Dems respect diversity but how deeply?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Democratic party has a choice.

- They can nominate a candidate who says

Quote:
"Abortion is a woman's absolute right without exception. We will silence those deplorable sexist forces in our patriarchal society that oppress women and deny healthcare.".

- The Democrats can nominate a candidate who says

Quote:
"Abortion is a difficult moral issue and I understand that good people on both sides have strong feelings about it. I believe that abortions must be safe and accessible to women especially in the early stages of pregnancy.

I also believe that we should provide access to birth control and comprehensive sex education to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

One of these candidates will thrill the Democrat base right out of their silly pink hats. I suspect that you would vote for either of these candidates if they were the Democratic nominee. Many Americans would vote for the second but be put off by the first.

If the Democratic party wants to win the election, they have to nominate a candidate who doesn't drive voters away. We do have a choice. I can choose to vote Republican. I can choose to vote Green. I can choose to not cast a vote in the presidential election. I have lots of choices.

It is stupid for the Democratic party to take the votes of middle Americans for granted. These are the votes that will decide who is in the White House.

Some Brit seems to have hijacked this thread that is supposed to be about US politics.

The question is whether the Democrats (i.e. the political party in the United States) should respect diversity of opinion.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Democratic party has a choice.

- They can nominate a candidate who says

Quote:
"Abortion is a woman's absolute right without exception. We will silence those deplorable sexist forces in our patriarchal society that oppress women and deny healthcare.".

- The Democrats can nominate a candidate who says

Quote:
"Abortion is a difficult moral issue and I understand that good people on both sides have strong feelings about it. I believe that abortions must be safe and accessible to women especially in the early stages of pregnancy.

I also believe that we should provide access to birth control and comprehensive sex education to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

Or they could claim to be the party that respects diversity, including the religious diversity that results in strong stances against abortion at any state of fetal development, beginning at conception.

They could also seek to help reform sexuality not only to stop non-consensual sex but also to stop any form of sex that leads to unwanted conception and thus the possibility of abortion.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The question is whether the Democrats (i.e. the political party in the United States) should respect diversity of opinion.

Parties need a core platform. Eg if your opinion is that the Holocaust is a hoax, should the Democrats 'respect' that and go after your vote?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

If your argument was valid there's no way a couple of posts could hijack your thread. People want to talk about something other than your constant whining about how being a white middle aged man makes you a victim.

Let's face it, that's what most of your posts boil down to.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Or they could claim to be the party that respects diversity, including the religious diversity that results in strong stances against abortion at any state of fetal development, beginning at conception.

And do you respect diversity such that you would respect the strong stance in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion?

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Or they could claim to be the party that respects diversity, including the religious diversity that results in strong stances against abortion at any state of fetal development, beginning at conception.
And do you respect diversity such that you would respect the strong stance in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion?

I am able to separate my ability to understand and empathize with diverse cultural attitudes from my moral compass that tells me what's right and wrong.

So I completely understand the culture of liberal sexuality and birth control and why people would want to use birth control, anti-biotics, vaccinations, etc to render all forms of intercourse completely devoid of consequences. The hedonistic dream is to be able to enjoy whatever pleasure you want without having to deal with any repercussions you don't want. I understand that, even if I don't agree with it.

Here's the point with respecting diversity, though: If democrats want to claim to be for diversity and respect for all POVs, they have to come to terms with the fact that there are conservative women, pro-life women, poor people who are not for socialism, etc. without chalking such people off as 'uncle toms.' If they want to restrict their respect for diversity to those people who support their political causes, i.e. unionism/socialism, liberal sexuality, etc. then they should not claim diversity as a creed, i.e. because they're ultimately not really for all the categories of people they say they're for; they only pretend to represent them as an identity-marketing scheme for votes and money.

In other words, they're telling people that there are these rich white heterosexual men that want to oppress them if they identify with any identity category besides 'rich white heterosexual/heteronormative male' and so they have to support the Democrat party to resist that spectre of oppression.

So it's not about respecting diversity. It's about using the spectre of oppression to coral diversity into unifying behind a single party. Then, they use the majority to force economic socialism that puts everyone to work in a socialist rat-race where you can't save money to go free because steady inflation guarantees your money won't be worth what it was when you got it if you save it for the future.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

So I completely understand the culture of liberal sexuality

Who do you think understands that better, you or President Trump?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

If democrats want to claim to be for diversity and respect for all POVs, they have to come to terms with the fact that there are conservative women, pro-life women, poor people who are not for socialism, etc. without chalking such people off as 'uncle toms.'

First thing, 'uncle toms' is completely misused in your statement and refers to a completely different phenomenon.

Secondly, even if we accept your specious concept of a "hedonistic dream" the fact remains that people are not forced to imitate anyone else's behavior. No one is being forced to marry a same-sex partner, no one is being forced to take contraception or terminate a pregnancy.

Quote:

It's about using the spectre of oppression to coral diversity into unifying behind a single party.

No, it most decidedly isn't.

And your economic analysis is similarly skewed. That "rat-race" is the result of tried-and-true capitalism, as is the increasing degree of income inequality.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

First thing, 'uncle toms' is completely misused in your statement and refers to a completely different phenomenon.

It is a pejorative term for someone who is deemed deferential toward their oppressor. It's traditionally used in reference to African Americans but it makes perfect sense with regard to how Dems/liberals regard pro-life/anti-abortion women.

Quote:

Secondly, even if we accept your specious concept of a "hedonistic dream" the fact remains that people are not forced to imitate anyone else's behavior. No one is being forced to marry a same-sex partner, no one is being forced to take contraception or terminate a pregnancy.

But people are being prevented from passing laws against abortion, which should be within their rights as participants in democracy.

Only because the fetus is regarded as part of the mother's body is there a barrier against preventing her from abusing it. Suicide is illegal, as is self-mutilation, and other harm to self; so why not abortion?

But the point here wasn't to argue about abortion but to question why Dems/libs can claim to be the party that respects diversity but then deny all the diverse religious sentiment that leads people to be anti-abortion.

Making laws against murder doesn't violate separation of church and state, so neither should legislating abortion.

Quote:

Quote:
It's about using the spectre of oppression to coral diversity into unifying behind a single party.

No, it most decidedly isn't.

If all you're going to say is "no it isn't" without providing any reasoning to dispute, don't post it. I don't want to get into yes-no-yes-no exchanges.

Quote:

And your economic analysis is similarly skewed. That "rat-race" is the result of tried-and-true capitalism, as is the increasing degree of income inequality.

In the absence of inflation, people can make money and spend thriftily without having to work unnecessarily or compete for higher pay.

It's when your savings is losing value due to inflation that you have to keep working forever no matter how much you save.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

But people are being prevented from passing laws against abortion, which should be within their rights as participants in democracy.

No, because they're limiting the rights of people who don't have religious objections to the procedure. Having a religion doesn't give you the right to impose it on others.

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As long as no one is being directed by the state to terminate their pregnancy there's no reason to restrict the practice because some religious people object to it. Occasionally there are medical reasons for a woman to obtain an abortion — outlawing it could result in the death of the woman.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's about using the spectre of oppression to coral diversity into unifying behind a single party.

If you can explain what you mean it would be helpful. I see no evidence of that statement being true — all parties represent some measure of diversity. People band together in "big tent" parties because they wouldn't have sufficient numbers if they insisted on promoting one single point of view. Under a parliamentary system it might be different.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Having a religion doesn't give you the right to impose it on others.

It is bewildering how impervious a lot of religious folks are on this simple point.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

But I really would like to know more about the coordination between Catholic groups and Evangelical groups in America.

kind of a tricky thing as so many Baptists don't believe Catholics are Christians

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
It's about using the specter of oppression to coral diversity into unifying behind a single party.

If you can explain what you mean it would be helpful. I see no evidence of that statement being true — all parties represent some measure of diversity. People band together in "big tent" parties because they wouldn't have sufficient numbers if they insisted on promoting one single point of view. Under a parliamentary system it might be different.

The feminist principle applied is that history has been characterized by minorities being oppressed by rich white heterosexual men in all the institutions of patriarchy. The specter of racism/sexism/heterosexism/classism/etc. is then employed to coral everyone who identifies as non-white/male/heterosexual/rich into voting and contributing to a unified left-wing party that effectuates socialism by means of government spending/regulation as well as global trade that allows global socialists to move money around and stimulate global GDP growth in a way that intends to "shrink/eliminate the global gap between rich and poor and/or thus expand the global middle class at the expense of the 1% who own 99% of the wealth (or however they are describing it nowadays)"

It's just an ideological/propaganda tactic that is not new. Creating a specter, whether it's foreign-occupation, communism/capitalism, patriarchal oppression, Trump, corporate management or whatever motivates people to rally against a common enemy and thus makes it easier for certain people to gain more centralized positions of control.

Unions basically work on this principle of gaining unified collective support for representatives who then negotiate collective social benefits for the workers. Workers see the benefit in bonding together, but they don't see that by doing so they are submitting to additional layers of management that curtail their independence as individuals. They are told that if they don't bond together collectively and submit to collective representation and regulation, that they'll be exploited by business/management, so they become willing/docile to sacrifice their independence to collective representation/management and more central control.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

So I completely understand the culture of liberal sexuality and birth control and why people would want to use birth control, anti-biotics, vaccinations, etc to render all forms of intercourse completely devoid of consequences. The hedonistic dream is to be able to enjoy whatever pleasure you want without having to deal with any repercussions you don't want. I understand that, even if I don't agree with it.

Oh, come on. Now you're linking vaccinations and anti-biotics to birth control. That's utter nonsense and another "WTF" moment. Get a grip, already.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

kind of a tricky thing as so many Baptists don't believe Catholics are Christians

And yet they are yoked together on abortion and other issues. Take Paul Weyrich, Catholic, who founded Heritage and ALEC and co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Fallwell. Anyway, it's something I need to study.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
But people are being prevented from passing laws against abortion, which should be within their rights as participants in democracy.

No, because they're limiting the rights of people who don't have religious objections to the procedure. Having a religion doesn't give you the right to impose it on others.

Not unilaterally, but democracy allows you to apply your personal principles, i.e. your free speech and religion, to the pursuit of legislating a good society. What you are arguing would allow mob bosses to insist that religion shouldn't give the people the right to impose the commandment not to kill against others who use killing as a punishment for disobedience, disloyalty, disruption of business, etc. People have the right to legislate laws against homicide/manslaughter/suicide/self-mutilation/etc. based on moral reason and so why should abortion be exempt from the same democratic legislative discourse?

Quote:

As long as no one is being directed by the state to terminate their pregnancy there's no reason to restrict the practice because some religious people object to it. Occasionally there are medical reasons for a woman to obtain an abortion — outlawing it could result in the death of the woman.

Abortion was legal prior to Roe v. Wade but a police report of rape was required. What Roe v. Wade did was to allow women to protect the identity of the father, which protected men from culpability/liability for abortion. Nowadays, with DNA testing there is no way a man could be framed as the father of the fetus so there is no reason not to hold men accountable for impregnating women against their will.

The bottom-line with diversity is that religion prompts people to view fetal tissue as not just tissue growing in a female body but as a nascent human life, and therefore worthy of honor and protection. So if Dems really respected religious diversity, they would seek a solution to the abortion issue that would satisfy all people/religions, and that would ultimately involve taking a stance against not only non-consensual sex (which they currently pursue fervently via metoo/etc.) but also against all sex that carries any risk of unwanted conception.

In short, all people should refrain from coitus except when pregnancy is desired in order to avert the possibility of conception. This is as achievable as gun-safety that prevents firearms from causing murders and fatal accidents. When someone misuses a firearm and causes injury or other harm, they're held accountable; so why shouldn't the misuse of coitus resulting in abortion be similarly prohibited and punished?

If people are expected to avoid hunting accidents with guns, why not also to avoid sexual accidents resulting in pregnancy? Hunting accidents violate the religious commandment not to kill and misuse of sex also violates religious principles, so why not allow religious people to advocate laws against both abuses as well as any others that their consciences lead them to pursue legislation against?

Separation prohibits the establishment of state religion, which means that democracy and secular government are supposed to be the filters that prevent one church from ruling over all others. In democracy, all churches/religions are supposed to engage in dialogue to achieve consensus laws that respect diverse sensibilities about moral right and wrong. The idea is that there may be diversity of beliefs, but through democracy we can arrive at consensus standards and laws that can be respected and honored by all.