You damn, good for nothing conservatives, what the hell are you trying to conserve?
only progressive thinkers rule. all the ultra conservatives neocons are in denial and can't change with time.

remember : "one who doesn't change with time (in other words conservative) , time will obliterate one's existence" translated from nepali

original: " jo samaya sanga badalidaina ( arthat rudhibadi) tyesko samayachakra sangai astitwa bilin huncha"

for those of you who think we ought to conservative you can kiss my liberal *** anytime!!!!!

what's in a name? liberal, conservative, right, left...blah....

Whatmore,there is more than just the name to it?
Personally I think there are two political/social philosophies that exists.
Establishments(the conservatives) and Movements(the liberals).Conservatives like to comfort themselves with the established social norms without ever doubting it whereas the liberals are allured to substitute with better solutions.
Liberal ideas rejuvenates societies whereas conservative ideas work as an engine of obstacles for the society to evolve.Absolutism and blind-faith is an example of conservatism.Political parties on the other hand use these basic principles for their vested interests wearing masks to lure voters.

i agree to what you are saying iZen.

but surely life is more complex than that. how can you make a black or white blanket statement about who or what is conservative and what is liberal? it is a multidimensional world we have here, but words are just single dimensional.

what do you call a person who is fine with gay marriage but is against abortion?

you think the neocons are conservative? i don't think so. see, what you are trying to define is at best a moving target, at worst just a mirage. that's why i'm opposed to words.

in any case, i do think "absolutism" and "blind-faith" are not an exclusive conservative domain - they are very much part of some so-called liberals' portfolio.

keep the discussion going it's impressive

Dear whatmore;)
Here is more to your query:)
The gray matter thats visible in the heads of both aisles is neither black nor white.The rational human mind embraces moderate views in general.Nonetheless,without movements societies ceases to evolve and renew itself.Liberalism(not to be confused with Tony Blair's liberalism that has betrayed its path by compromising with Pat Robertson's christian conservatism) may sound radical at times but in its absence Frenchs wouldnot have had an oppurtunity getting glimpse of enlightenment.Radical views have evolved into conservative ideas centuries later but it is a human duty to doubt the established social norms.Revolutions in the past that have catered a sound and just society is an example of doubts not submission.
Conservative church authorities like Hindu fanatics(the extremists)to guard their status in the social ladder enforce conservatism with feared blindedness resisting change.But liberalism on the other hand find its sacred duty to question that plague called mute blindedness with reason.Religion is not opium but religion in an absence of logic is worst than opium.Where are thirty-three carore divine gods when more than half of the population is struggling to merely survive?Where are countless incarnations when a neighbor of yours picks up arms to fight against you?Where are they probably in the minds of millenium old school of thoughts that once condemned Buddha for speaking the truth supported by reasons?
A sentient being can never be an incarnation of lord never period!Monarchies have renewed their image in the recent past not because this is a different century but because they realized blind worship with no firm foundation crumbles from within!

again, i see perfectly what you are saying. and i agree to it to a great extent. i was in the same school until recently. well, in fact i am still part of it, i guess.

but here is my current thought. i will not swear an allegiance to any "label" per se. i don't care about the labels. what you say about nepali society and religious fundamentalism is true. if you put it that way. but then again, there is that everliving gap between theory and reality, and that is the gray we talk about.

in principle, i agree to change. and i do not embrace change just because it is inevitable. sometimes, i do believe in change for change's sake. but not all the time. no, i cannot support change for mere change's sake all the time. sure, there are modifications needed all the time, and that is the process of evolution. but i do not believe in regressing. and sometimes i feel some changes are for the worse, that they will make things not as good as before. well, i don't want change in those cases.

rationality - whether budhha was right or wrong is another discussion - comes from wanting the best for one and for all. it does not align itself with radicalism. for one thing radicalism is painful. for another it is not always useful.

and for the very same reason, the labels "conservative", "liberal", "radical" pigeonhole ideas, people etc. that perhaps should not be.

in sum, i find it easier to say i am for or against a certain idea, a certain issue, rather than a certain sect, a certain organization, a certain label.

How about Neocoms, the new communists, who call themselves liberal!!!? How about the NeoMaos who are causing havoc in Nepal!!!

Lalpari jee, r u communist as 'lal' is a symbol of communism in Nepal.

I guess rather than changing the glass or label, we need to change the content. The content of container or glass is what matters, not the name. So, even if someone calls themselves or label themselves as conservatives and they are open-minded and thinks logically, they should be fine.

Great keep it rolling

Whatmore,
It is not about 'label' instead it is about common sense that is not so common these days.Religious fundamentalism possess greatest threat to rational minds from all corners of the planet.Absolute conservative mindset is the branch of that extremism blocking the natural roads of evolution.
What is the use of that theory if one hesitates to implement in their everyday lives?What is the use of memorizing verses of 'The Bhagavad Gita'if one refuses to jump in the battlefield and fight against 'the Kauravas'that lies within our own selves?Rebels with causes seek modifications neither for their dominance nor for the sake of it.With the proper calculations and historical experiences(the real history not the series of blood-thirsty biographies) they single-mindedly believe in a creation of society based upon harmony and justice.
Change doesnot always reflect uprooting the very foundation of society but it proposes new methods replacing millenium old/centuries old outworn methods that lacks reason/common sense.Radicals are ready to endure short-term pain inorder to create a long term joy for others.But this may not apply in all the cases and a non-violent resistance is one of the painless methods of resisting ills of the societies.
Lalpari:Newcoms or liberals!
That would make Thomas Jefferson a communist.;)

if it is not common anymore, how can it be common sense?

look iZen, i don't disagree with a lot of your statements. just with the way you have stated them as absolutes. just playing the devil here, i could turn each of your statement around and still retain some appeal, for example:

"Religious fundamentalism possess greatest threat to rational minds from all corners of the planet." -> Radical extremists are the greatest threat to universal religious values like peace, love and compassion.

"Absolute conservative mindset is the branch of that extremism blocking the natural roads of evolution." -> Radical extremists are bastardizing the concept of evolution - evolution, unlike some revolution, does not and should not flow from the barrel of the gun.

etc.

The point is that it is easy to resort to label someone we don't agree with as conservative or religious zealot or this or that, but those are vacuos words. i think our, yours and mine, interests will be better served by just dealing with the ideas and doing away with the labels. after all, it is entirely possible for me to be extremely religious and a great believer of evolution at the same time!

Gwajyo ji, no I am not any of the labels!! I am a pro life, anti gay marriage (as opposed to anti gay), pro gay union, anti capital punishment (after all I am a pro life), pro fiscally driven market economy, ... and someone who strongly believes "government has no business in people's bedroom," as stated by PET, the late ex primister of canada.

What more, you should know COMMON sense is the most UN-COMMON thing in the world. nepal isn't an exception! :)

My Nick, if you have to know is such because I am out looking for a lalpari!! :)

iZen-ji,

Conservatives like to comfort themselves with the established social norms without ever doubting it whereas the liberals are allured to substitute with better solutions.

Definition # 18292123212 of "Conservatives" and "Liberals". These terms wouldn't exist but for the survival strategy of our politicians and political scientists. :-)

Absolutism and blind-faith is an example of conservatism.
What do you call Michael Moore? He's got both. You see the problem? what_more is right.

The gray matter thats visible in the heads of both aisles is neither black nor white.

Isn't that why it's gray? ;-)

The rational human mind embraces moderate views in general

"Moderate" to the individual thinking "rational". i.e. both are relative.

Religion is not opium but religion in an absence of logic is worst than opium.

Doesn't it cease to be religion if it's got reason and logic?

Where are thirty-three carore divine gods when more than half of the population is struggling to merely survive?

Ah, Gods are to blame, eh! Pat Robertson would love what you just said.

And, man, be "liberal" in the use of spaces and carriage returns. It hurt my eyes. ;-)

Good discussion, nevertheless. I like your references of the Gita. I gotta learn more... :-)

Pari jee, in my opinion, if we try to restrict to any bottle (no matter whether it's pro or not) too much, we intentionally halt the communication with other people. I think that we've to open our mind to be able to see the TRUTH. TRUTH is what matters, not any label or sects. If conservationists can show the truth, that's a good thing too. Not all so called democrats or liberals hold the truth.

Just because we followed one path for long doesn't mean that we've to argue with the other person following another path. What really matters is to be able to see the real path and probably there may be more than one path or no path at all.

what more said:Radical extremists are the greatest threat to universal religious values like peace, love and compassion.
>What if the society labels the social reformers who preach the basic human values of love and harmony among humanity as radical extremists.Buddha was labeled a radical and Christ was even crucified for preaching universal love.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what more said: Radical extremists are bastardizing the concept of evolution - evolution, unlike some revolution, does not and should not flow from the barrel of the gun.
>Successful social reformers believed in power of non-violence.Imagine Gandhi carrying a gun and challenging the mighty jewel in the crown of British empire or Vinova Bhave (a peaceful reformer)for that matter who literally lived the words of 'Bhagavad Gita'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But most of these social reformers paid their ultimate price in the hands of religious extremists.And one recent example Itzhak Robin of Isreal who was killed by a brainwashed Jewish extremist.
Extremely religious with common sense(I sense;)and a believer of evolution.Ofcourse,astronomers are penetrating the cosmos trying to discover god!After all he/she dwells in the stars.How about looking inside our own universe and discover compassion(the greatest god of all);)

"What more said:Radical extremists are the greatest threat to universal religious values like peace, love and compassion.
>What if the society labels the social reformers who preach the basic human values of love and harmony among humanity as radical extremists.Buddha was labeled a radical and Christ was even crucified for preaching universal love. "

- My point exactly! What's in a label?

" >Successful social reformers believed in power of non-violence.Imagine Gandhi carrying a gun and challenging the mighty jewel in the crown of British empire or Vinova Bhave (a peaceful reformer)for that matter who literally lived the words of 'Bhagavad Gita'. "


SOME, my friend, some successful social reformers...

Besides, you're saying they were religious.
Which takes us back to the notion that not all religious people are religious extremists, a.k.a. change-hating, evolution-bashing, irrational human beings.

Greetings Echoes-ji,
A kind request:Would you please omit that ji from my nick re kya;)Trust me LL Cool J is still rockin' my backyard.Nothing serious I just feel outworn with Jis.I delight your postings as well.From windy city(I suppose)
Definition # 18292123212 of "Conservatives" and "Liberals". These terms wouldn't exist but for the survival strategy of our politicians and political scientists. :-)
>Bit confusing there.That was my invention after all,I thought!

Echoes said:Doesn't it cease to be religion if it's got reason and logic?
A believer in pragmatic religion with an iota of sense seeking the meaning of whatever is he/she seeking would not feel comfortable without reasonong.Only Buddhism answers logically to why should one look for reason in religion.
Pat Robertson is the most un-christian man that lives on the planet.
Where in the 'Sermon on the Mount'has Jesus taught to asassinate a head of state who simply disagrees with American imperialism?
(Love your enemies!!!)or did I read it wrong?
I guess you meant Hindu fanatic If he had heard me saying "Where are thirty-three carore gods?"
Christians have only one,don't they.Nevertheless,I still fear these extremists.
So long!!:)