Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 53







Post#1301 at 08-31-2010 08:07 PM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
08-31-2010, 08:07 PM #1301
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
I guess you could consider me pretty conservative, but not in the current "definition".

I don't fit into current party politics at all, and I find more and more Millies like me the older I get.
Most conservative Millies I know would make a similar list. I'm not surprised you're finding people that agree with you.







Post#1302 at 08-31-2010 08:11 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
08-31-2010, 08:11 PM #1302
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

What do conservative Millies think about my ideas?







Post#1303 at 08-31-2010 11:05 PM by Ted '79 [at joined Jan 2008 #posts 322]
---
08-31-2010, 11:05 PM #1303
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
322

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
The founding fathers were religious it is not a problem (Jefferson was Deist probably because he was Jewish and couldn't practice it and maintain his place in the aristocracy), they used there belief in a higher power to assert inalienable rights. The point of all the god talk is to say "no mortal can ever take these away" because they are given to you by something more then any human could be. We forget that people perceived the king as a step below God, so the rights had to come from above the King. If you remove the idea of a higher power you then open the idea that rights are given by man, and thus, can be taken away by man.
Um they were pretty insistent about them being *natural* rights, coming from *nature*. "To which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them," remember? (Observe: The "g" is not capitalized: Declaration of Independence, rough draft)

Jefferson had some Jewish ancestry in the male line. That doesn't mean he was religiously Jewish or even knew about such ancestry. He was a Deist. Some people were, you know!







Post#1304 at 09-01-2010 12:10 AM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-01-2010, 12:10 AM #1304
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Ted '79 View Post
Um they were pretty insistent about them being *natural* rights, coming from *nature*. "To which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them," remember? (Observe: The "g" is not capitalized: Declaration of Independence, rough draft)

Jefferson had some Jewish ancestry in the male line. That doesn't mean he was religiously Jewish or even knew about such ancestry. He was a Deist. Some people were, you know!
God wasnt capitalized in half my post, it was a rough draft!

Anyway, get in the way way back machine and consider the limited knoledge they had of the world scientifically. Electricity had just be discovered. They were very much religous people, it was 1770 try not to place modern secularism on what was original religious tolerance.

They were very much talking about a supernatural creator, they purposely didn't identify one, because the point wasn't which god gave the rights, only that a higher power did.

If you want to believe that your rights come from mother earth, that is implied as a higher power within the text.







Post#1305 at 09-01-2010 12:18 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-01-2010, 12:18 AM #1305
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Adina View Post
Like being opposed to abortion and stuff. So she has good values. And she's a down to earth, real person. She's also nice, and rarely makes huge gaffs, like GWB.
Sorry, I don't want to live in Sarah Palin's America. It would be too close to this scenario, with Palin taking on the Serena Joy role.

Nope. I'll allow my sisters to decide whether they want to bear children.







Post#1306 at 09-01-2010 12:20 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-01-2010, 12:20 AM #1306
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Adina View Post
Well, she did say that she wanted to protect the middle class from being hurt by the government, which is good. And she is a Christian, so at least you know she has good morals for the most part. I just have a good feeling about her. And it's always important to listen to ones feelings.
I'm not surprised you feel a strong affinity with her.







Post#1307 at 09-01-2010 12:23 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-01-2010, 12:23 AM #1307
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Sorry, I don't want to live in Sarah Palin's America. It would be too close to this scenario, with Palin taking on the Serena Joy role.

Nope. I'll allow my sisters to decide whether they want to bear children.
I'm having trouble viewing the Amazon site, so would you explain what you mean?

I'm not surprised you feel a strong affinity with her
What makes you say that?







Post#1308 at 09-01-2010 12:29 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-01-2010, 12:29 AM #1308
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Adina View Post
I'm having trouble viewing the Amazon site, so would you explain what you mean?
The scenario laid out in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale.

What makes you say that?
Because you both say a lot of fluffy and pretty scary nonsense. If it's all an act on your part, it's very annoying to read. If it's not an act, then you are one dangerously naive individual.

In any case, life is really too short to spend time cringing at your posts. I will leave you to it, but frankly your stuff creeps me out.







Post#1309 at 09-01-2010 12:32 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-01-2010, 12:32 AM #1309
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

Arg. Again with the naivity stuff. What do I say that is fluffy or scary?







Post#1310 at 09-01-2010 09:57 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-01-2010, 09:57 AM #1310
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

they were very much religous people, it was 1770
That is very true.







Post#1311 at 09-01-2010 03:02 PM by Ted '79 [at joined Jan 2008 #posts 322]
---
09-01-2010, 03:02 PM #1311
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
322

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
]If you want to believe that your rights come from mother earth, that is implied as a higher power within the text.
Natural law
State of nature

Nature, not "mother earth." Nature, as in natural philosophy (aka science). Nature, as in reason and observation of the natural world alone. Nature, as in deism.

Not Judaism. That was my point.

Jefferson's religion was deism. Not Judaism. He wrote in accordance with that.

Why's it so important to you to make him a religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jew?

BTW:

Anyway, get in the way way back machine and consider the limited knoledge they had of the world scientifically. Electricity had just be discovered. They were very much religous people, it was 1770 try not to place modern secularism on what was original religious tolerance.
The Enlightenment
"Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?" (Immanuel Kant)
Freethought
Empiricism
Philosophy of Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Anthony Collins, deist (1676-1729)
Philosophy of Denis Diderot, atheist (1713-1784)
d'Alembert's death in 1783 as a known unbeliever
Philosophy of Voltaire, deist (1694-1778)
Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution
Shelley's "The Necessity of Atheism" (1811)
History of deism
History of atheism

If you think secularism or atheism is only possible in this day and age...you are staggeringly ignorant.







Post#1312 at 09-01-2010 03:05 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-01-2010, 03:05 PM #1312
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

Yes, that's true. There are lots of different beliefs.







Post#1313 at 09-01-2010 03:38 PM by jamesdglick [at Clarksville, TN joined Mar 2007 #posts 2,007]
---
09-01-2010, 03:38 PM #1313
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
Clarksville, TN
Posts
2,007

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
The scenario laid out in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale...
-A novel detailing an imaginary dystopia run by "Christian Fundamentalists" which has nothing to do with what actual American Christian Fundamentalists have ever done.

Heinlein wrote something similar in 1940 titled If This Goes On, with the recurring charachter of Jeremiah Scudder. THAT at least had a good understanding of how insurgencies work.

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
...Because you both say a lot of fluffy and pretty scary nonsense. If it's all an act on your part, it's very annoying to read. If it's not an act, then you are one dangerously naive individual...
...This from the woman who spent several weeks covering for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Up until the minute that then-Senator Obama threw him under the bus.

Bump!

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Do you carry your birth certificate or immigration papers with you in case you get pulled over?
-Uh, Deb, by Federal law, legal immigrants arte supposed to have their passport (or other ID) with them at all times.

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
...do hope you got to see the video that I posted about Beck's hateful messages...
-I can't get sound, but let me guess. Is this where Beck points out that BHO is a knee-jerk racist and marxist whose first inclination in any situation is to blame Whitey America for anything that goes wrong, including his dopey friend getting arrested, or his "mentor" of 20 years getting outed as a, well, racist Marxist whose first inclination in any situation is to blame Whitey America?

Or was it something entirely different?

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Meet MLK's Glenn Beck-loving niece
Pro-life, anti-gay Alveda King talks to Salon about her uncle, beliefs and planned speech at Saturday's big rally...
-Wow.

What do you think Progressives would call MLK if he were alive today?

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
...Beck as inciting them into a mouth-foaming mob...
-Huh.

If you want to see "frothing at the mouth", re-read your posts, oh Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom:

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post


Well, Glen Beck is having his modern day Klan Rally in DC today, an insult to MLK Jr.

These people are scary sh*t. Our very own brownshirts.
...define: "Irony".

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
If I am not mistaken the "honor" spiel is common among the Klan and Neo-Confederates...
...and others:

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
The British elite still has a sense of honor and duty. The same can't be said of our elite.
Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
...Honor is not only for soldiers, fellow.

...or perhaps you are merely "mistaken".

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Beck as inciting them into a mouth-foaming mob...
Hmmm...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_dc_rally;_ylt=AkvvVgFqbM0BRAMJOi8_DXas0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTNiNTYyNHZrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODI4L3VzX2RjX 3JhbGx5BGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgR wdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYmVja 3NheXN1c2hh

Beck exhorted the crowd to "recognize your place to the creator. Realize that he is our king. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us." He asked his audience to pray more. "I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see," he said...

...oh, the hatred!

Palin told the crowd she wasn't speaking as a politician. "I've been asked to speak as the mother of a soldier and I am proud of that distinction. Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet and you can't take that away from me."

...oh, my.

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
...Though perhaps "Racism" is not the right word. It seems to be not a direct hate of non-whites, it is more like a fear about whites no longer being the majority of the population. Many of these people have an "ethnicist" view of what a "Real American" is.
Do you EVER put any thought into your posts?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/27/black-conservatives-voice-support-for-glenn-beck-rally/




When the Left starts screeching about "Bigotry", you know they're out of ammo'.

I'm not even sure why Lefties feel the need to "shoot" at this, other than knee-jerk nastiness.

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
...Today's rally, IMHO, was more about bringing the black vote over to the GOP.
-Many Elephants are no better than the Donkeys. I'm sure Beck has pointed that out.

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
Doubtful. He's been exposed to the S&H and is aiming to be this cycle's Father Coughlin in my opinion...
-Dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

...He was an early supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal reforms and coined the phrase "Roosevelt or ruin"... Another phrase he became known for was "The New Deal is Christ's Deal." ...He further stated to the Congressional hearing, "God is directing President Roosevelt."

Coughlin's support for Roosevelt and his New Deal faded later in 1934, when he founded the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ), a nationalistic worker's rights organization which grew impatient with what it viewed as the President's unconstitutional and pseudo-capitalistic monetary policies...

...I doubt that Coughlin is Beck's or Palin's kinda guy politically. As a matter of fact, I'd say that Coughlin is more Obama's kinda guy. Or the Self-Procalimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom's kinda guy. Or perhaps your kinda guy?

...work and income guarantees...

...nationalizing "necessary" industry...

...wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy...

...federal protection of worker's unions...

...decreasing property rights in favor of the government controlling the country's assets for "public good."

Illustrative of his disdain for capitalism is his statement that, "We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited."

...so, which of the above do YOU disagree with, Toney?

Anyway...

What did MLK's speechwriter have to say about the rally?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_dc_rally;_ylt=AkvvVgFqbM0BRAMJOi8_DXas0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTNiNTYyNHZrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODI4L3VzX2RjX 3JhbGx5BGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgR wdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYmVja 3NheXN1c2hh

Clarence B. Jones, who served as King's personal attorney and his speechwriter, said he believes King would not be offended by Beck's rally but "pleased and honored" that a diverse group of people would come together, almost five decade later, to discuss the future of America.

Jones, now a visiting professor at Stanford University, said the Beck rally seemed to be tasteful and did not appear to distort King's message, which included a recommitment to religious values.

"I think it is the testimony to the power and greatness of the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. in enabling America to make a peaceful transition from apartheid and racial segregation to a multiracial society where Glenn Beck or anyone would hold a rally at the Lincoln Memorial," Jones said in a telephone interview.

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
...Glenn Beck is NOT Martin Luther King Jr.!
-Who is exhibiting these words better:

http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character...

Glenn Beck & Alveda King, or Al Sharpton & Jeremiah Wright?


Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.
...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!







Post#1314 at 09-01-2010 05:12 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-01-2010, 05:12 PM #1314
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Ted '79 View Post
Natural law
State of nature

Nature, not "mother earth." Nature, as in natural philosophy (aka science). Nature, as in reason and observation of the natural world alone. Nature, as in deism.


Why's it so important to you to make him a religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jew?


If you think secularism or atheism is only possible in this day and age...you are staggeringly ignorant.

Yes. you assert nature as a higher power, sorry "mother" nature offends you I guess.

The US has a very religious history, and it was a major part of the culture until the mid 60's, and in many places it still is.

It is not important to me what Jefferson was (we can only speculate) Given the time, and the importance of mainly Christianity to the colonies at the time....it is likely they were religious men.

I don't know why it's hard for you to just let them be religious?







Post#1315 at 09-01-2010 05:29 PM by Ted '79 [at joined Jan 2008 #posts 322]
---
09-01-2010, 05:29 PM #1315
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
322

Believe me. I don't see nature as a "higher power."

Neither do deists. You're totally misunderstanding their philosophy.

The old term for science was "natural philosophy." It meant observation of the natural world. The *real* world. Empiricism -- as opposed to deriving knowledge by reasoning from first principles (aka assumptions), which was the pre-Enlightenment tradition.

Deism is the belief that the existence of a higher power can be determined through reason and observation of the natural world alone.

In other words, through science. Empirically.

That's what deists believe. I am not a deist, but I do understand their beliefs.

You seem to have such a strong association of the word "nature" with '60s era New Age philosophy that it's interfering with your ability to comprehend deism.

Jefferson was pretty open about being a deist. This "he was Jewish" stuff is just coming completely out of left field. Occam's razor: He believed what he said he did. If you want to convince anyone he was actually a secret Jew, it's on you to prove it.







Post#1316 at 09-01-2010 06:16 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-01-2010, 06:16 PM #1316
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
Yes. you assert nature as a higher power, sorry "mother" nature offends you I guess.
Maybe this will help you understand. Nature, by its very definition, is not 'higher'. Nor is it 'lower' or, in fact, in any way 'different' or 'outside' us.

Gravitational attraction is a 'natural law'. So is conservation of mass-energy. When thinkers talk about 'natural law', they are merely referring to the parameters of the way things work, due to the nature of those things and the universe they occupy.

When we talk about natural law in the sense of politics, then, we are -- as was Jefferson and the whole lot of 'em -- talking about relations between persons that correspond to the nature of persons. The opening of the Declaration of Independence says this right out: People (in politics, which means, in their relations with each other in the context of society) simply are equal. There's no reason to explain or argue it. The nature of a person is such that any one of them is, in social context, fundamentally the equal of any other one.

Given the simply fact of their equality, the corresponding relationships between persons were (following the reasoning of the natural philosophers) rationally deducible.

I don't know why it's hard for you to just let them be religious?
That's a weird question. It's pretty obvious they weren't. Ted is simply standing on the obvious (and documented, but that's really secondary). Your position is the contrary one. Why is it so important to you that significant people were the way you wanted them to be?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1317 at 09-01-2010 06:17 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-01-2010, 06:17 PM #1317
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

The Founders were Deists because the sciences of Geology and Biology had not yet shown the notion of "God the Designer of Nature" to be nonsense at the time. Masonic mysticism played a part, as well.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1318 at 09-01-2010 06:24 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
09-01-2010, 06:24 PM #1318
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Masonic mysticism, hmm... "O Isis und Osiris..."

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#1319 at 09-01-2010 07:49 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-01-2010, 07:49 PM #1319
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
Masonic mysticism, hmm... "O Isis und Osiris..."

~Chas'88
My mind does not function on such a high level. What about the "same genuine and authentic crystal used by the priests of Isis and Osiris in the days of the pharaohs in which Cleopatra first saw the approach of Mark Antony..."

About 3:50 into this. 5 points if you know the reference without following the link.

James50
Last edited by James50; 09-01-2010 at 07:55 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1320 at 09-01-2010 08:20 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
09-01-2010, 08:20 PM #1320
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
My mind does not function on such a high level. What about the "same genuine and authentic crystal used by the priests of Isis and Osiris in the days of the pharaohs in which Cleopatra first saw the approach of Mark Antony..."

About 3:50 into this. 5 points if you know the reference without following the link.

James50
The All-Seeing-Eye; which allows the Wicked Witch to see the approach of Dorothy. Unfortunately your reference was a little vague for me to comprehend immediately, but once I saw the title of what you were referring to, I got the point.

So no five points for me.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#1321 at 09-01-2010 08:43 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-01-2010, 08:43 PM #1321
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
The All-Seeing-Eye; which allows the Wicked Witch to see the approach of Dorothy. Unfortunately your reference was a little vague for me to comprehend immediately, but once I saw the title of what you were referring to, I got the point.

So no five points for me.

~Chas'88
Its Professor Marvel's crystal early in the movie- a much more benign figure than the witch. I have always loved the scene of the huckster/wizard convincing Dorothy she was needed at home.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1322 at 09-02-2010 01:35 AM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-02-2010, 01:35 AM #1322
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

To both Ted and Justin,

The people of that time were religious, it is just a fact of colonial life. If you cant understand that you have aserted the wisdom of "nature" as your "creator" then you need to take a second and think about what you really do believe.

Now I am not religious I don't believe in invisible people in the sky. If their were truly higher beings we could no more comprehend them, then a fruit fly could comprehend us.

But, to assert that the founding fathers were not religious is just inaccurate. Needlessly inaccurate because it does not hurt what they accomplished in the slightest.

At the time, the existence of a God would have actually helped their case on human rights. It is not even an oppinion it is a fact.







Post#1323 at 09-02-2010 02:20 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-02-2010, 02:20 AM #1323
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
[Some] people of that time were religious, it is just a fact of [...] life.
I fixed your first sentence so that it is actually true.

If you cant understand that you have aserted the wisdom of "nature" as your "creator" then you need to take a second and think about what you really do believe.
I think we've both laid out pretty clearly what the concept of 'natural law' means. But you still seem to be missing comprehension. I'll repeat it for you.

"Nature" is not above, below, different, or other than man. Man is nature. Man is of nature. As a thing can not be in any meaningful sense its own creator, "nature" cannot be the "creator" of man.
But, to assert that the founding fathers were not religious is just inaccurate.
Only insofar as you assume that some of them were liars in what they said and wrote. I wouldn't presume to make such a claim about someone without some sort of indication that it might actually be the case. Barring that, I've found it best to go with the presumption that what someone claims to be his beliefs are actually his beliefs.
At the time, the existence of a God would have actually helped their case on human rights.
I presume you mean, "...their having believed in the existence of a God...". In which case, you misunderstand their positions just as badly as you misunderstand the explanations we laid out for you. The existence or absence of a god is, at best, irrelevant to the philosophy of natural law as they laid out. At worst, the existence of an omnipotent god would imply the impossibility of a natural law, since god would be able to break or change it at whim -- meaning that there could be none of the permanence and universality that formed the epistemological basis of discovery-of-Truth through natural inquiry.

Whether or not you agree with their position, it's really quite a straightforward one. The attempt to shoehorn religion into it is neither necessary, valid, nor helpful.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1324 at 09-02-2010 02:43 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
09-02-2010, 02:43 AM #1324
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
I fixed your first sentence so that it is actually true.

I think we've both laid out pretty clearly what the concept of 'natural law' means. But you still seem to be missing comprehension. I'll repeat it for you.

"Nature" is not above, below, different, or other than man. Man is nature. Man is of nature. As a thing can not be in any meaningful sense its own creator, "nature" cannot be the "creator" of man.
Only insofar as you assume that some of them were liars in what they said and wrote. I wouldn't presume to make such a claim about someone without some sort of indication that it might actually be the case. Barring that, I've found it best to go with the presumption that what someone claims to be his beliefs are actually his beliefs.
I presume you mean, "...their having believed in the existence of a God...". In which case, you misunderstand their positions just as badly as you misunderstand the explanations we laid out for you. The existence or absence of a god is, at best, irrelevant to the philosophy of natural law as they laid out. At worst, the existence of an omnipotent god would imply the impossibility of a natural law, since god would be able to break or change it at whim -- meaning that there could be none of the permanence and universality that formed the epistemological basis of discovery-of-Truth through natural inquiry.

Whether or not you agree with their position, it's really quite a straightforward one. The attempt to shoehorn religion into it is neither necessary, valid, nor helpful.
Another thing to consider is that they were rebelling against the King, who was seen in those times as God's annoited ruler on earth. To rebel against the King, was equivalent to rebelling against God.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#1325 at 09-02-2010 04:36 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-02-2010, 04:36 AM #1325
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Discovery Channel hostage-taker hated programming

A gunman police shot to death after he took hostages at Discovery Channel's headquarters said he hated the company's shows such as "Kate Plus 8" because they promote population growth and its environmental programming because it did little to save the planet....
-----------------------------------------