Nuns On The Bus & the Faithful Budget

ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Nuns On The Bus & the Faithful Budget

Hey boys and girls, been a while. I'll jump right into it.

 

So, unless you've lived under a fucking rock for the past several months, you already know these ladies:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v-5a6cNUtog?feature=player_detailpage" autostart="false"/>

You can check them out here too: http://www.nunsonthebusohio.com/

 

Now I know I've many other activist groups to talk about and support, but I am interested in this particular one tonight. They came together across faith communities and made a serious proposal for a budget (check it out here: http://faithfulbudget.org/files/2012/03/Priorities-for-a-Faithful-Budget1.pdf) and are campaigning for it like there's no tomorrow. Read the first page of it and it will be clear to you what it's about: focus on poverty and fairness and more influence by the people on the budget.

Now, my question for you people here is not whether you would support something like this; it is not relevant and they are kicking some serious ass on their own. My question is also not about the direction they are taking, so the hard-line libertarians who dream about ultimate freedom - I heard the arguments, I love you all, but stick to answering the question or fuck off.

My question is primarily for those of us who believe that regulation is a fact, not a choice and that we have to fight for influence on the budget that frames our lives, unless we want it spent on creating the world's largest prison state with torture and mass murder as its main exports. So, for the reality-bound crew:

Are these people worthy AND equal potential political allies, despite, or even BECAUSE, of their (inter)faith background?

 

I will kick the discussion off with a few simple observations. First, I probably disagree with these people on a ton of issues. Second, reading their budget proposal, if I just replace "Faith" with "Common Sense", I agree with them point for point. Third, these people are good first and religious second (rationally religious, if you will) and have a unity and strength of appeal we can't produce with scientific discourse today, and even if we could, I would welcome them as equal ally in any fight for serious change.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I can see the embed works

I can see the embed works great. Sorry about that, here's the first link: http://www.youtube.com/embed/MVaO9eZPr6Y?feature=player_detailpage

 

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If I have my choice of

If I have my choice of supporting the ideas of Ayan Rand who was an atheist, but bat shit insane thinking "every man for themeselvs" constitutes all of evolution, or some deluded nuns who support the superstition of meteporhical canibalism, but understand that economics has to include regulation and safety nets, I most certainly would be their ally because what the uber fuckwad libertarians want is EXACTLY what gives rise to monopolies of money and power, which can and will lead to the slave shop mentality of China or the warlord mentality of Somolia.

 

The mistake that Ayan made is the same mistake Marx made. BOTH assumed optimal conditions and that humans will always behaive themselves. No matter what system one is talking about, be it government or business, you are still dependent on humans and humans do not always do the right thing and can and will rig or monopolize EITHER private business or government.

Neither these nuns or I advocate Stalin's nanny state. That was simply a rigged political market no different than big business pays off law makers to benifit themselves.

 

What we are saying and what they would say is that ALL classes are needed but the worse the gap is eventually becomes a long term unsustainable problem that will even undermin the very free market the economic right lies and says we need more "tricle down".

 

I am with them on economics only and wish they could see that they have a human compassion that needs no deity to hold.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome back ZuS

 

ZuS wrote:


Are these people worthy AND equal potential political allies, despite, or even BECAUSE, of their (inter)faith background?
 

 

You still look as hot as ever. As a policy voter I'd say yes. Worthy and equal. So long as they keep their eyes on the ball.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: You

Atheistextremist wrote:

 You still look as hot as ever.

Of course.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As a policy voter I'd say yes. Worthy and equal. So long as they keep their eyes on the ball. 

Not bad. Not bad at all.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Neither these

Brian37 wrote:

Neither these nuns or I advocate Stalin's nanny state. That was simply a rigged political market no different than big business pays off law makers to benifit themselves.

...

I am with them on economics only and wish they could see that they have a human compassion that needs no deity to hold.

Wow, two people now... I am not crazy it seems.

 

Brian37 wrote:

The mistake that Ayan made is the same mistake Marx made. BOTH assumed optimal conditions and that humans will always behaive themselves. No matter what system one is talking about, be it government or business, you are still dependent on humans and humans do not always do the right thing and can and will rig or monopolize EITHER private business or government.

I don't think Marx made that particular mistake; that mistake belongs to us who thought that Das Kapital is a guide to how to structure a state. Well, it isn't. Das Kapital is faith at best, the faith system we have to structure ourselves. I will be outrageously bold and say that there are many faith systems that function sort-of along the lines of the Marxist faith today. They can be improved radically and we should be working on that, but primarily we need to take cues from the societies implementing them and reform the Great Satan a bit in that direction.

Ayn Rand is in a different boat entirely and I don't think she ever even considered making the mistake you assign to her. She says that the only immoral act is altruism; that right there makes it impossible for her to make the mistake of expecting everyone to behave. She thought that the prime example of the superior man is a child molester and murderer. The list of stupid shit coming from her is substantial. I don't think she was a psychopath, because those individuals don't like showing their real face, but I do think that she suffered from a bad case of cock-deficit (or pussy-deficit; she did protest homos a bit much...) for the entirety of her bitter life. If I was to assign mistakes to her, it would be too much smoking and not enough fucking. That would be my male chauvinist moment of the day.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Brian37

ZuS wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Neither these nuns or I advocate Stalin's nanny state. That was simply a rigged political market no different than big business pays off law makers to benifit themselves.

...

I am with them on economics only and wish they could see that they have a human compassion that needs no deity to hold.

Wow, two people now... I am not crazy it seems.

 

Brian37 wrote:

The mistake that Ayan made is the same mistake Marx made. BOTH assumed optimal conditions and that humans will always behaive themselves. No matter what system one is talking about, be it government or business, you are still dependent on humans and humans do not always do the right thing and can and will rig or monopolize EITHER private business or government.

I don't think Marx made that particular mistake; that mistake belongs to us who thought that Das Kapital is a guide to how to structure a state. Well, it isn't. Das Kapital is faith at best, the faith system we have to structure ourselves. I will be outrageously bold and say that there are many faith systems that function sort-of along the lines of the Marxist faith today. They can be improved radically and we should be working on that, but primarily we need to take cues from the societies implementing them and reform the Great Satan a bit in that direction.

Ayn Rand is in a different boat entirely and I don't think she ever even considered making the mistake you assign to her. She says that the only immoral act is altruism; that right there makes it impossible for her to make the mistake of expecting everyone to behave. She thought that the prime example of the superior man is a child molester and murderer. The list of stupid shit coming from her is substantial. I don't think she was a psychopath, because those individuals don't like showing their real face, but I do think that she suffered from a bad case of cock-deficit (or pussy-deficit; she did protest homos a bit much...) for the entirety of her bitter life. If I was to assign mistakes to her, it would be too much smoking and not enough fucking. That would be my male chauvinist moment of the day.

I love your analogy of her, even more reason to hate her. lol.

But yes they BOTH made the same mistake. They thought of a solution to a problem and stupidly forgot that society is complex, not simplistic. Rynd's bogus "objectivism" is bullshit psuedo phychology.

Humans are a range of personalities and it is impractical and impossible to slap simplistic terms and ideas on a species that can only be described as a range and delt with as a range.

If Ayn was being consistant about people being individuals then she would not deny that that is exactly what evolution produces, and in that group you will have people with different intrests and personalities. She thought falsely that "fuck everyone else and worry about yourself will eventually benefit them".

No, that is how not as individuals but as a climate, you can create irreversable power with no way to keep a check on it. It is not all self interest OR hand outs. Charity by itself is not bad. Caring about yourself by itself is not bad.

Marx did the same thing, but took an absolute in the opposite direction. The mistake is the same taking a complex species and betting on the faith in an idea rather than deal with the reality of complexity as it is. And the same abuse that is driving down wages in the west allowed a monopoly to occur in Stalins nanny state.

It is the childish human flaw that a one word term or a paragraph of an idea can be applied to a complex species.

There is a benefit to autruism just as there is a benefit to selfishness but there are always unintended affects that can become outcomes in ANY situation. Why, because it is hard for humans to understand that life is both good and bad and can be both at the same time. And we still suffer from projectionism and falsely think that life is static and what may work at one point may not the next. Life is fluid and complex. If either truely had valued the individual, like they had claimed they never would have come up with utopias which is what both were postulating.

I think out of all the ideas that got put into law was the Constitution that in a real sense, even if they had no scientific knowledge of evolution, is as close to relfecting the complexity of society. I think many, maybe not all, but certainly many of the founders would say, "It is not all or nothing or either or. I think the first Amendment reflected both the neccessity of the collective and the necessity of the individual and that everything was case by case as well as anti monopoly" Something that a mere one word solution fails to do.

Ayan's mindset lead to the great Depression and our great recession. Marx failed too because it simply became an excuse for Stalin to create his own monopoly and abuse.

If it is about maximizing bene fit and minimizing harm than nothing can be stagnant and the veiw has to be both are part of the solution but can be part of the problem depending on context of time and who has power and how much power they have.

As an open society and a free press we do have collectivism in that if we don't collectively protect that concept we can easly slip into fascism. I have no doubt Rand likely read 1984 and Animal Farm. But somehow in doing such missed the point of those books.

A plutocracy, is nothing more than pooling money to monopolize power. Iran is not only a theocracy but it is also run by the wealthy few. Gaddifi was a capitalist who owned stock in GE. Stalin maintained his power the same way. If none of them had any wealth(even if just the party) they could not have created the monopolies they did.

Ayan faild to see that as long as anyone seeks wealth and power, and many will, without a check on it  it can be abusive. Marx also failed to see that potential.

The only way to be a free society to me, is both the collective intrest in our wealfare, and our collective protection of the rights of the individual. The conclusion the founders came to is that the only absolute was that there could not be any absolute. Both Rand and Marx spoke in terms of absolutes. Our first Amendment does not and insists on the ability to question and compete while treating the rights of the one or the rights of the majority as a fluid situation, not a static one.

It is why some here cannot comprehend that I do understand that no one owes me anthing. But long term as a society, long after I am dead, if all we do is simply get as much as we can and say fuck the other person, it is simply untenable. If we treat our economy like that it is no different than over tilling a crop.

You sell any idea to a critical mass there will always be humans seeking to expoit that to create their own monopoly. That is how Stalin got his power, and that is how Gadaffi became a billionaire. And that is despite what some claim, will destroy this country.

Ideas can only be situational and cannot cover a complex species so the best policy is to always keep any type of power in check, be it a political party, a religion or a business by insisting that no one NO ONE is intitled to a monopoly.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd be inclined to be

I'd be inclined to be willing to consider a team effort if the next big war is Republican Vs Liberal (Democrats aren't a left wing party, and therefore don't qualify as an opposite to the Republicans).
But if said war is religiously orientated, and it almost certainly will be, then we will be too far apart to work together. I'll be on the side trying to wipe them out.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.