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: 97
Latest Activity: 4 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

Free market creates monopoly - no market, no freedom

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 4 hours ago. 10 Replies

Barry Lynn explains that a monopolist doesn't have to control 100% of a market. With the US having thousands of markets controlled as monopolies, we suffer the Economics of Destruction.What monopoly means is that a company has sufficient control of…Continue

Tags: free market economics, monopoly

Turns out that lawsuits have rules (Daily Kos)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 6. 4 Replies

So ... now that John Boehner and the House of Representatives have decided that the most important thing on their agenda is suing President Obama for having the unmitigated nerve to want to accomplish something during his second term of office, it…Continue

Tags: rules, president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

An Open Letter to Congressman John Boehner

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 26. 2 Replies

Some days ago, Congressman John Boehner (R - Ohio) wrote an op-ed piece entitled, "…Continue

Tags: president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on August 11, 2014 at 9:13pm

What Joan says about parents and children in different socio-economic classes is so very true. The consequences for the less advantaged children are tragically true.

And so:

1) the political conservatives' bootstrap talk, and

2) the religious rewarding-the-deserving talk,

are both euphemisms for social Darwinism.

They are correct in that giving effect to either or both will improve the gene pool.

The means they choose for that end horrifies liberals and perhaps progressives.

Do the opposing parties sit down and talk about issues that are not easy to talk about, or do they continue to attack each other?

Comment by Grinning Cat on August 11, 2014 at 5:35pm

Ruth, thanks for those very true cartoons and pictures!

On another note: people here might be interested in reading Joan's blog post "Not Everyone Has the Tools to Become Rich: How Our Childhood Shapes Our Ability to Succeed".

She discusses research with monkeys, and her own observations in teaching and counseling humans:

"Parents with resources, enough food, shelter, health care, education and discretionary money may have time to spend with their children, teaching them how to communicate, solve problems, resolve conflicts, they teach how to explore options, examine ideas, experiment with processes and take action that makes a difference. 

Parents without money resources, working several jobs, not spending time with their children, have difficulty learning these skills themselves and are unable to pass them on to their children. Some parents are so depressed and anxious that they may not work outside the home, and may not have the initiative to learn the skills themselves."

That's an important part of the conversation, with many political conservatives maintaining that everyone can and should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. (And there are the religious overtones too, god rewarding the deserving and all that....)

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on August 7, 2014 at 8:06pm

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on July 30, 2014 at 9:58pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on July 29, 2014 at 7:05pm

Delaying Climate Policies Could Cost U.S. Economy $150 Billion Each...

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) released a sweeping report Tuesday on the monetary costs of delaying action on climate change, and it had one glaring conclusion: the longer America waits to act, the more money will be stripped from the U.S. economy.
As with insurance, the report found that paying money over time to mitigate the risks of sea level rise, severe weather, drought, and other potential impacts of global warming would be far less expensive if done sooner rather than paying for the aftereffects later, and absolutely less expensive than waiting to deal with more catastrophic climate-related events.
Comment by Loren Miller on July 23, 2014 at 6:40am

Tom, like it or not, bad news outweighs good news.  It always has, and I suspect it always will.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on July 23, 2014 at 2:57am

That major success for Obama had competition: an airliner shot down over Ukrania and a flare up in the war between Israel and Hamas.

In politics shit sometimes happens. Don't get conspiratorial about it.

Comment by Joan Denoo on July 23, 2014 at 1:16am

Loren, I like the Major success in Obama's Iran Policy;
"This is a big deal.  A major foreign policy success.  Iran is ending its nuclear program.  All without a shot being fired.

"And that is the problem.  And why you won't read about this.

"Because if we aren't dropping bombs on someone it just isn't possible for a policy to succeed to the "smart" people in Washington."

Comment by Loren Miller on July 22, 2014 at 2:35pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on July 18, 2014 at 11:14am

Good posts, Joan and Grinning Cat!

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service