Coggins7 wrote: For example, some substantial aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not harmonious with the Gospel's concepts of being our brother's keeper. Her critique of Socialism, however, is spot on.
And this is where the philosophy broke down for me, even though I'm not a religious person.
Hey Coggins, you read Ayn Rand?
I was apparently in the Randian cult because I've read her! :D
That would also make me Randian as I've read two of her books.....though I confess I skipped a large portion of Atlas Shrugged.....how many pages of it was Galt's endless radio address reiterating the same concept OVER, and OVER, and OVER again.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Nehor,thankyou for the clarification and thoughts. I suspected that you would make the division between helping through private organizations and helping through government. Not that I have the slightest idea why you do that other than you are LDS and LDS tend to think that.
I could say I was a bit suprised by the negative view of government inplied in your last line. True all political parties contain all the variety of human good and ill but that is the nature of other people.
Even within a party of a person preference there are people and views that one finds unacceptable. To be involved in polotics is to make tactical compromises. Do you think that can be done without loosing your individual moral compass or soul?
huckelberry wrote:Nehor,thankyou for the clarification and thoughts. I suspected that you would make the division between helping through private organizations and helping through government. Not that I have the slightest idea why you do that other than you are LDS and LDS tend to think that.
I could say I was a bit suprised by the negative view of government inplied in your last line. True all political parties contain all the variety of human good and ill but that is the nature of other people.
Even within a party of a person preference there are people and views that one finds unacceptable. To be involved in polotics is to make tactical compromises. Do you think that can be done without loosing your individual moral compass or soul?
You can but it's a dangerous road. I know people who do it and are good at it. I do think that there is always a danger of becoming a zealot or sacrificing your own virtues because 'the cause is greater'. I am fairly active in politics compared to the average citizen and as long as you keep your moral compass working you can do some good. I blame most of the political problems not on those in politics but on the populace. A friend of mine went to DC and spoke with over 40 Congressmen and said that there was only one he thought was not genuinely interested in helping their constituents and the nation. They're crippled by our knee-jerk reactions to news events, our love of the sound byte, and a general apathy. Then they have to stay in Congress (particularly the House) for several terms in order to get anything done. How much can you get done in your first term when you're assigned to the Committee on Weights and Measures?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: I think the general trend in the Church towards the Republican Party is an alliance of social issues. The LDS Church finds more common ground on the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of social mores with the Republican Party than the Democrats.
I have suspected that this came more from the patrician leanings of many Church Leaders and the desire of many less-well-to-do Mormons to comply with the wishes of their leaders. You will note from the campaign of Mitt Romney, that many within Republican party do not find this same alliance with the Mormon Church. They want your votes, just not you.