Politics, Economics, and Religion


Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 119
Latest Activity: 10 hours ago

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

Idealism leads to cynicism, and both are refuges for people who feel powerless ! ! ! !

Started by tom sarbeck. Last reply by Joan Denoo 10 hours ago. 1 Reply

I've been an idealist and I've been a cynic. When I found my power I became a realist.Continue

Tags: powerlessness, power, realism, cynicism, idealism

Secret Tribunals for Corporate Corruption Triumph

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner 10 hours ago. 3 Replies

The Court That Rules The WorldCorporate corruption is already intimidating and destabilizing countries. Chris Hambly details the way Egypt…Continue

Tags: corporate criminals escape law, investor-state dispute settlement

Central banks and governments have lost the plot

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo on Saturday. 3 Replies

The Gold Bull Is BackI write what some call a "contrarian" point of view. The things I read and hear from commercial media is that we are in recovery, there are more jobs…Continue

Tags: wealth, destruction, stocks, depression, gold

A most interesting exercise in fantasy

Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 21. 2 Replies

The One Speech That Could Turn Donald Trump From Villain To HeroPatheos - August 16, 2016 by Benjamin L. CoreyArticle…Continue

Tags: Trump

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by tom sarbeck on Friday

Idaho, that guy a wakkadoodle?

No. He might be helpful in another contest.

The wakkadoodles are those who won't be helpful.

Comment by tom sarbeck on Friday

Joseph, the questions in your post below reveal you as a thinking voter. I consider myself a thinking voter because I've asked the same or similar questions.

It's more mind clutter than I want so I use a kind of filter.

I decided that I will get answers to them only when the news tells me that people have violated the relevant laws and are being prosecuted.

I'm now able to clutter my mind with stuff that's more important to me.

Comment by Joseph P on Friday

You bet.  Most states have a religious requirement to hold ANY sort of public office, even water and soil commissioner.  Those articles in their state constitutions are only invalid because they're superseded by the federal constitutional-prohibition of such requirements.  I think that over half of our state constitutions now have explicit bans on gay marriage and the recognition of gay marriages from other states, too.

Over half of the states would immediately implement minority voting restrictions, too, just like they did immediately after SCotUS struck down the article of the Voting Rights Act which required approval by the federal courts, before any law affecting voting could be implemented in certain states.

Seriously, what the hell were those judges thinking?  It wasn't even a 5-4 decision.  They wrote something to the effect of, "This article is unnecessary, since those states have not shown this sort of behavior recently."

Yeah, because the legislators in those states knew that those restrictions would never go into effect, since the federal government would shut them down before they could be implemented.  Literally the DAY after the ruling, though, many of the states that had been on the list immediately passed laws restricting voting.  We have many states that would love nothing more than to roll civil rights back to the 50's or earlier.

Comment by Grinning Cat on Friday

Joseph, thanks for pointing out the (not-so-)hidden agendas behind many calls for "small government" and "states' rights"... many of the "states' rights" folks would be overjoyed to have the federal government supersede state law when it would support their own privilege!

Comment by Joseph P on Friday

Also, what do you mean about dictatorial people trying to get governmental positions?  Do you think that the Postmaster General is lording over her power over shipping in the US?  Oh, wait, we have UPS, FedEx, DHL ...

And we've had the Republican Congress trying and failing to destroy the USPS.  I don't think the Postmaster General is feeling particularly powerful right now.

Do you think that the head of the EPA is in it for the power?  No, I'm pretty sure that she is running the EPA out of a sincere desire to preserve the environment.

Or did you mean people like Senators and Congressmen?  They're going to find ways to throw their weight around no matter how many governmental agencies they manage to strip down to the bare bones.  If anything, those sorts will end up throwing all of those functions off to their corporate donors.

Personally, I have more faith in a governmental agency that is at least supposed to be accountable to the citizens of the country.  Corporations are only accountable to their shareholders.  We need governmental regulation to bring those corporations to heel, when they get out of control.

Another problem that I have is with the Libertarian party itself.  The current heads of the party are trying to break things down to the state level, as much as possible.  In other words ... States Rights.

We remember what that term involves, right?  Electoral laws to suppress the vote of minorities would stand unchallenged, such as the one here in North Carolina which just got struck down by the federal government.  State-level theocracies would be allowed to flourish.  State-level laws against homosexuality would be reinstated, including the sorts of sodomy laws that Lawrence v. Texas struck down.  Gay marriage would be unrecognized in well over half of the states in the country.  Abortion would be banned in well over half of the states in the country.

People trying to break down government to the smallest, most local unit possible are often doing so because they've lost to more progressive laws and rulings at the federal level.  They want to roll things back to a more regressive state of affairs, in as many states of the country as possible.  Considering that the more regressive states also tend to be the largest, most rural states, that would give them probably well over 3/4ths of the country, by unit of landmass.

Comment by Joseph P on Friday

When you guys speak of shrinking "big government," what exactly are you talking about?  Are you talking about reversing the Affordable Care Act?  Are you talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?  The EPA?

Are you talking about the Department of Transportation, which actually needs MORE money, so they can rebuild many of the bridges in the country which are in danger of falling down?  Are you talking about rules and regulations, such as the ones here in North Carolina which require that everyone have liability insurance on their car, so you aren't screwed if someone hits you with it?  Do you want to get rid of the minimum wage laws?

People throw out the word "big government," which is a classic Fox News catch-phrase, but they never seem to know exactly what they mean by it.  You're aware that most government programs are there to help poor people and maintain necessary infrastructure, right?

What exactly do you want to shrink?  Because strangely, when the supposed small-government types actually start doing it, they tend to start with the programs that help poor people, because apparently income-inequality in this country isn't bad enough already.

Comment by Idaho Spud on Thursday

Tom, that man you know is a definite wakkadoodle.  

I like how Penn trashes Trump in the end of his video.  I have problems with all politicians, but I would vote for any of them before Trump.  He's worse than all of them put together.

Comment by tom sarbeck on Thursday

Idaho, given that bureaucrats want to grow their "empires", their power and their salaries, shrinking government has to be a constant effort.

The question is, how far to shrink it.

One man I know, intelligent enough to be non-religious, an expert in TV and movie audio, and a pipe organ devotee, told me he wants to shut down every department in California's government.

I asked him to tell me the names of the five he most wants to shut down and he refused to answer.

"You're a Tea Partier, aren't you?" I teased. He grinned.

I like him because he was a valuable ally in a recent contest with an authoritarian narcissist who won election to a local government body. We the people won; the narcissist lost and moved away.

He just told me he hates Hillary and will vote for Donald.

Comment by Idaho Spud on Thursday

Thanks Joan.  I like the way Penn brings it down to a level that I can mostly understand.  

Comment by Idaho Spud on Thursday

I've never read anything by Ayn Rand, so I don't know what she says.  I just like quite a bit of what present day Libertarians say, Such as Penn Gillette.  

I don't fully understand everything he or they say because I've not studied government well enough.  I just mainly think smaller government is a good idea.

One reason I think It's a good idea is because it looks to me like the history of the world shows that dictatorial people are always looking to force everyone else to do what they want them to do, so they try to get into governmental positions, where they will have the force of the government behind them.  To me, it seems a smaller government would make it harder for government officials to become dictatorial.

Daniel, it appears to me, that in the last half of the video, Penn backs-off of pie in the sky talk, a becomes more practical.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service