I must say. I thought as I came to this site (some how I got here looking for the matrix theme...) that I would just find a large amount of disgruntled morons disrespecting a religion.
I was very wrong.
As I read on I find that all of you seem to be average people with good sound ideas. I am a Catholic by definition and I would send that ten dollars in if I had a PayPal account. I obviously do not, but I must say otherwise I support your site.
While it goes against what I believe, you do show good support for your ideals and you stand by them when others challenge you, and I find that a rare as well as noble trait. I find it funny how people like you ex-Christians, atheists, and other no-god etc. groups stand by your ideas more than those who support a god.
Well, in conclusion, thank you for taking the time to read this and good luck with the site.
joseph c
These letters were published between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, go to The Main Blog at ExChristian.Net
3 comments:
test
I made a mistake in my post on socialism above.
I'd recently found out that in English, socialism means the same as communism (hence the 'S' in the former communist country USSR). What I actually meant was the Dutch word 'socialisme' which has a similar meaning to what Labour parties in the UK and elsewhere stand for. I was determined to find my old post again and correct my embarrassing error, in the off-chance anyone took me serious.
When I suggested that instead of communism people in South America could consider 'socialism', I was of course attempting to refer to the form of governance that they have in the Netherlands (which isn't communist at all). Although Netherlands is a monarchy with its own Royal family, it's also a democracy whose laws are based on "Labour party" type laws, hence the high taxes but also low occurrence of poverty. Its government is based on "socialistische" principles, which in Dutch is considered different from communism. I thought a direct translation would be accurate, but I guess I was wrong.
Hello Heavey Feather, hope the holiday season is treating you well... Just an observation with socio-political analysis, many times our governments are mixed on their balances of competing philosophies... in short, there are no "absolutes", and thus it is governmental structures...
Socialism is seen differently by the one perceiving the term... some, uh, non-democratic nations (not that I am making a political rally), believe that Socialism is nothing but a transitory phase of social development between capitalism and communism... not that I delve into depth on Marxist philosophy, but, he did believe in the Hegelian historical model, that social governments swing on a pendulum, and socialism is the gravitating center... From my experience, the Chinese, at least the more educated, would argue on the same point and state that many nations will eventually slide from an "absolute" capitalist political structure, to a "socialist" structure...
I tend to smile, however, as, there are thresholds set in each of our minds, on what triggers us to call a government socialist as opposed to capitalist or communist... The U.S. has attributes that could be argued are "socialist", in specific "markets" or governmental aspects, however, I would still say that the U.S. is based on a capitalistic model, that don't have enough socialistic attributes to warrant a changing of the entire structural name... And of course, talking to someone who wants their Hegelian philosophy to ring true, will state, that the U.S. will eventually, and continually, slide and gravitate to pure socialism...
Of course, this is contra to major philosophers of their day...
"Since one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism, the majority of socialism's opponents have been advocates of capitalism - most often, advocates of "pure" or laissez-faire capitalism. They include liberals, conservatives and libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Joshua Muravchik, to name a few."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I don't advocate a political philosophy, but I do see patterns... and typically, those who vie for a specific position, do so, from a "needs" point of view, and typically from a "national" needs point of view... I suppose if one wanted to look at global political structure, which is a taboo topic among many people... one could look at governmental structures and see which one is best for the majority... unfortunately, I have found there to be "no" absolutes, and therefore, am not naieve enough to believe that any one political structure can take care of "everyone", as there are competing views on what the purpose of government should be to begin with for many people...
Anyway, its been good to hear from you... take care...
Post a Comment