Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
LEB, you state:
"Everyone has a right to his or her version of morality providing that it does not impinge on another's rights."
So you support a pro-choice position (since you have just stated that rather clearly)
Unfortunately, the group that Jody appears to represent and defend, *defines* morality as following their point of view.
("the morals that keep society from crumbling are the ones I am talking about. Respect for sanctity of life, respect for marriage, respect for the act of sex...do I need to go on?")
They do NOT believe that others should be free to follow their own points of view, as that is destructive to our society....and thus, should be legislated. Legislating morality is a VERY worrisome viewpoint.
Further, Jody states "War sucks, but when people die in war it is not murder. When people fly airplanes into office buildings, THAT is murder." Very troubling. I'm sure the jews who died in WWII are comforted by your viewpoint. I'm sure the American prisoners are too. Good to know that if John McCain had been killed, instead of only tortured, that would have been *just too bad.*
But then, you admonished someone else not to paint with a broad brush. Perhaps you should not, either, or stop preaching about how people argue, when you do exactly the same thing.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Wartburg, TN
|
|
While I stroll through Morality Mart™, picking off it's variegated shelves, but never really getting used to the taste, I can't help but think that Jody, you really do hate the idea of a secular America. You hate the ideas posited by Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
Werner, you know your analogy is absurd, wearing a t-shirt and blowing up stuff with a bazooka is not equivocable. And we can talk Pascal's Gambit™ out the @ss, but until death, we don't really know.
Jody quoting the Mayflower Compact, while I'm using "Common Sense", The Fed Papes, The Cons, and the Treaty of Tripoli (you know, that place in the "Marines" Fight Song). C'mon, you're trying the old "overwhelming exception™" fallacy. Bzzzzt.
I may paint with a brush, you're using a paint sprayer with this statement...
"War sucks, but when people die in war it is not murder. When people fly airplanes into office buildings, THAT is murder."
What about a war™ based on lies (hey, ain't that a sin, in your eyes).
Werner you attempt to rationalize bombing a city the size of Chicago, but I'm against the war in Iraq. You? I'm more of a Paine guy, actually.
"It’s impossible to leave out God." Blanket, meet sheet. Build that strawman, Werner...you can then blow him up with your "bazooka" gun.
Read Fed. Paper 8, because the FF's are against your views, both yours (if you are for this war) and Jody....diametrically opposed.
Did I call the founding fathers "godless". No, that was you Jody; mostly they were Deists. That's not Christian.
You don't know your 5th grade history very well, do you? Why the exodus from Europe now?
From the same as above...
Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.
William Johnson? C'mon, that's a fallacy of "overwhelming exception™". Bzzzzt. I'll give you Adams, he was awesome at "God-offs" and devoutly Christian. I'm using Jay, Madi, Hami, Paine, Jeffie,
Most were Deists. That ain't Christian.
How about Ben Franklin; "lighthouses are more useful than churches."
Franklin also said, "Beer is proof that God loves mankind." Franklin was a Deist™.
Ah, the Declaration™. Somehow I knew you'd fly that red herring and high.
-----
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
So what are you now, Jody, a hippie, believin' in Nature's™ God?
That's fine with me, I'm giving you a choice to be what you want to be. It don't cut no ice with me.
"Only a psycho does that in the name of religion." Uhh, yeah, that's my point....
Whether it be killing in the name of "sanctity" or limiting "freedoms" in the name of "sanctity".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
" .... describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Ok good point 426
But didn't you mean Deiist?
|
|
426
Sport climber
Wartburg, TN
|
|
C'mon guys, you can do better than "overwhelming exception"...
"Everyone has a right to his or her version of morality providing that it does not impinge on another's rights. Why do you begrudge him his views."
Why do people begrudge Lorrie Heasley the right to wear her views on a T-shirt? How is that impinging on another's right? Unless, of course the other person is a facist and wishes to dictate what views are allowed to be stated in public.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=12109068&p=yzyx9yzz&n=12109182&x
But wait, I can hear it coming:
Southwest rules allowed the airline to deny boarding to any passenger whose clothing was “lewd, obscene or patently offensive”.
Back to Carlin's "7 Dirty Words" (you aren't allowed to use)....
Like Ken M. says, "Legislating morality is a VERY worrisome viewpoint."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
No 426 it's correct
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Behind the law of nature, there is the order-giver, law-maker, God.
This is perfect knowledge. mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram [Bg. 9.10].
"Under My superintendence, the laws of nature is working."
|
|
426
Sport climber
Wartburg, TN
|
|
Like I said, Pascal's Gambit...
Just a heads up, Hinduism is not welcomed, generally, in orthodox Christianity...
'Specially down this way...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Are we playing chess? :-)
And; There is no such thing as hinduism that I'm talking about.
Your move ,,,,,,,,,,
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There is NO such word in the Vedas as Hindu!
Hey man .... this is big thread hijack. We are all now hosed!
And to top it off we are playing chess too!
|
|
426
Sport climber
Wartburg, TN
|
|
Nice try, Jody, no cigar. We're not going to obfuscate into "who wuz Xian"....
I'm arguing for a seperation of church and state; a secular society.
If you agree, then great. Discussion over.
Start with TJ.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Aye, gotta rerun this one, Jod didn't get the 'message'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)
WMD'S! Establishing Democracy (through force)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Or not, in the case of many 'Mericans....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Byooooootiful, TJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")
Ah, of course! Revelation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
Don't be a religious addict. Check.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
I took up the banner, now, as well. Look at Jody's morality, i.e.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
And thank 'ye heavens' you did TJ, although here I am, arguing for this in the 21st century...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The lowest grade of ignorance, Jody, did you catch that one?
Hey, I know Humboldt, I lived on 'his' river for a few years....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Frickin' "cherrypickers", I think is the point here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Kabloooey, there you go, Jody.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
I hear you mang, just listen to Falwell or Robertson. Radical clerics issuing fatwas....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
I dunno, "self-love". Good question, Jeffie.
Ah, but self love is "immoral" in many eyes. Whose morality? More freedom or less?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
OOOOOOOH, snap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
That would exclude Christians. It's almost too bad he didn't write it up in the Constitution....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
Jesus ain't a bad guy, or, maybe he was, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
Hear that Christian Soldier, Jeffie thinks yer a heretic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
Ah, the old "belief" vs. "reason" quote...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Not yet, Tommy, not with the "return to the Dark Ages" (ID, the Young Earth theory) in modern America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about some Paine?
----------------------------------
"The book called the Bible has been voted by men, and decreed by human laws to be the word of God; and the disbelief of this is called blasphemy."
Ouch, that's gotta hurt...Paine just crispy fried your book.
But right now, I gotta go buff some quickdraws. I'll be back later with more Paine.
And some Madi, to boot.
Unless you agree with the "seperation of church and state" and a secular America, that is.
But in any case...
LEB- are you arguing that t-shirts aren't "freedom of expression"?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
One could easily debunk your entire debate above 426.
But seeing how you really are I’ll leave you in your happiness.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Funny how the conservatives like to blow their own horn about appointing "Strict Constructionalist" judges who would supposedly slavishly follow the letter of the law, then do just the opposite when it comes to the First Amendment's clause prohibiting states from respecting the establishment of religion. The text is actually pretty simple and clear but they sure like to spin their own contrived arguments for doing exactly the opposite of what the law says. Hypocrites!
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
Really like that part of the quote, "Diamonds from dunghills." Strikes a chord of a lot of mainstream philosophies these days, not just religion.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2005 - 12:17pm PT
|
LEB: "You are correct, I am very pro-choice. But if Jody wishes to hold different values, that is his right, as well. "
That is his right. I agree. Don't forget however, Jody wants to pass a law against making that choice available, so this in not "to each their own." Jody will have to speak for himself about if he thinks making the morning after pill an over the counter medication will prevent abortions or encourage other forms of immorality.
As for that T Shirt, the fact that it used "Profanity" to diss Bush is satsifactory enough reason in my mind that the passenger should be asked to cover it up. The Bush folks have suppressed enough people who weren't wearing profanity that we don't need to debate the debatable cases.
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Read the 14th Amendment and case law related to this phrase:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
That means the liberties guaranteed under the Constitution apply to states, schools, etc. Sorry to burst your little theocratic bubble, but having the government "respect the establishment of religion" in such a manner is illegal.
EDIT: btw, the entire text of the 1st Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Jody, would you care to extend your reasoning and conclude that the entire amendment only applies to actions by Congress? In other words, would you like to argue that states may prohibit peacable assembly, freedom of speech or press, or petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, because such prohibitions would not be based on laws passed by Congress and are therefore implicitly allowed by the First Amendment?
Didn't think so.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes, the Govt. has "taken" the role of religion and God and at the same time ......
No wonder the house is crumbling ......
The foundation was built very weak!
|
|
426
Sport climber
Wartburg, TN
|
|
WB: "One could easily debunk your entire debate above 426.
But seeing how you really are I’ll leave you in your happiness. "
Go ahead, try and disprove that my posit that the original intent of the FF's wasn't a "religion based" society. You're going to sound pretty fundamentalist, pretty quickly.
You already made my point for me; "Only a religious psycho would "limit freedom." Or come over with a "big bazooka" gun.
Hey, you're way more into the Gita than I am, isn't that what Arjuna is told by Krisha. That's the purpose of life? Ask Jody or some of the other "righteous" members on the board what they think; I don't think you're going to find Arjuna's mission....
...Interestingly, though....
Yer whole "all is one" stuff doesn't cut it down here in the South.
Let me give you an example from the sign just down the road-Mt. Zion Baptist church.
"There are many ways to hell, but only one way to heaven....Jesus"
See, your belief in Kali or "all is one" just don't cut any ice down here with the Baptists....
Plz, debunk on. Show some more 'moral relativism'.
And just I'm about to get on my whole "Religion is used by fanatics..." spiel. Even Fattrad evidently agrees with me.
(must be a cold day somewheres in the 'nether' planes)...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes my friend debate will only accomplish so much for now. As I said I'll leave you in your happiness.
My answer stands:
The Govt. has "taken" the role of religion and God
No wonder the house is crumbling ......
The foundation was built very weak!
Oh and I forgot, your move :-)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Lois states: "You are correct, I am very pro-choice. But if Jody wishes to hold different values, that is his right, as well."
------------
The reverse of the pro-choice position is that you and anyone else should not be permitted, by law, to have a choice. You may (or may not) be old enough to have lived though the time when women and doctors were imprisoned for participating in abortions, I am, and I remember.
If you want to push your head into the sand, and pretend, on the pretext of free speech, that it is a good thing to work to eliminate your choice, up to you. But understand where this leads. Once it is illegal, then advocating this illegal act opens one up to a conspiracy charge to violate the law. Then we'll see how free your speech remains.
But you better understand what Jody is actually advocating by the positions that he defends, going a little bit behind the literal meaning of the words.
-------
I don't see all Christians as being lumped into one group. I am not into guilt by association. He has said nothing to suggest that he wishes to convert you to his position.
------
If you don't understand what he is writing, you should not be defending it.
The whole concept of evangelical Christianity is to persuade, or failing that, force, people to their vision of morality.
Get the big picture
--------------
He is stating his position clearly as he has a right to do and he is routinely attacked by virtue of having done so. The left on this board does not well tolerate dissent and difference of opinion.
------
Actually, I have never seen him attacked. I have seen his POSITIONS attacked. That is entirely appropriate. In reality, he is VERY well tolerated. I don't see his posts being deleted. I don't see people calling his employer to complain, just because of his posting. I don't see protesters outside his house. Jody has a habit of posting in inflammatory ways, "trolling", if you are familiar with the term. He *invites* attacks on his positions.
If you take the time to look at the responses to his posts, you will generally find them to be focused on what he has written.
--------
In fact, I do not particularly agree with his view on spirituality but I will defend to the death is right to express it...and to express it without harrassment.
---------
Hmmm. I always like hyperbole. Are you prepared to douse yourself with gasoline and ignite yourself, to bring the attention of the world to this harrassment? I thought not. So lets stop with the trite "to the death" comments, that you don't actually believe.
Well, glad you like free speech. However, when you level charges of harrassment, you had better be able to document the harrassment. Lets see some examples of this harrassment?
------
I object to the extremism of the left on this forum wherein anyone who takes an opposing position is labeled a villain of freedom and intellectually bankrupt.
------
Really? I thought you supported free speech, to the death?
And are you not harrassing the people with whom you disagree?
Kettle, Black?
-------
He is not necessarily mentally defective because he holds views contrary to what others perceive. The animosity of the left toward those persons who hold views which are contrary to their own position is every bit as extreme as what they accuse the right of being. The left is becoming, by in large a very intolerant (and cantankerous) bunch when it comes to dissention.
----------
You are, once again, missing the big picture.
you have one side, that advocates a state religion. If you don't follow that religion, you are a second class citizen (if you don't think so, go to Utah)
That side advocates that if you don't follow their philosophy, you are unpatriotic.
That side also advocates that women that do make a choice are murderers (but I guess not if they do it during a war), and that those who support that choice are also murderers. Factions of that side feel that killing the murderers with bombs and other means, is JUST FINE. That side has real trouble disowning those factions.
That side advocates that women are better seen than heard, and are best kept pregnant and barefoot. (but tends to hide this position, because they know it is not politically correct)
This is the side that Jody supports. If you support Jody, you are supporting it too.
The left does not advocate that the right be required to adopt any of it's philosophies. The right advocates that the left be REQUIRED to adopt it's practices.
Just remember that the left, one hundred years ago, implimented your right to vote, over the objections of the right. The left does NOT require that you vote. The right REQUIRED you NOT to vote.
Make sure that you really want these people to gain power over you, before you advocate on their behalf.....
-------
There is a need to take a good, hard look in the mirror at times and ask the question - "Am I projecting onto another that which I am guilty of myself." And I am no angel in this regard. I do it routinely all the time, myself. A good deal of what is projected onto Jody has no basis in reality if you critically look at what he writes."
------
Undoubtedly, but that is not unique to Jody.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Nice Post Ken M
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!