Politics, Economics, and Religion

Information

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: 113
Latest Activity: 20 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.

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 8, 2014 at 12:42pm

I don't think liberals are fiscal conservatives. We tend to fund education, medical care, infrastructure maintenance, social security, etc.

One of the familiar slogans associated with fiscal conservatism since the Reagan years is "starve the beast," a phrase which suggests a policy approach of limiting the size of government by limiting appropriations for government programs. The assumptions underlying are that that government is less capable than businesses and individuals in spending money. [wikipedia]
Comment by tom sarbeck on June 8, 2014 at 2:23am

Ruth:

About all I can say that I didn't say in your Evolution of political difference thread is that liberals tend to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 7, 2014 at 9:51pm

Gladstone's lines sound right, Tom. But I don't understand what you mean by

...in San Francisco:

Progressivism is anger at liberals for their prudence.

For prudence, read fiscal conservatism.

Great cartoon, Loren!

Sentient Biped, the USDA's regulatory capture sickens me, mentally and possibly literally. Chicken makes up half of my protein.

Your wisdom is right on target, as always, Joan.

Comment by tom sarbeck on May 20, 2014 at 3:06am

Loren, your Gladstone quote helps me answer Ruth's post (in a thread about political evolution) saying she thought America's liberals and progressives are the same people.

First, though, I read a lot of pre-1688 English political history and can  say with confidence that centuries of conflict between Parliament (the Commons, not the Lords) and monarchs ended when William and Mary agreed to a largely advisory role.

I read too little of post-1688 English history to identify Gladstone as Liberal or Conservative. His describing Conservatives as fearful and Liberals as prudent tells me he was a Liberal.

Keeping in mind that the words Conservative and Liberal identify that nation's political parties, and the words Republican and Democrat identify ours, swapping Gladstone's two lines helps me answer Ruth.

In England:

Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence.

In America, or at least in San Francisco:

Progressivism is anger at liberals for their prudence.

For prudence, read fiscal conservatism.

Comment by Loren Miller on May 19, 2014 at 5:01pm

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
-- William E. Gladstone, 1866

Comment by Loren Miller on May 16, 2014 at 1:20pm


Yup ... makes perfect sense ... and if you believe THAT one...!

Comment by Daniel W on May 13, 2014 at 6:48pm

I don't know why Nancy Sinatra is delivering the lyrics, but it makes for interesting imagery.

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 12, 2014 at 3:30pm

Daniel and Loren, We have to be noisier! More vocal! Able to confront ignorance! Stop being afraid of offending someone for their beliefs! Be critical! Speak what we know to be true! 

The old hard headed ones won't listen and I don't really care. They will die off. The sad thing is, the younger ones are indoctrinated before they learn how to think and become contaminated with delusions. 

The people I want to read and think about my writings are the ones who haven't thought about these important issues one way or the other. They hear both sides, but don't understand the real challenges facing us. 

Contaminated foods of all kinds exist, they can be proven to do harm to farmers, consumers, and surrounding environments. Ignorance is not bliss. 

Comment by Loren Miller on May 12, 2014 at 3:22pm

Comment by Daniel W on May 4, 2014 at 11:42am

This was via DailyKos-

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture still hasn't dropped its plan to speed up chicken processing lines from 140 chickens per minute to 175 and allow "visibly contaminated" chicken carcasses to stay on regular processing lines rather than being taken away for cleaning. That would mean all the chickens would be sprayed with extra antimicrobial chemicals....

 

That's really bad.  We already have antibiotic resistant diseases because of overuse.  Those chemicals are sure to harm the workers, the environment, and whoever winds up eating the contaminated chickens.

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Qiana-Maieev commented on James Yount's group Music Lovers
10 hours ago
Joan Denoo commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
11 hours ago
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
14 hours ago
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
14 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Daniel W's discussion Does Humus Exist? New Scientific Evidence Suggests Not. in the group Godless in the garden
14 hours ago
Joan Denoo posted a video

2016-04-19 My Spokane Garden

0:16
Spring came early this year, and put on quite a show.Lilacs and tulips start the year's performance.
18 hours ago
Profile IconVince, Dan, Katie Holsomback and 1 more joined Atheist Nexus
18 hours ago
Scott Daniel updated their profile
18 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service