Independents and "Undecideds": What is your driving issue?

[AbnInfamy]

I'm interested in knowing what some of you more moderate folks weigh as your most important issues. I have opinions that follow both parties. I believe in social programs and raising taxes, I believe in high defense spending, I believe in Gun rights, Pro-choice, Pro-death penalty, limited amnesty for illegal aliens. However, it typically just comes down to one issue that makes me check the box, and it's usually because I dislike the stance of the opposing party so much.

For me, the past 3 elections it has probably been separation of church and state, so I've leaned left.

Depending on what sort of gun regulations are inacted this congress I will probably be swayed right.

What is your main issue?

[usfregale]

Moderation. We have to understand that virtually every issue you listed is not a this or that choice. There is a middle ground that balances the needs of both sides (even if the political elite pretend there isn't).

I care about all of the issues you mentioned, but its the Goldilocks circumstance, we don't need too much or too little, we need the amount of each item that is just right.

[AbnInfamy]

You bring up a good point I'd like to expound on.

Moderation would be great but we aren't seeing a lot of that in our current landscape. Most of the issues I have listed are black and white, for or against, with the people running for office taking hardline party stances.

That's what essentially has made me able to point at a single topic and say, "That is the black and white issue that is most important to me".

[Parkbandit]

I'm interested in knowing what some of you more moderate folks weigh as your most important issues. I have opinions that follow both parties. I believe in social programs and raising taxes, I believe in high defense spending, I believe in Gun rights, Pro-choice, Pro-death penalty, limited amnesty for illegal aliens. However, it typically just comes down to one issue that makes me check the box, and it's usually because I dislike the stance of the opposing party so much.

For me, the past 3 elections it has probably been separation of church and state, so I've leaned left.

Depending on what sort of gun regulations are inacted this congress I will probably be swayed right.

What is your main issue?

I don't understand what the gigantic deal is with separation of church and state. I'm the most devoted Atheist I know.. and in most cases, it simply doesn't bother me. It actually irritates me how a couple of people get all bent out of shape if they see a cross or a Bible and they decide they simply cannot cope with such an occurrence.

It's right up there with abortion, gay marriage and pot legalization as the least important issue for me.

[AbnInfamy]

I don't understand what the gigantic deal is with separation of church and state. I'm the most devoted Atheist I know.. and in most cases, it simply doesn't bother me. It actually irritates me how a couple of people get all bent out of shape if they see a cross or a Bible and they decide they simply cannot cope with such an occurrence.

It's right up there with abortion, gay marriage and pot legalization as the least important issue for me.

I'm actually not an atheist. What bothers me is the morality aspects of it. It feels that some people want to force their morality on others based on religious conviction. My morality comes from my upbringing and how I live my life. I am an exceedingly honest and moral person. Want proof? I return my shopping cart to the cart corrals even in freezing rain and I'm parked all the way on the other side of the lot.

I don't really care about nativity scenes or crosses, or even the 10 commandments in a government building. My concerns fall more in line with forced prayer in school or religious indoctrination of children of any sort. That should be left 100% to the family.

[msconstrew]

I AM an atheist and it bothers me because it's a Constitutional issue. If you're devoted to keeping the Second Amendment sacred (as many conservatives appear to be), then you should be AS devoted to keeping the First Amendment sacred (and, indeed, all Amendments).

Personally, I was raised by a Jew and a lapsed Catholic, and I consider myself culturally Jewish (though clearly not religiously). I don't particularly give a shit if I see a cross somewhere, and I went to a Catholic law school, too. But allowing that kind of de minimus encroachment leads to larger issues, particularly the imposition of religious mores and values on people who may not believe in those mores and values. So that's why I am a big church/state separation person.

To answer your original question, the issues of a woman's right to choose and the separation of church and state are my two issues. I would be much more likely/open to voting for a non-democrat if conservatives weren't so dogmatically entrenched in their pro-Christian, anti-choice positions.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm interested in knowing what some of you more moderate folks weigh as your most important issues. I have opinions that follow both parties. I believe in social programs and raising taxes, I believe in high defense spending, I believe in Gun rights, Pro-choice, Pro-death penalty, limited amnesty for illegal aliens. However, it typically just comes down to one issue that makes me check the box, and it's usually because I dislike the stance of the opposing party so much.

For me, the past 3 elections it has probably been separation of church and state, so I've leaned left.

Depending on what sort of gun regulations are inacted this congress I will probably be swayed right.

What is your main issue?

My political views have changed over the years, as happens to anyone who is growing intellectually. Growth = Change. I don't wear the same pants I wore when I was five years old. Why? I grew. I changed. For me, the main issue is personal liberties. The freedoms afforded by personal liberties solve most every political problem. Choose most any issue, decide where you stand, and then understand that with personal liberties intact, you can live your life exercising your beliefs on that issue while someone who disagrees can do the same according to theirs.

Over the last 100 years it seems as if our government sees any sort of disaster as an opportunity for a power grab to take away personal liberties in the name of "keeping citizens safe." The more I speak with staunch R's or D's, the more I realize that they aren't really upset with the other party but rather they're upset with government in general. "The (insert party name here)'s want to take (insert liberty here) away and I don't like that," or, "The (insert party name here)'s are going to (insert policy change/implementation they disagree with here) and I don't like that." The reality is that majority of folks don't understand that their beef isn't with a party, it's with government; more specifically, being governed: A group of people in a far away place running individual's personal lives as said group sees fit.

Most reasonable people can find stances in both parties with which they agree/disagree. This is because, put simply, everyone wants to be free to live their own lives. As such, it would appear that even just participating in elections, no matter who one votes for, is asking to be governed, and I find it ironic that the same people who voted are then upset when government governs them in a way with which they disagree. Then to top that, what do these people then see as the solution? Another election. "I'll vote for the other side this time and things will be better!" Wow. I'm guilty too. Voted Republican until 2012, at which time I voted Libertarian in the interest of protecting personal liberties. In the end, I made the same fault in believing that electing anyone to rule me would result in my freedom. Not sure if I'll ever vote again at this point.

[Tgo01]

What bothers me is the morality aspects of it. It feels that some people want to force their morality on others based on religious conviction.

Why does it bother you where people get their ideals and beliefs from? If Congressman A thinks stealing is wrong because the bible says so and therefore votes accordingly and Congressman B thinks stealing is wrong because his mom taught him so and therefore votes accordingly what is the difference?

Put another way, if Republican A thinks abortion is wrong because the bible says so and Democrat B thinks abortion is wrong because he is trying to save the baby's life then again, what's the difference? They both have views that differ from yours.


My concerns fall more in line with forced prayer in school or religious indoctrination of children of any sort. That should be left 100% to the family.

Can you name a single candidate who was pushing for such things?

[AbnInfamy]

Why does it bother you where people get their ideals and beliefs from? If Congressman A thinks stealing is wrong because the bible says so and therefore votes accordingly and Congressman B thinks stealing is wrong because his mom taught him so and therefore votes accordingly what is the difference?

I think this should be a family concern, not a congressional concern. Religious morality may be completely different than family morality. For example, birth control usage.

So I guess I'm against indoctrination of children regardless of the party and in my biased thinking, I believe that staunchly religious individuals are more likely to impress their beliefs than secular individuals. Notice I said -my biased-. This is not an attack nor am I saying this is true across the board. Shit, I wouldn't let Diane Feinstein alone in a room with my child.



Can you name a single candidate who was pushing for such things?

To the internet!
http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-supports-prayer-schools-states-agree-202650028--election.html
http://americablog.com/2012/12/former-gop-prez-candidate-huckabee-blames-shooting-on-lack-of-prayer-in-school.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/romney-more-prayer-in-schools/

To be fair, none of them literally pushed it, but the belief is there.

[Taernath]

I am fairly liberal on social issues, but conservative on financial ones. Generally, if something would remove the ability of an individual to make a choice, I'd be against it. I would NOT describe myself as a Libertarian though, because I realize the government isn't necessarily bad and needs money to run.

I think the biggest issue for me this last election was the blame game that had been played for the last 4 years.

[Tgo01]

I think this should be a family concern, not a congressional concern. Religious morality may be completely different than family morality. For example, birth control usage.

I still don't understand why where someone's beliefs comes from bothers you. Like, for example, you think rape is wrong (I hope), Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible says so, Congressman B thinks rape is wrong because (insert reason here) and Congressman C thinks rape is wrong but only if the dirty whore didn't lead the man on. I would hope you would narrow your choices down to A or B. After you've narrowed your choices down why does it matter if Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible told him so? He still agrees with you, yes? Note I can perfectly understand if you disagree with Congressman A (regardless of his religious beliefs) but if you happen to agree with him, but for different reasons, why does it matter?




So I guess I'm against indoctrination of children regardless of the party and in my biased thinking, I believe that staunchly religious individuals are more likely to impress their beliefs than secular individuals.

I don't think having a religious belief and expressing said religious belief is really "indoctrination."


To the internet!
http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-supports-prayer-schools-states-agree-202650028--election.html
http://americablog.com/2012/12/former-gop-prez-candidate-huckabee-blames-shooting-on-lack-of-prayer-in-school.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/romney-more-prayer-in-schools/

To be fair, none of them literally pushed it, but the belief is there.

Ryan said he would support the idea of school prayer if the state wanted it, Romney said at special occasions and Mike Huckabee is a lunatic who I don't think was even running for anything in 2012.

[Parkbandit]

I AM an atheist and it bothers me because it's a Constitutional issue. If you're devoted to keeping the Second Amendment sacred (as many conservatives appear to be), then you should be AS devoted to keeping the First Amendment sacred (and, indeed, all Amendments).

Personally, I was raised by a Jew and a lapsed Catholic, and I consider myself culturally Jewish (though clearly not religiously). I don't particularly give a shit if I see a cross somewhere, and I went to a Catholic law school, too. But allowing that kind of de minimus encroachment leads to larger issues, particularly the imposition of religious mores and values on people who may not believe in those mores and values. So that's why I am a big church/state separation person.

To answer your original question, the issues of a woman's right to choose and the separation of church and state are my two issues. I would be much more likely/open to voting for a non-democrat if conservatives weren't so dogmatically entrenched in their pro-Christian, anti-choice positions.

2nd amendment doesn't give you freedom FROM religion, it gives freedom FOR religion.

I don't practice, but I'm not that sensitive and insecure about my own beliefs and morals that I am somehow unable to cope with life when I see a cross.

[Parkbandit]

I still don't understand why where someone's beliefs comes from bothers you. Like, for example, you think rape is wrong (I hope), Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible says so, Congressman B thinks rape is wrong because (insert reason here) and Congressman C thinks rape is wrong but only if the dirty whore didn't lead the man on. I would hope you would narrow your choices down to A or B. After you've narrowed your choices down why does it matter if Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible told him so? He still agrees with you, yes? Note I can perfectly understand if you disagree with Congressman A (regardless of his religious beliefs) but if you happen to agree with him, but for different reasons, why does it matter?


In defense of Congressman C... what was the dirty whore wearing??

[Tgo01]

In defense of Congressman C... what was the dirty whore wearing??

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjvft2pW1Fh3FwGUz1mjYY7GCUoZpXB bPzl5-UmWCObbgE-Rt1jg

[AbnInfamy]

I still don't understand why where someone's beliefs comes from bothers you. Like, for example, you think rape is wrong (I hope), Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible says so, Congressman B thinks rape is wrong because (insert reason here) and Congressman C thinks rape is wrong but only if the dirty whore didn't lead the man on. I would hope you would narrow your choices down to A or B. After you've narrowed your choices down why does it matter if Congressman A thinks rape is wrong because the bible told him so? He still agrees with you, yes? Note I can perfectly understand if you disagree with Congressman A (regardless of his religious beliefs) but if you happen to agree with him, but for different reasons, why does it matter?


At the end of the day as long as their belief coincides with mine I guess it's not a big deal.

But this is why:
I want my kids to to feel this way: "I feel you should not steal from someone or hurt someone else because you have a moral obligation as a human to respect the lives of others as equals"
I do not want: "I feel you should not steal from someone or hurt someone else because you might go to hell"

[Wrathbringer]

2nd amendment doesn't give you freedom FROM religion, it gives freedom FOR religion.

I don't practice, but I'm not that sensitive and insecure about my own beliefs and morals that I am somehow unable to cope with life when I see a cross.

While I agree with your point, one might argue that government is not the source of freedom and thus cannot give freedom. Government can only remove freedoms. I know you weren't addressing this specifically, just a comment.

[Parkbandit]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjvft2pW1Fh3FwGUz1mjYY7GCUoZpXB bPzl5-UmWCObbgE-Rt1jg

No way she was asking for it in that.

[crb]

I'm actually not an atheist. What bothers me is the morality aspects of it. It feels that some people want to force their morality on others based on religious conviction. My morality comes from my upbringing and how I live my life. I am an exceedingly honest and moral person. Want proof? I return my shopping cart to the cart corrals even in freezing rain and I'm parked all the way on the other side of the lot.

I don't really care about nativity scenes or crosses, or even the 10 commandments in a government building. My concerns fall more in line with forced prayer in school or religious indoctrination of children of any sort. That should be left 100% to the family.

I'm actually surprised you're for separation of church and state and vote left. It is one of my most important issues too, and I vote right. Separation of church and state and freedom of religion are the exact same issue. I haven't heard anywhere anything about forced prayer in schools or forced religious indoctrination of any sort, unless you start counting the pledge of allegiance. Sure, the Texas school board does some sketchy things, but that is a local issue, not a national issue. On the other hand, there have been some pretty serious attacks on religious freedom from the Obama administration.

It is a two way street, a government that has the power to to force you to ignore your religion has the power to force you to accept a religion you'd rather ignore, there are hypocrites on both sides. Conservatives who chafe at the contraception mandate where apparently a woman's right to free birth control paid for by a third party (which is not in the Constitution, and every time someone describes it as a "right" I want to kick them in the face), being somehow more important than the freedom of religion, which is in the Constitution. Meanwhile they'll ask the federal government to make gay marriage illegal based on their religious doctrines which is triply wrong because 1. The federal government has no power to regulate marriage - that would be a state issue and 2. You can't legislate religious values, and 3. If all men (and shortys) are created equal, which is a founding principle of our republic, then you can't deny a group the right to marriage. Meanwhile, on the left, they'll harp all day for the government not to force religious values on them in the form of outlawing gay marriage, but they'll, in their next breath, rally and protest for the right for a woman to have free birth control paid for by a priest, which is the government forcing secular values on the priest. Hypocrites on both sides.

That being said though, in a national office election, I don't see why you'd vote left if this was your biggest issue, unless you're one of the aforementioned hypocrites. Since the aggression on the freedom of religion or non-religion issue lately has come from the left.

And yes, I too am an atheist.

[Wrathbringer]

In defense of Congressman C... what was the dirty whore wearing??

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Parkbandit again.

[Parkbandit]

While I agree with your point, one might argue that government is not the source of freedom and thus cannot give freedom. Government can only remove freedoms. I know you weren't addressing this specifically, just a comment.

Are you suggesting that it's a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!???

You closet Catholic you.

[Tgo01]

But this is why:
I want my kids to to feel this way: "I feel you should not steal from someone or hurt someone else because you have a moral obligation as a human to respect the lives of others as equals"
I do not want: "I feel you should not steal from someone or hurt someone else because you might go to hell"

I think you said it yourself though, that should be a family issue. Parents should be teaching their children right from wrong for whatever reason. If our children are getting their moral values from our politicians then we're fucked.

[Wrathbringer]

Are you suggesting that it's a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!???

You closet Catholic you.

lol I'm suggesting that freedom existed long before government.

[crb]

I think this should be a family concern, not a congressional concern. Religious morality may be completely different than family morality. For example, birth control usage.

So I guess I'm against indoctrination of children regardless of the party and in my biased thinking, I believe that staunchly religious individuals are more likely to impress their beliefs than secular individuals. Notice I said -my biased-. This is not an attack nor am I saying this is true across the board. Shit, I wouldn't let Diane Feinstein alone in a room with my child.



To the internet!
http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-supports-prayer-schools-states-agree-202650028--election.html
http://americablog.com/2012/12/former-gop-prez-candidate-huckabee-blames-shooting-on-lack-of-prayer-in-school.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/romney-more-prayer-in-schools/

To be fair, none of them literally pushed it, but the belief is there.

Optional prayer in school isn't the same thing as forced prayed in school. As an atheist I believe that prayers are not magical words, and that god doesn't exist. I don't think any black magic will befall me if I stand next to someone who is muttering a prayer. I don't know what kind of atheist you might be where you think that other people praying will affect you, but trust me, prayers are not magic. They aren't casting a spell on you. You'll not be magically converted by being in earshot.

So you said forced prayed in school, meaning forcing children to pray. Who advocated for that?

I too of course hate indoctrination, but there is all sorts of indoctrination out there, and most of it is not religious, and most of it is from the left. See what they teach in public school.

[msconstrew]

2nd amendment doesn't give you freedom FROM religion, it gives freedom FOR religion.

I don't practice, but I'm not that sensitive and insecure about my own beliefs and morals that I am somehow unable to cope with life when I see a cross.

I, uh, didn't say that I couldn't cope with life when I see a cross. I said that it doesn't bother me to see it. I also said that I think that allowing little infringements like that lead to larger ones - and the Constitution explicitly prohibits both.

[AbnInfamy]

I'm actually surprised you're for separation of church and state and vote left. It is one of my most important issues too, and I vote right. Separation of church and state and freedom of religion are the exact same issue. I haven't heard anywhere anything about forced prayer in schools or forced religious indoctrination of any sort, unless you start counting the pledge of allegiance. Sure, the Texas school board does some sketchy things, but that is a local issue, not a national issue. On the other hand, there have been some pretty serious attacks on religious freedom from the Obama administration.

It is a two way street, a government that has the power to to force you to ignore your religion has the power to force you to accept a religion you'd rather ignore, there are hypocrites on both sides. Conservatives who chafe at the contraception mandate where apparently a woman's right to free birth control paid for by a third party (which is not in the Constitution, and every time someone describes it as a "right" I want to kick them in the face), being somehow more important than the freedom of religion, which is in the Constitution. Meanwhile they'll ask the federal government to make gay marriage illegal based on their religious doctrines which is triply wrong because 1. The federal government has no power to regulate marriage - that would be a state issue and 2. You can't legislate religious values, and 3. If all men (and shortys) are created equal, which is a founding principle of our republic, then you can't deny a group the right to marriage. Meanwhile, on the left, they'll harp all day for the government not to force religious values on them in the form of outlawing gay marriage, but they'll, in their next breath, rally and protest for the right for a woman to have free birth control paid for by a priest, which is the government forcing secular values on the priest. Hypocrites on both sides.

That being said though, in a national office election, I don't see why you'd vote left if this was your biggest issue, unless you're one of the aforementioned hypocrites. Since the aggression on the freedom of religion or non-religion issue lately has come from the left.

And yes, I too am an atheist.

You make some wonderful points. I don't know that I would go so far as to consider myself a hypocrite, mostly because I didn't concern myself with the obamacare issue. (I vote single payer, then it would be a non-issue)

I would say a lot of where my belief comes from the squeaky wheel. I hear about the issues in Texas and from evangelical groups moreso than I hear about the secularization being performed by the left. Might I be hearing what I want to hear? That could also be an option.

Priests shouldn't necessarily have to provide birth control, but I do feel it's a stretch that Hobby Lobby will claim religious exemption.

[AbnInfamy]

Optional prayer in school isn't the same thing as forced prayed in school. As an atheist I believe that prayers are not magical words, and that god doesn't exist. I don't think any black magic will befall me if I stand next to someone who is muttering a prayer. I don't know what kind of atheist you might be where you think that other people praying will affect you, but trust me, prayers are not magic. They aren't casting a spell on you. You'll not be magically converted by being in earshot.

So you said forced prayed in school, meaning forcing children to pray. Who advocated for that?


Like I said, I'm not an atheist. This all may have started for me in the military. The priest would always come up before heading to the field, or battalion level events and they would announce "let us pray", and everyone bowed their heads and prayed. I don't like other people praying for me. I just don't like that, so I may have a perceived threat that doesn't exist.

[AnticorRifling]

Everyone didn't pray. Everyone bowed their heads/stayed silent so others could pray out of simple courtesy and respect.

[msconstrew]

You make some wonderful points. I don't know that I would go so far as to consider myself a hypocrite, mostly because I didn't concern myself with the obamacare issue. (I vote single payer, then it would be a non-issue)

I would say a lot of where my belief comes from the squeaky wheel. I hear about the issues in Texas and from evangelical groups moreso than I hear about the secularization being performed by the left. Might I be hearing what I want to hear? That could also be an option.

Priests shouldn't necessarily have to provide birth control, but I do feel it's a stretch that Hobby Lobby will claim religious exemption.

There's more to the separation of church and state than just prayer in school. But to the multiple posters who suggested that voluntariness of prayer in schools somehow exempts it from a constitutional violation, that is incorrect. Furthermore, prayer in schools is already voluntary because the right of any individual student who wants to pray is already protected. See Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 313 (2000).

[Parkbandit]

I, uh, didn't say that I couldn't cope with life when I see a cross. I said that it doesn't bother me to see it. I also said that I think that allowing little infringements like that lead to larger ones - and the Constitution explicitly prohibits both.

Could you quote the exact part of the Constitution that prohibits religious expression?

[Parkbandit]

Everyone didn't pray. Everyone bowed their heads/stayed silent so others could pray out of simple courtesy and respect.

Courtesy and Respect!?!?!? I AM FUCKING OUTRAGED!!!

IT'S NOT FAIR!

IT'S VIOLATING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

[CrystalTears]

With all of the problems going on in this country, separation of church and state (which is not being infringed in any way) is the voting stickler based on the 30 seconds of silence to pray? Seriously?

[AbnInfamy]

Courtesy and Respect!?!?!? I AM FUCKING OUTRAGED!!!

IT'S NOT FAIR!

IT'S VIOLATING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Hey now, I bowed my head too.

When we would go to the field every Sunday soldiers were given time to drive over to the Battalion area and partake in the sermon. The soldiers that decided not to go would have to stay back, do guard duties, run through training, whatever had to be done.

After a couple weeks of this a bunch of us went up to our squad leaders and said "We're Wiccan now. We're going to go into the woods and worship now" so we could go chill for a few hours as well.

[msconstrew]

Could you quote the exact part of the Constitution that prohibits religious expression?

No. I can point to the text of the First Amendment, which prohibits the making of any law respecting the establishing of religion. And then I can point to numerous cases that interpret that Amendment in conjunction with various laws that arguably did establish religion. And in the context of the prior discussion - which concerned prayer in schools - little infringements like allowing school-sponsored prayer (whether mandatory or voluntary) are unconstitutional.

[AbnInfamy]

With all of the problems going on in this country, separation of church and state (which is not being infringed in any way) is the voting stickler based on the 30 seconds of silence to pray? Seriously?

Why not? That's why I started the thread, to see what was important to other people.

The things that are most important to me are the things I perceive as having the ability to change to a stance I don't agree with.
Most of my other issues are non-starters right now in how they may be affected by either party taking over.

[msconstrew]

Why not? That's why I started the thread, to see what was important to other people.

Oh, but didn't you know? Unless CT thinks it's a "problem[] going on in this country", the separation of church and state is irrelevant, immaterial, and unimportant. Personally, I am more concerned with enforcing constitutional rights than anything else. Once we start abridging those, it's all downhill from there.

[Parkbandit]

Hey now, I bowed my head too.

When we would go to the field every Sunday soldiers were given time to drive over to the Battalion area and partake in the sermon. The soldiers that decided not to go would have to stay back, do guard duties, run through training, whatever had to be done.

After a couple weeks of this a bunch of us went up to our squad leaders and said "We're Wiccan now. We're going to go into the woods and worship now" so we could go chill for a few hours as well.

Welcome to my life during Easter and Christmas. My wife's family is pretty religious.. as are my neighbors.

I'm sure half of them don't believe in God, but do it out of peer pressure. It's funny.

[CrystalTears]

Oh, but didn't you know? Unless CT thinks it's a "problem[] going on in this country", the separation of church and state is irrelevant, immaterial, and unimportant. Personally, I am more concerned with enforcing constitutional rights than anything else. Once we start abridging those, it's all downhill from there.
So someone in politics believing that it would be nice to keep prayers in school, which is a mere 30 seconds of silence to pray with any religion, is a serious problem in this country that needs to be voted on as a primary concern?

By the way, I never said it was immaterial or irrelevant. But when someone votes three times specifically for this reason, I'd like to understand why.

[Parkbandit]

No. I can point to the text of the First Amendment, which prohibits the making of any law respecting the establishing of religion. And then I can point to numerous cases that interpret that Amendment in conjunction with various laws that arguably did establish religion. And in the context of the prior discussion - which concerned prayer in schools - little infringements like allowing school-sponsored prayer (whether mandatory or voluntary) are unconstitutional.

It's an opinion that a cross is an "infringement" of any sort... and any interpretation of the First Amendment is also an opinion.

I'm personally against mandatory prayers in school.. but what school has those?

[Parkbandit]

So someone in politics believing that it would be nice to keep prayers in school, which is a mere 30 seconds of silence to pray with any religion, is a serious problem in this country that needs to be voted on as a primary concern?

What would a former semi-conservative like you know about shit that important??

[CrystalTears]

What would a former semi-conservative like you know about shit that important??
LOL! It was a just a matter of time. :)

[AbnInfamy]

So someone in politics believing that it would be nice to keep prayers in school, which is a mere 30 seconds of silence to pray with any religion, is a serious problem in this country that needs to be voted on as a primary concern?

As this progresses it's actually becoming less and less of an important issue for me.

[CrystalTears]

And to answer the question of what issue is most important to me, at the current time it's the economy. Government spending, budgeting and general aspects that deal with income concern me greatly.

[Parkbandit]

And to answer the question of what issue is most important to me, at the current time it's the economy. Government spending, budgeting and general aspects that deal with income concern me greatly.

I am withdrawing the "former" from your official political title.

[Latrinsorm]

You bring up a good point I'd like to expound on.

Moderation would be great but we aren't seeing a lot of that in our current landscape. Most of the issues I have listed are black and white, for or against, with the people running for office taking hardline party stances.

That's what essentially has made me able to point at a single topic and say, "That is the black and white issue that is most important to me".I think you will be more at peace if you look past the rhetoric and focus on the actions. Everybody in America talks a good game, but nobody in America on either side is anything but a moderate. This has had a very interesting effect on said rhetoric in a two party system: it has to be comically exaggerated to distinguish us from them. Consider the so-called War on Christmas. When you look at what's actually being done versus the apocalyptic reactions, you just have to shake your head. Or look at the fiscal cliff. It was going to be really scary and a really big change, well instead we'll have very slight quantitative changes, and nothing fundamental to existing programs or departments will change in any way. Astonishing that people who disagreed so vehemently could manage such a bland, moderate, boring agreement? No, only astonishing that we would buy into the hype for the thousandth millionth time.
It's right up there with abortion, gay marriage and pot legalization as the least important issue for me.A straight man who doesn't care about abortion or gay marriage, that's so weird.
Not sure if I'll ever vote again at this point.Perhaps I am unusually sensitive to remarks like this having just watched a documentary on African-Americans being tear gassed and beaten to death for trying to exercise their right to vote in the civil rights movement, but maybe I'll just refer you to the first part of this sentence anyway. As a regular schmo like the rest of us, your vote is by far and away the most power you will ever exert on this world. Why do you think repressive regimes devote so much energy to denying it?
Ryan said he would support the idea of school prayer if the state wanted it, Romney said at special occasions and Mike Huckabee is a lunatic who I don't think was even running for anything in 2012.Remember in 2008 when Gov. Huckabee seemed like such a nice guy? What happened? Fox News, that's what. :|
Optional prayer in school isn't the same thing as forced prayed in school. As an atheist I believe that prayers are not magical words, and that god doesn't exist. I don't think any black magic will befall me if I stand next to someone who is muttering a prayer. I don't know what kind of atheist you might be where you think that other people praying will affect you, but trust me, prayers are not magic. They aren't casting a spell on you. You'll not be magically converted by being in earshot.Would you say that, in general, and recognizing that you are not claiming to offer an expert opinion on the matter, children are more susceptible or less to peer pressure, whether implied or explicit? I believe you have mentioned your wife is in the field of mental science. Surely you are aware that our environment has a concrete (non-magical) impact on us, no matter how vigorously we believe we are rugged individuals?

[Wrathbringer]

Perhaps I am unusually sensitive to remarks like this having just watched a documentary on African-Americans being tear gassed and beaten to death for trying to exercise their right to vote in the civil rights movement, but maybe I'll just refer you to the first part of this sentence anyway. As a regular schmo like the rest of us, your vote is by far and away the most power you will ever exert on this world. Why do you think repressive regimes devote so much energy to denying it?

I'm assuming you read my rather long winded (at least for me) original post and not just the last sentence. Speaking from that same perspective, I would simply ask: When your options are tyranny by force without the right to vote or tyranny by force with the right to vote, how much more power does the individual in the second situation really hold compared to first? Either is tyranny by force, a police state. I'll reiterate my point that by voting, one seems to be necessarily submitting themselves to another's rule as that other sees fit. At this point, as one who does not wish to be ruled, why would I vote for someone to rule me?

[Wrathbringer]

Let me put it another way: Totalitarianism, social engineering, theft and genocide are disparaged among statists - but by the statist definition - only those outside the state commit such sins... yet all the above are actions of "sound policy", carried out by respected elected official, "diligent" bureaucrats, "selfless" police and "brave" militaries the world over, every day. I'm a veteran, but not proudly so, because I served in ignorance. For example: Consider the issue of gun control... one would assume that the honest goal is to reduce or prevent harm to the public, but the debate on gun control itself has diverted attention away from the fact that most people, especially children, are not killed or disabled in random shootouts. Again, if we're intellectually honest with ourselves, random crazed persons are not the ones using these weapons most often to kill masses of people - governments do. Participation in an election to appoint the people ordering the arrests and killings would seem to necessitate complicity.

[Parkbandit]

A straight man who doesn't care about abortion or gay marriage, that's so weird.

You want marriage, go for it. It doesn't affect my marriage. I'm actually pro-gay marriage.. but I'm anti-people like you who think this is the end all, be all issue of our day because you want to feel special.

I also didn't mention race relations... you could have pulled a WB and called me a racist. Or immigration reform.. you could have called me a xenophobe.

[Delias]

lol I'm suggesting that freedom existed long before government.

Technically it only existed before government. The tricky part is that people don't want freedom- people want comfort and safety, with just enough wiggle room to fuck around and not get their hands chopped off. Freedom is a great concept but a terrible mistress, as true freedom in the form on anarchy means your freedom can be taken from you by the better armed. You cannot be both free and governed.

Now, that said, I appreciate the liberties I have as an American to do like 85% of the things I'd like to do without issue. Calling granted liberties freedom though is sort of like living with stockholm syndrome though, isn't it?

This is the part where Anticor calls me an idiot and PB probably tells me I should have stayed in school.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm assuming you read my rather long winded (at least for me) original post and not just the last sentence. Speaking from that same perspective, I would simply ask: When your options are tyranny by force without the right to vote or tyranny by force with the right to vote, how much more power does the individual in the second situation really hold compared to first? Either is tyranny by force, a police state. I'll reiterate my point that by voting, one seems to be necessarily submitting themselves to another's rule as that other sees fit. At this point, as one who does not wish to be ruled, why would I vote for someone to rule me?Because you have options which while similar are not literally identical. By definition, one will be closer to your ideal than the other. Do you think anyone ever gets to vote for their exact ideal? I'll wager even the candidates themselves would admit that (although perhaps only under the influence of sodium pentothal). (What kind of dumb chemical name is "pentothal" anyway? Penta and thol are much better chemical looking syllables.)
Let me put it another way: Totalitarianism, social engineering, theft and genocide are disparaged among statists - but by the statist definition - only those outside the state commit such sins... yet all the above are actions of "sound policy", carried out by respected elected official, "diligent" bureaucrats, "selfless" police and "brave" militaries the world over, every day. I'm a veteran, but not proudly so, because I served in ignorance. For example: Consider the issue of gun control... one would assume that the honest goal is to reduce or prevent harm to the public, but the debate on gun control itself has diverted attention away from the fact that most people, especially children, are not killed or disabled in random shootouts. Again, if we're intellectually honest with ourselves, random crazed persons are not the ones using these weapons most often to kill masses of people - governments do. Participation in an election to appoint the people ordering the arrests and killings would seem to necessitate complicity.As you like it, would you rather vote for the guy singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", the other guy, or petulantly withdraw from voting altogether? I am trying very hard to see your side of things, but I keep ending up at petulance. You want this thing, but you refuse to engage your most powerful weaponry to pursue it as best as you are able. Explain to me. EXPLAIN TO ME!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9aD4YLJcy4)
You want marriage, go for it. It doesn't affect my marriage. I'm actually pro-gay marriage.. but I'm anti-people like you who think this is the end all, be all issue of our day because you want to feel special.I think it's pretty well established that my pet cause is universal surveillance. How many posts have I made unprompted regarding gay marriage? I can think of one thread, and even that was in a sense prompted by pending legislation.

Do you think it's interesting that you base your philosophy on being anti other people rather than being pro yourself or pro a given cause?

[Wrathbringer]

Because you have options which while similar are not literally identical. By definition, one will be closer to your ideal than the other. Do you think anyone ever gets to vote for their exact ideal? I'll wager even the candidates themselves would admit that (although perhaps only under the influence of sodium pentothal). (What kind of dumb chemical name is "pentothal" anyway? Penta and thol are much better chemical looking syllables.)As you like it, would you rather vote for the guy singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", the other guy, or petulantly withdraw from voting altogether? I am trying very hard to see your side of things, but I keep ending up at petulance. You want this thing, but you refuse to engage your most powerful weaponry to pursue it as best as you are able. Explain to me. EXPLAIN TO ME!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9aD4YLJcy4)

Am I understanding you correctly when I say that your argument is largely, "You can't beat them, so join them?" As a person of principles, that basis for complicity to the myriad of atrocities of which I only named a few doesn't hold water with me. If I'm misunderstanding, my apologies. Take Ghandi for example. Would he have considered a vote his most powerful weapon against tyranny or would have preferred the passive resistance for which he is now admired the world around? Was he simply being petulant? Appreciate the response.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not saying don't do more than voting. I'm saying that for those of us without the amazing charisma and strength of will of a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, voting is all we've got.

I am also not advocating joining anyone. I am saying do the best with what you've got. If you want to wait for the perfect moment/candidate/etc., you will die waiting. This universe is a disgusting cesspool. More often than not your cause will fail (see previous point regarding cesspool). Frequently you would have been better off expending that energy on ephemeral and transient earthly delights (again, see previous point). This is especially true in your case, where the ideal of a non-statist state (so to speak) is super duper implausible; you're never ever going to get to vote for someone advocating your exact cause on any level. Welcome to the universe, mind your rectum.

So what!? You're still a rock star. You've got your rock moves if and only if you are willing to use them. Your vote almost certainly will not matter. You could be that shrill activist haranguing thousands of people and changing the minds of maybe two, whose votes almost certainly will not matter. You could follow the example of the Paulines and infiltrate the party infrastructure (or whatever the heck they've been up to) and almost certainly have no impact on governance on any level. You may even luck out and have the candidate closest to your ideals win over the electorate in any given election (if the Republicans ever get their act together and ever actually embrace small government), but let me reiterate: so what? Not voting isn't a vote against both candidates, it's a tacit vote for whomever wins. Action may not (and almost certainly will not) insure, but inaction always accepts.

[Candor]

My driving issue is that I really don't trust politicians on either extreme side of the spectrum. I dream about getting an ultra-liberal and an ultra-conservative, putting them in a room with food/drink, beds and a bathroom, and recording the next several days. I figure there's a good reality show in the making here.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm not saying don't do more than voting. I'm saying that for those of us without the amazing charisma and strength of will of a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, voting is all we've got.

I am also not advocating joining anyone. I am saying do the best with what you've got. If you want to wait for the perfect moment/candidate/etc., you will die waiting. This universe is a disgusting cesspool. More often than not your cause will fail (see previous point regarding cesspool). Frequently you would have been better off expending that energy on ephemeral and transient earthly delights (again, see previous point). This is especially true in your case, where the ideal of a non-statist state (so to speak) is super duper implausible; you're never ever going to get to vote for someone advocating your exact cause on any level. Welcome to the universe, mind your rectum.

So what!? You're still a rock star. You've got your rock moves if and only if you are willing to use them. Your vote almost certainly will not matter. You could be that shrill activist haranguing thousands of people and changing the minds of maybe two, whose votes almost certainly will not matter. You could follow the example of the Paulines and infiltrate the party infrastructure (or whatever the heck they've been up to) and almost certainly have no impact on governance on any level. You may even luck out and have the candidate closest to your ideals win over the electorate in any given election (if the Republicans ever get their act together and ever actually embrace small government), but let me reiterate: so what? Not voting isn't a vote against both candidates, it's a tacit vote for whomever wins. Action may not (and almost certainly will not) insure, but inaction always accepts.

I've always voted in the past for these reasons, and took this position against those who choose not to vote. As for principles, let me ask this question: Do we who vote bear none of the guilt/responsibility for those killed or otherwise affected in the negative ways I mentioned earlier? Are we truly electing a scapegoat to take the blame for such things and bear none of the blame ourselves for participating in the system that put them there? I realize I'm turning our conversation more from politics to philosophy, but I'm interested in your thoughts on this question, politics aside.

[WRoss]

In the spectrum of politics, I fall just slightly right of center and most closely associate with libertarians in policy and Robert Kennedy in law. I'm a fiscal conservative, pro guns, but want religion out of politics and less defense spending. I also want less regulation, but don't think that all regulation is easy. I'm for equal rights for everyone, across the board, pro choice, and actually believe in health care reform, but think that our current health care system is broken. I'm also completely anti bail out and stimulus spending and agree with Occupy Wall Street on a lot of issues, like re-instating Glass Steagle and putting oversite on the Fed. My main issue currently is the Government's infringement of rights and blatant abuse of powers. For example, the NDAA 2012 and the way they basically told the courts to not hear Hedges v Obama, for no reason other than they didn't want it to be heard.

[Latrinsorm]

I've always voted in the past for these reasons, and took this position against those who choose not to vote. As for principles, let me ask this question: Do we who vote bear none of the guilt/responsibility for those killed or otherwise affected in the negative ways I mentioned earlier? Are we truly electing a scapegoat to take the blame for such things and bear none of the blame ourselves for participating in the system that put them there? I realize I'm turning our conversation more from politics to philosophy, but I'm interested in your thoughts on this question, politics aside.As a hippy dippy liberal, I don't hold truck with blame in general, I think it focuses too much on analyzing the past (which I recognize has a degree of hypocrisy coming from me of all people) and not enough on the present. Are we in some sense party to the atrocities our government has committed and will continue to commit? Yes, certainly, though certainly not to the degree of those actively deciding upon and pursuing those atrocities. With that said, does withdrawing from the government avoid that guilt, as modern day Mutazilites? I think no, and for the axiom stated above: inaction always accepts. Ultimately the aforementioned Mutazilites had to take an active role in politics, waiting for the final judgment of an external being was just unacceptable in such a stupid, shitty world. We see the same in all hermetic movements, whether personal or on a grand scale; eventually the horrors of this world are just so overwhelming that action must be taken, no matter how cumbersome and bass-ackwards the mechanism for pursuing that action is. I submit that voting is that cumbersome mechanism for us, and that given no superior options it cannot, should not, and must not be avoided.

[Wrathbringer]

As a hippy dippy liberal, I don't hold truck with blame in general, I think it focuses too much on analyzing the past (which I recognize has a degree of hypocrisy coming from me of all people) and not enough on the present. Are we in some sense party to the atrocities our government has committed and will continue to commit? Yes, certainly, though certainly not to the degree of those actively deciding upon and pursuing those atrocities. With that said, does withdrawing from the government avoid that guilt, as modern day Mutazilites? I think no, and for the axiom stated above: inaction always accepts. Ultimately the aforementioned Mutazilites had to take an active role in politics, waiting for the final judgment of an external being was just unacceptable in such a stupid, shitty world. We see the same in all hermetic movements, whether personal or on a grand scale; eventually the horrors of this world are just so overwhelming that action must be taken, no matter how cumbersome and bass-ackwards the mechanism for pursuing that action is. I submit that voting is that cumbersome mechanism for us, and that given no superior options it cannot, should not, and must not be avoided.

Fair points. Appreciate the thoughtful responses.