Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Allen Zadr's Journal: The Politics that I need... 41

Journal by Allen Zadr
I need a political platform that represents me.

This may sound really stupid to many. After-all, with all these political parties (though few are major), everyone's individual beliefs should be covered...right? Such a party wasn't on Minnesota's ballot.

So which is the party that believes:

  • The constitution need not be amended to limit rights, only to protect more rights.
  • The government programs we currently have are mostly a good thing. They don't need sweeping reductions but, they don't need funds that grow more than 1 - 3% faster than inflation.
  • Religion is great. I believe that at least five religions should be taught in school through social sciences. I believe that at least three of those should be non-Christian. I equally believe that your local school board can deal with the details and timelines. If your school buys new books every 10 years, so be it.
  • Science is great. I believe that Creation, Darwinism, and the Hybrid of the two should all be taught as reasonable hypothesis. With no significance given to any Science vs. Religion arguments. I trust that your local school board can deal with the details, timelines, etc.
  • I believe that any laws primary purpose should be to protect the rights of others. I believe that Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness are primary, and trump other rights. Including the god-given right to be stupid.
  • I believe that an unborn child cannot live without it's mother. I do not believe that the unborn's right to live trumps the mother's. Further, I believe that your county or state Medical boards are best suited to make all other determinations.
  • I believe that any law that specifically outlaws a 'how', as opposed to outlawing a result needs review and possible repeal. [Most copyright laws are like this. For example, I believe that broadcasting and digital sharing are equivalent, but no law should use either term, as both terms are automatically 'dated'. Similarly, it is illegal to cause somebody to die. A new law need not be created when each new type of weapon is devised - the law is based on the result.
  • I believe that any law that makes it's way into a joke book, or list of stupid laws is an embarrassment to the whole country, and should be actively repealed, or amended (Note, as above, most such laws limit specific technologies, although because a few violate Life, Liberty or the Persuit of Happiness, I figure this should be it's own point).

Anyway, if you know of a political party that follows the simple guidelines above, let me know who they are, and where they're headquartered. I need to join.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Politics that I need... More

The Politics that I need...

Comments Filter:
  • Science is great. I believe that Creation, Darwinism, and the Hybrid of the two should all be taught as reasonable hypothesis.

    Including at public schools paid for with tax dollars? Last I heard there wasn't any viable scientific proof that God said "Poof, let there be animals". Don't get me wrong, if people want to learn that in bible class that is great, but not in a science class with my tax dollars. Just like I don't want any number of native american creation myths (people came out of a hole in the gr

    • Re:Creationism? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) *
      See, there's always a split. The whole idea, for me, is allow them all. Individual school boards and states can set the specific guidelines. Why should federal mandate tell a school what they CAN'T teach. That's why I'd rather see them all get covered.

      I stretch my mind far enough that I've yet to see proof against it, even though there is evidence to the other points of view, science is always expanding, and there are plenty of unknowns. Yes, it's a craggy road, but I'd rather see it all taught as var

      • Nice in theory, but I'm seeing a bunch of schools in the South burning their textbooks when all of a sudden the concept of the earth being created by Goddess or Brahma and Vishnu shows up in their textbooks.

        Come to think of it, Fahrenheit 451 might not be that far off.

        • Seems doubtful to me, as I'd bet the Theory of Evolution is being taught these days as if it were practically a law, and they're not burning them now. Seems more like instead you'd have a whole lot of smoke rising from the North if Creationism ever showed up, even in passing, in a textbook there.
        • The fastest growing population in Georgia is Middle Eastern. Being a former-southerner, who lives in the North, I can assure you that tolerance is an equal issue everywhere.

          Tolerance is easy in Minnesota where the whole state is 89.7% [census.gov] white. So, in a way, I don't think the folks around here have really had to deal with many multi-culteral issues yet. Certainly, telling a state full of Lutherans that their children will be required to learn about how the world was created by a leviathon may strike some o

    • One small problem with this might be that some/many people, of which I am one, consider certain parts of "science" to be religion, in that they're hypotheses, as Allen Zadr pointed out. That is, on the basis of lacking definitive proof, and lack of observability/reproducibility, Evolution and Creationism are equally interesting theories, and no more. To me religion, essentially, is believing in something you can't prove.
      • That is, on the basis of lacking definitive proof, and lack of observability/reproducibility, Evolution and Creationism are equally interesting theories, and no more.

        No - evolution is a scientific theory (which means that it is backed up with evidence; saying something is "a theory and no more" doesn't make sense, since there isn't anything "better" than a theory in science), but creationism most definitely is not.

        I wouldn't even call creationism a hypothesis (it doesn't fit the facts, and it's non-falsi

        • Re:Creationism? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) *
          Excellent, a 'conjecture' then. Still, I'd rather see it as one of the many things taught.

          Basically, like the difference between non-smokers, and those whom have never smoked... I find it a little odd when someone is overly offended by creationism. Non-smokers are usually far more offended by smoke than those whom have never smoked. Those disillusioned by religion are often the most offended by it's teachings. Exceptions either way are present, but offense is not necessary.

          Either way, because this is

          • Teaching creationism as conjecture ("this is an idea that some people believe") wouldn't be so bad, it's the idea of teaching it as a scientific theory that I strongly object to. Even then, I feel the teaching of non-scientific ideas which people believe is better suited to Religious Education lessons rather than science lessons.

            I find it a little odd when someone is overly offended by creationism.

            I object to teaching incorrect things in science lessons (since, no matter how many people choose to believ
            • It's been pointed out before, but the scientific method was created by a Christian "believer". The two can happily co-exist.
              • Sure they can.. but that doesn't mean that creationism is done according to the scientific method. Saying in one lesson what a theory is, and then contradicting that in the next lesson by teaching creationism as a theory is only going to confuse students.
                • As I pointed out four posts above, I don't care if it's taught as conjecture, idea, theory or law.

                  From a political standpoint, I think it would be important for you to be able to suggest that to your school board. Perhaps your local district may come up with a way of teaching it as a scientific history lesson.

                  Read this article [religioustolerance.org]. You may find it informative.

        • I guess your intent on prepending the word "scientific" to the word "theory" is supposed to make it sound like less of a theory.

          I can't help but think you're being dishonest with me -- I would've assumed that you must know that "law" trumps "theory", as in the difference of suredness between the Big Bang Theory and the Law of Gravity. The latter I can reproduce and observe right now. The former, and the Theory of Evolution*, I cannot.

          Also note that there are Christians that claim that there's evidence for C

          • But a theory doesn't become a law.

            By your logic, it should be "law of relativity" and "quantum laws", but by far the most common term is "theory of relativity" and "quantum theory". And indeed, I hear "theory of gravity" far more often than "law of gravity".

            From what I can tell, there appear to be two answers for the difference between a theory and a law. The first answer is that there is no difference, and it's just a matter of preference which people use (eg, that gravity is referred to both as a theory
  • First, I want to say my reaction to this was what an interesting and refreshing list of ideas.

    The constitution need not be ammended to limit rights, only to protect more rights.

    I agree that in general it's good to keep in mind when thinking about tinkering with the Constitution that its purpose was generally to enumerate our (God-given) rights that govt. may not trample. But I think it's also important to note that part of its purpose and our govt.'s foundation is to protect a minority from the tyranny o

    • Did you mean that, or that most govt. programs are a good thing? Do you think all of them are mostly a good thing?

      I believe both. I compare most government programs in a similar light to the way I view the current military operations in Iraq. Regardless of the original reasons for any program, dependancies on it have been created where it would be detrimental to large groups of people if eliminated. So, I think they are resources to be used, and as such are good things. That said, I'm not against tw

      • (Agree completely with your thoughts on govt. programs.)

        I think it's unfortunate that I can be hated for my views. I disagreed with some things about Bush, and some things about Kerry, but I don't hate either guy. My sister is 100.0% pro-choice (i.e. the definition of "extremist"), and I don't hate her. I assume, like I, other people are generally reasonable and have arrived at their positions through careful thought and consideration. While I may think their logic is faulty, it's nothing worthy of hate.

        On

        • First, I need to clarify that I don't hate you for your views. It's just a given, just as many 100% Pro-Lifers would be willing to shoot me for my views.

          Now onto your first point... I am certainly not 100% in either direction. Primarily, I'm a realist. If a woman is 100% convinced to remove a fetus, safe or no, she will find a way to do so. Before abortion was 'common' (I say this word carefully), many women died trying to execute. Secondarily, I'm a man, and as such - I don't dare think I could fat

  • Do you feel that there are two or more christian religeons? I thought christians were all part of the christian religeon, despite the internal variation.
    • Yes and no. There are disperate bounds of christianity, including Adventists, Witnesses, Dividians besides the more relatively 'popular' Christian religions.

      Without said clarification, it would be quite possible that many schools would choose to cover four Christian along with the Jewish religion, ignoring all others. This would not be my intent of said requirement.

  • Obviously pedantic, but the word is amend...one m [reference.com]. Just something that annoyed me as I read.
  • evolutions a fact, theres no believing in it or not, theres scientific proof.

    i mean its simple idea, that things which are accidentaly have better traits will survive better on a scale of INCREDIBLY long periods of time.

    its evolutionary theory, not evolutionary hypothesis, maybe it was radical in its time, but not today.

    and its independent from any religious notion of things. anyone who thinks that evolutionary theory conflicts with religion is missing the point of both of them.
  • I like your emphasis on local government. Alexis de Tocqueville, who IMO is the best political theorist in history, said that local government keeps people interested and active in government. With higher-level government, everyone either doesn't care, or agitates for taking money or rights from other groups and giving to themselves.
    • Subsiderity is the principle you are looking for here. Governence is best performed by the nearest authority be it family, municipal, state, or federal. De Tocqueville oversimplified to say the least and was confused about a number of things. Focusing here on the earlier discussion we must realize we live in a Lockean state and that is the framework we are working in. The tyranny of the majority is an expected and inevitable outcome of this type of system (IMHO I would argue we are experiancing that right n
      • ... why not the United States?

        Because we are 1) the richest nation in the world; 2) the host country of the world leader in software.

        I happen to believe that the US would be much more interested in Open Source if Microsoft had been a German* venture.

        *Use of Germany here is an example, and was chosen only because it's a country that is also powerful in the software market.

  • Does that include non-Christian accounts of Creation?
    • I would point out that I would not mean (within the context of Science) to emphasize ANY 'story' along with the idea that 'a presence or being higher than humans could have created the world.' (Please help if you feel you can better non-demoninate the above statement).

      Individual creation stories are a social-sciences venture which could be covered along with study of religions, or separately. Even here, I place emphasis on allowing the individual states to work out the specifics.

      Along with my other posts

  • I have read your account of politics that you're looking for with great interest.

    It seems that you might have many things in common with the Libertarian party (or at least libertarianism in general).

    What thoughts do you have about libertarianism, in terms of any objections or agreements you may find with your own philosophy?

    Thanks for answering, I look forward to speaking with you further.

    • Honestly, I will admit to having too many socialist views to be a proper Libertarian. Michael Badnarik had some radical ideas that he was trying to push. Far too reconstructive for me.

      I'd say that I'm a constitutional Libertarian, a Fiscal conservative, and a social liberal (but not 100% any of those things).

      I'm very sensitive about the complexity of the government as it currently stands. Going in and chopping things up, or even claiming that this is the plan - is very short sighted.

      First and foremost

      • "I support the ACLU, I support the Second Ammendment, and I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive".

        It's too bad things are so polarized, that I really think such a person would have no chance against (or within one of) the two major parties. I blame it to a large degree on the media, things like talk radio, where the host's job is to basically inflame things and provoke reactions and callers, and their TV counterparts, of the CNN Crossfire genre, where only extremists from each side are invited to

        • Social Security falls into the general category of current government programs. People rely on Social Security, so until that is no longer the case, it needs to remain.

          Any meaningful reform of Social Security would have to take place over 40 or more years. So that those whom are locked into Social Security as a safety net can keep it.

          It's biggest issue is that it's very similar to a pyramid scheme in it's current layout. It will require a large bail-out before it can be reorganized into whatever suitab

  • It looks as though you have many of the same beliefs as the classic liberals or more modern libertarians (small l). Sorry to say but the closest party that represents those beliefs is the Libertarian Party (big L). I agree that the LP has some rather extreme views on certain things, but as the closest party to my personal beliefs I would rather work from within the party to make it more representative of me than of a bunch of very vocal extremists (many of whom don't vote anyway). If you want to see a mo

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close