheism. An attempt at building a Tower of Babel without God to bring heaven down to earth. While I'm not one to criticize someone who lived the life he did, I think it's fair to say that his description is outdated. Today it's perfectly reasonable to find people of strong faith who, not in spite of but because of their faith, are socialist. The same with strong capitalists. Assuming a certain education level, they have compiled the evidence, analyzed history and determined that this is the best political and economic structure to govern God's children. The element of faith is there, but it's in the purpose and not the outcome.

[frank ryan]

Have you ever thought that socialist lds members outnumber republican ones when judged by the worldwide makeup of the church. I would guess there are more social democrats than conservatives worldwide

[All-American]

You know, Lingo's not entirely wrong.

Nor is Babs. Certainly, America's political "battles" don't really compare to their military counterparts. True too that apathy is likely the prevailing sentiment.

But I don't really quarrel with the general idea he is presenting.

Both sides are fanatical in their belief that they are right, when neither has a corner on the truth market. So the rhetoric gets angrier and angrier, and people's feelings get hurt so they dig their heels in deeper and the cycle continues.

A sweeping generalization, to be sure, and sweeping generalizations are inherently rife with contradictions and exceptions, but that doesn't necessarily negate the trend it describes.

In his 1999 book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", Friedman put forth his "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention," in which he observed that no country with a McDonald's had ever attached another country with a McDonald's. It was only a matter of time before that theory became riddled with exceptions (first in Kosovo, then in Georgia and Russia, etc), but the facts and single instances don't necessarily negate the principle at work: globalization, rising prosperity, and a healthy middle class tend to dampen a nation's martial inclinations.

Honestly, I think we've let personality get in the way on this one. This spat has a less to do with the discussion itself than the fact that we don't like Lingo and Lingo doesn't like us.

[JohnnyLingo]

Let's look at this thread:

1. I post a non-partisan, non-attacking analysis of the healthcare debate.

2. Four minutes later, Babs responds that she cannot respond. It's fairly clear that she wants to mock my post but feels that would be immature. Correct me if I'm wrong.

3. Il Pad and Jarid weigh in. ER is curious about Babs' non post.

4. Almost 12 hours after my initial post, I thank Jarid for his post and note that it may have been better if Babs had not posted at all in the thread.

5. SIEQ and I have a pleasant exchange.

6. Babs comes in and takes issue with my comparing the Crusades to the attitudes of Americans interested in the healthcare debate and politics in general. She says she cannot take my post seriously because of this one line that I feel she misinterpreted.

7. I thank Babs for explaining and attempt to clarify that my comparison was limited to the scope I explicitly outlined in the original post. This is much like how those who use the sun as a comparison to God's love (pervasive, warm, all-encompassing) are not suggesting God's love is a giant burning ball of gas 149 kilometers from Earth.

As this is not the first time Babs has extrapolated a post of mine far, far beyond it's original meaning (and farther than I think is rational), I suspect Babs is merely going out of her way to discredit me because we have an acrimonious history. I express this thought and suggest that maybe she should let bygones be bygones and take my post at face value.

8. Waup comes in and barks at me.

9. Babs ignores 99% of my previous post and chimes in to make fun of me, disparaging my posts in general.

10. I attempt to take the high road by actually responding to the bulk of Babs' explanation post, dissecting it line by line and asking questions. I hope to start a better conversation than the one currently going on.

11. Babs posts twice in the next 30 minutes, both times to harp on her "Lingo is stupid because he thinks people will fight to the death over healthcare" idea.

12. I come to the realization that Babs is not interested in a serious conversation, and get angry. I make the decision to discount Babs entirely as a persona on the board, and not waste time responding to her posts.

13. Babs responds by ignoring everything I posted except for "Let it go" and makes it clear I am terrible.

14. Lebowski agrees. So does frank ryan, but he hated me before this so I don't mind as much.

So really, Lebowski? I make three good-faith efforts to communicate with Babs, but because of two phrases, one I don't think was offensive and one that I intended to be after I got sick of not being taken seriously, I'm an awful human being.

I realize that in a straight-up fistfight I'm not beating the cliched "kinda flirty girl on a message board" in a million years, but who is?

Like AA said, this is more about who likes who than anything else.

[Babs]

You know, Lingo's not entirely wrong.

Nor is Babs. Certainly, America's political "battles" don't really compare to their military counterparts. True too that apathy is likely the prevailing sentiment.

But I don't really quarrel with the general idea he is presenting.

Right. That's what I said:

What you're trying to suggest is that American politics has become nothing more than two ideologies, both rooted in a priori assumption and each the subject of blind adherence. This is, of course, true, and nothing novel.

[Babs]

But I am interested in how personal faith influences those preferences. SU's favorite author Dostoevsky claimed that socialism was more than a mechanism of labor organization, but that it was intrinsically linked to atheism. An attempt at building a Tower of Babel without God to bring heaven down to earth. While I'm not one to criticize someone who lived the life he did, I think it's fair to say that his description is outdated. Today it's perfectly reasonable to find people of strong faith who, not in spite of but because of their faith, are socialist. The same with strong capitalists. Assuming a certain education level, they have compiled the evidence, analyzed history and determined that this is the best political and economic structure to govern God's children. The element of faith is there, but it's in the purpose and not the outcome.

Well, that's the thing. There's this push to root faith out of our politics. But the truth is that politics will never be free from religious influence, because it is personal belief that shapes understanding and determines which issues are most important to us. Even if we think we're examining issues objectively, and setting our religious values aside, we're only flattering ourselves. We as individuals are inseparable from our own worldview, and so all our decisions are a function of that, whether we're conscious of it or not.

[JohnnyLingo]

There is sufficient empirical evidence on the effect of Universal Healthcare that can either bolster or harm ones support.

I agree with this, but it is not sufficient to 100% prove who is correct one way or the other. Do you agree?

[Babs]

I'm an awful human being.

Right. That's exactly what Lebowski said.

Like AA said, this is more about who likes whom than anything else.

You know, in some ways you're just like all the rest of us on this board: it's all about you.

I think you're an odd cookie, lingo, but I don't dislike you. I tried in earnest to help you out with your intelligence vs wit discussion the other week. I thought there was some potential for an honest discussion about what constitutes wit and intelligence and wisdom and so on. But you were determined to use the thread to turn yourself into some kind of victim instead. In fact, sometimes I think that's your goal in posting in the first place.

Anyway, I'll do you a favor and just leave you alone from here on out. I don't really have a lot of desire to play the role of the popular girl who entertains the crowd by humiliating the new kid at school, and that's clearly how you're determined to depict me.

Lebowski brings up an interesting point with his last line, though. I can't help but wonder, if I hadn't responded to your post, whether you would have gotten any replies at all.

[JohnnyLingo]

Right. That's exactly what Lebowski said.

I'd say my translation was adequate.

You know, in some ways you're just like all the rest of us on this board: it's all about you.

It didn't become about me until you decided to ignore my clarifying attempts at a real discussion and go with "Haha Lingo thinks people will kill each other over healthcare" for 30 minutes. You're the one who made it about me. Take ownership.

I think you're an odd cookie, lingo, but I don't dislike you. I tried in earnest to help you out with your intelligence vs wit discussion the other week. I thought there was some potential for an honest discussion about what constitutes wit and intelligence and wisdom and so on. But you were determined to use the thread to turn yourself into some kind of victim instead.

That is not what happened. You decided that "Do you prefer A or B?" meant "Do you prefer A to the exclusion of B?" and that was that.

Anyway, I'll do you a favor and just leave you alone from here on out. I don't really have a lot of desire to play the role of the popular girl who entertains the crowd by humiliating the new kid at school, and that's clearly how you're determined to depict me.

No, I'm depicting you as the typical "girl on the internet who mildly flirts from time to time and preys on the inherent nerdiness found in places like this." I've seen plenty of you in my decade on message boards.

Lebowski brings up an interesting point with his last line, though. I can't help but wonder, if I hadn't responded to your post, whether you would have gotten any replies at all.

Wonder all you want. Others did, independent of your post. It's not all about you.

[Babs]

Wonder all you want. Others did, independent of your post. It's not all about you.

Of course it's not about me. It's about whether anybody even notices your posts anymore. You're so determined to turn everybody against you, that, as Lebowski suggested, nobody even bothers to participate in your threads.

[JohnnyLingo]

Of course it's not about me. It's about whether anybody even notices your posts anymore. You're so determined to turn everybody against you, that, as Lebowski suggested, nobody even bothers to participate in your threads.

Um, yeah. See how I ruthlessly attacked SIEQ? Went after Jarid in Cedar? Made YOhio cry?

Oh wait, none of that happened. If I am so determined to turn everyone against me, how did I go so wrong in this thread?

And the last 25 threads I've started have averaged 29 responses each. That hardly supports your misguided belief.

EDIT: And in further research, your last 25 threads have averaged 21 responses each. Just FYI.