Most conservative Millies I know would make a similar list. I'm not surprised you're finding people that agree with you.Originally Posted by Debol1990
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Syracuse
- Posts
- 1,833
Most conservative Millies I know would make a similar list. I'm not surprised you're finding people that agree with you.
What do conservative Millies think about my ideas?
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.
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 not surprised you feel a strong affinity with her.
I'm having trouble viewing the Amazon site, so would you explain what you mean?
What makes you say that?I'm not surprised you feel a strong affinity with her
The scenario laid out in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale.
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.What makes you say that?
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.
Arg. Again with the naivity stuff. What do I say that is fluffy or scary?
That is very true.they were very much religous people, it was 1770
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:
The EnlightenmentAnyway, 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.
"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.
Yes, that's true. There are lots of different beliefs.
-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.
...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!
-Uh, Deb, by Federal law, legal immigrants arte supposed to have their passport (or other ID) with them at all times.
-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?
-Wow.
What do you think Progressives would call MLK if he were alive today?
-Huh.
If you want to see "frothing at the mouth", re-read your posts, oh Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom:
...define: "Irony".
...and others:
...or perhaps you are merely "mistaken".
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.
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.
-Many Elephants are no better than the Donkeys. I'm sure Beck has pointed that out.
-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.
-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?
...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!
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?
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.
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.
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?I don't know why it's hard for you to just let them be religious?
"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
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
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."
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
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."
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.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
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
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.
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.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.
"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.But, to assert that the founding fathers were not religious is just inaccurate.
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.At the time, the existence of a God would have actually helped their case on human rights.
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
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."
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....
