Total Totalitarism [modified]
-
reds going to have fun with this...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
reds going to have fun with this...
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/[^] If true, this is really absurd. -- modified at 8:07 Wednesday 29th August, 2007
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Red Stateler wrote:
Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God
What, and Bush doesn't?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God
What, and Bush doesn't?
digital man wrote:
What, and Bush doesn't?
His authority per the constitution is derived from the electorate which, in turn, is derived from the concept of Natural Law. Bush has frequently spoken of his "mandate" after the 2004 election. That is an expression of authority given by the people and not sanctioned by God.
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Red, Your wrong-ness is actually impressive. I would argue with you, but to be honest, i have paint drying, and i'd rather watch it than listen to you.....
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
-
digital man wrote:
What, and Bush doesn't?
His authority per the constitution is derived from the electorate which, in turn, is derived from the concept of Natural Law. Bush has frequently spoken of his "mandate" after the 2004 election. That is an expression of authority given by the people and not sanctioned by God.
Pure crap.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
-
What a pile of crap. Would have loved to talk about it, but I have drying paint to watch.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
What a pile of crap.
Being a Marxist, you even suppress religion from YOURSELF...and you call it crap? :laugh:
-
Pure crap.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Le Centriste wrote:
Pure crap.
Can you cite where Bush states that his authority of the presidency is given to him by God?
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Pure crap.
Can you cite where Bush states that his authority of the presidency is given to him by God?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm[^] http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html[^] Not presidency given to him by God, but close enough. I forgot to mention that you will qualify those articles being written by Marxists, but frankly I don't care.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/[^] If true, this is really absurd. -- modified at 8:07 Wednesday 29th August, 2007
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm[^] http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html[^] Not presidency given to him by God, but close enough. I forgot to mention that you will qualify those articles being written by Marxists, but frankly I don't care.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Do you have a reliable quote that wasn't relayed by a Palestinian foreign minister? Perhaps one by a reliable source? Perhaps one that doesn't take issue with this:
Religion also surfaced as an issue when Mr Bush and Tony Blair were reported to
have prayed together in 2002 at his ranch at Crawford, TexasI notice that there are many controversial quotes "attributed" to Bush...
-
Congratulations.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Red Stateler wrote:
the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Oh well - the EU's not ALL bad then! :-)
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Red Stateler wrote:
...an atheistic theocracy...
I hear Marxists also love jumbo shrimp.
-
Every...and I mean EVERY state that adopts Marxism winds up severely restricting religion. Prior to the birth of modern Western Democracy in the United States, the heads of nations (especially European nations) frequently fancied their authority to be sanctioned by God. Naturally, religions that were in conflict with the ruling power were severely restricted. That concept was challenged by John Locke through the concept of Natural Law, which opened the way for self-government. However, Marxism took a step backwards by eliminating (in the Marxists' minds) the need for religion or God and therefore eliminated the potential for Natural Law. What you wind up with is essentially an atheistic theocracy whereby the rights of the individual are derived not from philosophical precepts, but by whatever the state decides should be a right. Like European nations of years past, Marxist governments believe that their power is specially sanctioned, which is a step backwards by several hundred years. And like those European nations, Marxist governments will restrict any religion that conflicts with their goals...Which is every religion. As an example, the EU (a "light" Marxist government that will inevitably expand its power) is increasingly in competition[^] with Catholicism over moral authority (only the EU has the authority of force to back it up). The EU, having rejected the concepts of John Locke, increasingly believes that it has the authority to override the influence of religion. It's no wonder that John Paul expressed concern that the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal.
Red Stateler wrote:
the EU will simply one day make the Catholic Church illegal
Instead of continuing to read your crap, I think I simply go and paint something random. Just to watch it dry.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
George Orwell, "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", Opening words