AD versus Common Era

[Sci]

You have a lot to learn about conservatives and conservatism.

The only "collective equality" that allows for personal liberty is equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Anything beyond that is government coercion and needs to be fought at every opportunity.

Tell that to a man who grew up poor, didn't get a decent education because his schools were underfunded and he had to work at night (preventing him from getting enough sleep to do well in school), couldn't afford to go to college, could only find menial or low-paying work after high school, and lost his job due to the economic collapse.

Oppression does not always happen at the hands of a government, and freedom does not always mean free from a government. Someone like the man described above has not been free his entire life, solely because he was born into the wrong class. There is no equality of opportunity without collective egalitarianism.

 

[Captain Robert April]

That's branching off into another topic, how to best address societal ills.

However, I will throw out a few items on that front: Why is the school so bad? And why does increased funding so often result in even worse results? And in horrible economic times with dropping enrollment, why hasn't one of these big brains at the universities figured out that if they lowered tuition costs, they'd get more students, and probably more than make up for the drop in cost in tuition?

The main point is that conservatism does not have any vested interest in maintaining any status quo, especially if it isn't working.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Because as far as I am concerned, individual liberty is as a rule superior to collective equality (egalitarianism). Again, see if the marketplace of ideas has a place for your challenge of tradition.

This is an interesting position for a self-described "social conservative" to hold. If individual liberty trumps collective equality, one should be free to do almost anything provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And yet, many social conservatives have no problem using the government to legislate their traditional brand of morality.

Example? I'd wager the vast majority of instances of "legislating morality" tend to have other purposes in mind....

 

[DimesDan]

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I've never felt "pressured" to use AD/BC (I'm not a Christian). I bet 98% of the time no uses a suffix when dating something anyway. So I'm confused.

Let me put it this way:

I'm an Atheist, and I feel pressured to use "A.D./B.C." every time someone complains about me not doing it.

Yet I'm an Atheist and I do not in any shape feel pressured in having to use BC or AD.

Just give these people your opinion on the matter and if they don't pressure you on such a really obserdly silly thing, you won't pressure them on getting rid of it.

Isn't it part of your constitution that any and all freedom of speech is allowed anyway!

 

[Thestral]

This is an interesting position for a self-described "social conservative" to hold. If individual liberty trumps collective equality, one should be free to do almost anything provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And yet, many social conservatives have no problem using the government to legislate their traditional brand of morality.

Example? I'd wager the vast majority of instances of "legislating morality" tend to have other purposes in mind....

The odious Defense of Marriage Act, for one of the more obvious recent examples.

 

[Glitch]

This is an interesting position for a self-described "social conservative" to hold. If individual liberty trumps collective equality, one should be free to do almost anything provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And yet, many social conservatives have no problem using the government to legislate their traditional brand of morality.

Example? I'd wager the vast majority of instances of "legislating morality" tend to have other purposes in mind....

The odious Defense of Marriage Act, for one of the more obvious recent examples.

I didn't want to use DOMA as an example, but if the idea of gay marriage is going to get an airing in the "free marketplace of ideas," the government coming down on the "anti" side is certainly no more fair than if it had come down on the "pro" side.

Gay marriage certainly doesn't infringe on anyone's rights; indeed, its illegality is a result of the majority forcing its will upon the minority. If the majority opinion in, say, the American Revolution had won out, it would be tea time in an hour or so. In short, while social conservatism may not have a vested interest in the status quo 100% of the time, it is not synonymous with the concept of "individual liberty" any more than liberalism is.

 

[Sci]

If the majority opinion in, say, the American Revolution had won out, it would be tea time in an hour or so.

From what I understand, most scholars think that Loyalists made up only about a third of the population of the Thirteen Colonies.

 

[Glitch]

If the majority opinion in, say, the American Revolution had won out, it would be tea time in an hour or so.

From what I understand, most scholars think that Loyalists made up only about a third of the population of the Thirteen Colonies.

Yeah, I've heard that estimate. But even if you grant that half of the colonists were in favor of rebellion, that still leaves a significant portion of neutral or indifferent parties. It wasn't a slam-dunk by any means.

 

[Thestral]

Also: "only" 1/3? Interesting definition of "only." And IIRC only about 1/3 actively supported independence as well.

DOMA is kind of an obvious example, true, but hey, it's an easy one and only one example was asked for, so why not go with it?

 

[Glitch]

It's a fine example, I just didn't want to appear to be devolving into subjects best left for other forums.

 

[Sci]

Also: "only" 1/3? Interesting definition of "only."

1/3 remains less than a majority, and the initial claim was that the majority of the people in the Thirteen Colonies did not support independence.

And IIRC only about 1/3 actively supported independence as well.

I've generally heard that it was 2/3rds.

 

[Glitch]

And IIRC only about 1/3 actively supported independence as well.

I've generally heard that it was 2/3rds.

I highly doubt it. I've never heard that more than half supported independence.

And I apologize for my comment. I should have said: if the neutral or disinterested parties had been more inclined towards loyalist opinions in the American Revolutionary War, we might be having tea time...about right now. The point was, the pro-independence faction was not a majority opinion in the war. Even if the number had crept above 50%, it certainly was by no means the overwhelming majority it is sometimes made out to be.

 

[Thestral]

And IIRC only about 1/3 actively supported independence as well.

I've generally heard that it was 2/3rds.

I highly doubt it. I've never heard that more than half supported independence.

Yeah, agreed, no more than half. 1/3 may well be lowballing, but 2/3 is way too high.

 

[Sci]

And IIRC only about 1/3 actively supported independence as well.

I've generally heard that it was 2/3rds.

I highly doubt it. I've never heard that more than half supported independence.

I think we were both wrong. If the general consensus in this thread on a history-oriented bulletin board is accurate, then it seems that the breakdown amongst the white population (as usual, no one really knows how the black population felt, since its general enslavement means its opinions were ignored at the time) was something like this:

Loyalists: 15-20%
Patriots: Estimates vary between 40-45% to no more than 51%
Neutral in activity: Approximately 50%

I think that the neutral concept includes Loyalists and apolitical people who avoided active involvement.

I should have said: if the neutral or disinterested parties had been more inclined towards loyalist opinions in the American Revolutionary War, we might be having tea time...about right now. The point was, the pro-independence faction was not a majority opinion in the war. Even if the number had crept above 50%, it certainly was by no means the overwhelming majority it is sometimes made out to be.

Fair enough, then.

 

[Glitch]

Well, yeah, I was definitely wrong...it's just so much more fun to derail a thread trying to backstep and rationalize, as opposed to coming right out and admitting it!

 

[Rush Limborg]

Example? I'd wager the vast majority of instances of "legislating morality" tend to have other purposes in mind....

The odious Defense of Marriage Act, for one of the more obvious recent examples.

I didn't want to use DOMA as an example, but if the idea of gay marriage is going to get an airing in the "free marketplace of ideas," the government coming down on the "anti" side is certainly no more fair than if it had come down on the "pro" side.

Well, I suppose it depends on what one's interperetation is of what DOMA actually says. After all, some might say it simply leaves the issue of defining marriage to each individual state.

(I should also point out that it was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law--Mr. "Whatever-The-Definition-Of-'Is'-Is" Himself--albeit, with a GOP-led congress.)

Frankly, I would agree with you that the government shouldn't necessarily have a role in defining what "marriage" is--except for the issues of things like the tax code, and other legal issues involving whether the people being targeted are "married" or not.

But honestly? That's one reason why I'd prefer a tax system that wasn't so complicated--a kind of system like, say, the FarTax, which wouldn't have exemptions, "statuses", etc. No debates over the "tax exempt status" of religious organizations, or unions--and less reason for the government to define "marriage". Of course, that debate's for another time....



On the main issue, the government has no right to invade upon someone's consentual sex life, as such--hence, the concept of "civil unions". Couples--heterosexual or homosexual--have the right to "unite" as they see fit, and DOMA doesn't change that.

The issue is--and this brings me back to my original point in this debate--a matter of terminology. Which "civil unions" count as "marriages", and why?

Frankly...I view the advocacy of "gay marriage" with as much amusement as I view the CE/BCE issue. What is the big deal over whether to call civil unions "marriage" or not? Exactly how is specific terminology a "right"? Gay civil unions can basically have all the benefits of marriage--just without the name. Indeed, Sir Elton John--one of my favorite singers, BTW--is of this mindset; he is not married to his partner, and doesn't intend to be.

Again, this is not something the federal government should decide. Hence, DOMA, which leaves it to individual states, without pressure from other states to be more "egalitarian". Ideally, I'd prefer that all the states have such policies for each community, as well...but I'm sure that won't happen for a while.

 

[Thestral]

... the mind boggles. Grab a shovel, folks...

 

[Trilliam]

Again, this is not something the federal government should decide. Hence, DOMA, which leaves it to individual states, without pressure from other states to be more "egalitarian". Ideally, I'd prefer that all the states have such policies for each community, as well...but I'm sure that won't happen for a while

I don't understanded why Marriage and Family Law ISN'T under the Federal Govt law/legislation in the USA. Here, laws regarding marriage, divorce and family law are under Federal Govt law. So it doesn't matter whether you're in Darwin, Hobart, Perth or Cape Tribulation, the same laws apply.

 

[Sci]

Well, I suppose it depends on what one's interperetation is of what DOMA actually says.

Full text of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After all, some might say it simply leaves the issue of defining marriage to each individual state.

I'm sure some would.

They're also wrong.

What the Defense of Marriage Act actually says is that no state has to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage performed by another state -- in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which explicitly states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

The Defense of Marriage Act also states that marriage for the purposes of federal law can only consist of heterosexual couples.

(I should also point out that it was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law--Mr. "Whatever-The-Definition-Of-'Is'-Is" Himself--albeit, with a GOP-led congress.)

Yes, heterosexism is sadly prevalent in the Democratic Party, too.

Frankly, I would agree with you that the government shouldn't necessarily have a role in defining what "marriage" is

Of course it should. Marriage is a governmental institution, after all. It's just that it shouldn't base its definition on some religion's idea of what it ought to be; civil marriage should only concern itself with whether the parties are of age and consent.

On the main issue, the government has no right to invade upon someone's consentual sex life, as such--hence, the concept of "civil unions". Couples--heterosexual or homosexual--have the right to "unite" as they see fit, and DOMA doesn't change that.

No, it just denies them the right to get married under federal law and gives states the right to violate the Constitution in discriminating against their marriages.

Frankly...I view the advocacy of "gay marriage" with as much amusement as I view the CE/BCE issue. What is the big deal over whether to call civil unions "marriage" or not?

Legal equality. Saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions is just the same thing as saying separate-but-equal. Separate isn't equal, as Brown v. Board of Education put it; it's nothing more than legal segregation for LGBT couples. LGBTs have a right to equal protection under the law as a result of the 14th Amendment, and as such ought to have equal access to the institution of civil marriage. Period.

Exactly how is specific terminology a "right"? Gay civil unions can basically have all the benefits of marriage--just without the name.

No, they don't have all the same benefits as marriage. They never will. Only when the federal government declares that equal access to civil marriage for LGBT couples is a protected right across the entire United States will LGBT couples have legal and social equality as couples with heterosexual married couples.

Indeed, Sir Elton John--one of my favorite singers, BTW--is of this mindset; he is not married to his partner, and doesn't intend to be.

Sir Elton has changed his mind.

Again, this is not something the federal government should decide.

Yes, it is. Loving v. Virginia found that entering into a civil marriage is an inherent right of all people. The 14th Amendment holds that all people should be treated equally under the law. Therefore, LGBTs should have equal access to civil marriage, and no state should have the right to stop them any more than any state has a right to stop an interracial couple from marrying.

Hence, DOMA, which leaves it to individual states, without pressure from other states to be more "egalitarian".

You mean, "Hence, DOMA, which violates the Constitution in order to 'legalize' discrimination against LGBTs."

 

[Trilliam]

Frankly, I would agree with you that the government shouldn't necessarily have a role in defining what "marriage" is

Marriage is a legally binding contract, just as a mortgage, employment, business, land purchase contract or any other type contract. Of course there should be legislation governing the execution of contracts.