Many pundits are now using the term “angry left” to describe the liberal analog of the “angry right.” Sites like When Angry Democrats Attack are springing up to document acts of vandalism and rage from the left, and many are saying that the angry left is hurting the Democratic party. But I think that the angry people in each party are those farthest to the extreme left or right – the fanatics.
But my question is, who do we think represents the far poles, and what specific things to they believe? I don’t know all the personalities involved, so you’ll have to help me. However, I wanted to at least document the issues, and what I perceive as the far left, far right, and middle ground on each. Am I correct? I have a feeling that I may not be getting the middle left correct.
- Far Left: Unrestricted abortion, and required abortion for certain defects (coming to a hospital near you)
- Far Right: Abortion illegal under any circumstances, prosecution of doctors and patients for murder
- Middle Left: Abortion illegal in 2nd/3rd trimester, allowed under certain circumstances (mother’s life, severe congenital defects, rape, incest).
- Middle Right: Abortion illegal after 4-6 weeks, allowed under certain RARE circumstances (mother’s life, severe congenital defects).
- Far Left: Teach only contraception. Abstinence is an inhuman, religious concept that has no place in schools. Encourage sexual exploration, both homo and hetero.
- Far Right: Teach only abstinence. Birth control is contrary to what is right and is immoral, and encourages promiscuity. Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral.
- Middle Left: Abstinence is a nice concept, and we should mention it, but it’s not realistic. We should focus on contraception and leave value judgments about sexuality to the family. We should acknowledge that sexual exploration occurs. Choosing a homosexual orientation is normal for some people, and we should teach it.
- Middle Right: Abstinence is a realistic and laudable goal for young people. We should encourage it as a virtue worth pursuing, but should also teach about contraception as a fallback. Homosexuality should acknowledged as a sexual orientation, but it should be mentioned that many consider it unnatural, and it may be a reversible condition.
- Far Left: Homosexuality is a valid sexual alternative, is totally natural and healthy, and is in all ways equal to heterosexual attraction and unions. It should be acknowledged by society as valid, and should have all of the “civil rights” accorded to hetero unions, esp. legal marriage. Homosexuality is biologically determined.
- Far Right: Homosexuality it not only unnatural, it is immoral and a sin. It is dangerous to society and should be criminalized with anti-sodomy laws. I should not have to hire or rent to anyone who I think is immoral, including gays. Homosexuality is a perversion equal to that of pedophilia and bestiality. Homosexuality is a choice.
- Middle Left: Gay marriage should not be elevated to the same status as hetero marriage, but they should have all the human rights that others have. Civil unions seem to be a perfectly reasonable solution. Homosexuality is mostly determined by biology, but may have sociological factors, and therefore, is not immoral.
- Middle Right: Homosexuality should neither be condoned through legal marriage nor criminalized via sodomy laws. Gays should have the same protections under the law regarding housing and employment, but legal marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is mostly determined by sociological and developmental factors, and may be caused in small part by genetic factors. However, regardless of its origins, it is immoral, just like promiscuity and adultery.
Separation of Church and State
- Far Left: Religion has no place in the public policy arena, nor in civic life. We should avoid all entanglement between government and religion. The establishment clause means protection of religion from government AND protection of government from religion. Government should be entirely secular and based on secular ethics.
- Far Right: America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles by Christians. We should not only acknowledge this heritage, but fulfill our divine destiny as God’s chosen nation in this era. The establishment clause is only meant to protect religion from government. Both religious and ethical principles should be law. In fact, we should re-institute Old Testament punishments for such things as adultery and homosexuality. The term “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution (true).
- Middle Left: The state should be secular and free from sponsoring religion, but it is OK if religious values are in the marketplace of ideas. Faith is a good thing, but it must be kept mostly in the private, personal realm, and out of politics. I have no problem teaching and acknowledging the religious history of our country, both good and bad.
- Middle Right: The establishment clause and the term “separation of church and state,” when rightly understood, means that the government can not sponsor or promote a single religion, nor can it prevent the free exercise of any religion. However, it does not mean that religious values and appeals to the Creator are improper in public life. In fact, our nation was founded with a respect for the Christian faith. The Christian scriptures contain wisdom for political life and legislation, and we should use them as a guide. However, we are not supposed to legislate religious rules (like what people should wear), nor are we called to re-institute biblical punishments.
- Far Left: This is a nation of immigrants. We should consider them as humans first, and not play politics with people’s lives. Border security is an impossibility. We should grant them all amnesty.
- Far Right: Anyone who is here illegally should be treated as a criminal and deported. Any type of program that allows them to stay, even with conditions, is de-facto amnesty. We need to secure our borders with a wall and armaments, and protect our people first.
- Middle Left: Let them stay and earn citizenship first, and in the meantime, build a wall.
- Middle Right: Ensure border security first, and let them earn citizenship.
- Far Left: Inhuman. Should not be done ever. In fact, I am a pacifist. Taking a human life is always wrong.
- Far Right: Kill them as soon as you can. In fact, we should expand the death penalty to include rapists and child molesters.
- Middle Left: Death penalty is not really a good idea, since we could kill innocent people. Life without parole is enough. In some rare and obvious cases, it may be OK (admitted serial killers).
- Middle Right: Death penalty is a just punishment for those who have killed. We acknowledge and accept a small error rate, made much smaller now by DNA testing. Life without parole is not acceptable, and it too lenient for murderers.