RedShirt,I have seen wards come together as well. And in the LDS
community we MIGHT be able to come close.But there was grinding
poverty prior to the 1930s. Large sections of the US where a ward (had one
existed) could not have done much because everyone was facing similar
poverty.What about where entire stakes encompass nothing but
relatively poor areas? Who provides the help? The larger church? Sure, but
that is not neighbor helping neighbor. That is a wealth transfer from one
community to another (yes, voluntary).You will get no argument from
me (or most here I think) that self-help is best. The knottier questions are
for those who need lifelong help - medical or for daily living.The
Relief Society is great for short and moderate term assistance. But who is
going to provide the sort of day to day, year after year care that Medicaid
funded nursing homes provide? Family? Only if they are both willing and able.
If they are poor, adding an aging parent will likely make it worse. Also, if it
is a sibling or parent who needs daily nursing care, that gets back to
professionals.These are the tough questions.
To "Truthseeker" you really have a pessimistic view of the world, just
like so many of your ilk.I have personally seen wards come together
and support those in need. If we didn't have so much government forced
charity, people could afford to help their neighbors. Why is it that prior to
the 1930's people were able to help their neighbors, and take care of those
in need without the government?You are now twisting my words. I
never said that Jesus judged the adulterous woman. I said that he did not give
her forgiveness. There is a difference. She was was not repentant, and not
seeking to do better. The original arguement by LDSLiberal was that Jesus
forgave all, but the fact is that that this woman was not forgiven.
re:RedShirtDuring Jesus' time the government was ruled by kings.
People didn't vote for their leaders or system of govt. or laws of the
land. So for you to extrapolate that Jesus would be opposed to a democracy where
programs are set up to aid the elderly, children and poor is ridiculous.
Obviously a governmental system doesn't substitute for "volunteer"
charity. We should all be engaged in acts of charity--both in time and
resources. But only a fool believes volunteer charity is enough to keep those
in need from starving or dying. Even in our LDS wards, it is common for there
to be a handful of people that contribute a large portion of fast offerings and
charitable acts, while the majority do considerably less. Jesus did
not judge the adulterous woman because her sojourn on earth wasn't over.
We will receive our final judgement from Jesus in the next life. John 12:47"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I
judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."
LSD LibThis is an example of communication breakdown due to refusal
or inability to process the message. Did you miss the part where I
wrote Jesus never TAKES from some to give to others? Jesus gave what is His and
what was freely offered, but never forced anyone to pay for His giving. Granted,
he was the son of God, so he could make those loaves and fishes go a long way,
but they were given willingly and He provided the rest from his own resources,
with taking/taxing it out of other people.All those government
programs you love are not free. Someone pays, by force, for the benefit of
others. It is TAKEN from them.We were discussing Jesus, not Robin
Hood.If you still don't get it, try reading Redshirt. He
explained it very well.
Liberals need to stop being fans on MSNBC and conservative need to stop being
fans of Fox News in order to reduce confirmation bias. Conservatives say
liberals are lazy and want hand outs, which is a lie. My liberal friends are
just as hard working and provide for themselves just as much as my conservative
friends. Liberals say all conservatives are greedy and not charitable, which is
also a lie. My conservative friends are not greedy, just as my liberal friends
aren't greedy, and both my liberal and conservative friends gives to
charities. The talking heads are spreading lies, and the masses
are eating it up to the detriment of the country.And by the way,
Obama is not a socialist, one of the biggest lies.
To "LDS Liberal" the qualities that you claim are "liberal" are
actually more aligned with libertarian. You have no idea what modern liberalism
is.What you call inclusive, really is acceptance. He told people to
follow the law. Remember the moneychangers. He didn't really include
them, he kicked them out of the temple on 2 occasions.If Jesus was a
liberal, he would have sent a social worker to care for the sick. Liberals do
not do that work themselves, hence the reason for social welfare programs and
taxes to support those programs.Jesus did expect those he healed to
have faith in him, and to follow him.Jesus forgave those seeking to
do better. Think of the woman caught in adultery, she did not get forgiven, but
was told to stop and go her way.Jesus expected all to give what they
could regardless of income status. This was not a tax he enforced, but wanted
each to figure out for themselves how to help their neighbor.Liberals are hypocrites. Look at Obama's claims that $400 billion
deficits were criminal, then turns around and runs $1.3 Trillion deficits.
Re:CHS 85Your response is exactly how the conversations breaks
down."Would you prefer that these people move away?" Was there any insinuation in my comments that indicated that this is
what I was suggesting?"Would you prefer that these bases and
activities cease to exist in Utah?"Again..see above."Is Utah ready to absorb those jobs and those unemployed people?"Straw man question based on faulty prior conclusions."You have your hand out with "Save Hill AFB" as the battle cry for
election after election (even though Hill AFB is not threatened), yet you spit
in the very hand that provides the jobs for those who work at the base (and
other federal facilities throughout the state). "Do I?"Which is it, then? Do you want less federal spending in Utah or not?"
Did I pose that question?"BTW, the number of federal
facilities in Utah (a "taker" state) pales in comparison to a state that
is a "giver"..."Per capita...You are wrong.You can continue to justify Utah's taking of more than they give all you
want, but the fact still remains - Utah is a "taker."Huh?
You missed the point.
@George"I am sorry to hear you do not respect yourself but you
know you can change the way you interact with the world so that you once again
can respect yourself."English translation: "I know you are
but what am I"Years of graduate school and that is the best you can
do?I would remind you that YOU, not I, are the one who has
advocates censorship of therapy that was beneficial to me, but inconvenient to
your dogma. YOU, not I, justified the censorship based up blatantly politically
motivated "research". Then YOU, not I, have the audacity to claim that
you are only censoring and silencing differing viewpoints because you are
concerned about my well-being. I grew up around passive/aggression
and reject it in its entirety.I accept no shame from you. But
thank you for proving my point sometimes patronizing faux-civility is merely
"a manipulative front for silencing opposition"
" Raising taxes on a portion of Americans will destroy that portion of
Americans." Please explain how raising the marginal tax rate 3% on someone
who makes over $250,000 a year (3% on income over $250,000) "destroys"
that person. I can respect a reasonable position that is different than mine
(your opinion about the need for a literal interpretation of the constitution)
but hyperbolic nonsense like the above needs to be called out for what it is.
My wife and I will probably fall into this category and let me assure you that
the extra 3% on everything over 250 won't "destroy" us. In fact it
won't have any effect at all. Redshirt..wasn't Jesus
statement about giving to Cesar what is Cesars the result of taxes..which Jesus
apparently validated with the statement.
Dwayne,First, apparently Godwin’s Law works.Second, we were discussing folks with varying political views not affirmed
mass murdering psychopaths. Best to keep those two separate.Third,
there is CERTAINLY not “too much respect” in our country.Fourth, sure there are consequences to my relationships. But not based on
whether they vote Democratic or Republican.Finally I refer you to an
excellent talk by Dallin H. Oaks titled Truth and Tolerance. In that talk, he
quotes President Hinckley as follows “Each of us is part of a great
family, the human family, sons and daughters of God, and therefore brothers and
sisters. We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of
forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and
philosophies which we may espouse.”Elder Oaks then goes on, in
some detail, on how to balance both advocating and standing for truth while
maintaining respect for the ideas of others. Note that he draws a firm line
reference certain extreme behaviors but political ideas do not appear to make
A lot of what we believe depends on who we rely on to give us the news. The
pressure of group think of our friends and co-workers may unduly influence
us.Those who treat others with whom they disagree with contempt is a sign of a
desire to be right that overrides the desire to understand others points of
view. Do we take time to learn the facts of both sides? When we genuinely seek
to understand other we tend to find that their intentions are not as hostile or
dark as we may have thought. The truth does not reside in any one particular
political party or viewpoint.Narrow-mindedness is common among both liberals and
Christian 24-7Joe MoeRedShirtJesus was inclusive, not
exclusive (think immigration reform today)Jesus spent most of his time
with shunned in society the poor, sick, the needy (think 47% today)Jesus
healed the sick, and never little to nothing in return (Think RObamaneycare).Jesus fed the multitudes, and never asked them for payment (think
FoodStamps).Jesus forgave the adulterers, and thieves (think Civil Unions,
Domestic Partnerships, and amnesty).Jesus expected the 1% to pony up and
do more - where much is given, much is expected.Jesus rebuked the
self-righteous and rich Pharisees as phoney hypocrites.Liberal then,
@redshirt personal responsibility unless you loss an election then its all
the democrats fault for not playing fair.
To "LDS Liberal" do we once again need to prove to you that Jesus would
shun the modern day liberal movement, and its faceless government programs?If you think that Jesus was a liberal, name one time that Jesus told his
followers to seek out the government for help. Tell us where Jesus taught that
to take care of our fellow man we just need to pay more taxes.To
"Kent C. DeForrest" the LDS people like the conservative movement
because it preaches freedom and personal responsibility, just like the LDS
church. It reflects their values better than liberalism.
@joe moe I think you are probably right the Jesus of Christian faiths
would likely avoid siding himself with either party but then the brings up the
question (not necessarily to you in particular but in general) what does that
say about the arguments being made by people on both sides that use their
Christian beliefs as a weapon in the political arena?
LDS liberal, being liberal as a person in Jesus' time and place and being a
political liberal in the context of today's US government policies are
quite different. In other words, you seem to believe that if Jesus were living
today, he would be a Democrat. That assumption is brazen and without basis
(btw, I would say the same to those who think he would be Repbulcian).
This is the cleaned up version of this morning’s post, minus the
metaphorical comparison which undoubtedly got it censored. I think
the difference of the view has very little to do with the inability to
communicate appropriately. The stereotyping and name calling is unbelievable.
With 5 posts we have already the following insults:called people
"wingnut fringe” (name calling, insinuating that people are actually
insane and should be institutionalized) "their message appeals
mainly to older white men" (This is Racial and Sexist and whatever the word
is for discrimination of the aged)"we would surely drown out
those loud mouthed minority extremists." (Just talk over them and they are
not important enough to bother listening to or even being nice to, they are
terrorists)These words are carefully chosen to pass the screeners,
but to give the intended insults loud and clear.They do not
represent civil dialogue and shut down real communication.
@jamesSorry I really do know the difference between their and there, but
you get the point.
The Bible does not say Jesus was a liberal. James 1:5 says he gives
liberally, but that hardly means the same thing as being liberal today. Jesus gives from what is His. Liberals today seek to take from the rich
so they can sanctimoniously give to others. Not the same thing.
I love it that the file photo used with this story is the same one as was used
with the 'women cheating as much as men' story.
@GrundleOkay - who is the largest employer in the state of Utah? In
a state that has a venomous relationship with the federal government, the
federal government continues to expand it's presence in Utah employing tens
of thousands of Utahns in mostly the Department of Defense and now the National
Security Agency. Would you prefer that these people move away? Would you
prefer that these bases and activities cease to exist in Utah? Is Utah ready to
absorb those jobs and those unemployed people? You have your hand out with
"Save Hill AFB" as the battle cry for election after election (even
though Hill AFB is not threatened), yet you spit in the very hand that provides
the jobs for those who work at the base (and other federal facilities throughout
the state). Which is it, then? Do you want less federal spending in Utah or
not? BTW, the number of federal facilities in Utah (a "taker" state)
pales in comparison to a state that is a "giver" like New York or New
Jersey. You can continue to justify Utah's taking of more than
they give all you want, but the fact still remains - Utah is a "taker."
@Jamesalthough it i often hard to tell if you spend to much time on these
threads there really are people out there on both sides that have worth while
viewpoints that can present them in intelligent and insightful ways that can
promote understanding. As a liberal there are a few conservatives/republicans I
really enjoy reading and listening to there view points. sadly they do tend to
be pushed to the sidelines instead of the headlines. This is also true I believe
of liberals/democrats. Sensationalism sales so it is what you will find unless
you dig down through the hyperbole. If you want to understand those with
different points of view it is probably best to ignore sights like this one as
civil dialogue. I do like to believe that if I where to actually be sitting
across from some of these people that I would find them to be far less abrasive
and likely not so different from me but these threads really do not promote
Jesus was a Liberal.My conscious is clear.
@TruthseekerYour argument that Maher is on cable and Limbaugh is on
radio is splitting hairs. My comparison was meant to be more contextual than
literal (I debated whether to use Maher or O'Donnell, Maddow, Schulz,
Matthew, Goldberg, Stewart, etc. as the example of left-wing intolerance - but
there is a 200 word limit)However I will offer KUDOS for stepping up
and condemning Maher. That is a step towards civility that I can agree
with.@Salsa LibreCondemning Maher was a good start; but then
you offered that his audience was young hip and unconventional as if that made
it all OK. Isn't that merely disheartening than hate is considered hip?Then you ended with the typical wingnut comment. One step forward two steps
Some, of the calming thoughts expressed here, might have helped the woman, in
Arizona, who ran over her husband because, of a difference of opinion, over
political issues, choose a different way to express her frustrations.
@Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT"The left has
changed over the last 50 years far more than the right has. Claiming that the
right has become more extreme is a classic example of left wing extremist
passive/aggression."The biggest change prior to Reagan and the
emergence of evangelical, social conservatism occurred in 1964 when Southern
Democrats (Dixicrats) left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because
of civil rights legislation.The purging of the Republican Party of
its progressive and moderate members over the past 30 years has resulted in a
much more ideologically conservative political party dominated by social
conservatives. The growth of the Tea Party only intensified the shift
right-ward, an inward contraction resulting in a smaller, more reactionary,
partisan base, and a sense of self-indulgent alienation and anger found
today.The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has a much broader
base ranging from liberal to conservative. Much of the propaganda generated by
Right-Wing media of Left-Ward movement within the Democratic Party is just that
-- propaganda. The Democratic Party has expanded to accomodate those
disaffected people rejected by the New Republican Party as moderate.
Mike Richards: Thank you for the kind comments. I also respect your opinion even
though I obviously disagree.
Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UTOK. Just for you. Bill
Maher is not my favorite. Many times he says outlandish things, in my opinion,
which stretch credulity and are extremely offensive. As such, I usually
don't watch his program. And I would never look to it as a valid source of
information. However, his audience is considered young, hip, and unconventional
in its tastes.Is that what you want to hear?Now, what do
you say about Rush Limbaugh and the wingnut media?
It's not possible to have a civil discourse with someone who calls people
who disagree with his viewpoint, "wingnuts". Although our
viewpoints are nearly opposite, I respect Roland and I respect his views. He is
a gentleman. He doesn't call names when people see things differently than
he does. From his posts, it seems that he considers the ideas of others before
he responds.We're all entitled to our own ideas. Life's
experiences shape our viewpoint. Wise people ask themselves what the
consequence to society would be if everyone followed the course of action being
proposed. If calamity wpuld result if 100% of the people did something, then
that course of action is wrong.It's a simple test, but it
works. If Obama wants to raise taxes, all we have to ask is what
would happen if he raised taxes on everyone. We know that it would destroy us.
Raising taxes on a portion of Americans will destroy that portion of Americans.
His policy is wrong -because unless his goal is to destroy part of
Re:Kent C. DeForrestWhat was the headline of this article? Your
demonization of all things conservative is an example of why we have difficulty
Comments about the amount of federal dollars a state receives are rarely taken
in the context of how much of a state is owned by the federal government. It
also does not take into account the number of facilities and/or services the
federal government runs from the state.Utah is mostly federal lands.
Those are lands that we cannot use and exploit for our state expenses like most
states can.So...either there is a lack of understanding on the
posters part or a touch of disingenuousness. (a good word to add to your
spelling function - D News)
Liberal Larry,It's not just older white men who seem to be
swallowing the ultra-right rhetoric. For some odd reason, it's Mormons too.
Can't tell you how many of my neighbors have drifted off to the far right
and are believing everything spouted by Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News
talking heads. They don't even seem to recognize how irrational much of
this stuff is. Of course, the DesNews doesn't help matters by printing
Krauthammer every Sunday. We are what we eat, I suppose. And too many Mormons
have been feasting on hate-filled right-wing propaganda.
The problem we face in our current political scene is demonstrated in the
letter. The moment we stop thinking others as "Americans" and it is
"Us Vs Them" we really have already lost the battle. When we
immediately reject an idea because of the source, any chance of unity and
productivity goes with it.Most if not all Americans really want the
same thing from Government: The protection of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of
Happiness. Where we differ is on how, and how to fund it. These are really a
matter of degrees, and not diametrically opposed views. Nobody wants Uncle Sam
in certain aspects of their lives, and they wish to be left alone to live their
life as they see fit.If we could simmer down the emotions, and have
a conversation from that perspective it would be amazing what we could
accomplish. If there is divisiveness, it is a failure to listen and an
overwhelming desire to ensure one is heard. Be the change you want in the
Re:CH 85Indeed.UT ranks in the top 10 of states with the
highest number of federal employees per capita.
The biggest part of the problem is that they don’t have the same meaning
for words. Words like socialism, free market, freedom, government,
God.Socialism, people working together, versus an evil wicked plan
of the devil. Free market, price decided by supply and demand,
versus no government control. Freedom, doing what you want to do,
versus doing what you are told to do by your betters. Government, an
authority controlling the actions of it’s citizens, versus an alien
authority paid to protect against military attack. God, a supreme
being, versus the natural world. And it’s especially hard to
communicate when you don’t know the others orientation.
@KDave"We will get along fine if liberals just remember, it is
conservatives that pay the bills."Really? Only conservatives
pay taxes? Only conservatives donate to charity? Only conservatives pay
property taxes? Only conservatives pay sales taxes? Only conservatives pay
gasoline taxes? Only conservatives work for a living? Do you really
believe that? If so, you need to get out a little more. The last time I
checked the "blue" liberal states keep this country afloat. The
"blue" generally receive less money back from the federal government
that "red" conservative states. If you don't believe me, the data
isn't hard to find. Even our beloved Utah takes in more federal dollars
than it pays in taxes.
Re:CounterIntellDoes Bill Maher have a daily radio program? I
wasn't aware of that. He used to be on a subscriber-based program, HBO.
Maher first and foremost is a comedian. And I don't think his
listeners tune in so they can become irate, or become "informed" from
what he says, yet i've met many "true believers" who follow Rush
Limbaugh. Actually, i myself used to listen to Rush until one day a caller on
his program said he wanted to "take matters into his own hands" against
liberals. Then I realized i was only contributing to the sickness. I don't care for Maher. The few times i've seen seen his program i
would agree he goes "over the line" of what appeals to me. Actually
there are several programs on MSNBC i don't care for and rarely watch
MSNBC. But it does seem so called "liberal media" is more apt to
self-discipline than right-winged media (which is why Maher lost his network TV
In a good education, a person learns to consider multiple points of view that
conflict with each other, and to understand the validity of each. Even after
education is technically over (which it never really is), an educated person
will continue this mental exercise as a habit.The problem is, fewer
people -- including elected officials -- seem to be able to consider the
validity of divergent points of view, and instead retreat into stubborn
obstinacy. That shuts off meaningful discussion.Congress and the
president will only make meaningful progress if they filter out the ideological
rhetoric and focus on the consequences of decisions.
Eric,EXACTLY. I have family and friends with differing political
views. We talk about them. But at the core are three things.First,
a recognition that the other person is intelligent and worthy of respect.Second, given the first point, that there is a real possibility that I
might gain something (even if it is "only" insight) by listening to
them.Third, that we love/like each other and would really like to
keep it that way. So we don't go into hyper anger mode the second anyone
disagrees about something.The third point is, I think, especially
important to our national discourse. If we give up civility and fail to
recognize that our political system requires some degree of cooperation and
goodwill, we can end up with an ungovernable nation. The consequences there are
too dire to describe in the very limited space here.
I loved watching the election returns...As I flipped channels, it was interesting to note that time and again ONLY FoxNews kept saying ---
"Us", "We", and "Ours" vs. "Them", "They" and "Theirs" when referring to the
Republican and Democratic leads.Whilst the rest of the
"Lame-Stream-LIBERAL-Media" never ONCE chose a side, and simply reported
the numbers.Telling.Propaganda, plain and simple.Stinking biased Journalism at it's most nauseating.
"Remove the wingnut noise machine"Which conveniently means
anyone with a different point of view.Civility is a noble goal; but
I have little respect for those who advocate a one-way form of civility that is
really nothing more than a manipulative front for silencing opposition.As soon as I hear Truthseeker, Salsa Libre and liberal larry complain about
Bill Maher, I will pay attention to their complaints about Rush Limbaugh, but
until then, I will continue to discount the passive/aggressive "civility for
thee, but not for me" attitude as being far far far worse than LimbaughBTW: The left has changed over the last 50 years far more than the right
has. Claiming that the right has become more extreme is a classic example of
left wing extremist passive/aggression.
I'm a liberal. I have two brothers, one a moderate, and the other a
slightly right of center conservative. My Dad's a pure Tea Party
conservative, and my Mom's pretty much as conservative as he is. And every
time we get together, we talk politics. And we get along fine. We love each
other, and we disagree. So what?
We will get along fine if liberals just remember, it is conservatives that pay
Roland,Assume the other person is a decent human being?
Really???Why, pretty soon, you'll want me to think they might
have an idea or two that is viable . . .Midvaliean,Moderates make for poor TV and radio. They have low entertainment value.Salsa Libre,But the wing-nut noise machine drives the
conversation . . . and the parties.
Its been extremely heartwarming to read the concern the left wing tax and spend
liberals have for the Republican party since the election.I
don't read much about their plan on helping the economy. Maybe their
"plan" is to just wait for their lamestream media handlers to fill them
in on what they should like?Their time might be better spent finding
that second job they didn't think they'd ever need.Don't bother worrying about us conservatives, we'll be fine!
But I have seen many times when a couple of moderates have been able to
communicate -- and pleasantly, too.
Actually, there are areas of agreement but we are so self-segregated, listening
to and reading sources that only confirm biases and which often demonize the
"other side" so that the gulf is widening. I agree with Salsa Libre.
Once upon a time we all watched/listened to people like Walter Cronkite who had
a semblence of journalistic standards. Today a large segment of the populace
listen to nothing more than propoganda.. This segment of the population is now
angrier than ever since their side lost, and they were led to believe they were
well on the way to winning.
I don't know if my other comment will be approved or not, but here is a
follow-up that will be approved. Yeah Limbaugh and Beck are often
rude and demeaning. Hannity used to be that way, but he changed his approach.
Liberals should take a listen once and see how tolerant he is of his liberal
guests and how rude they are, trying to talk over him, in return. Then take a good look at your chosen entertainment. Cobert makes total fun of
conservatives. Many shows make total fun of Christians, and Lawrence O Donnell
makes lying derogatory statements about Mormons, and people consider these
reliable news sources. Hardly. Stacey Dash gets totally attacked by
Hollywood folks for supporting Romney. Hollywood and news are totally
unrestrained in their bigoted behavior.Then there is the name
calling and stereotyping, and suggestions that some free speech should be taken
away right here. On a forum you can't talk over someone, but you make it
clear that is what you like to do. I am sure you do it in person.Have fun, and do it without me. I will choose a more civil dialogue.
I know it is fashionable to say that the two camps have diverged, but the truth
is that liberals have stayed the same on most issues. The change has occurred
on the right. The "average" liberal looks a lot like a moderate
Republican from the 70's and the current norm in the Republican party
reminds me of the John Birch Society members of the 1960s. Unfortunately for the right, their message appeals mainly to older white men,
a demographic that is rapidly aging out. Republicans will need to moderate their
message, or continue to lose national elections.
If all the moderate voices of America spoke, we would surely drown out those
loud mouthed minority extremists.
Remove the wingnut noise machine from the equation and you'd find much more
to cooperate about than not. There is this element which has a vested interest
in maintaining discord and increasing partisan rhetoric. It is a profitable
business which has made people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh extremely
wealthy. And, of course, there are many movement conservatives who
are happy to fill the coffers of the wingnut fringe because their histrionics
feeds their anger. For them, anger is a central component of their life.
Rationality detracts from this.
I have heard comments about this election being a choice between a European
social welfare state and a small limited government. Personally I think
that's nonsense. Federal spending under Obama is currently running at about
23% of GDP. Romney pledged to cut that to 20% of GDP. Had it actually been a
contest between a social welfare state and small limited government we would
have been debating spending at 35% of GDP vs maybe 12% of GDP.This
election was about a little bit more vs a little bit less, it was never about
two completely different forms of government. Our positions are not as far apart
as we seem to think.
It may be best to start with the assumption that we're not going to agree,
but the other person is a decent human being anyway.