"Personal Beliefs"

I re-watched the former Miss California speech at the values summit and I must say as a society we have become quite obsessed with our "personal beliefs."

Personally, I think marriage as an institution is stupid. Personally the idea of committing myself to one person and comingling all my assets (and debts) to the point if the other person and I can't stand each other it requires a legal professional to unwind the transaction at a lot of cost both emotionally and financially to both parties. That is my personal belief.

Some people have a "personal belief" in a diety. I count myself in that category. However, just because I have faith without scientific evidence doesn't mean that my "personal belief" trumps others who do not believe in a diety, the diety I believe in, or worship the diety I believe in, in a different way. Nor does it mean the mythology surrounding my chosen religion should be taught to school children outside of a sociological class on world religions.

We need to get away from some of this cultural of "Personal Beliefs" and back into a culture of evidence and freedom of the individual (mostly from othe people's personal beliefs). When framing debates we need to discuss things as they benefit or are a detriment to society as a whole not just my, yours, or anyone elses personal opinion about them.

I don't know, maybe we all just seem a little self obsessed. Just because I hate the idea of marriage and believe in God, doesn't mean I should demand an end in marriage and forced conversions. Which is what I equate the other side. They want freedom from the things society should determine as a whole and want to impose rules on people's personal decisions.

:shrug:

I'm glad to know I am not the only person who cannot understand why people get married

and after seeing how quickly that unraveled before my eyes, the entire marriage thing got put into more question.

Just seemed like a very risky proposition to be making a bet that the me of 10 years from now, would like the person I was with now in 10 years and even if I do, why do I need a contract to prevent either one of us from finding happiness if we are miserable.

I still have plenty of dates! :D

with you having your personal beliefs, they may totally differ from mine but thats why they are your personal beliefs. Also be aware that these personal beliefs are what we carry into the voting booth so they will always effect the political process..

I'm not out lobbying to end marriage because I think it is stupid or force people to believe in God. Those are personal decisions.

I will lobby on societal things like Healthcare, clean water, etc. because those are shared decisions we have to make as a society.

i was excoriated on DU for not allowing my kids to watch the presidentail speech at school, when i stated that it was my wife and i's decision there were all sorts of accusations flying around, i think that as humans we all believe that even though other people are entitled to their beliefs that if they are not the same as ours then they are wrong or just dumb..

I think you will be hard pressed to find someone on DU that does not respect your right TO believe something. But when you publicly air your belief, you must expect criticism of that belief, especially if it is unreasonable or not grounded in reality. What was your reason for not allowing your kids to watch the President speak? Was it based on fact? Was it grounded in reality? Was it rational?

You have every right to believe whatever you want, and I respect your right to do so, but I am NOT required to respect WHAT you believe.

Do you notice that many of us on this side of the aisle just want everyone to decide for themselves and not to push our beliefs on others, but also not to be told what we should believe either. and somehow by doing that these people think WE are pushing our beliefs on them. If someone wants to believe in god, then fine... you go ahead and knock yourself out. If you want to believe that women should be home raising the kids... well that's fine for you. But don't try to inflict that on me!! Whatever happened to that old freedom?? the one these folks keep claiming. They don't believe in freedom... they believe that they are the only ones with the right answers and therefore that should be the rule.... but that is not how this country was set up. our founding fathers specifically set this system up to avoid that crap.... because otherwise the religion changes with the leader. which seems fine for some folks as long as they can control who the leader is and what they believe.... and is probably why they are freaking out now because they are not the majority anymore. so the only way they can win is by scare tactics and keeping people from voting.

They seem to have a lot of interest in people's personal decisions that in the end really don't effect society as a whole that much and very little interest in societal decisions.

innocent of pushing personal beliefs onto others? Social Security, Medicare, public-option, single-payer, ALL are based on personal beliefs.
The problem isn't that people don't know that pushing personal beliefs onto others is wrong, the problem is that they think its ok to push personal beliefs onto others when those personal beliefs support their own.

"Social Security, Medicare, public-option, single-payer, ALL are based on personal beliefs."

No they are not. Social Security and Medicare are ACTUAL programs, not personal beliefs. Public Option and Single Payer are INFORMED OPINIONS ANS SOLUTIONS to the growing problem of healthcare costs and the plights of the un- and under- insured.

Of course they are ACTUAL programs, but they came about from opinions and possible solutions based on personal beliefs, in order to achieve a certain goal.
Why would one care about the "plights" of the un and under insured if they didn't personally believe they should be helped? Why does a group have to use govt to mandate that people support and do as they say? Because not everybody shares their personal beliefs.

these ideas started as personal beliefs, but have since transcended into reality based, group minded ideas that WORK! Most personal beliefs do not make it to that stage, because most personal beliefs are not real. There is a difference between "belief" and "knowledge" and while we can debate the semantics, I think you know what I am getting at, so please do not be obtuse about it.

they are still based on personal beliefs and have only "transcended into reality based, group minded ideas that work" because they reach, or could reach, the desired outcome that agrees with your personal beliefs. ALL personal beliefs are real and your statement that "most personal beliefs are not real" is ridiculous. Would it be wrong to guess that these personal beliefs you believe are not real are also ones you disagree with?

Its not semantics and I am not being obtuse about anything. The fact is that nobody has any problem with pushing personal beliefs onto others as long as they agree with those beliefs.

personal beliefs are things like.... abortion should be illegal because i personally am against it. as opposed to pro choice who believe that the choice should be there and that you should make the choice for yourself. they should pray in school because i believe it.... when i believe that you are free to pray in your church or home, and that school is for learning.... this is not the same as social issues like social security, medicare or a public option. you are not required to participate in medicare, social security or the public option. you do pay into the system, but nothing is requiring you to take it or use it.

but since they are not one sided as your examples imply, I can see why you refuse to see so.

Social issues are things which are most affected by personal beliefs and yes, if you are paying into them, you are participating in them whether you use their services or not. More than likely though, the money you pay into them prevents you from avoiding using them.

Would you mind telling me why we have social security and medicare? Why some people want a public option?

--imm :shrug:

:shrug:

--imm

Fractured. Balkan principalities. Italian city-states.

--imm

To a certain extent all legislation is based on the personal beliefs of the lawmakers involved and no person is going to agree 100% with every law passed. Unless one supports abolishing government completely, one has to live with this fact.

Excellent piece

What eternal truths are you referring to?

Atkins', South Beach, low-carb, Weight Watchers - I've tried them all. Its personal, yes but societal pressure can make us all a bit diety.

I can't spell and my grammar is shit. I'm slowly working on it.

I'm a brilliant public speaker believe it or not.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

They want freedom from the things society should determine as a whole and want to impose rules on people's personal decisions.

There was a book called The Middle Church that has this a part of the premise. That religious fundys are more concerned with personal morality; abortion, homosexuality, etc and ignore larger societal issues like poverty.

seemed more concerned about the opposite.

<EOM>

The troubles our country faces today is in large part due to these "things" society believes it should determine as a whole and it is society that imposes rules on people's personal decisions in order to obtain these "things." These "things" themselves are nothing but personal beliefs, and support for these "things" is based entirely on one's personal belief on the issue. People today are doing nothing more than grouping up and imposing their own personal beliefs onto others in the name of society.

Makes me glad I'm single! :hi:

:applause: :applause:

that's the thing, see, they think they speak the 'truth' and personal belief doesn't even enter into their little minds. Here's Prejean's comment: Thursday at the Family Research Council's "Values Voters Summit" in which she repeatedly invoked God, saying her answer on gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant "was a moment to stick up for Him and for the truth."


Read more at: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:aWYmtBTsevQJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/carrie-prejean-miss-calif_n_293338.html+carrie+prejean+value+voters+truth&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

To wage his wars.

I could be wrong.

Just letting my inner Carlin out.... carry on.

If you ask me. Some were taught, some are picked up by observation.

Most of the ones taught are mot based in reality. Observational learning is something based in fact.

Called Four Agreements the author basically says that a lot of how we are is the result of training from others, who are trained themselves

a certificate of insurability and that's about all I will say about that. I agree about marriage as a whole. I see it as one more mixture of church and state and something that unfairly grants rights to a certain segment of the population and ergo, deny those same rights to others. But I support anyone who desires marriage for themselves.

as if one person's faith (noun) is greater of lesser or more correct than another "faith".

Some are actually delusions.

:sarcasm:

but (the ubiquitous 'but') my wife and I have been married 17 years, and I can't imagine living any other way. If you feel so strongly about a person that you will marry them, why wouldn't you share everything? I think a lot of people get married and still think "I" alot. There is no I, there's only "We", and it's Us against the world. No separate bank accounts, no my space/your space, my friends/your friends, you have to go into a marriage thinking only of Us.
I think a lot of people (and this is just a 'personal belief') who are anti-marriage just haven't met the right person, or, dare I say it, are too selfish to share their lives.
Flame on!

Was never more sure of anything in my life. If I could be absolutely wrong about one person my conclusion is I can be wrong in the future and the marriage thing is an extreme risk.

It isn't a matter of selfishness as in that I've grown a lot in 3 years and the person that I proposed to in 2006 I would not even be that interested in 2009. Therefore, I don't see it is a good idea to put legal parameters in a relationship. I'd rather have the freedom for either party just to leave.

"They want freedom from the things society should determine as a whole and want to impose rules on people's personal decisions."

And that is the argument, the line in the sand that is forever changing, forever debated, forever fought over with passion, and will be as long as people ever live in a society.

The collection of personal beliefs of society, and the bargaining and debate on what common rules we use to interact and live with each other on every level.

The important part to me, is making sure we keep the best process possible that allows our society to engage in the debate and come to a reasonable set of rules and expectations and that the process allows for the constant review and constant debate and evolution of those rules and expectations.

Looking back at the changes our country has gone through, the evolution of our society vs other societies past and present, I don't think our process as ugly and crass as it can be at times, or as slow as it may move at times, is all that bad.

substitute the phrase "I'm a bigot, and here's why".

Blame it on the sophistry of Postmodernist "philosophers" and the people on both Right and Left who are their suckers.

There are some that seem to think that if I say the sky is blue and somebody else says that the sky is green that they are both "equally valid opinions" and that to the other person the sky really is green. No, the sky is NOT green no matter what the other person says, I am right, the other person needs to get his FACTS straight. This mentality is obvious in the MSM.

That may be an uncomfortable truth, but is the truth

Thank you very much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but seek to insulate themselves from criticism for it. So they try to make assholish statement syntactically similar to liking/disliking, say, pizza.

Very refreshing...

Thanks...