LifeCycle Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I'm more in the middle but still do not vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
violetbutterfly Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Reading the political posts here for the last couple of years a person might get the impression the default position for a former believer is some form of liberalism and the democratic party is the only real option. I was a hard core conservative Republican when I was a Christian. I've modified my political perspectives since de-converting but I'm still not a full fledged liberal. I would classify myself as an independent moderate now. I am turned off by political extremism be it liberal or conservative. This is pretty much where I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'm more in the middle but still do not vote. I know a lot of people feel this way, LifeCycle, but may I beseech you to consider differently? Fundies vote, and they vote the way their churches tell them. It seems as though more and more states and localities are falling under the control of legislators who want to enact forms of religious law. If ex-Christians don't vote, we cede the public sphere to people who, for starters, want to harm people like many of us here on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'm more in the middle but still do not vote. I know a lot of people feel this way, LifeCycle, but may I beseech you to consider differently? Fundies vote, and they vote the way their churches tell them. It seems as though more and more states and localities are falling under the control of legislators who want to enact forms of religious law. If ex-Christians don't vote, we cede the public sphere to people who, for starters, want to harm people like many of us here on this site. To my shame, I never voted when I was a Christian. Since I have finally hammered out my politics, I am intent on voting, though with my country's love obsession with elephants and donkeys, I don't expect there will ever be a porcupine in office. That having been said, I don't want a vote that could've gone against a candidate I do not stand for to be wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I didn't used to care about politics before becoming a Christian. After conversion, I strangely supported the Democrats strongly. Aside from their stance on abortion, I thought that most of their other policies, particularly the economic ones, were in keeping with the principles of the New Testament concerning finances and economics, as well as social justice. After leaving Christianity I continued to support the Democrats strongly. On the social front I became quite radically pro-choice (mostly because I want the freedom to abort any potential kids I have), and I think that Republican fixation with gays is strange and counter-productive. Also, as I've written on ex-C on more than one occasion, I view the Republicans as the political arm of evangelical Christianity, and have generally believed that voting Democrat is the best way to oppose them. In the past year though, I think I've slowly started to shift. My social views remain the same, but since finishing grad school and getting a real job my income has risen by about a factor of 4. As per the tax code, my effective tax rate has outpaced this. I don't like paying taxes. In fact, I really don't like paying taxes, and now that I'm free of Jesus, I find that I don't particularly care about those who are still in the tax bracket at which I was situated a couple years ago (hey, I'm just being honest about being a selfish bastard). Given that I like having money, and that starving poor people don't pull at the strings of my dispassionate heart like they did under the influence of Jesus Christ, I find that the Republican party is becoming more and more the unlikely ally. I still don't like their pro-life posture and wish they would stop fixating on gay people, but if my paycheck increases I feel I could overlook their moral failings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 I didn't used to care about politics before becoming a Christian. After conversion, I strangely supported the Democrats strongly. Aside from their stance on abortion, I thought that most of their other policies, particularly the economic ones, were in keeping with the principles of the New Testament concerning finances and economics, as well as social justice. After leaving Christianity I continued to support the Democrats strongly. On the social front I became quite radically pro-choice (mostly because I want the freedom to abort any potential kids I have), and I think that Republican fixation with gays is strange and counter-productive. Also, as I've written on ex-C on more than one occasion, I view the Republicans as the political arm of evangelical Christianity, and have generally believed that voting Democrat is the best way to oppose them. In the past year though, I think I've slowly started to shift. My social views remain the same, but since finishing grad school and getting a real job my income has risen by about a factor of 4. As per the tax code, my effective tax rate has outpaced this. I don't like paying taxes. In fact, I really don't like paying taxes, and now that I'm free of Jesus, I find that I don't particularly care about those who are still in the tax bracket at which I was situated a couple years ago (hey, I'm just being honest about being a selfish bastard). Given that I like having money, and that starving poor people don't pull at the strings of my dispassionate heart like they did under the influence of Jesus Christ, I find that the Republican party is becoming more and more the unlikely ally. I still don't like their pro-life posture and wish they would stop fixating on gay people, but if my paycheck increases I feel I could overlook their moral failings. **COUGH**LIBERTARIANISM**COUGH** Seriously, though. Libertarians hate taxes as much as you do. They're pretty much a "don't fuck with anyone" kind of party, but also a "pull your own weight" kind of party. Minimal government, maximum income for the people who earn it. There's more to their philosophy as well. Like their stance on abortion: if you want one, that's your choice, so you should be able to have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I went from conservative to liberal. From fundamentalist to nonbeliever. My politics are equality for all and basic human rights everyone requires to live, such as food, shelter, utilities, medical care, should be available to anyone for free. If a country can spend its money like $3.5 billion USD to Israel every year, then it has the fortune to provide the basic necessities of life without complaint. It gives wealth to the wealthy and more poverty to the poor. It promotes austerity instead of prosperity and every bit of it is driven by the Christian church--prosperity doctrine is extremism for wealthy Christian fanatics or wannabees, and other churches that remain silent are guilty of complacency through prayer. My politics is that if I am fortunate through the month and I see someone begging for food I buy them a sack of groceries. If they want to buy a bottle of liquor I may get the better brand for them--I really have in the past. Conservatism doesn't change, it remains the same and stagnant which is why it's world-view is still from the 1950s. We still vote in our fathers and mothers into office. It's our generation. The laws won't change unless more of our generation or younger get interested in politics and get over the fact we really don't have invisible friends when the times get tough. We have to pass legislation for now and the future to protect future generations from the growing fanaticism from the fascists now in politics who are trying to pass laws to protect their wealth, not humanity but greed. My politics says this is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I still don't like their pro-life posture and wish they would stop fixating on gay people, but if my paycheck increases I feel I could overlook their moral failings. Bhim, this makes my head reel. More and more, the Republicans are becoming the Christian fundy, anti-science, anti-education, anti-fact party. And they are still the pro-white party in many places. Part of the strategy to keep the white working class supporting the interests of billionaires against their own interests, as I see it. This strategy is a kind of fascism light. Since the Carter years, the economy has tended to do better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. In general, ditto the stock market. We need a third party, in my opinion. Don't know whether the Libertarians can be that... I read their platform, and I'm not convinced that the free market can successfully protect the environment, say, or monitor safety of products on sale (like milk - lots of children got diseases in the 19th century from bad milk, before there was any regulation or inspection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'm more in the middle but still do not vote. I know a lot of people feel this way, LifeCycle, but may I beseech you to consider differently? Fundies vote, and they vote the way their churches tell them. It seems as though more and more states and localities are falling under the control of legislators who want to enact forms of religious law. If ex-Christians don't vote, we cede the public sphere to people who, for starters, want to harm people like many of us here on this site. I guess I'd consider it, but I'm in the state that has a habit of making the news due to ignorant legislators. During their campaign process there is no rational-minded competition. Check out our voting record. We're as Conservative as it gets. There are progressives here but the feeling is the same between us. We're surrounded and outnumbered. People like Bridenstine and Lankford had no competition that represented the other side of the aisle. We're voting for dumb and dumber over here. I know the defeatist mentality is a bad one to have but sometimes the facts are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 I went from conservative to liberal. From fundamentalist to nonbeliever. My politics are equality for all and basic human rights everyone requires to live, such as food, shelter, utilities, medical care, should be available to anyone for free. If a country can spend its money like $3.5 billion USD to Israel every year, then it has the fortune to provide the basic necessities of life without complaint. It gives wealth to the wealthy and more poverty to the poor. It promotes austerity instead of prosperity and every bit of it is driven by the Christian church--prosperity doctrine is extremism for wealthy Christian fanatics or wannabees, and other churches that remain silent are guilty of complacency through prayer. My politics is that if I am fortunate through the month and I see someone begging for food I buy them a sack of groceries. If they want to buy a bottle of liquor I may get the better brand for them--I really have in the past. Conservatism doesn't change, it remains the same and stagnant which is why it's world-view is still from the 1950s. We still vote in our fathers and mothers into office. It's our generation. The laws won't change unless more of our generation or younger get interested in politics and get over the fact we really don't have invisible friends when the times get tough. We have to pass legislation for now and the future to protect future generations from the growing fanaticism from the fascists now in politics who are trying to pass laws to protect their wealth, not humanity but greed. My politics says this is wrong. Though I am not a Liberal, I was once a Conservative. I was also a Fundamentalist, and I became a Secular Humanist. I believe we should give to the poor (and by "we" I mean government as well as non-government). My goal in life is to get filthy rich, then give most of it to the people who need it, in the form of rent-at-cost or rent-free apartment complexes. A lot of people look at me like I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I agree with you that we should be able to provide a decent life for everyone in our nation without complaint. Where you and I might differ is in whether a person should be required to work for what they are given; since you didn't touch on that, it would be presumptuous of me to assume your position on the issue. I believe we should give the basic necessities to everyone, but I also believe they should do what they can. Some people cannot do anything, given their physical and/or mental condition. That's fine; they are still entitled to the basic needs of every human being. Others are able but unwilling to do anything to earn their income, even if that means just taking care of what they are given (i.e., cleaning their apartment). I am not so forgiving when it comes to people who won't lift a finger. I don't buy into the Biblical stance that if you don't work, you don't eat. That's bullshit. Love for humanity means providing for them. Shelter, clothing, and food are the bare minimum we can provide, and if we'd stop trying to police the world and knuckle down on our own citizens for stupid things, we could channel a lot of money toward provision for people. I believe we should also impose legislation to keep the government in check. For instance, if a Representative doesn't work toward what he promised his citizens, he should have his pay cut. Personally, as things are, I'd like to see Congress, the President, the Vice President, and the Cabinet live on the national minimum wage and food stamps for a month, without access to their saved income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Ficino, Penguin: would that we could have a beer and discuss this in person. The Libertarian party interests me. As a Christian I used to hate it, since it embraced all the things that I found to be unbiblical about the Republican party - capitalism, eschewing social justice, glorification of wealth, and a refusal to use the power of the sword (i.e. police) to restrain evil - while distancing itself from the party's Bible-based standards, specifically opposition to abortion and gay marriage. I think that now, my problems with them are due to their lack of unity and vision. Ron and Rand Paul seem to be the de facto heads of Libertarianism, or at least the most viable candidates who could ascend to the presidency. Both of them seem to take a weak pro-life stance though, and I don't see either one suffering a public display of affection between two gay males, to say nothing of legal marriage. At best, I trust both of these people to take a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage stance via inaction. Ultimately, I'm not sure that the third party approach is effective. As you say Ficino, we need a third party. But none of the current third parties are capable of doing anything at the moment except stealing votes whichever of the two major parties with which they most closely align. Also Penguin, regarding Libertarianism specifically, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm in favor of minimal government. Regulation is beneficial to us in most cases, and that's not something I want to abandon. Ficino, I don't blame you for finding my vacillation to border on abhorrent. A year ago I would have found my current uncertainty to be quite shocking, and I'm sure I can dig up some of my old posts to that effect. You know how much I hate Christianity, and thus I hate the Republican connection to said religion. The abortion issue is something that could affect me, given that my wife and I aren't interested in kids for at least a few more years. And more than their stance on gay marriage itself, the comments they make about gay people behind closed doors suggests a very dangerous vilification which is no better than schoolyard bullying. Yes, there is much to detest about Republicans. However the one counterweight here is the taxes. Democrats say they want to tax the rich, but they are taxing me at what I consider a very high rate. Maybe this is just an effect of my financial hopes outpacing reality when I defiantly cast aside postdoc opportunities to take a science position in industry. But I found that due to tax code, the number on my offer letter differs substantially from the one on my paycheck. Under the Republicans the United States would effectively declare a state religion that denigrates from my own. Science would be denied to the detriment of public health. A couple of my gay friends from grad school, with whom I enjoyed many a board game night, will have to regularly hear their elected officials espouse hatred for them. None of these are things that I want. At the same time, economically disadvantaged people aren't an issue about which I am passionate, and the obscenely high taxes that I am charged in order to subsidize people I don't care about is something that affects me once every two weeks. What is one to do in this situation? My political views are very much in a state of flux, so I'm open to people's opinions on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 One question is, to what extent to tax revenues go towards the public good. We can imagine, say, a self-employed small-time contractor whose taxes under Republicans go down by $1000 a year (I'm just making up this figure). But at the same time, other ramifications of cuts in spending affect him - less income in the economy at large, so fewer people to hire him for jobs, cutbacks at his kids' schools/universities, higher interest rates because Republicans keep screaming about threats of (non-existent) inflation, etc. etc. As a gay man I am very afraid of complete Republican takeover. Perhaps I am unjustifiably paranoid. If more than 2/3 of all state legislatures become Republican, they can pass a constitutional amendment. Perhaps lower taxes for someone else is worth the prospect that I may face discrimination or worse. Some Republican in California filed for a ballot initiative to put gays to death. "It can't happen here," one may say. But such stuff is creeping back into public discourse, partly under the "Christians need to have religious freedom to be homophobic" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I would like my guns (and reform most ridiculous gun laws like those in California) and also see gay marriage legalized in all fifty states. I'd also push for a stronger separation of church and state, no more tax-exempt status, congressional and SCOTUS term limits, defund the DEA, ATF, and NSA, end the drug war, prison reform, reinvest in our infrastructure and education, provide basic health-care, free college for those who qualify, and see campaign spending limits put in place. I'm pretty much at odds with almost every Republican and most Democrats. Since I was a Christian I guess I swung from being conservative to liberal. Then I wearied of the bleeding heart liberals and struck out on my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Relevant to the thread: young atheists and whether the Republicans can be viable for them. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0305/Young-conservative-and-atheist-A-test-for-the-GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cousin Ricky Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I voted “other.” Most of my politics have remained exactly the same, so voting “yes” would have been misleading. OTOH, I near totally flip-flopped on abortion, and came to fully support marriage equality, so “no” would have been a small lie. I’ve been on the left all my life, far-left by standards of my native USA, or perhaps center-right by western European standards. Despite having somewhat of a libertarian streak, I find libertarianism dangerously naive, and I will have nothing to do with the batshit insane Republican Party in its current state. This leaves me as a Democrat-by-default. I used to find it incongruous that the left, which prides itself on fighting for the little guy, fails to defend the rights of the littlest guys of all, unborn zygotes. The Catholic Church had me convinced that “life begins at conception” was a scientific fact. Religion can be so convincing when it drapes itself in scientific garb. I have always supported separation of religion and government, and it was only by the RCC’s verbal misdirection that I ended up inadvertently breaching that wall. Nevertheless, even as a devout Catholic, I found myself consistently voting for pro-choice candidates, because the so-called “pro-lifers” never failed to support policies that increased the demand for abortion. Finding no non-religious reason to oppose gay rights, I used to support civil unions. It didn’t take long after de-conversion for me to realize that I was operating with a religious definition of “marriage.” In retrospect, I saw that “civil union” was a form of separate-but-equal, which, as a black American, I should have seen from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 One question is, to what extent to tax revenues go towards the public good. We can imagine, say, a self-employed small-time contractor whose taxes under Republicans go down by $1000 a year (I'm just making up this figure). But at the same time, other ramifications of cuts in spending affect him - less income in the economy at large, so fewer people to hire him for jobs, cutbacks at his kids' schools/universities, higher interest rates because Republicans keep screaming about threats of (non-existent) inflation, etc. etc. As a gay man I am very afraid of complete Republican takeover. Perhaps I am unjustifiably paranoid. If more than 2/3 of all state legislatures become Republican, they can pass a constitutional amendment. Perhaps lower taxes for someone else is worth the prospect that I may face discrimination or worse. Some Republican in California filed for a ballot initiative to put gays to death. "It can't happen here," one may say. But such stuff is creeping back into public discourse, partly under the "Christians need to have religious freedom to be homophobic" argument. I don't blame you for your fear of a complete Republican takeover. In fact I don't think that "it can't happen here" is at all reasonable. No, I don't think that a homosexual holocaust is something that would happen in America. But mob executions of gays is certainly a threat from evangelical Christians, in my opinion. As a former Calvinist I'm sure you're aware that behind closed doors, evangelicals utterly vilify gays. This is not a case of hating the sin rather than the sinner. The leader of my former Bible study, a very highly educated and well-spoken person, justified execution of gays on the grounds that their sin was not a single rebellion against God, but a lifestyle of rebellion. Thus they eschewed all repentance by default, and are fit only to burn. We could spend all day asking why evangelicals single out gays and not, say, idolaters. Somehow the evangelicals are out to convert me, but to kill you. The problem is that they usually only say these things behind closed doors. So many Republicans might seem more reasonable than they really are, in this regard. Regarding the issue of public good, admittedly I'm not an economist so I'm willing to accept corrections on what I'm about to say (from any posters who are economists, or who can at least cite papers by economists). As per my developing streak of selfishness, I am certainly interested in the public good, but only in areas of public life in which I participate. Being the cold bastard that I am, I wouldn't be the first to support lower income housing or education projects, since this isn't something that would directly affect me. Would it have secondary effects on me? Maybe, but I'm not so certain. I work for a science company, and there is already a glut of people graduating with advanced degrees in science, so it's not as though my workplace would have to close its doors for lack of viable candidates to hire. This company participates mostly in the energy industry, and demand for power is pretty stable right now. I live in a reasonably well-to-do suburb, and for better or worse, property taxes subsides schools. So if I had any kids, additional taxes to support lower-income schooling wouldn't really do anything for me. As for universities...I think we should start a separate thread to discuss this (no really, I'd be eager to bounce a few thoughts off a fellow academic). There are plenty of other pet liberal issues I could go into, but I wanted to give an example of my thought process here. If a smaller fraction of my income were going to taxes, I might be in a more charitable mindset. But until my wife started working a few months ago, I was saving even less money than I did in grad school. We could talk about public good all day, and I am aware of the necessary things that my taxes support, but altruism is currently not a sufficient motivator to inspire me to suffer the level of taxation I currently am experiencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I wasn't bringing up "the public good" as a plea for altruism, but as an appeal to self-interest of middle-income people. But I am not an economist either, so I just go with what I remember reading or observing. I also don't know at what income level a "public good" fails to compensate somebody for being in a higher tax bracket, nor can I break this down by "good." Here in NYC, the costs of mass transit are a considerable factor for wage earning people. Should rich people who never take the subway or bus subsidize a fare structure that helps those who do ride on those conveyances? Well, it will affect the servants who have to travel an hour or more from lower-cost neighborhoods to get to the rich folks' residence to work. And with a bit more money saved, those servants can buy more stuff. So that's a bit more money sloshing around in the economy. And so on... I am out of my depth here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I am out of my depth here. As am I, so perhaps I should not attempt to speculate on what constitutes public good. I do understand your point on this topic though, and it's my fault for not articulating my response a bit more clearly. Thank you for re-stating, I do appreciate your explanations and find them helpful. To summarize my current thoughts on this: I am in favor of tax expenditures for the public good as long as those expenditures result in some reasonably obvious benefit to myself. If I were to likewise summarize my overall political philosophy, I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that I wish for the government to protect the rights of people, prevent people/corporations from harming one another, and providing public services. I do not want to go so far as to say that I favor "small government," since I do think that in order to accomplish the above mentioned objectives, government must often have an extensive reach. But specific to taxes, I think it's worth mentioning that I do not believe in government-enforced equality (or "government-ensured," if you don't prefer the loaded term that I've used). What I believe in is the enforcement of equal opportunity. For example, as far as legal restrictions go I believe a poor person should have the same opportunity as a rich person to go to college. I do care about my fellow man insofar as I want his rights to be protected. But I don't think that taxpayers are collectively obligated to ensure that the poor person has the financial means to attend any college once he's been admitted. As far as availing oneself of opportunity goes, I have no interest in offering help via the government. Now, if this ethic rules in all areas of society, obviously it will perpetuate the existence of class. I want government to be large enough to protect lower classes from the oppression of upper classes, but I do not want it to attempt to level the playing field. Being unschooled in economics and therefore unable to actually implement my views, I guess what I'm looking for is a qualified politician who is more competent than me, but who shares my philosophy. And I really would prefer if this person doesn't believe in Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Being unschooled in economics and therefore unable to actually implement my views, I guess what I'm looking for is a qualified politician who is more competent than me, but who shares my philosophy. And I really would prefer if this person doesn't believe in Jesus. Um, dude -- that pretty much rules out the entire fucking GOP! (Except for the frauds, if there are any, who merely pretend to believe in Jesus.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I know, and thus my crisis of political identity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I had virtually no politics when I abandoned Christianity as a teenager. Politics came later, once I was an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 As a gay man I am very afraid of complete Republican takeover. Perhaps I am unjustifiably paranoid. If more than 2/3 of all state legislatures become Republican, they can pass a constitutional amendment. Perhaps lower taxes for someone else is worth the prospect that I may face discrimination or worse. Some Republican in California filed for a ballot initiative to put gays to death. "It can't happen here," one may say. But such stuff is creeping back into public discourse, partly under the "Christians need to have religious freedom to be homophobic" argument. EXACTLY what I feared is starting. Ted Cruz is starting a constitutional amendment to allow states to ban same-sex marriage. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/10/ted_cruz_freedom_wont_survive_unless_we_deny_gay_people_theirs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts