Sunday, May 15, 2005
Conservative Democrat
Yo. This is a "real" quiz, by the Pew Research Center for the People & The Press. Consider me nailed. Check it out. :-)
Typology quiz.
My results:
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Socially Conservative Democrats / New Dealers
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats' views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.
DEFINING VALUES: Less extreme on moral beliefs than core Republican groups, but most oppose gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality, and support a more active role for government in protecting morality. No more conservative than the national average on other social issues such as abortion and stem-cell research. Most oppose the war in Iraq, but views of America's overall foreign policy are mixed and they are less opposed to Bush's assertive stance than are other Democratic groups.
Key Beliefs: General Population, Conservative Democrats
It is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good (ethics): 50%, 72%
Most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard: 68%, 82%
We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong: 46%, 49%**
The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt: 57% 59%**
** Figures are notable for being so different from other Democratic groups.
END
Typology quiz.
My results:
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Socially Conservative Democrats / New Dealers
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats' views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.
DEFINING VALUES: Less extreme on moral beliefs than core Republican groups, but most oppose gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality, and support a more active role for government in protecting morality. No more conservative than the national average on other social issues such as abortion and stem-cell research. Most oppose the war in Iraq, but views of America's overall foreign policy are mixed and they are less opposed to Bush's assertive stance than are other Democratic groups.
Key Beliefs: General Population, Conservative Democrats
It is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good (ethics): 50%, 72%
Most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard: 68%, 82%
We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong: 46%, 49%**
The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt: 57% 59%**
** Figures are notable for being so different from other Democratic groups.
END
Comments:
<< Home
Ok, I gotta ask: you, personally, think God is necessary for moral beliefs? And you, personally, think homosexuality is wrong? I ask b/c you said the quiz results "nailed" you...
CORRECTED:
Ah, good questions, B. Perhaps "nailed" was too strong a term. I think I was surprised to see that "Conservative Democrat" was actually on the list. And I have always considered myself a Conservative Dem -- but mostly on defense and foreign relations.
Actually, I am at variance with the God part. I mean, I have my beliefs, but I do not insist that others share them, or that they even have a God belief, to be morally moral.
As for the homosexual thing. Tough to parse. Do I believe it is wrong? Yes, but I do so probably out of habit. It makes me uncomfortable, which has nada to do with right and wrong.
About a Christmas or two ago, I had something of a "come to Jesus" over it, while pondering the Web site of the United Church of Christ -- http://www.stillspeaking.com -- wherein I found myself weeping over a lifetime of arrogance over the subject.
Further, I believe in freedom -- freedom to live life as one sees fit, as long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights -- realizing that we do not have a right not to be made to feel uncomfortable by others' lifestyle choices.
And that's another thing: I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, while same-sex tendencies are a complicated mix of the whole nature-nurture conundrum. Like, genetic, or medical obesity, for example, is one thing; what people do about it, embrace it and celebrate it, or submit to God's grace with it, is another. Same with most everything else.
My tears over that Christmas were born on the sudden realization that the idea that one's sexual orientation, and what one did about it, were more important than any other shortcoming-sin-decision-tendency vis-a-vis God, was bullshit.
Some bottom lines: There is God. I am not He. Jesus saves sinners. All have sinned.
Two things, from the United Church of Christ Web site.
1. A description of their commercial, on TV now and then; this is what made me see my own arrogance:
The first commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. This represents the alienation felt by some persons toward church and religion. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment to Jesus' extravagant welcome: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here.
One of the main lessons of the Bible is that Jesus didn't turn people away. The UCC seeks to be a place in today's world that welcomes all who come through our doors.
2. From the UCC "What We Believe" section:
We believe that all of the baptized ‘belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’ No matter who –- no matter what –- no matter where we are on life’s journey -– notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed -– we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized -– past, present and future -– are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community’s promise of ‘love, support and care’ for the baptized – and we promise that we won’t take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.
Ah, good questions, B. Perhaps "nailed" was too strong a term. I think I was surprised to see that "Conservative Democrat" was actually on the list. And I have always considered myself a Conservative Dem -- but mostly on defense and foreign relations.
Actually, I am at variance with the God part. I mean, I have my beliefs, but I do not insist that others share them, or that they even have a God belief, to be morally moral.
As for the homosexual thing. Tough to parse. Do I believe it is wrong? Yes, but I do so probably out of habit. It makes me uncomfortable, which has nada to do with right and wrong.
About a Christmas or two ago, I had something of a "come to Jesus" over it, while pondering the Web site of the United Church of Christ -- http://www.stillspeaking.com -- wherein I found myself weeping over a lifetime of arrogance over the subject.
Further, I believe in freedom -- freedom to live life as one sees fit, as long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights -- realizing that we do not have a right not to be made to feel uncomfortable by others' lifestyle choices.
And that's another thing: I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, while same-sex tendencies are a complicated mix of the whole nature-nurture conundrum. Like, genetic, or medical obesity, for example, is one thing; what people do about it, embrace it and celebrate it, or submit to God's grace with it, is another. Same with most everything else.
My tears over that Christmas were born on the sudden realization that the idea that one's sexual orientation, and what one did about it, were more important than any other shortcoming-sin-decision-tendency vis-a-vis God, was bullshit.
Some bottom lines: There is God. I am not He. Jesus saves sinners. All have sinned.
Two things, from the United Church of Christ Web site.
1. A description of their commercial, on TV now and then; this is what made me see my own arrogance:
The first commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. This represents the alienation felt by some persons toward church and religion. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment to Jesus' extravagant welcome: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here.
One of the main lessons of the Bible is that Jesus didn't turn people away. The UCC seeks to be a place in today's world that welcomes all who come through our doors.
2. From the UCC "What We Believe" section:
We believe that all of the baptized ‘belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’ No matter who –- no matter what –- no matter where we are on life’s journey -– notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed -– we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized -– past, present and future -– are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community’s promise of ‘love, support and care’ for the baptized – and we promise that we won’t take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.
Yeah, I would've expected your libertarian tendencies to trump religious dogmatism on things like gay rights. And as you say, "discomfort" is neither here nor there--that would be your problem ;)
You've surely already heard this, but the "being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.
See, that's where your conservative belief that people can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps clashes with my more classically liberal belief that individuals are conditioned by social systems...
You've surely already heard this, but the "being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.
See, that's where your conservative belief that people can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps clashes with my more classically liberal belief that individuals are conditioned by social systems...
:-)
Re, ' "the being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.'
Actually, right now, being gay seems to have a certain ... what IS that word ... well, "coolness" about it in some circles. Blue circles. Very blue circles. :-)
And, in those circles, NOTHING that comes out of the current administration or Congress is given much weight. So, so what if the Repubs, then, think gays are pariahs?
But note: I distinguish between "being" and "doing." What I was trying to say was this:
One might have the genetic propensity to alcoholism, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to habitual drunkenness, which is a sin. One might have a genetic propensity to obesity, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to gluttony, which is a sin. One might have a genetic tendency toward insatiable horniness, which is not a sin, and once aware of it, surrender to acting on unbridled lust, which is sin.
And, in my view, one might have a genetic tendency toward homosexuality, which, if genetic, is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to acting on it, which is, according to almost every group of Christians I know of, a sin.
One thing's for sure: If a bunch of drunks, or mean, fat assholes, or militant in-your-face homosexuals, march into any church and demand to not only be accepted but approved of, and allowed in church leadership positions, in spite of what Scripture suggests and what church tradition and corporate interpretation generally say, then there is no humility, no hint of repentance, no sign of self denial -- well, that ain't right.
And now, I am fixin' to answer my genetic addiction to tobacco with a cigar, my predisposition to like a nip now and then -- usually more now than then -- with a little Sunday-afternoon Geo. Dickel Tennessee whiskey, and my unnatural affection for my dogs by headin' to the back yard for a spell to read about huntin' for beaver -- and y'all all just get yer minds out of the gutter. I'm talkin' about the fur trade -- huh-huh, he said "fur" -- of the 19th century. :-) My mind is liable to be even more opener when I return.
Re, ' "the being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.'
Actually, right now, being gay seems to have a certain ... what IS that word ... well, "coolness" about it in some circles. Blue circles. Very blue circles. :-)
And, in those circles, NOTHING that comes out of the current administration or Congress is given much weight. So, so what if the Repubs, then, think gays are pariahs?
But note: I distinguish between "being" and "doing." What I was trying to say was this:
One might have the genetic propensity to alcoholism, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to habitual drunkenness, which is a sin. One might have a genetic propensity to obesity, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to gluttony, which is a sin. One might have a genetic tendency toward insatiable horniness, which is not a sin, and once aware of it, surrender to acting on unbridled lust, which is sin.
And, in my view, one might have a genetic tendency toward homosexuality, which, if genetic, is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to acting on it, which is, according to almost every group of Christians I know of, a sin.
One thing's for sure: If a bunch of drunks, or mean, fat assholes, or militant in-your-face homosexuals, march into any church and demand to not only be accepted but approved of, and allowed in church leadership positions, in spite of what Scripture suggests and what church tradition and corporate interpretation generally say, then there is no humility, no hint of repentance, no sign of self denial -- well, that ain't right.
And now, I am fixin' to answer my genetic addiction to tobacco with a cigar, my predisposition to like a nip now and then -- usually more now than then -- with a little Sunday-afternoon Geo. Dickel Tennessee whiskey, and my unnatural affection for my dogs by headin' to the back yard for a spell to read about huntin' for beaver -- and y'all all just get yer minds out of the gutter. I'm talkin' about the fur trade -- huh-huh, he said "fur" -- of the 19th century. :-) My mind is liable to be even more opener when I return.
Oh, I see.
Well, I disagree about your interpretation of scripture, but as usual, I find comfort in the fact that basically we aren't really that far apart. I would interpret the things you call "sins" less literally--sin, like god, functions best as a metaphor imho--and I'd argue that there's something fundamentally different between alcholism (which is destructive) and having a sex life (which isn't). And I think you vastly overrate the "coolness" of being gay; even among liberals, gay men and lesbians are often subject to discrimination that the rest of us don't have to put up with. But basically, yeah; if you want to think of drinking, or sex, or smoking, or whatever, as "sinful"--in the context of an acknowledgment that we're all sinful, of course ('course, I would say, it just means we're all human--w/out the sort of Miltonic sense that "human" necessarily means "fallen," either). I'm on board with the idea that hey, people do shit we think they oughtn't, but then we do shit they think we oughtn't, so a certain level of minding-our-own-business is called for.
'Course I can't refrain from pointing out that there seem to be a lot of mean, fat assholes running churches nowadays.
Well, I disagree about your interpretation of scripture, but as usual, I find comfort in the fact that basically we aren't really that far apart. I would interpret the things you call "sins" less literally--sin, like god, functions best as a metaphor imho--and I'd argue that there's something fundamentally different between alcholism (which is destructive) and having a sex life (which isn't). And I think you vastly overrate the "coolness" of being gay; even among liberals, gay men and lesbians are often subject to discrimination that the rest of us don't have to put up with. But basically, yeah; if you want to think of drinking, or sex, or smoking, or whatever, as "sinful"--in the context of an acknowledgment that we're all sinful, of course ('course, I would say, it just means we're all human--w/out the sort of Miltonic sense that "human" necessarily means "fallen," either). I'm on board with the idea that hey, people do shit we think they oughtn't, but then we do shit they think we oughtn't, so a certain level of minding-our-own-business is called for.
'Course I can't refrain from pointing out that there seem to be a lot of mean, fat assholes running churches nowadays.
And on this we definitely agree: " 'Course I can't refrain from pointing out that there seem to be a lot of mean, fat assholes running churches nowadays. "
:-)
Hey, I don't like-admire-support-read ya 'coz I agree with ya alla time. I do so 'coz yer intelligent, expressive and honest.
;-)
:-)
Hey, I don't like-admire-support-read ya 'coz I agree with ya alla time. I do so 'coz yer intelligent, expressive and honest.
;-)
Ha!
All I ask of yerself is: Can I really see what I think and do as "prescious in His sight"? We all see thru as glass darkly. Ergo, we all stumble thru the best we can.
And, hardly anything B and I were discussin' had much to do directly with public policy. :-) He said, begging the question ...
All I ask of yerself is: Can I really see what I think and do as "prescious in His sight"? We all see thru as glass darkly. Ergo, we all stumble thru the best we can.
And, hardly anything B and I were discussin' had much to do directly with public policy. :-) He said, begging the question ...
I was tempted to delete that last comment, Nick, but you self-described as a "fat asshole," so, it stands. (Gaveling).
I’m not sure I like this one; some of the choices were too black and white.
For instance; one said either the government should help poor people at all cost or that the government couldn’t afford to help poor people. I picked somewhat agree with do more but that's only because there wasn't a legitimate answer such as; the government does plenty for poor people but it shouldn't do less, and the government cant afford to continue helping the rich, and their major multibillion dollar corporations. That and illegitimate wars are what the government can't afford to do.
The immigration questions are bullshit too. Anyways here is what group it put me in:
Liberal
59% Democrat, 40% Ind. and 1% Rep.
For instance; one said either the government should help poor people at all cost or that the government couldn’t afford to help poor people. I picked somewhat agree with do more but that's only because there wasn't a legitimate answer such as; the government does plenty for poor people but it shouldn't do less, and the government cant afford to continue helping the rich, and their major multibillion dollar corporations. That and illegitimate wars are what the government can't afford to do.
The immigration questions are bullshit too. Anyways here is what group it put me in:
Liberal
59% Democrat, 40% Ind. and 1% Rep.
To jump into another discussion:
Fat people are fat for a reason, they may have inherited it from their parents but they didn't get it from their genes, they got form their recipe book. If you eat fast food 10x a week and 3 plates sausage gravy and biscuits every morning for breakfast you are choosing to be fat.
I would say most gay people, especially gay women, were born gay, I think some were made gay by childhood abuse and trauma and I think some are just horn dogs who will fuck anything, and therefore are gay or bi by choice.
Transvestites are that way by choice. These people are crazy and shouldn't even be included in the discussion; if you were born a man, you’re a man period. Just because I go and put an Easter Bunny outfit on doesn't mean I am the Easter Bunny, and no one should be forced to treat me as such. Just because W wears a cowboy costume doesn't mean he's really a cowboy.
Post a Comment
Fat people are fat for a reason, they may have inherited it from their parents but they didn't get it from their genes, they got form their recipe book. If you eat fast food 10x a week and 3 plates sausage gravy and biscuits every morning for breakfast you are choosing to be fat.
I would say most gay people, especially gay women, were born gay, I think some were made gay by childhood abuse and trauma and I think some are just horn dogs who will fuck anything, and therefore are gay or bi by choice.
Transvestites are that way by choice. These people are crazy and shouldn't even be included in the discussion; if you were born a man, you’re a man period. Just because I go and put an Easter Bunny outfit on doesn't mean I am the Easter Bunny, and no one should be forced to treat me as such. Just because W wears a cowboy costume doesn't mean he's really a cowboy.
<< Home
