Howard Dean and Christianity

I found this quote from Dean most telling:

"Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings."

Once again, P-Dawg hits it.

I've realized that most Democrats' responses to real and pressing issues follows a template. Lots of repeating, stopping, re-starting sentences, dancing around the issue. Dean's explanation of his church attendance sounds just like John Kerry's explanation of his service in Nam. I wonder if it would be possible to actually mathematically derive a matrix or some other pattern from a Democrat's typical response.

Mathematical Formula eh? It would look something like this:
If: A = B and B = C
Then: A > C and C > A

tP: Hardly. If you think Howard Dean speaks for most liberals, you're woefully mistaken.

DD: You've realized nothing more than the musings of, at most, a minority of Democrats.

Dean's eloquence (or lack thereof) should be familiar territory for conservatives. After all, Bush isn't exactly eloquent himself.

The Pirate's generalization about liberals is likely based on voluminous experience. It certainly matches mine.

And Dean's problem here is not with eloquence. He seems to have a natural aptitude for forcefully expressing precisely what he's thinking. That's his problem.

BB: Then maybe you (and Pirate) need some different experiences.

If you both have had such "voluminous" experience with liberals that justify your relatively extreme simplification of the moral values situation... then I'd say it's apparent that your experiences aren't representative.

As I've said numerous times before... we tend to find what we look for. Look for liberals (or conservatives, for that matter) with nothing you'd consider a "moral value"... and you'll find them. By the same token, if you look for liberals (or conservatives) with many of the same things you consider "moral values".. you'll find them too.

BB said: "He seems to have a natural aptitude for forcefully expressing precisely what he's thinking. That's his problem."

Well, what you describe as "his problem" is precisely what many people appreciate about President Bush. Dean says what he thinks... and so does Bush. People reacted negatively to Dean's passion (how many times did we see his infamous "yeeahh!" incident from the Iowa caucus speech)... but he layed everything out on the table, just like Bush tends to do.

And so, we can criticize him until we're green in the face for WHAT he thinks... but we can't criticize him for being so straightforward about it, unless we're going to do the same for Bush.

The hippies I talk to on the streetcorners say the same thing as Howard Dean: nothing with a lot of words. Thus, in my experience, liberals follow the Broken Record Template (or the equation Pirate lays out).

Deanie Weanie's problem: he says nothing over and over, without a lot of variety. Hey! Like most liberals.

I bet I know what Mark is going to say next! Let me get my calculator out.

Mark: I've had way too many conversations with leftists in which they argue that there's no such thing as morality. Any leftist who says otherwise will falter when you ask them what the basis for that morality is.

DD: Maybe you shouldn't talk to "hippies on the streetcorners" and pretend that they're representative of liberals.

MW: I'm sorry, but even if you had a conversation with every liberal in Los Angeles and/or southern California you would still be dealing with a non-representative group of people.

Many people claim their morality is based in their religious or spiritual beliefs. Many others claim their morality is based in how they were raised by their parents and the particulars of life in their formative years. For others, it's a combination of the two. And for a few, there's no basis whatsoever and morality means nothing, and so it is quickly dropped.

And so, I think morality does indeed exist... but I also think that there are many factions, each with significant differences in their morality. Many people claim to hold the one true moral standard... but in the end, there will probably be fewer people who are correct about that than there are people who claim to be.

I was speaking to the macro level, not the micro. There is a difference between having personal morality and defining (or legislating) a set of morals for the society as a whole with the purpose of making society on the whole better. Where the difference I highlighted is as pointed out by Dean, that we shoudn't do that because a) people aren't perfect and/or b) someone may disagree with it. It was also highlighted by Kerry during the election when he said he thought aborton was wrong but wouldn't advocate any resrictions on abortion because some may disagree.

Conservatives are far more likely to legislate and advocate a general moral for society. Where as Liberals are far more likely to legislate and advocate exceptions to a general moral, or dismiss a moral because of the exceptions...just like Dean said.

There are two significant objections I have with conservatives legislating morality:

1.) Extending FCC "decency rules" to cable/satellite TV, as proposed by a Republican congressman from Alaska (don't recall his name, off-hand).

2.) Our approach to drugs.

Permit me to explain:

1.) The FCC has no business shoving its decency rules on cable and satellite TV services or pay-services like HBO and Showtime.

2.) Making drugs illegal has certainly not resulted in sufficient decreases in its use and abuse. Socio-economic factors and influences have a much greater impact. We should try to get people off of drugs, but throwing non-violent marijuana users in prison isn't the answer.

The amount of money our government is spending in Columbia is the same amount that American consumers are spending buying drugs from Columbia. We're funding both sides of this war and we'll never win it that way.

Michael, I'm intrigued by your statement that "It's impossible to be a fully devoted follower of Christ without belonging to, attending, and serving in a local church." Are you saying that the first apostles were not "fullly devoted followers"? As far as I can determine, there were no established Christian churches at that time, so by your definition, they would have be described as non-Christians.

I can imagine an obvious responses you might make: namely, that at the time, Christ _was_, in effect, a Christian church, the ur-church, if you will. Similarly, the actions of the apostles, and of their converts after Christ's death, before the establishment of formal churches, could be viewed as being carried out, in effect, under the auspices of what passes for a Christian "church," at least for that time.

If you say that, though, I think it opens a smallish can of worms for your (arguably fairly legalistic) view about non-church-attending "Christians" either fooling themselves or others. If an informal group of worshippers, even a single devoted worshipper, can constitute a "church" for your purposes, then I think you have an obligation to demonstrate how you can be sure that Howard Dean's self-described mode of worship doesn't qualify.

Or you could take a different tack, and argue that because there were no Christian churches at the time of the apostles, they cannot be required to have been part of one in order to qualify as real Christians. Only after those churches were established could they have been required to worship in one in order to qualify.

This seems logically suspect to me, too, though. If I was an early convert to Christianity, following Christ as best I could in the absence of any church I could attend, did I suddenly and magically turn into a non-Christian (poof!) the instant a formal Christian church of the sort you view as necessary for "real" Christian status was created anywhere? I have a really tough time reconciling that with the spirit of Christ's teachings as presented in the gospels, though it fits in quite nicely with the large body of Pharasee-like accretions that have been added to the message in the years since then.

Mark:
1)Its a tough one, especially since basic cable/satellite tv is becoming far more common in the home (driving through Watts one day I noticed a majortiy of houses and apartments had dishes), its fair to have them push questionable material outside of 'family time'. Premium tv should be off limits. I don't know what kind of support the bill is getting, but I doubt it will be censorship but some resonable recomendations on programing would not be unwarrented, if you want to show people having sex with animals put it on premium cable or move to England. Also equallyt effective would be a provision that lets subscribers pick the channels they want rather than packages, so parents could simply elect not to get or pay for crap channels like MTV.

2)Is shooting them an option?

John:
The apostiles were non-Christians, they were Jews! Jews who were follower of Jesus it really wasn't until post 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed and the conflict over the debate over which of Jewish Traditions came in to being as Peter and Paul were bring gentiles to the faith were the followers of Jesus cast from the Synagogue as early as ~90 AD, themes of which you can pick up in the Gospel of John. While in the synagogue they were still devout followers as they were attenting 'church' with some disagreeing views of theology, much like Catholics and Baptists are both Christians and are practicing Christians while having some differences in theological views (the Catholics are right!) and really only began developing their own Christian Churches when the Synagogue was no longer avalible to them.

Mark: Find me a liberal that's not a rabid Deaniac or a foaming hippie. I'll buy them dinner (and not a vegan one, either).

Callender: You said

"Michael, I'm intrigued by your statement that "It's impossible to be a fully devoted follower of Christ without belonging to, attending, and serving in a local church." Are you saying that the first apostles were not "fullly devoted followers"? As far as I can determine, there were no established Christian churches at that time, so by your definition, they would have be described as non-Christians"

I think you're missing the point. The first apostles chilled with Jesus on a one-on-one basis. I think hanging with the J IN PERSON beats going to church in any match-up. However, after Jesus left, churches became the way for all followers to fellowship and build each other up, since hanging out with Jesus in person was no longer an option.

I believe MW was saying that in *modern* times, it's impossible to be a fully devoted follower if you don't serve and attend a church on a regular basis.

But we'll see what he has to say.

Or what you tell him to say.....

Pirate: Bite me.

BB said: "He seems to have a natural aptitude for forcefully expressing precisely what he's thinking. That's his problem."

Mark: said: "Well, what you describe as "his problem" is precisely what many people appreciate about President Bush. Dean says what he thinks... and so does Bush."

I agree. Both are very sincere, though Dean is more eloquent. The difference is that most people don't agree with Dean's sincerely expressed views, but they agree with Bush. Hence Dean's directness isn't a problem in a moral sense. It isn't a character flaw. It's simply a political liability. For a politician with Dean's beliefs to succeed nationally in today's political climate, he must be able to conceal his beliefs.

Concerning the Pirate's statement: "Liberal thought says, ‘Because we have shortcomings, we shouldn't have moral values,’":

Mark said: "If you both have had such "voluminous" experience with liberals that justify your relatively extreme simplification of the moral values situation... then I'd say it's apparent that your experiences aren't representative."

Then: "I'm sorry, but even if you had a conversation with every liberal in Los Angeles and/or southern California you would still be dealing with a non-representative group of people."

What a striking example of a liberal double standard! The standard required for a conservative to make a generalization is truly Olympian: One person's life experiences aren't enough. Two people's aren't enough. Even a conversation with every liberal in southern California isn't enough!

In fact, Mark doesn't even need to examine the evidence on which we base the generalization. It isn't necessary. The mere fact that conservatives are attempting to generalize proves that they don't have enough data for whatever it is that they want to say.

But note that Mark's generalizations aren't subject to this rule. He’s quite certain that we’re wrong—based on no data at all! His life experiences are apparently quite sufficient to support his own generalization.

To summarize: A liberal can generalize about liberals based on his own experiences. But a conservative who generalizes about liberals doesn’t have enough data to support what he says—and probably never will.

I don't claim to understand the psyches of liberals, but here's my theory on the underlying logic: If you're a conservative, then whatever political ideas you have are obviously wrong. But the liberals are too polite to tell you that. Instead, they say that you need to gather more data to try to support what you’re saying. In the process of gathering that data, they hope you will discover that you were wrong. Then you will become enlightened, meaning that you will become a liberal. At that point, your views will be correct, so you won't have to gather any more data to support them.

This is certainly how the system worked back when I was an undergraduate, and it seems that not much has changed since then.

DD: How about me? I'm not a Deaniac or a "foaming hippie".

BB: Let's clear the air a bit with some reality:

I never said that your "life experiences" are wrong. I have no basis to assume that what you say about your experiences is false. There's a difference, though, between asserting one's experiences and using those experiences as the basis for generalization about those with whom you've had no experience.

Your claim of a double standard is nonsense. You know damn well that if I came on here and said that conservatives were a bunch of religious zealots bent on legislating the Bible at the expense of the Constitution you or MW would be one of the first people to tell me that not all (or most) conservatives are like that, etc.

Generalizations, of any kind, are often wrong... regardless of who makes them or what they're about. MW's experiences are his experiences, but southern California is not the rest of the USA and vice-versa.

I haven't been to every corner of the USA or spoken with what would be considered a "cross-section" of America's population. All I know is what I experience and what I read about other people's experiences. When other people's experiences differ from mine, it makes one thing glaringly apparent to me: the inherent fallacy of generalizing about Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, Creationists, Evolutionists, black people, white people, Asian people, Latino people, Europeans, Muslims, etc.

the Pirate: It should be up to the parents to decide what channels they want their kids to watch... which is why cable and satellite services offer the ability for parents to block channels they don't want their kids watching. The government shouldn't be making those decisions.

Shooting drug users/abusers is no better than incarcerating them... because it doesn't solve the problem. It's a treatment for the symptoms... not a cure for the disease.

John C: Actually, the first church in Jerusalem met shortly after Jesus ascended into Heaven, so, they were going to church. And yes, a church is people, not a building, so any group of Christians that meets together regularly for the purposes of worship, ministry, evangelism, discipleship, and fellowship is a church. That doesn't have to be 100 people, but it's not one person (cf. Matthew 18:20), even if Howard Dean were doing those things alone (which would be impossible anyway).

Mark: Your arguments are useless in the sense that if we adopt your belief structure we would all be incapacitated for lack of representative data. My data is good enough to represent the situations I'm likely to encounter in the future, so it's usable and practical, if not complete and ideal.

MW: If you stay in LA and southern California, yes.. it is usable and practical. It is not necessarily usable and practical, however, when applied to situations and people outside of your "home turf", so to speak.

The ability to make a generalization based on observations is part of wisdom. Its not scientific fact like earth rotates around the sun, because you can't find an exception, you can find exceptions. You can also make bad generalizations like a majority of Latinos in Los Angeles are illegal, but switch it around to a mjority of illegals in Los Angeles are Latino and its pretty close to the truth. In turn the majority of liberals in politics don't believe we should legislate morals because we have short commings, now you may not believe that as a lib, but the majority of the elected liberals and party leaders do.

The cable channels, yes you can block and the kids can get past it, but hey if I don't want it why should I pay for it, but thats another issue. Of course its a two way street when companies offer a service to sanatize a DVD for people who don't want the swearing the media types run to the congress and complain that the Government should protect their 'artistic vision'. Its fair for people to lobby and make an arguement that questionable material be on a 9pm instead of 8pm, its also fair for people to argue against and if elected officals decided that The History of Group Sex should be on at 9 instead of 8 whats the problem, you can still watch it.

Actually it is better than incarcerating them, you don't have to pay to keep them in jail. They stop spending money on drugs funding drug lords (although shooting them would work too) in places like Colombia. Being dead they will no longer be addicted, with out the addiction there is no more disease. Plus if you knew you'd get shot if you stayed addicited it would provide quite the incentive to stop. To quote Bruce Campbell in Alien Apocolypse: "You're stupidity was terminal and now I've cured you."

"If I was an early convert to Christianity, following Christ as best I could in the absence of any church I could attend, did I suddenly and magically turn into a non-Christian (poof!) the instant a formal Christian church of the sort you view as necessary for "real" Christian status was created anywhere?"

The New Testament tells us to meet together as was quoted from Hebrews above. Certainly there does not have to be a church building, or an official church membership to be a Christian. But it is our responsibilty as Christians to follow the teachings in the Bible as we best interperet them. The Bible tells us directly that one of the most important tools for doing that is by congregating together and sharing fellowship in worship, bible study and prayer.

There are alot of ways to worship alone, but no rational interperetation of the New Testament suggests that we should choose not to fellowship with fellow Christians on a regular basis. To deny yourself that is to avoid the accountability to other followers of Christ.

There are plenty of Christians who have been led personally to leave the local churches for differences of opinion on doctrinal matters. Others just because they don't like the politics that inevitably creep up within any group of individuals. However, the right thing to do in this case is to seek out a group of likeminded believers to fellowship with.

However, from the quotes I have found, that is not what Dean is suggesting. He is just suggesting that his form of Christianity does not require the accountability of fellowship of fellow Christians and therefore he does not attend church regularly.

The early Christians may not have had churches to attend every Sunday. But they did meet together for worship, prayer and studying the scriptures.

-Jacob

tP: Ahh, but you didn't originally say "liberals in politics" or "elected liberals and party leaders"... you just said "liberals" in your original post.

It's also fair and logical to make the argument that moving the questionable programming to 9pm instead of 8pm isn't necessarily going to keep kids from viewing it. The bottom line is that this is a parenting issue.. not a government issue. The government isn't a substitute for the discipline of a parent.

The problem with elected officials deciding that "The History of Group Sex" should be on at 9 instead of 8 is that it's a waste of our elected officials' time. The very notion that our government, via the FCC (who's members aren't directly selected by the voting public), is bothering with times in which certain programs should be aired..... on a service that people must choose to acquire..... is ridiculous. I can understand regulation of channels and programming that's freely available... but not services that people are paying separately to have. What business of the government's is it that a program is on at 8 instead of 9? Is moving it to 9 going to keep kids from watching it? Hardly. So, not only is the government deciding to dictate TV scheduling... but it's also doing so for reasons that are not even addressed by its rulings. It's yet another ineffective and unnecessary law.

As far as drugs are concerned, the threat of death probably means very little to drug addicts. Shooting also won't prevent more addicts from being created... and shooting the newly-created addicts won't stop more addicts from being created. By any chance, are you one of those "culture of life" conservatives we heard about during the Schiavo incident? If so, I find your position on drug addiction to be quite contradictory.

Last time I checked if it weren't for majority support of those involved in the Democratic Party (who amazingly thed to liberal/leftist) Dean wouldn't be speaking for and representing for the majority view of the Party and when Dean speaks is he not speking for the majority of the party?

I'm more bitter about having to pay for garbage because I want to watch the Angels and Kings (when they had an NHL) play, so since they won't give me freedom of choice over what I want to pay to watch, I'm all for getting something other than garbage on for when there isn't a game on. Of course even with FCC regulations of broadcast tv we still get garbage for the most part a little less garbage on basic cable wouldn't hurt anyone. Besides it eats up their free time because otherwise they'd come up with some new welfare program, pork bill or tax plan. Just look at the California Legislature, they have enough time to waste money debating bills to make it illegal to impound cars of unlicensed illegal aliens or that the Angels need to put diclaimers on everything because they don't play in LA proper.

Its called sarcasim, they should be given an option get treatment or go to jail and we need to stop making excuses for them being a urban blight and a drain on society because people should be responsible for their actions and illegal beavior and if they choose not to, its time to be put away rather than letting them wander the street. Of course some may enjoy the stench of urnie and crap in the streets, I'm not one of those people.

tP: No, Dean isn't speaking for the majority of the party. Those who elected him to DNC chair don't either. I certainly don't think he's a good choice for DNC chair... and I can't fathom a situation in which I'd vote for him in any kind of election.

Occupying the time of politicians with nonsense to avoid other forms of nonsense is no solution. Trading one infringement on liberty for another is not an acceptable compromise.

Drug use doesn't automatically translate into someone being an urban blight or drain on society. Many people use drugs without any negative impact on their job or other aspects of their life. Irresponsible people are irresponsible people, whether they use drugs or not. Note that when I say "drugs", I'm including alcohol. Why should some otherwise law-abiding citizen caught with or using pot or another kind of recreational drug go to jail? If this person holds down a job (or jobs) and supports himself/herself, what harm are they causing to society?

So who is the Chairman of the DNC and spokesman for the party? You can also count Kerry in then too who made the similar arguement as Dean when he was in the midst of the election, or did Kerry also not gain majorty party support to be the Party nominee?

Government infringes on liberty all the time for the 'greater good' all the time (you can debate what you think a greater good is but they still do it). They put restrictions on prices of milk so small farms don't go out of buisness, they require you to wear a seat belt, make it illegal to slander people. Sure they policies may be for a good, but they still infringe on peoples rights.

Didn't you say illegal drugs?, last time I went to Ralphs it was still legal to buy alcohol.
If you are caught using a illegal drug you would no longer hold the title law-abiding, breaking the law involves a punishment thats why we pay the police, courts and jails. Illegal activity is exactly what it is illegal, just like coming here illegal where the same arguemtn is made, well they are other wise law-abiding so why should they be punished and mixing legal drugs with illegal ones irrelevant comparison as when Gil Cedillo equates illegal aliens with legal immigrants completely ignoring that whole thing about follwoing the law. In terms of drugs you're an adult who is has full knowledge of the law its your responsibility to follow the law of the land and by choosing to be irresponsible you choose to face the consequences of your actions.

Also you can debate weither or not alcohol should be illegal, but currently it isn't and you don't violate federal law in obtaining it so by using it (provide you aren't violating laws regarding its use or distribution) you aren't breaking any existing laws.

Dean's position makes him, technically, the spokesman of the party... but that doesn't mean that what he speaks is the opinion of a majority of people who identify themselves as Democrats and/or liberals.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue with regards to government infringements on liberty. It seems like you're trying to say that since government already infringes upon our liberty in the ways you mentioned.. that it's okay for them to dictate when certain programs can be shown on cable and satellite TV.

If a citizen's only offense is possession or use of drugs... you are "otherwise law-abiding". Illegal immigrants aren't "otherwise law-abiding" because they're not citizens to begin with.

Is possessing and/or using illegal drugs still illegal? Yes, of course it is... but that's not the point. The point is that its illegality, and the sentences handed down as a result, should be changed.

"When other people's experiences differ from mine, it makes one thing glaringly apparent to me: the inherent fallacy of generalizing about Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, Creationists, Evolutionists, black people, white people, Asian people, Latino people, Europeans, Muslims, etc."

So you have a generalization about generalizations, which is that they're inherently fallacious? Does that generalization apply to itself, or just to the ones about people?

Some day you'll free yourself from relativism, Mark. It'll be a great day.

If the representatives of the part don't speak for the majority a majority of the time, whats that say about the state of the party? Although from expreience the majority held view of the memebers seems to fall inline with the party spokesmen a majority of the time.

I say its okay for the FCC to put forth guidelines as to what is appropriate for basic cable tv, it doesn't have to be as strict as braodcast, but some general guidelines would do more good than harm, kind of like the seat belt laws.

Okay if you don't like the illegal alien reference, how about an otherwise law-abiding citizen who feels its wrong for the government to make its citizens pay income tax, so he doesn't pay them. She he be excuse because he's otherwise law abiding? It doesn't hurt him at work, infact it helps him because he gets to take home more money. But if he gets caught he goes to jail (see Pete Rose for example) even if he thinks it should be changed. Legality doesn't change based on personal opinion or the fact you may of changed a woman's tire at 2 am(Alejandro Avila), unless you're rich then you can kill you ex(OJ) or current(Blake) wife.

BB: The fallacy of generalizing about groups of people resides in the fact that all groups of people are diverse. Recognizing this isn't in itself a generalization.

Religious and political/ideological terms that tend to polarize... like liberal, conservative, conservative Christian, Democrat, Republican, etc... when used without words like "many", "most", "some", etc. can be easily misinterpreted as a generalization and are often effective at influencing what those people think. I have no interest in being misinterpreted. You might not want to "burden" your ruminations with the provisions for avoiding misinterpretation that I mentioned, but I do... and I think it is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable thing for me to do. You may disagree, but I neither request nor require your agreement or approval.

the Pirate said: "If the representatives of the part don't speak for the majority a majority of the time, whats that say about the state of the party?"

It says that the party leadership has lost its connection with its members... and that's a conclusion with which I agree completely.

the Pirate said: " some general guidelines would do more good than harm, kind of like the seat belt laws."

Doubtful. Changing when questionable programs air (like at 9pm instead of 8) isn't likely to do any good whatsoever. Unless parents take control of what their children watch and when they watch it, nothing the government does in this regard is going to do any good.

the Pirate said: "Okay if you don't like the illegal alien reference, how about an otherwise law-abiding citizen who feels its wrong for the government to make its citizens pay income tax, so he doesn't pay them. She he be excuse because he's otherwise law abiding? It doesn't hurt him at work, infact it helps him because he gets to take home more money. But if he gets caught he goes to jail (see Pete Rose for example) even if he thinks it should be changed. Legality doesn't change based on personal opinion or the fact you may of changed a woman's tire at 2 am(Alejandro Avila), unless you're rich then you can kill you ex(OJ) or current(Blake) wife."

It's not that I "don't like" the illegal alien reference... it's that it's not applicable to the premise of "otherwise law-abiding".

And, again, the illegality doesn't change.... and, again, THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that things need to change in our drug laws and sentencing need to change. Marijuana and a few other recreational drugs shouldn't be illegal.

Illegal activity is exactly what it is illegal, just like coming here illegal where the same arguemtn is made, well they are other wise law-abiding so why should they be punished and mixing legal drugs with illegal ones irrelevant comparison as when Gil Cedillo equates illegal aliens with legal immigrants completely ignoring that whole thing about follwoing the law.

What a sentence. Is the Pirate typing drunk again?

You asked:
"Why should some otherwise law-abiding citizen caught with or using pot or another kind of recreational drug go to jail? If this person holds down a job (or jobs) and supports himself/herself, what harm are they causing to society?"

The answer is simple, because its an illegal activity. That is the point. Break the law, face the music. Just like the tax evader, get caught go to jail, the fact you have a job only means they can seize your wages to pay the back taxes. Hell blowin your cat won't affect your ability to hold down a job and function in soceity, it doesn't mean you should start.

If you don't like the law lobby to change it, but don't think the fact you disagree with it means you shouldn't be punished for breaking it. Besides the tax evader would have far better constitutional ground to stand on that the drug addict in arguing their case.

tP: The question was one of "why should this be illegal?". It wasn't one that denied the completely-besides-the-point fact that it remains illegal.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently, to account for your inability to see past the obvious.

You also incorrectly concluded that I don't think law-breakers should be punished. Of course they should... but some things shouldn't be illegal.

Let me ask you this, then... Why should possession or use of pot be illegal? The only drug, legal or otherwise, that I use is alcohol.. in social situations.. but come on.. let's look at the facts: Pot is no worse for you than cigarettes and no more incapacitating than alcohol. Reaction time and cognitive impairment are as significant with pot as they are with alcohol, so obviously people shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence... but other than that... why should pot be illegal and alcohol not?

Mark: The question of why pot should or shouldn't be illegal seems entirely incidental to this conversation. There are plenty of reasons for for and against, and the topic seems perfectly well-suited to the democratic process whereby the majority votes and makes a decisions based on whatever criteria they desire. Drug laws should probably be state rather than federal, but if they were drug trafficking would certainly raise Commerce Clause issues.

The point behind all this is that leftists don't like to be bound to concrete definitions. Howard Dean wants to be called a "Christian" even though his lifestyle and belief system and antithetical to Christianity, and if anyone objects then they're a "pharisee" -- yet another redefinition. The end result is that words don't mean anything, they only have connotations that leftists want to latch onto to make a point. Pharisees are bad! Therefore, if you don't want to be one, don't criticise me! Whatever. Get a clue. Dean should buy a dictionary and a Bible and then we'll talk.

MW: The first paragraph of your most recent post on this story is, aside from the last sentence, both entirely obvious and irrelevant. No one is questioning the pot issue's suitability to the democratic process.

As for your second paragraph, your generalization about leftists reflects a set of experiences that are quite a bit different than mine. Maybe you should meet and hang around with some leftists from other parts of the country besides southern CA.

I'm not going to make excuses for Howard Dean. He is who he is. I will say, however, that your diatribe on words not meaning anything... though applicable to Dean... isn't necessarily applicable to anyone else.

michael: "leftists don't like to be bound to concrete definitions."

everybody does that (rather, representatives from every political point of view do that), not just liberals. Bush wages a "war on terror" because nobody can object to defeating terror, although he calls it a war, prisoners of it are "illegal combatants" -- there is no opposing army so how is it a war?; he supports a "culture of life" because nobody could possibly want a "culture of death" -- even though some of that "culture of death" is medical research, clearly on the "life" side of the argument if you ask me; etc. etc. He's doing exactly the same trick.

Does Bush Go to Church?
Why doesn't a man with such firm convictions about the power of religious congregations belong to a congregation himself?

Bush (not Dean) is President and has discussed his Christianity and Christian morals very often in his official capacity. He is therefore a much more appropriate subject for this discussion.

Dean's religion is really VISA. We just received a VISA form letter signed by the good doctor...

http://www.iburlington.com/article.php/deanvisa