Doug,

(I have not participated at all in any of the UT discussions about the election, religion, moral high-ground, etc., so if there are some points of the discussion that throw back to those threads, I will probably be missing them...)

>Nothing wrong with liberalism that a little whack on the side of the head won't fix. <g> I'm kidding of course, but many a liberal has become more conservative after being mugged. <g>

Yes, though one could say that many a conservative has probably at least been partially "liberalized" by seeing some "conservative" atrocities as well (witnessing atrocious crimes based on sexual orientation or racism, etc.). Now, I am NOT saying that only conservatives hurt others based on race, etc. On the contrary, the radical ends of any belief system usually do the most damage, including radical lubs and radical conservatives. What I am saying is that individuals go through transformations every day, some in one direction, and some in another.

>Still, IMO you put your finger exactly on the point I have been after - that is, does one's moral authority derive from one's positions or, as I believe, does one's authority derive from one's moral positions.

I am not sure what you mean by "authority", "moral authority", "positions", or "moral positions"...like I said, I just finally jumped into one of these threads. *smile*

As far as I am concerned, if you do believe in God, then it is likely you also believe that only God has true "moral authority". No human has the authority to tell me (or anyone else) what to do based on "moral authority", since all humans all fallible. Now, if you don't believe in God, then moral authority shouldn't really be an issue with you. I am a very moral person, but don't necessarily believe in God (you can pick on the semantics of that if you wish, but I do believe one can be moral, spiritual, whatever without believing one iota in an Almighty). I do not believe I have any authority over anyone else...and noone has authority over me (that's the part I like). *smile*

>Seems to me the 'bad' part of today's liberal positions is exactly this: Having rejected God they now set themselves up as moral authroities - little gods. Don't dare question them or they will, to use an Islamic term, call for a jihad against you.

What about liberals who haven't rejected God? Are you saying that all liberals are agnostic or atheist? I could go on, but until this point is clarified, I am not sure I can correctly interpret the rest of what you have said...might just be a matter of clearing up some definitions so we get on common ground.

As far as not allowing others to question -- that is simple a matter of tolerance. There are intolerant liberals and intolerant conservatives. Some people are intolerant in a quiet, judging, smug way, while others are more vociferous in their slamming of the opposition. If ANYONE displays intolerance by harming someone else, then that person is wrong regardless of any political, religious, or any other belief.

>Why, you could be a serial liar, perjurer, adulterer, and who knows what else but if you hold liberl positions they will support you. Why? Because you worship at the alter of liberal faith.

Most liberals I know would support the aforementioned person's right to free speech and pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't mean they endorse that persons morality or lifestyle. There's a difference between tolerance and endorsement.

>My dad was a Democrat and today's Democratic Party is not my dad's party - that's for sure.

I wouldn't know. My father was nothing, as am I.

>Does man change from the inside out or the outside in? Communism, for example, attempts to change man from the outside in. So does Socialism and IMO much of what is attempting to pass itself off as 'compassionate liberalism'. Well, actually the word 'compassionate' is really never used since only a dolt (in their minds) would presume to question whether their positions are indeed compassionate. That is also why they (the liberals) went ballistic when GW started using the phrase 'compassionate conservative'.

OK, am I wrong to think that when you are talking about "they", and "their", etc, you are talking about the fairly far-left liberal folks? I know a LOT of liberals (or conservatives with liberal viewpoints, or conservative liberals, or liberal conservatives...I get confused when it comes to labels, since they so rarely adequately describe the gloriousness of a human individual), and those I know are very "level-headed". They dislike the radical liberals who would take away the rights of far-right folk in the same way that they dislike "conservatives" who kill abortion doctors. Fanatics and radicals are disliked by the moderate portions of both viewpoints.

>I think men should demonstrate compassion towards their fellow man but the minute it becomes forced it ceases to be compassion. You cannot force caring from another human being; you must lead by example and it's been a long time since I've seen a rich liberal like Teddy Kennedy give his millions away. Usually they want to give my money away.

I agree with your compassion statements. I have no idea about the compassion of Ted Kennedy or anyone else. I don't care how or if anyone else shows compassion -- I am too busy trying to make sure I am not being a closed-minded, selfish buffoon. *smile*

>I would also be quite offended is they picketed because Mr. Lieberman was Jewish. That's disgusting. Same for any other group or faith. I live here in LDS (Mormon) country and while I'm not one and have some largish differences with some of their religious tenents I get along fine with them as I don't try and cram those differences on them - not that I'm afraid to but I understand I cannot in my own power change their hearts.

I totally agree with everything you say here. Your comments have always sounded as if you are a very tolerant person. And I would never confuse tolerance with being "afraid", but thanks for the clarification...

>But I reserve my right to speak my position as well as accepting their right to be wrong. <g>

Sweetness.

>IOW, disagree but do so with a clear eye towards human nature. This is the issue - who's view of human nature is more accurate?

Hm, not much to say here. I firmly believe that even once I have lived my entire life through I will not truly know any more about human nature than I do now (I am 29). I will _think_ I know more, but that will actually just get in the way of any sort of enlightenment/clarity I hope to achieve...

Thanks for the thoughts and observations! Cool thread!

JoeK