Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I wasn't able to glean an answer to my first question from any of your posts, Ward. You stated that 'the morons', by which I assume you mean the Federal Government, and perhaps other levels of government (its entirely unclear), are doing the minimum by observing the Constitution. That implied that you feel they should do more than that - ei, take actions outside the Constitution. Am I wrong in any of those assumptions? If so, perhaps you'd like to clarify.
I can determine, from you latest post, that you do not, in fact, believe that religion has been outlawed in the United States, nor are you aware of any movements or campaigns to do so. You've claimed that our country is headed in that direction - the outlawing of religion, the institution of state sponsored atheism. That's why I asked the question. Apparently, you do not actually believe any of those things are actually happening in any measurable, verifiable manner.
I'm actually not sure of what 'harms' you see, Ward - that's why I'm asking you these questions. You're clearly dissatisfied - I'm asking you to specifically identify the source of your apparent dissatisfaction, and what actions you'd like to see taken to rectify them.
Can you articulate that for us?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Do you believe that the leadership of the United States should not observe the Constitution, ei, that our government should operate outside the rule of law? If so, what specific actions would you like to see our government take outside the rule of law?
The answer that I alluded to was:
It's more a matter of those current morons not doing anything at all ---beyond simply observing the Constitution.( I know---fat chance)
Why are you having trouble gleaning anything I have said thus far? I have been rather clear and straightforward .
Are you a trial lawyer? or in training for same?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I must confess that I cannot determine what you actually mean by these statements.
I don't know who 'those current morons' are, for example. You'll admit - it's rather open to interpretation.
Your statement would imply that you want 'those current morons' to do more than simply 'observing the Constitution'.
What more would that be, specifically? And who are 'those current morons' anyway?
Regarding who I am - I'm just someone who speaks English, as are you. I'm not an attorney, nor am I training to become one, if that makes you more comfortable. Let's leave it at that and use our English to have a conversation.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
I must confess that I cannot determine what you actually mean by these statements.
Are you a trial lawyer?
Do you want me to painstakingly walk you through my comments or paraphrase them anew?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Most people will expound on their own ideas when respectfully asked to do so. I have no interest in wasting time with anyone who will not.
You never phrased your ideas to begin with, so to paraphrase them would be impossible.
It's fine. We're done here. I give posters a few minutes to engage - or not. So far, you have not, or will not, do so productively. That's a lost opportunity for you to openly express what you actually believe in a way that others might actually understand. I was genuinely interested in your beliefs and what you wanted to happen - hence my questions. Your responses to my questions were either repetition or dodges. There was one honest answer regarding the outlawing of religion in America - but it directly contradicted a statement you'd made moments before.
Sorry, I prefer more red meat in my exchange of ideas. More articulation, more consistency, more thoughtfulness. After all, life is short.
If you're going to spend the prodigious energy it takes to be angry at something, it helps to be able to articulate exactly what that something is. It also helps to have an idea of what action you'd like to see happen, or better yet, help make happen, so that you may eventually put that anger to rest.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
It's fine. We're done here. I give posters a few minutes to engage - or not. So far, you have not, or will not, do so productively. That's a lost opportunity for you to openly express what you actually believe in a way that others might actually understand.
My friend, I'm not accustomed to arguing with someone who lacks the imagination to infer the clear meaning of my comments , or who thinks they have stumbled upon some sure-fire polemical gimmick of expecting someone to parse and fill in all the spaces. I see it as a transparent attempt ,by yourself, to allow your assumptions to characterize the debate.
By asking if you were a trial attorney I was holding out the possibility that you are less obtuse and more resourceful than you apparently are.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Be well, Ward.
Goodbye.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Be well, Ward.
Look, I can still walk you through my comments , and the thinking behind them---only if you promise to actually listen.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I always actually listen.
I've asked some specific enough questions - and I didn't do it for any other reason than I would like to know your answers to them. They're all still hanging, if you'd like to take a crack at any one of them.
I don't care about any other aspect of who you are outside this conversation - trial lawyer, dog owner, ladies underwear aficionado, dumbsh#t, knowitall - I don't give a rip.
I won't exchange the usual recycled Righty/Lefty barbs - so don't go there if you expect me to continue to hang wicha.
This works both ways. If you ask me something relevant to this discussion, I'll do my best to answer that question as clearly as I can.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Its not a "plot" per se, but an open jihad on traditional values. In case you haven't noticed?
You got that right!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
You got that right!
another country heard from!
you have the floor Blue, please tell us about all those traditional values under assault?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^^ you ever climb at Dreamland?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I believe in the Big Man.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Oh you've heard mine before Norton.
I push the strictest of conservatism to the youngest minds.
Knowing that in the end all is forgivable.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
I won't exchange the usual recycled Righty/Lefty barbs - so don't go there if you expect me to continue to hang wicha.
Quit trying to superimpose more of your unwarranted assumptions, it only further clouds the issue at hand---which is common in most debates. The bulk of my political , philosophical, or historical observations are usually disinterested ones.
Look , I'll take your stated desire to seek further clarity at face value and make a general statement of my thinking on this matter , in the interests of time.
Anti-religionist sentiment in the United States has been of interest to me in recent years.(I am an agnostic, BTW). While I understand the historical roots of the rejection of religious culture on an individual basis--- nevertheless what concerns me is the increasingly robust collective group efforts currently afoot to attack the religious life, and spirituality in general.
When one looks closer at the origins of these efforts they seem to be , like most of the featured fronts in the culture wars , associated with a particular political enclave, namely , what has become identified as "progressive" and so on.
Moreover, this enclave tends to draft Science on its side---despite the fact that science is a disinterested investigation of nature and nothing more.
The progressive left is also associated in modern times with an unprecedented growth in government, a concentration of power in a political class, and largely socialist type principles; and other features that look , to the detached observer, like Deja vu all over again, and invite the immediate drawing of historical parallels.
When representatives of the progressive intellectual class ( including Marx) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries gathered to sip coffee in cafés throughout Europe and plot the demise of the ancien regimes they had no idea their formulations would ultimately lead to Stalin or the murder and imprisonment of political and religious opponents, or the official outlawing of religious life.
They were progressives after all, concerned only with the salvation and emancipation of mankind from the shackles of the centuries. They did not represent any identifiable group that anyone could point to, nor were they elected or appointed government functionaries. And yet their progressive ideals ,among other draconian results ,led to the closing of Churches throughout Russia, and later to those in Eastern Europe.
I have to cut this short . I gotta go. Thanks for listening.
Much more needs to be said. Maybe later...
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
It seems that a lot of anti-religious sentiment today stems from certain sects - most famously the Mormons, Catholics, and Fundamentalist Christians (although not limited to these 3) very active and well funded campaigns to
a) Deny equal marital rights to all Americans (The now defunct DOMA and its many state level counterparts)
b) Deny family planning services to all Americans, but most particularly to poor women. Catholic owned hospitals - 20% of all hospital beds in America, and a whopping 45% in my home state of WA, deny all family planning services - contraception and abortion - in violation of the ACA and state statutes. Why is the Catholic church able to gobble up so many other hospitals and therefore own so many beds? A huge competitive advantage called the religious tax exemption. Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like State sponsored religion to me.
c) Require religious indoctrination, ie, Creationism, to be taught in public schools, at the expense of real science education, and in flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment. This effort, not-so-cleverly rebranded as 'intelligent design', fortunately met defeat in the SCOTUS. The campaign is far from dead, however.
Also, the Catholic Rape Camp system and many decades long cover up didn't help much.
Religion brought this opposition on itself by becoming increasingly involved in its attempts to force specific religious doctrine into public policy, that is, on all of us, regardless of our beliefs.
It would seem to me that all three of grievances are legitimate and the ire they generate very well deserved.
I don't deal with 'isms' or 'ives. I don't much care what the 'progressives' - whoever that might be, are up to because, lets face it, the BogieMan or ConjureWoman is up to whatever you need them to be up to to validate your desired emotional response. I focus on specific actions - THIS GROUP IS FUNDING THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW. I like to keep it simple that way. If the Evangelicals want to believe that Jesus rides a Harley, I couldn't care less. When they want to prevent a certain group of Americans from marrying the person they love - that's when I get off the couch.
I won't address Marx or Stalin. Although too often trotted out in these discussions, neither are relevant, at all, to the struggle between religious and secular governance in America today. There may be statistical similarities between the USA and Russia today - our incarceration rates, nuclear arsenals, and spying on our own citizens rank #1 and #2 in the world, for example, those have little to nothing to do with religion in any real sense.
There is copious evidence that the State has sponsored religion too much in this country (the above is the tip of a much larger iceberg) - and scant evidence to the contrary. Moving towards a more secular democracy, as codified in the Constitution, is arguably the best available way to ensure that the beliefs are all Americans, as well as the law, are respected in a fair manner.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2016 - 08:44pm PT
|
re: Vonnegut... and (only) an eye for an eye
kurt vonnegut had an interesting note on hammurabi. he said most people think "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the old testament ethic and that it has been replaced with the new testament ethic of "turn the other cheek". "eye for an eye" is actually an old testament quotation of hammurabi's code, which was well-known at the time, and hammurabi's sense is "ONLY an eye for an eye, ONLY a tooth for a tooth--don't take more".
a very humane code. so many christians so often take more. you can only keep turning that other cheek so long. -Tony Bird
...
Speaking of Kurt Vonnegut...
"I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center."
Curious thing, only one other here at ST has cited this. I was thinking there would be more.
Ontos... 2007...
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=463725&msg=467000#msg467000
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
|
HFCS, You are a premier pot stirrer (note: euphemism alert). Why did you resurrect this?
As to the OP question -
Because people are afraid of the principle of cause and effect and don't like the idea of having to take responsibilty for themselves.
There..
Oh, and science doesn't cover all the ground...
;-)
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2016 - 10:19pm PT
|
There have always been skeptics.
The God shaped hole
Is a scar
Inflicted on children
By the irrational
Indoctrination.
And because the unknown is pretty big.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!