Why do so many here consider "Utopian" a bad thing?

I realize that the "Christian Utopia" advocated by the Right is icky and all, but if you think about it, our Founders had a utopian vision, too. I'd call them Enlightenment Utopians. I think the Dems would do well to also have a utopian vision of the country that would guide their direction and appeal to people. Everyone who immigrated to America had some kind of utopian dream in coming here. We call it the American dream, but it is no less utopian for that. If we had that, we would at least have a compelling vision that would attract people to our cause.

It seeks to create an ideal Republic, by which men may be free from governmental tyranny and can govern themselves. You cannot live in paradise if you aren't free...else it isn't paradise. And, do you not feel that, for example, the freedom of religion is an "absolute"? We have our own absolutes that are necessary and essential components for our own utopian vision.

In utopia everyone has to come to an agreement or at least an understanding. That has never been achieved even in religion. Utopia is a pipe dream. Except in Vegas...and Canada.

it's an interesting process.

Sometimes people agree to "stand down". I think it beats the heck out of simple voting - more compromise is demanded and a willingness to try to understand others point of view.

Idealism is Utopian, no? Idealism in JFK's time was seen as a glorious way to be. Now it's left wing hippie madness. While the RW have become the Utopians? I don't get it.

They create the illusion that Utopia is under threat. (This also has the virtue of being true, but it obscures the fact that they are the ones who most threaten it...) Thus, they are defenders of Utopia, a christian utopia, whereby the bible is the equivalent of the constitution, just as Sharia law is based on the Koran. This is why they fight over the Ten Commandments. This is why they fight over prayer in school. This is why they fight over "under God" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money. This is why they fight for faith-based initiatives.

from a utopia which realizes natural potentials.

That is a crucial distinction, in my view. Only a fully realized and unbound utopia can constitute a true Utopia.

There can be no utopian society as people are imperfect.

And isn't it possible to have a society that takes into account those imperfections? Our society's principle of accountability is a reflection of this sort of accomodation.

IMHO

I agree it is worth clarifying.

I think most people do to some extent. Like wanting more equality for women & other under-represented groups, health care and economic equilibrium, environmental protection and so on and so forth....

and that the republicans dont believe you can create heaven on earth, earth has to be fire and brimstones first the end of world to be able to have that utopia in heaven

now i am a strong believer in utopia, or heaven on earth. i have created it. i know it can be done. if i can do it, i know all can do it. and it doesnt have to do with perfection, it has all to do with love. being spirit. knowing we are all lite. it cannot be diminished, only if we chose to have the bushel over our lite. allow the bushel to be off, and lite you are. in the lite is the heaven on earth. the trick is to convince others it can be done. the more we do more we have more will get

Utopianism is a dangerous way to see the world. You can't create a utopia, and attempts to do so end up being more harmful than helpful. Hitler wanted to make a "utopian" Aryan nation. Stalin tried to make a "socialist utopia." Bad ideas, both of them, and millions died in the attempt to create what cannot be created. Just watch as the fundies try to make a "christian utopia" out of our country. It's not going to be pleasant.

-Laelth

Utopian visions always fall short of expectations, by design more often than not. To use your immigrant example, many thought our streets were paved with gold and people were free from need or want. When they arrived, I would bet most (particularly the Irish and Italians) were dissappointed and had to struggle to make a living here. While the founding fathers were idealists, they were NOT utopians, they knew the country would be imperfect from the get go. They fought, argued, and spit at each other over this dream called America because, ultimately, they all realized that a utopia is unrealistic. The most they could hope for is a country that wouldn't fall apart within a decade, hence the many compromises put in first the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

If they were such utopians, why put an Amendment process in the Constitution at all?

I'd call them hard-headed realists. The compromises between the fed and anti-feds, big and small states were numerous, but the framers were careful not to repeat the "mistakes" of other governments. That's why they enshrined such a tight balancing of powers (though Marbury may have changed that) and certain checks on the ability of "the people" to affect actual change. One even gets the impression that they were a little paranoid of any one "faction" dominating the others.