U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - Humanities Issues http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/ Religion, Philosophy, Sociology, Political Theory en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:31:35 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.USPoliticsOnline.com/images/misc/rss.jpg U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - Humanities Issues http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/ <![CDATA[Pennsylvania Union Leader Criticized for Threatening Legal Action Over Boy Scout's Vo]]> http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57290-pennsylvania-union-leader-criticized-threatening-legal-action-over-boy-scouts-vo.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:09:58 GMT
Quote:
Pennsylvania Union Leader Criticized for Threatening Legal Action Over Boy Scout's Volunteerism

A Pennsylvania union leader has come under fire after threatening legal action against the city of Allentown for allowing a Boy Scout to voluntarily clear a walking path in a local park.

Nick Balzano, president of the Service Employees International Union's Allentown chapter, said last week that the union might file a grievance against the city for allowing 17-year-old Kevin Anderson to clear the hiking trail, instead of paying some of the 39 recently laid-off SEIU members to do the work.

Balzano's office did not return messages left by FoxNews.com, but the Morning Call quoted him as telling the city council that the union would be "looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails … There's to be no volunteers."

SEIU spokesman Matt Nerzig called Balzano's comments "completely unauthorized and insensitive" and said the union was "not at all" considering a grievance in this case.

"Not sure if it was out of context or just a bad moment, but we've got no intention of doing anything like that," Nerzig told FoxNews.com. "Not sure where he got the idea but he certainly doesn't have the authority to do so."
Gee, could it be because a bunch of idiots voted for him to be president of the local union chapter? :rolleyes:

Yep, gotta love those union bosses.

MORE

At least it'll be entertaining to watch the spin/damage control on this one. ]]> Humanities Issues lug-nut http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57290-pennsylvania-union-leader-criticized-threatening-legal-action-over-boy-scouts-vo.html Socialism and Freedom http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57289-socialism-freedom.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:51:17 GMT Evening all, now I thought I'd put up this thread in reponse to a few comments from other posters about the issue of socialism and human freedom. They claim, with some justification considering the practice of certain regimes which claim to be socialist, that Socialism is essentally illiberal and anti-freedom and that the ideals of liberty do not apply to socialism.

Now in my opinion nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism is a broad church and I'm sure other socialists will disagree with me on several points of this post, but socialism is fundimentally about freedom, equality and human rights. A vast majority of socalist thought from the early Diggers and Levellers (I speak from a British perspective here) to the socalism of Robert Owen, Marx, Hardy, the TUC, Miliband and so forth have been obsessed with freedom and how to maximise it.

The key difference is, I believe, the essentally conception of freedom between those of a Liberal, neo-classicalist thought process and those of us with a socialist view of freedom and liberty. If you simplify the two lines of philosphical thought on the issue you can probably sumerise the two branches as this;

Liberal, or Libertarian thought is rooted in the writing of 16th and 17th philopshers like Locke, Hobbes, Marquiseau and was continued by the likes of Burke, Jefferson and so forth. They believe in a minimalist or negative view of freedom; freedom is the liberty to do what you like without restraint or censure so long as you do not iminge on the freedom of others. The state exists merely to settle disputes and should otherwise let people be to get on with their lives.

The socialist view of freedom is based in the thought of Rousseau, Owen, Marx, Kant, and so forth culminating in Miliband, Marcuse and the Franfurt school. The essentally socalist concemption of the Liberal world can be summed up by Rousseaus quote 'Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.' These are not the chains of government but instead those of society, poverty, inequality, lack of education and so forth which prevent a man from realising his true potental and ability to exercise true freedom. Hemmed in by his social status (Marx would have this as class but I'm not a huge fan of that line of thought) a man has no choice; dispite the government leaving him alone that only forces him down a route of which he has no choice; work for someone else, poverty and a lack of asperation. The only one who is feree in this system is those at the top of the pile who have the money to exercise there freedom.

Thus socialism preaches a postive view of freedom, trying to maximise every freedom of everyone in order to give each person the ability to discover their protental. This does means some restirctions on those who have the most freedom, but in order to provide freedom and oppertuntiy for others. Depending on the strength of a socalists view of this doctrine they may believe,as Marx did, in an Anarchy without money, redistrbution of wealth, free education and so forth. One thing they do not believe in is a dictatorship or any restriction on social freedom.

Thus Socialism is entirely about freedom and egalitarianism. Its a different conception of freedom and one which trades certain elements of freedom for others (As does the liberal conception) but which does so in favour of a majority and with less restriction on the minority than the liberal conception has on the majority. Through this badly written, tired and, if I'm honest, confused little peice I hope to have given you some idea out our views on freedom and why socalism is not anti-freedom in any way and does not aim to legislate out freedom, indeed it inends to legislate it in. Any claim that a socalist would force somebody to do something like reciting the pledge of allegence or join a voliunteer force is false. That would be authoirtiarianism and thus fundimentally against socalist values. ]]> Humanities Issues WharfedaleTiger http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57289-socialism-freedom.html The National Anthem http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57264-national-anthem.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:02:03 GMT A interesting little incident happened to me the other day, I went to a Rugby match where the National Anthem (that is God Save the Queen) was played. Now I stood for the minuites silence for Rememberence but I promptly sat down the anthem; as an... A interesting little incident happened to me the other day, I went to a Rugby match where the National Anthem (that is God Save the Queen) was played. Now I stood for the minuites silence for Rememberence but I promptly sat down the anthem; as an English nationalist and a republican I refuse to sing 'God Save the Queen' simply because its a dirge and the last thing I want God to do is to save the Queen. I'd prefer it if he got rid of her, or at least had the monarchy abolished...

Anyways, as I was doing so a older gentleman (classic rugby bloke, big guy, public school etc.) accosted me for not standing, "Why don't you stand," He said, "Show some respect for your Queen and Country." I could have retorted with a big tarid about my personal political philosphy and so forth but I didn't, it made me think a bit instead.

Should we have to stand for our national anthem? Should we have to sing along and love our country unconditionally? I'm always uncomfortable in a very British way with overly outward displays of emotion and patriotism like waving the flag and singing the anthem, in a way I imagine most Americans arn't. Do you think it'd be better for Britian to take up tis kind of viewpoint (playing the anthem before non-international matches, the flag everywhere etc.) or is that a bad thing? ]]> Humanities Issues WharfedaleTiger http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57264-national-anthem.html Religious Freedom Group, GOP Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Banning References to God at C http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57237-religious-freedom-group-gop-seek-dismissal-lawsuit-banning-references-god-c.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:08:31 GMT ---Quote--- *Religious Freedom Group, GOP Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Banning References to God at Capitol Visitors Center* (CNSNews.com) – A conservative civil liberties group is urging the dismissal of a lawsuit by an atheist group that wants to...
Quote:
Religious Freedom Group, GOP Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Banning References to God at Capitol Visitors Center

(CNSNews.com) – A conservative civil liberties group is urging the dismissal of a lawsuit by an atheist group that wants to remove engravings of "In God We Trust" (the national motto) and "under God" (from the Pledge of Allegiance) from a display in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed an amicus brief in federal court on behalf of itself and 44 Republicans in the Senate and House seeking dismissal of the lawsuit. The brief argues that neither reference to God violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and that the lawsuit “borders on frivolous.”

“The fact is that Congress acted appropriately and consistent with the Constitution with the inclusion of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for ACLJ said in a press release issued on Monday.

*snip*

The lawsuit states that these references to God in the Visitors Center “will give actual and apparent government endorsement and advancement of religion,” while excluding nonreligious Americans.

*snip*

“While the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities,” the brief states.
MORE

Acknowledging our history and the fact that religion exists does not equal government endorsement of any particular religion. :rolleyes: ]]> Humanities Issues lug-nut http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57237-religious-freedom-group-gop-seek-dismissal-lawsuit-banning-references-god-c.html <![CDATA[Why do many individuals say "America, love it or leave it" and variations thereof?]]> http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57231-why-do-many-individuals-say-america-love-leave-variations-thereof.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:27:47 GMT There are numerous examples of citizens of this country demanding that other citizens of this country leave for legal behaviors that are perceived as being "anti-American." These behaviors include criticism of the military and other sacred cows (certain politicians and government agencies like the CIA), refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance, refusal to stand for the Star Spangled Banner at sports events, and so forth.

I find these demands, made by certain US citizens, for other US citizens to leave the US, to be bizarre. Legally, the individuals making the demands do not have a leg to stand on. Here is a good recent example: Student Braves Controversy, Refuses to Recite Pledge - ParentDish

Read some of the comments. There are demands for this child and his parents to leave the US. No doubt, they will choose not to leave the US. Now what? *crickets chirping* These individuals, or anyone else who has been ordered to leave this country by random citizens who have absolutely no authority for such an order, could persist in doing whatever legal thing that they were doing, and refuse to leave this country.

In lieu of any legal way to make that family leave this country, an individual who wants them out of this country would have to commit several state and federal felonies: namely, abducting them, transporting them across state lines, and then clandestinely forcing them onto a ship in a seaport, such as Houston or New Orleans, or dumping them on the other side of the border with Mexico, or the border with Canada. It is likely that the vast majority of these angry people would not have the coordination, intelligence, skills, and most importantly, the courage to actually execute such a criminal deed. This begs the question: If these people have no legal way of making people whom they deem unpatriotic, or insufficiently patriotic, to leave this country, and if they lack the means and/or the will to illegally cause them to leave this country, why do they spend so much time telling them to leave this country?

In general, people who make demands that are not backed by any leverage are very strange people. What do they think that they are accomplishing, other than creating hot air? I could tell someone that he should drop everyone from his will, and leave everything that he owns to me, and he can simply refuse to do so, and that would be the end of it. I have chosen this example because it has long been common in our society, especially during this decade. ]]> Humanities Issues Rationalist http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57231-why-do-many-individuals-say-america-love-leave-variations-thereof.html Health and safety snoops to enter family homes http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57227-health-safety-snoops-enter-family-homes.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:11:49 GMT Mods: Please move this thread if you feel another forum would be more appropriate. ---Quote--- *Health and safety snoops to enter family homes* Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure... Mods: Please move this thread if you feel another forum would be more appropriate.

Quote:
Health and safety snoops to enter family homes

Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.

New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to “collect data” on properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury”.

Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.

The draft guidance by a committee at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has been criticised as intrusive and further evidence of the “creeping nanny state”.
MORE

How long before some bureaucrat/congress critter over here decides this is a good idea because "that's how they do it over there"? :mad: ]]> Humanities Issues lug-nut http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57227-health-safety-snoops-enter-family-homes.html Purpose of government http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57211-purpose-government.html Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:55:46 GMT It occurred to me recently that many, if not most, of the political discussions I find myself in revolve around fundamental differences in the way we look at government. And I've noticed that most of the statements about government that seem alien to me begin with the phrase "We should ... " in one form or another.

It seems that the "We should ..." people are looking at government in a very different way than I do and it makes it hard to even have productive discussions with them. They seem to think of the government as the management branch of a kind of societal corporation. They think of the things that are good, the end products that they'd like to see produced by a society, and imagine government policies that will promote them.

Now, on reflecting, I suppose that at some level we all do something similar. The difference is in the kinds of things we want to see government policies "produce". The things I want from government are very basic and relatively passive. I want a government that will maintain an infrastructure that makes it possible for us to cooperate as a society and pursue our interests without getting in each other's way. I want a government that will protect us from those who would use violence to get their way - but otherwise stay out of our business.

But the "We should ..." people (of my imagined dialectic) have a much broader agenda. They want to see government creating policies, promoting certain things, and punishing others, that will drive us all toward their vision of the good life. They want the government to promote economic growth, to reduce unemployment, and fund scientific research, . They want to use government to educate "our" children, to fix "our" healthcare system, and to provide a seemingly limitless list of "good things" for society. They seem to see government as an opportunity to organize effort and direct collaborative projects, rather than an infrastructure that allows us to do that on our own.

Obviously, my little division isn't clean cut, and most of us will take up either view on occasion, but I do see an important distinction between the two perspectives. And the distinction isn't currently represented by any mainstream political divisions. Despite giving lip service to limited government ideals, there seem to be as many "We should ..." Republicans as there are Democrats. Likewise, I've found the desire for government that enables but otherwise lets us do our own thing to be as common amongst liberals as conservatives.

The two views were represented early in US history in the competing Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideologies. Today it seems the Hamiltonians have won, and the "We should ..." people dominate both sides of the left/right divide - with the Jeffersonian view pushed into third party status and embraced only by Libertarians. ]]> Humanities Issues dblack http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57211-purpose-government.html Naval Academy Changed Color Guard to Appear More Diverse at World Series http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57183-naval-academy-changed-color-guard-appear-more-diverse-world-series.html Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:39:09 GMT
Quote:
Naval Academy Changed Color Guard to Appear More Diverse at World Series

Naval Academy leaders are under fire after altering the composition of the military color guard at a World Series game last month so the group wouldn't be made up only of white men.

The Navy Times and other media reported that two white midshipmen were removed from the performance in New York City and replaced with a Pakistani-American man and a white woman so the group would appear more diverse.
MORE

Looks like being P.C. is discriminatory. ]]> Humanities Issues lug-nut http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57183-naval-academy-changed-color-guard-appear-more-diverse-world-series.html Burden of proof 101 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57172-burden-proof-101-a.html Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:28:35 GMT If someone claims to have spotted Big Foot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or a spacecraft of apparent extraterrestrial origin, is the burden of proof on this individual to provide evidence for said claim (video or photographic evidence, for example), or... If someone claims to have spotted Big Foot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or a spacecraft of apparent extraterrestrial origin, is the burden of proof on this individual to provide evidence for said claim (video or photographic evidence, for example), or is the burden of proof on skeptics to disprove this individual's claim? ]]> Humanities Issues Rationalist http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57172-burden-proof-101-a.html What Is The Purpose Behind Directed Evolution? http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57168-what-purpose-behind-directed-evolution.html Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:36:42 GMT It has been promoted by several people that evolution is, or has been at some point, directed towards some goal. If such a purpose exist what clues do we have to its plan and its goal? It has been promoted by several people that evolution is, or has been at some point, directed towards some goal. If such a purpose exist what clues do we have to its plan and its goal? ]]> Humanities Issues CDavidNeely http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57168-what-purpose-behind-directed-evolution.html Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57150-catholic-church-gives-d-c-ultimatum.html Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:32:40 GMT
Quote:
Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
Looks like the city council wants it both ways...pun intended.

It's not a threat. It's a statement of principle.

Quote:
"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."
They're not "harming" people. The city is choosing to take a stance that is in direct conflict with church doctrine. If any "harm" is done, it is of the city's choosing.

MORE ]]> Humanities Issues lug-nut http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57150-catholic-church-gives-d-c-ultimatum.html Widespread, indefensible antipathy towards Atheists exists in the US http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57134-widespread-indefensible-antipathy-towards-atheists-exists-us.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:06:26 GMT Opinion polls show that citizens of this country prefer Muslims (!) and homosexuals to occupy major public offices over Atheists, defined as individuals who merely lack belief in a supernatural being whose existence lacks any empirical evidence. ... Opinion polls show that citizens of this country prefer Muslims (!) and homosexuals to occupy major public offices over Atheists, defined as individuals who merely lack belief in a supernatural being whose existence lacks any empirical evidence. Several posters at this board have indicated that they think that this bigotry is a good thing. I would like to expose their indefensible position to the light of day and watch them try to defend it. ]]> Humanities Issues Rationalist http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57134-widespread-indefensible-antipathy-towards-atheists-exists-us.html The God Claim http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57103-god-claim.html Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:19:43 GMT Gen 17:1

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him, 'I am Almighty God; walk before me and be blameless.'"


This is in two parts:

1. What qualifies as deity status?

2. How, if at all, would you validate any claim to deity status? ]]> Humanities Issues Steerpike http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57103-god-claim.html Why is it OK to discriminate against the majority? http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57087-why-ok-discriminate-against-majority.html Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:56:23 GMT I'll admit that I have an ulterior motive to this thread. I will reveal it when I have data to support my claim.

Affirmative action, hate crimes legislation and religious freedoms issues all seem to me to be ways to punish the majority. If white, English speaking people are a majority in this country, why are we constantly asked to give up our traditional values to placate minorities? ]]> Humanities Issues Ernie S. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57087-why-ok-discriminate-against-majority.html Question to supporters of intellectual property. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57084-question-supporters-intellectual-property.html Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:18:16 GMT Court precedent says that mixing your labor with the genetics of organic material such as plants makes it your property, through patent law. Then if someone mixes their labor with human genetic material and successfully creates a living human... Court precedent says that mixing your labor with the genetics of organic material such as plants makes it your property, through patent law. Then if someone mixes their labor with human genetic material and successfully creates a living human clone, and gets a patent on it, is it their property?

Now supporters of intellectual property are in an interesting pickle. Either, one they uphold intellectual property rights and support the scientist's right to make clone slaves. Or they deny that the human clone is a slave to the patent holder and in turn reject intellectual property rights.

So what is it? ]]> Humanities Issues BillyWitchDr. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/humanities-issues/57084-question-supporters-intellectual-property.html