The Hypocrisy With Republicans And Democrats

The Hypocrisy With Republicans And Democrats

When will both sides admit they’re wrong?
805
views

The Republican and Democratic Parties have been battling for over a century over ideology, policy and power within The United States. Both of the major political parties like to poke holes within each other's proposals and bicker over who is right. But what happens when the positions on both sides are contradictory? Each side will bash the other side’s agenda while accidentally pointing out the flaws in their own.

The Gun Control-Marijuana Legalization Contradiction

Since the War on Drugs has begun, Republicans have called for more restrictions on drugs and harsher penalties for the people that use them. Liberals have branded the War on Drugs, especially marijuana, as a joke in recent years and have called for the end of the four-decade-old war. Democrats believe that whether the drug is legal or not, people will continue to use and sell the substance. They claim that laws don’t dictate human behavior and that it’s impossible to legislate drugs out of our society. Where is that logic when it comes to guns? Every time there is a mass shooting, Democrats call for more gun control and say guns are the source of the problem. However, they fail to realize that the more they ban guns, the more they ramp up the black market for them. Regardless of the law, like drugs, people will obtain what they want one way or another. While conservatives shout, “Gun laws don’t work,” liberals are shouting the same thing about marijuana and/or drugs, which leaves voters scratching their heads. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America, accommodated by high gun violence rates. While their liberal-supported gun laws aren’t working, the conservative's drug war has led to nothing but the world’s highest incarceration rate and over a trillion dollars down the drain.

The MLK-JFK Contradiction

Republicans often champion civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., as one of their own and tout his accomplishments. While King was a registered Republican, Democrats will often point out that the parties ideology has changed throughout time. This implies that by modern day standards, MLK would be a part of the Democratic Party. King advocated for equality and peace, which is mostly associated with modern day Democrats. Nevertheless, this doesn’t change the fact that liberals have taken credit for some famous people that wouldn’t follow their modern day ideology. John F. Kennedy called for lowering taxes in many cases and told Americans, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Kennedy wanted citizens to rely less on the government while supporting free trade. Grover Cleveland, who has been ranked very effective by historians, was a Democrat in the 1800s, but also supported free trade, was against government regulation, and reduced the size of the federal government. Each political party has the technicality to “claim” these people, but both parties also follow a completely different philosophy and ideology than they did in the past.

The two parties that rule America find too many contradictions within themselves. Republicans claim they advocate for a smaller government but want to tell you what you can and can’t do when it comes to sex, marriage, abortion and language. Democrats tell us they are pro-choice, but that label doesn’t apply when it comes to unions, guns, large sodas and other drugs. It’s important to understand that these parties and politicians will say anything to obtain power. Which liberties are you willing to give up?

Cover Image Credit: https://jackholesrealm.files.wordpress.com

Popular Right Now

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace, But Neither Is Christianity

Let's have in honest converation about the relgious doctrine of Islam

98249
views

Islam is not a religion of peace.

Christianity is also not a religion of peace.

But, most people in both religions are generally peaceful.

More specifically, bringing up the doctrine of Christianity is a terrible rebuttal to justify the doctrine of Islam.

That is like saying, "Fascism is not a good political ideology. Well, Communism isn't any good either. So, Fascism is not that bad after all."

One evil does not justify another evil. Christianity's sins do not justify Islam's.

The reason why this article is focused on Islam and not Christianity is the modern prevalence of religious violence in the Islamic world. Christianity is not without its evil but there is far less international terrorist attacks and mass killing perpetrated by Christians today than by those of Islam.

First, let's define "religious killings," which is much more specific than a practicer of a religion committing a murder.

A religious killings are directly correlated with the doctrines of the faith. That is different a human acting on some type of natural impulse killing someone.

For example, an Islamic father honor killing his daughter who was raped is a religious killing. But an Islamic man who catches his wife cheating and kills her on the spot is a murder, not a religious killing. The second man may be Islamic but the doctrine of Islam cannot be rationally held at fault for that killing. Many men with many different religions or experience would make the same heinous mistake of taking a life.

Second, criticizing a doctrine or a religion is not a criticism of everyone that practices the religion.

It is not even a criticism of everyone who make mistake while inspired by the religions. Human are willing to do heinous things when governed by a bad cause. Not every World War 2 Nazis was a homicidal maniac but human nature tells them to act this way in order to survive in their environment. It is hard to fault a person from traits that comes from evolutionary biology and natural selection.

However, commenting on a philosophy, ideology or a religion is not off limits. Every doctrine that inspires human action should be open for review. The religion may be part of a person's identity and it holds a special place in its heart but that does not mean it should be immune to criticism.

Finally, before going into a deconstruction of the myth that Islam is a religion of peace, there needs to be a note about the silencing of talking about Islam.

There is a notion in Western Society that if a person criticizes Islam, then that person hates all Muslims and the person suffers from Islamophobia. That is not the case, a person to criticize religion without becoming Donald Trump. In Western Society criticizing fundamental Christians is never seen as an attack on all Christians because there is a lot of bad ideas in the Bible that Christians act on. Therefore, criticizing Islam should have the same benefit of the doubt because the Quran has many bad ideas in it.

The Quran advocates for war on unbelievers a multitude of times. No these verses are not a misreading or bad interpretation the text. Here are two explicit verses from the Quran that directly tell Followers to engage in violence:

Quran 2: 191-193:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief or unrest) is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists and wrong-doers)"

Quran 2: 216:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

There is no rational way to interrupt these passages in a peaceful way. The whole premise of both passages is to inspire followers that war against the unbeliever is justified.

The first verse advocates for genocide against non-believers for the mere transgression that a society worships a different god or worships another god along with Allah.

The second passage is arguable more dangerous because the first passage just advocate that fighting may be a necessity, while the second passage encourages it. The second passage claims that war on the unbeliever is a good thing under the eyes of Allah.

The reason why these passages are dangerous is because they directly incite religious violence. For most followers of Allah, these passages are ignored or they convince themselves the passages means something they do not. However, for a large numbers of followers that view the text of the Quran as the unedited words of Allah, these texts become extremely dangerous. These passages become all the rational they need to wage war on non-believers.

This is dangerous because there are millions of followers of Islam worldwide that believe every statement in the Quran is true.

Therefore, the Quran becomes a direct motivation and cause for its followers to attack non-followers. Rationally one can understand where the Islam follower comes from, if a person truly believes that Allah or God himself wrote these words then why would you not comply.

Especially when there is verses in the Quran that says the Follower who does not fight the infidel is not as worthy of a Follower that does wage war against the non-believer (Quran 4:95). Finally, when male Followers are told that their martyrdom fighting for the faith will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise with 72 virgins for personal pleasure. If a Follower truly believes all of this is the spoken word of Allah then there is more rational why a person would commit these atrocities then why they would not.

Men and women are radicalized by these passages on a daily basis.

No, it is not just the poor kid in Iraq that lost his family to an American bombing run that indiscriminately kills civilians but also the middle classed Saudi Arabian child or some Western white kid that finds the Quran appealing. If radicalization were just poor people, then society would not have much to be worried about. However, Heads of States, college educated people and wealthy Islamic Followers are all being radicalized and the common dominator is the doctrine of Islam.

Osama Bin Laden, one of the most infamous terrorist in history, was not a poor lad that was screwed by the United States military industrial complex. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire, that received an education through college from great schools. There is no other just cause for Bin Laden to orchestrate such grievous attacks on humanity besides religious inspirations. A person can rationally tie Islam Followers gravitation towards terrorism to a specific verse. Quran 3: 51 tells readers,

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers."

Any rational person can tie Islamic passages like this directly to terrorism. It is not a complicated correlation to like Nazism and Jewish persecution to Christianity. The Holy Book of Islam directly encourages the Followers of Islam to inflict terrorism unto the non-believer.

So why do some many people deny these obvious truths about Islam and violence?

Political Correctness and the want to not be viewed as a bigot. The correlations here are as direct as the terrors of the Spanish Inquisitions and Catholicism and no one is afraid to retrospect and say, "Yes Christianity caused the direct murder of thousands of people". A person would not even be controversial if one stated that both World Wars has significant religious undertones. However if anyone states that terrorism and violence has a direct link with Islam then there is an outcry.

Even President Obama refused to use the terms Islam and Muslim when publicly talking about the War on Terrorism. I am a hypocrite also because I used the term Islamic Follower instead of Muslim in an attempt to sound more political correct.

That is a problem when society refuse to use terms that are correct in an attempt to not offend anyone. Imagine if scientist could not report their findings because the underlying politics. Society needs to be able to have open dialogue about this problem or else it will never heal. Society needs to throw away the worrisome about being politically correct and focus on identifying the problems and solving them.

The world of Islam needs to open themselves up to this criticism.

There can no longer be a closing of dialogue where the West cannot speak on the doctrines of Islam because they are not partakers (That applies to all organized religion too, especially the Catholic Church). People who draw Muhammed must no longer be threatened with attacks on their life.

When Islamic women and men speak up about the sins of Islam, they must stop being silenced. If humanity is going to take steps into the future with better technology and more dangerous weaponry, then we need to solve this problem with Islam and gradually to organized religion at all.

If not it will doom us way before we get there…

Thank you for reading and if you enjoyed this article follow my podcast on Twitter @MccrayMassMedia for more likewise discussions.

Cover Image Credit:

https://unsplash.com/photos/JFirQekVo3U

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The 'Change My Mind' Segments Are Productive

Good, bad, or just entertaining, Steven Crowder is onto something with his most famous bit, change my mind.

5
views

Sitting down and having a conversation is a tough thing to do in a technologically dominated world. Many people have lost all self-control when confronted with opposing opinions. Civil conversation is rare, but there are people out in the world who do try to reach out and create dialogue.

Conservative/libertarian comedian Steven Crowder has done his part in reaching across the aisle to exchange thoughts. Many of the segments he's done have attracted large crowds that teeter on riots depending on the topic or location. No matter the crowd the conversation will bear fruit; however, the products of these talks are not always good.

For those who don't know much about Steven, he has his own show at CRTV called Louder with Crowder. He is a comedian and actor that has appeared in Christian movies like To Save A Life. Much of his content now is political. Many people, including corporations like Youtube and Twitter, find his comedic style appalling. Most of his critics are left-leaning, but just as he disagrees with some conservatives some conservatives disagree with him a little.

Many of Steven's counterparts get hostile for a number of reasons. One he is a comedian and a comedians job is to create entertaining content. Therefore, he is slightly sarcastic at times, which can cause hostility from his guest or even the crowd. He loses civility points there, but not entirely because the people he talks to are adults. It is concerning to see adults act like children as they often do on his show. Is it provoked? Sometimes. Are their reactions always acceptable? No.

Another thing to keep in mind while watching his videos is he's not THE expert on any of his topics. He does have a distinct advantage being able to prepare for the topic and prepare he does. Even though he is not a doctor I'd be okay with learning some of the basics from him on the stages of fetal development due to the obvious amount of research he puts into it.

He will often have guests like Jordan Peterson or Dr. Leonard Sax who are experts in their respective fields, which does give me good faith that what he says is based in truth.

His sarcasm isn't the only reason people get fired up. He has a tendency to command the conversation, which can also be a good thing. It's his show and he knows how to keep the dialogue focused. He does struggle to not interrupt. But even his interruptions are not all bad. Asking for clarification in a long explanation is wise.

If he was to stop interrupting altogether and to stop being sarcastic altogether would it fix all the hate he receives? Probably not. For this reason: people don't always want to have a civil conversation.

Saying "Build The Wall" is meant to create controversy (especially in downtown Austin where he hosted this segment). And people will cowardly go to social media in their friend bubbles and post, sometimes threats, out of frustration. I have the most trouble agreeing with how Steven responds to the threats. He made a new segment, Crowder Confronts, to expose the attackers. Is it right to do so? I have trouble saying yes, but I understand why he does.

Threats are not something to scream in a moment of passion. They are very illegal. It is not okay to go and disrupt a business in order to get an apology out of someone. It is somewhat hypocritical to call for civility and then drop to the oppositions level when they say something mean. These new segments are not a good way to create dialogue. They create clicks and that's really it.

Louder with Crowder has some excellent content. The "change my mind" segments are entertaining, informative, and thought-provoking. Every person who has an opinion. The ones who put it out for the public to see will receive criticism. I know I have. Thankfully it was delivered graciously.

To completely block out other views is foolish though. Understanding others is a great tool to have since so few seem to have it. Crowder has his shortcomings, but overall he is creating some good conversations.

If his latest segment doesn't undermine his call to a civil conversation I believe he will continue to have success. Steven is doing something right, change my mind.

Cover Image Credit:

Instagram

Related Content

Facebook Comments