Atheist Nexus Logo

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: 103
Latest Activity: on Saturday

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

An Atheist / Antitheist Manifesto, by Brian Dalton

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller on Saturday. 8 Replies

The original title of the following video was: "The Way of the Mister: Atheist Fundamentalist," but having watched it twice, I can't escape the feeling that my moniker fits as well and perhaps a bit better.  In 20 minutes and change, Brian Dalton…Continue

Tags: fundamentalist, manifesto, antitheist, atheist, MrDeity

Hillary Clinton has Connections to The Family Fellowship

Started by sk8eycat. Last reply by sk8eycat May 18. 6 Replies

WOULD YOU BUY A USED BUYBULL FROM THIS WOMAN?From Mother Jones...2007…Continue

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats (Nick Hanauer - Politico.com)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller May 10. 2 Replies

Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow ZillionairesYou probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from…Continue

Tags: pitchforks, 1%, capitalism, plutocrat, Jeff Bezos

HOW A PIONEER OF BRANDING INVENTED CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by tom sarbeck May 9. 10 Replies

Religion Dispatch…Continue

Tags: marketing, Fundamentalism

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by tom sarbeck on June 8, 2014 at 9:29pm

       ...liberals tend to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

That would be clearer, if more complicated, as

... liberals tend to be socially progressive relative to conservatives and fiscally conservative relative to progressives.

Graphically:

progressives - - - - - liberals - - - - - conservatives

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on June 8, 2014 at 4:20pm

Sentient Biped, I get more upset about corporations and the wealthy using tricks to avoid taxes. I absolutely loathe taxes being used "to enrich cronies and military - corporate - investor complex" too. I guess our common ground is honesty in government and accountability to ordinary people. Right now politicians don't listen to regular voters at all, just big campaign donors.

Comment by Daniel W on June 8, 2014 at 1:32pm

I had a difficult time deciding whether I am fiscally conservative or not.  I don't like to think I belong to a particular catgory, buty if the shoe fits.... 

Much of my financial philosophy comes from experience.  Through much of my education, I saw administrators raising tuition, and professors demanding expensive texts or other devices, with the disingenuous claim "You will make much more money in the future as a result". Which for many was not true at all.  It's a bit analogous to the government, taking away hard earned savings of ordinary people and going into debt, to enrich cronies and military - corporate - investor complex by going into debt and creating misadventures abroad.

Wikipedia def of fiscal conservative "Fiscal conservatism is a politicoeconomic philosophy with regards towards fiscal policy and the advocating of fiscal responsibility."  I don't know about the details, but that describes aat least come of what I think.  The Reaganites were not fiscal conservatives - they created more debt, made the country into a debtor nation, and created transfer of resources from ordinary people to robber barons.

I do accept there are times when gov't must tax in order to obtain resources required for security, prevent invasion, protect people, or create important infrastructure.  Those funds should come from honest taxation, not the sneaky taxation and shell games of pretending it results in a better tomorrow for all, when in reality it results in more wealth for the 1%.

I am no economist, so what do I know.

I suspect anyone would fine be very very socially progressive, but with some precautions thrown in.  For example, I'm all for education for all - which is not our current system - but there should be accountability, so academic admin doesn't just squander the efforts, trust, and financial futures, of the students and their families.

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.

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service