LDS & ex-LDS Political Ideologies

[_Coggins7]

Go Kucenich! You commie you!

Yes, in essence, he is (not a member of the Party though).

[_Coggins7]

Ah, you are a fascist then?

[_Coggins7]

How do leftwingers have sympathy to Satan's original plan? Aren't right-wingers the ones who try to make everything they don't like illegal (marijuana, homosexual relationships, alcohol in the temperance movement, etc.)? That sounds more like Satan's original plan to me.

Because, taking a very broad view of Leftism as a political and social philosophy, Leftism is, and has always been, collectivist. This is its central, defining feature. Its passion for egalitarianism of condition is its most severe problem when any attempt is made to harmonize it with the Church (that and its penchant for radical personal individualism).

Equality of condition; social, economic, cultural, can only be achieved to the degree that free agency is repressed or, pushed to its logical conclusion, extinguished altogether. There cannot be a overall increase, in any literal sense, of equality in a society, without a diminution of quality. Leftism is, above all else, about leveling; about pulling down to a lowest common denominator every human potential and desire. This is why it is called Socialism; its a system of equal distribution of societal goods and attributes, not the least or only of which are temporal goods.

Leftism has always, in seeking its societal goals, been a visceral enemy of normative morality, the family, marriage, and Judeo/Christian sexual norms (which, to elevate the state to the position of the central organizing principle of a society, must be accomplished for most of their schemes to bear fruit), and so, cannot possibly be reconciled with Gospel teachings.

Neither the statist collectivism or the radical personal autonomy of the antinomian, Dionysian aspect of the cultural Left (the Sixties cultural revolution combined aspects of both) can be reconciled with Church teaching. Indeed, as rc clarifies, Satan's plan was founded in a denial of free agency--in what we might call soteriological collectivism, as well as the destruction of the family and family bonds and disciplines through extreme, atomistic individualism, all hallmarks of leftist ideology and philosophy.

[_Coggins7]

Aren't right-wingers the ones who try to make everything they don't like illegal (marijuana, homosexual relationships, alcohol in the temperance movement, etc.)? That sounds more like Satan's original plan to me.

No. Indeed, this sounds much more like the Left, who began by attempting to make economic growth and prosperity as achieved by productive individuals evil by definition. This has now reached a crescendo with the Left attempting, with ever increasing energy, to make illegal or destroy through litigation much of our choices in food, drink, speech, association, and even, with hate crime laws, and the recent attempt in California to ban the terms "mother" and "father" in the public schools as "heterosexist", what we are allowed to think.

Conservatives simply realize that some things must be controlled through the rule of law because engagement in them, even by a tiny minority, can be ultimately decremental, and even severely so, to civil society as a whole. The environmental movement, who's ultimate goal is, in essence, make modern democratic capitalist, Judeo/Christian society illegal by progressively banning and eliminating through force of law most of the social and economic components of that society, even, in Maoist style, down to even the most trivial aspects of our daily economic and personal lives, is a case in point, and a very large one indeed.

Leftists have a problem with this primarily because they do not, as a group, believe in any such concepts as good or evil and that either can be discerned or understood in any but a purely arbitrary, relative sense. They tend to be cultural and value relativists, if not, as in the postmodern paradigm, overt nihilists.

[_Coggins7]

So why is so much of the conservative mandate to remove actions from the individual and move it into a domain governed by society?

Can you please expand on your above statements. In precisely what way do liberals only apply mercy and conservatives apply both justice and mercy? Can you cite specific legislation or political debate that deals with this currently?

This is not very much of the conservative mandate. I'm really not sure what you are talking about here. Removing actions from the individual and moving it into the public domain (i.e., the domain of state control) is the fundamental paradigm of the Left. I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Liberals apply mercy without justice in any number of ways, the one of the paramount ways is the Left's longstanding hostility to victims of crime while virtually fawning over the welfare and comfort of even the most barbaric of criminals. There are ideological reasons for this (some inhering in Marx himself), but the history of this tendency is a spectacle that only the bravest souls should face in its full plutonic splendor.

Another would be the almost utter destruction of the inner city black family since the Great Society, while fully aware of the vast social pathologies and perverse cultural incentives their programs were spawning. Mercy applied to the poor, while many of the recipients of that mercy were, because of skin color and socioeconomic status (and hence, cultural untouchables in an ideological sense), were exempted, to a great degree, from the laws of civil society applicable to others.

This would be a good start.

[_barrelomonkeys]

So why is so much of the conservative mandate to remove actions from the individual and move it into a domain governed by society?

Can you please expand on your above statements. In precisely what way do liberals only apply mercy and conservatives apply both justice and mercy? Can you cite specific legislation or political debate that deals with this currently?

This is not very much of the conservative mandate. I'm really not sure what you are talking about here. Removing actions from the individual and moving it into the public domain (I.e., the domain of state control) is the fundamental paradigm of the Left. I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Liberals apply mercy without justice in any number of ways, the one of the paramount ways is the Left's longstanding hostility to victims of crime while virtually fawning over the welfare and comfort of even the most barbaric of criminals. There are ideological reasons for this (some inhering in Marx himself), but the history of this tendency is a spectacle that only the bravest souls should face in its full plutonic splendor.

Another would be the almost utter destruction of the inner city black family since the Great Society, while fully aware of the vast social pathologies and perverse cultural incentives their programs were spawning. Mercy applied to the poor, while many of the recipients of that mercy were, because of skin color and socioeconomic status (and hence, cultural untouchables in an ideological sense), were exempted, to a great degree, from the laws of civil society applicable to others.

This would be a good start.

Woo hoo! Hey Coggins! Oh you have NOOOOOOO idea how much I've missed you! :D *use the amount of Os to determine the amount. ;P)

Coggins, I think both the left and the right seek to move certain things from the individual sphere into the public domain. I only asked about the left in my question because I was replying to bcspace. I find it humorous actually that both sides accuse the other of doing it as they both do it, yet just choose different areas to focus on.

I agree with you that the left does take from individual (taxes, social programs) and move some things into the public domain. The right does the same: Abortion? Drug use? Most things that are not financial in nature are things the right tends to seek dominion over and remove it from the individual and move that to government domain.

About the left and their victimization of victims I'm really not following you...... I would think feminism (let's agree that would be on the left of the political scale ;) ) had quite a bit with advocating for children and females that were victims and sought to undo injustices in the court systems as well as desperately trying to help those that found themselves as victims.

Now of course seeking stronger penalties for offenders of criminal behavior would no doubt have supporters on the right. Yet both sides didn't work in isolation and surely you recognize that advocating for victim rights could be seen on both sides of the scale and yet they occurred in different ways.

You mention the welfare program and how that is the mercy seen by the left that has resulted in learned helplessness and generations of welfare recipients. I agree it's a flawed system where mercy was applied and it wasn't very effective.

[_barrelomonkeys]

The majority of respondents to the poll did not have a shift in their political ideology.

Now I realize I didn't really ask the right questions! I don't know if they were liberal before leaving the Church? I'm going to assume for a moment they were and now wonder if that somehow contributed to their leaving of the Church? Feeling apart politically and having radical different views on political issues couldn't have been pleasant dealing with in the Church.

Of course I may just be assuming that political chatter is something that would occur often in the Church. I just sense from reading MAD that it is something that occurs often.

Did this ability to think outside the norm in that one area also later have an effect on those that questioned the views (ideology) of the Church itself?

In other words,did this feeling apart or an independent thinker in one aspect also easily translate to being an independent thinker in questioning the dogma?

[_Blixa]

That's no to Guiliani, liz.

[_moksha]

Leftwingers face a difficult obstacle (Ether 12:27). In order to be LDS or even Christian, they must give up much that is immoral and ingrained in their lifestyles. They essential have symapthy to Satan's original plan. These types rarely remain in the Church and the few who do are constantly trying to change it to no avail.

Greed, avarice and lack of concern for the welfare of others are about as unchristian as you can get. Guess which end of the political spectrum epitomizes these qualities? Hint: opposite of left.

[_Coggins7]

Greed, avarice and lack of concern for the welfare of others are about as unchristian as you can get. Guess which end of the political spectrum epitomizes these qualities? Hint: opposite of left.

Hint: Not even a nice try Mok. Partisan ideological cartoons of your philosophical opponents aren't even interesting anymore. If polemics is all your interested in, then yes, but serious discussion, no.