Why can't some people get it into their heads that progress and values are not mutually exclusive?

Question

All over the place I see two sides, those who want to revert to the "old days" which are highly traditional and those on the opposite end who want progress but seem to think that means throwing away everything that was good about the old days. Below I will list a number of things that I think would actually help society progress and preserve the values of the old world, for each tell me if you agree or disagree and why and list your faith or lack thereof in the sources.

1. Instead of forcing institutions to but insurance with government mandated coverage create a public health-insurence option

2. Cut off all funding of fluff projects such as the bridge to nowhere or the (you guessed it) video game museum

3. Cancel NATO and bring back tariffs on import goods

4. redirect fluff project funding to fund adoption and foster-care reform

5. Make comprehensive Sex Ed Mandatory in every middle and high school in the country, teach birth-control along side of abstinence not one or the other

6. LBGT couples be given all government rights afforded to those married before the state but leave the acceptance of such unions up to religious institutions to decide for themselves

7. ALL charitable institutions given tax exemption regardless of ideology and all non-charitable institutions be stripped of it.

8. Ban elective abortions beyond the first trimester (it's a start)

9. Divorce limited to cases of infidelity and/or abuse as determined by a judge in a court of law

Answer 1

It seems that your values have not progressed beyond the Ice Age.

Answer 2

Every single solution you propose brings up multiple other problems.



Say the bit about cutting "fluff" spending and the charitable tax exemption. What is charitable? What is non-charitable? How does the government delineate in a legally acceptable manner from the grey area that definitively will pop up?



Well the obvious solution would be to create an organization to oversee the complications. But isn't that fluff spending? One creates this measure to gain revenue and even the playing field, but now one is spending large amounts of money on an organization designed to subjectively judge the worthiness of each institution this law now affects?



That sounds like the same ol', politics as usual...



Maybe it's a systemic problem, eh? Not one that could be fixed by just making some nice, but meaningless law changes?

Answer 3

Part of the problem is the idea of what is "traditional" really only exists in the mind of the person claiming that it is "traditional". For example, most cultures dating to before Christianity and Judaism or independent of them, have or had traditionally different concepts of marriage including fully accepting same sex marriages. It should be noted that the LGBT movement to gain the right to be married is NOT the right to force churches to marry them, but that to be considered legally married.



Private versus public health care is a complex topic and Obama (as well as congress and the senate), while having good intentions, approached this in nearly, exactly the wrong way. We should have gained a good understanding of how other public health system work along with their weaknesses and strengths, and then tried to work out a public health care option that worked with our current version.



NATO has very little to do with tariffs, if anything. I suspect you are referring to NAFTA, but that only deals with tariffs in the Americas and has nothing to do with trade with the rest of the world.



The only reason for the government to be involved in divorces is to ensure that both partners and any children can adequately survive after the divorce and that jointly held assets are equally distributed.



Abortions need to remain safe and legal for those that need or want them. Realistically speaking those that happen in the third trimester are few and far between.



You have some good ideas but need to think about them a bit more from a wider perspective.

Answer 4

1. Or just allow people to choose what they want covered in their health insurance and not force people to go against their conscience or buy a product they do not want.



3. NATO is not something the U.S. can cancel as it is an organization of multiple nations. NATO is not an agreement on import goods. It is a is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO



5. I don't agree with this since you are saying to make the teaching of an immoral act (ie. birth control) mandatory. One can not compromise one's principles just to get along.



6. I disagree with this also since LBGT couples are not the same as married couples who can produce offspring. They have a right to live together or to hold ceremonies and call themselves whatever they want. That is their own private affair. However, when they go to the state for a marriage license with all of the benefits attached to it then it becomes a matter of public domain. Who is the state? Yes, we have elected representatives in office, but they are supposed to represent the interests of the majority of the people, not cater to some minority self-interest group. So we are the state. If the majority of people do not want to recognize gay marriages or give them the same status of regular marriage that can produce offspring and generate a return for society then they should be restricted from that. We do not have to defend traditional marriage. The burden is on LGBT groups to prove that the definition of marriage needs to be changed.

Answer 5

Sounds like you've put some thought into all this. Kudos. I respect that in itself.



Not that I'm going to agree with all your points.

7) if an institution gives .01% of it's take, is it still 'charitable'?

8) ban them beyond the 3rd trimester.

Answer 6

Hey there! I've missed chatting with ya lately . . . I guess we're not online at the same times. Anyways, my answer:



1) I definitely agree with the public option, but then again, then the debate shifts not to religious freedom/freedom of conscience to opposition to "taxpayer funding for X", whether X is birth control, abortion, surgery for trans folks, etc.. It doesn't change the issue some people have in the idea that their money is going to something they feel is against traditional values.



2) Getting rid of pork is a touchy subject; on one hand, less government waste is what we all strive for. On the other hand, I think it was either Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes who brought up a great point about how pork plays an invaluable process as a bargaining chip for legislators in helping to get bills passed, and without it, we start to see more ideological extremism and roadblocks to getting work done. Suffice to say, we certainly are funding a whole lot of things that ought not receive priority funding (or any), especially in such dire times. I guess I just want to point out that yes, this is a valid statement, but what is considered fluff depends on who's doing the consideration.



3) I don't know enough about NATO or importing to really speak well on the subject, so I'll remain mum.



4) Private adoption certainly doesn't need any funding, but foster care, absolutely, and reform is crucial, so yes!



5) You know I agree with ya here, but people who hold traditional values tend to view any non-abstinence-only sex education as tacit approval for sexual activity, and thus oppose it.



6) Like I think we talked about before, I'd rather see marriage not given special status- i.e. straight and gay unmarried couples deserve the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as married straight couples do.



7) Current tax exemption status for charities has guidelines like "it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates", yet we have charitable institutions like the Mormon church also engaging heavily in political campaigns like Prop. 8 in California . . . I'm not sure that simply being charitable is enough of a criteria.



8) Ah, you know how I feel about that . . . purely on a rights basis, I don't think a woman loses her bodily autonomy after 3 months of pregnancy. But even if I were to allow for bans on elective second-trimester abortion, it would require vastly increasing abortion access in the first trimester- like, every county would need to have an abortion clinic (instead of 88% of counties *not* having one, like it currently is), abortion would never be out of financial reach for patients, no mandatory waiting periods, no misleading CPC's, etc..



9) Whoa, whoa, whoa, no way! No-fault divorce is one of the key parts of feminism and part of what has helped women immensely. I just don't understand how you can go before your government and petition for a legally joining contract, but somehow don't have the right to petition for a dissolution of said contract as well if you both agree to it. Not to mention, what does it mean to not be able to get legally divorced in this day and age? Way back when, social stigma and the limited options for women meant you stayed together- he was the breadwinner, and she had little choice. Currently, in an amicable divorce, even without papers drawn up, the practical result is the same. What's the point of outlawing no-fault divorce if it has no real effect on the participants?



Cheers!

Answer 7

canceling NATO will not solve anything. you know who suggested sex ed classes for middle and high schools? Hugh Hefner. he knew if they got kids interested in sex at a young age than they would be more likely to endorse his business. im pretty sure the statistics for sexually active teens have been getting worse. SEX ed classes are not the answer to anything and only make things worse.

Answer 8

I see from your list, and this is not about agreement or disagreement, that it's probable that people will disagree on what exactly is good and bad about traditional and modern values, and i wonder if anything can be done about that. Lack of unanimity is the problem i think.

Answer 9

Yes, Agree!

Answer 10

There's a video game museum? Sweet!