Mr. President! Governator! Here's the answer
-
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Except that I would suggest that it can be paralleled by governemtn-sanctioned morality. But that that is really the scariest part of all. Throughout most of human history there was little difference between the state and religion. The major accomplishment of modern western civilization is the separation of moral ethics from direct political control. I would suggest that the major reason that there is, in fact, so much effort to marginalize religion in the name of separation of church and state is for precisely the purpose of returning essential religious authority to the state. Just as people will accept socialism if it is called something else, they will also accept the state dictating morality to them as long as it isn't called religion. The importance of religion, especially as it came to be undestood in the west by the development of christian theology in sync with political ideologies, is that it can provide a unifying identity and system of morals that can be separated from the state. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous to those who wish to control us all from the center.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality. Now, it may be entirely valid to point out that the mechanistic world view largely contradicts much of the earlier, less mechanistic perspective. But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality.
I'm not necessarily rejecting it, I'm saying that there should be a better alternative for society than a book that says that God created rainbows as a promise to never flood the world again. I mean, come on. Was there no such thing as refraction before Noah? If society is going to be based on something, at least have that something consistent with reality. I accept that most people probably have to believe in something bigger than themselves, but... :doh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
I don't know. :sigh: I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency. That'd be a fine start.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Except that I would suggest that it can be paralleled by governemtn-sanctioned morality. But that that is really the scariest part of all. Throughout most of human history there was little difference between the state and religion. The major accomplishment of modern western civilization is the separation of moral ethics from direct political control. I would suggest that the major reason that there is, in fact, so much effort to marginalize religion in the name of separation of church and state is for precisely the purpose of returning essential religious authority to the state. Just as people will accept socialism if it is called something else, they will also accept the state dictating morality to them as long as it isn't called religion. The importance of religion, especially as it came to be undestood in the west by the development of christian theology in sync with political ideologies, is that it can provide a unifying identity and system of morals that can be separated from the state. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous to those who wish to control us all from the center.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yeah, okay. But religion itself is also dangerous - it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly. This is why it is just as important to question religion as it is to question government. Christianity has done its fair share of oppression and suppression over the last 2000 years.
-
Yeah, okay. But religion itself is also dangerous - it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly. This is why it is just as important to question religion as it is to question government. Christianity has done its fair share of oppression and suppression over the last 2000 years.
73Zeppelin wrote:
it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly.
Which is the entire point of separation of church and state - keep the moral authority out of the hands of the people who have a monopoly on the use of force. Religion may be a tool for social control, but it is no more coercive than any other means of social control, and without some means of social control, you have no society worthy of the name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality.
I'm not necessarily rejecting it, I'm saying that there should be a better alternative for society than a book that says that God created rainbows as a promise to never flood the world again. I mean, come on. Was there no such thing as refraction before Noah? If society is going to be based on something, at least have that something consistent with reality. I accept that most people probably have to believe in something bigger than themselves, but... :doh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
I don't know. :sigh: I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency. That'd be a fine start.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency.
My advise would be to be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly.
Which is the entire point of separation of church and state - keep the moral authority out of the hands of the people who have a monopoly on the use of force. Religion may be a tool for social control, but it is no more coercive than any other means of social control, and without some means of social control, you have no society worthy of the name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
-
led mike wrote:
However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes. The only politically significant aspect of Thomas Jefferson's entire existence was (a) the declaration of independence, and (b) anti-federalism. The form of democracy Jefferson worked to create was first and foremost about decentralizing political power - taking it out of the hands of a central authority and giving it to the people at the state and local level of government so that they might create the kind of societies they wished to live within the bounds of a strict interpretation of the constitution. He may have had many thoughts on many other topics, but they are irrelevant to any discussion of AMerican politics. That isn't some fantasy version of Jefferson, thats the real deal for any historically valid point of view. The people called "social conservatives" today were pretty much in full control of society during Jefferson's lifetime, and, aside from the occassional letter of political advice to someone or other, he seems to have been perfectly comfortable with that situation. In fact, he seems to have done everything he possibly could to foster and encourage it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">led mike wrote:</div>Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775</blockquote> The postal service is not a socialist program, neither is building roads or other 'general welfare' type projects. Socialistic programs are those predicated upon the the transfer of wealth from one group to another - such as universal health care. But now we are legalizing drug abuse so that we can try to repair an ecnomic system crippled by those very socialistic programs. But doing that is going to increase the need for more money on those very programs. The problem is only going to get worse. It is an inevitable and insidious process which has only one possible conclusion - full blown communism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The road we are currently on has only one destination - and that is communism. Anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes.
ROTFLMAO! That is one of the funniest things you have ever said!
Laugh all you like. It is true. My Jefferson is the one who worked to create the actual US government. Your's is the fantasy used to justify Marxist revisionism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's not why socialized medicine is available.
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
led mike wrote:
Hey remember how you always talk about how the republicans stand on their "Values" principle by cutting people loose (fireing them whatever)?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
led mike wrote:
So here is how they fired a Three Times Divorced Loser Drug Addict. acknowledged him as a "national conservative leader."
Rush is the national conservative leader and thank God for him. He may be a flawed human being, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
led mike wrote:
Hey remember how you always talk about how the republicans stand on their "Values" principle by cutting people loose (fireing them whatever)?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
led mike wrote:
So here is how they fired a Three Times Divorced Loser Drug Addict. acknowledged him as a "national conservative leader."
Rush is the national conservative leader and thank God for him. He may be a flawed human being, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Thanks for finally admitting that conservatives are hypocrites. I guess you guys figure that in order to protect the sanctity of marriage from the homosexuals Rush had to research it THREE FUCKING TIMES. Then I guess the pressure of all those wives and his 22 million dollar mansion forced him to guzzle down the oxyconton to dull the pain. Bunch of lying sacks of shit all of you. Take your magnificent leader and shove him sideways.
Rush Limbaugh stated that "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Another example of Limbaugh's "undeniable truths" is No. 16: "Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud."
Anyone that follows the lead of retarded asswipe like him should go fuck themselves. Social Conservatives are retarded fuckwads, period, end of story. All anyone has to do to prove that is quote Rush Fatass Limbaugh. So actually you are correct "thank God for him".
-
Thanks for finally admitting that conservatives are hypocrites. I guess you guys figure that in order to protect the sanctity of marriage from the homosexuals Rush had to research it THREE FUCKING TIMES. Then I guess the pressure of all those wives and his 22 million dollar mansion forced him to guzzle down the oxyconton to dull the pain. Bunch of lying sacks of shit all of you. Take your magnificent leader and shove him sideways.
Rush Limbaugh stated that "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Another example of Limbaugh's "undeniable truths" is No. 16: "Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud."
Anyone that follows the lead of retarded asswipe like him should go fuck themselves. Social Conservatives are retarded fuckwads, period, end of story. All anyone has to do to prove that is quote Rush Fatass Limbaugh. So actually you are correct "thank God for him".
No, actually the hypocrisy is entirely on your side. As a christian, I forgive Rush his short comings. However, since your morality is one of infinite tolerance of everyone and everything, you have no moral standard against which to judge him, or anyone else, one way or another. Secondly, the biggest problem you have is that Rush is correct about pretty much everything. Regardless of how flawed the man might be personnally, he is certainly correct politically. The reason you don't you try debating his points is becuase you can't. All you can do is try to demonize him like the good little lefty that you are. Rush is taking a stand that will provide a workable political model in preparation for the collapse of liberalism and collectivism, which should be soon since they are now in full control and are free to implement their utterly unworkable principles without political oppostion.
led mike wrote:
Social Conservatives are retarded fuckwads
Social conservatism is just another word for the values that this country once stood for. Anyone who understands why fiscal conservatism is important must also be a social conservative for exactly the same reason.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, actually the hypocrisy is entirely on your side. As a christian, I forgive Rush his short comings. However, since your morality is one of infinite tolerance of everyone and everything, you have no moral standard against which to judge him, or anyone else, one way or another. Secondly, the biggest problem you have is that Rush is correct about pretty much everything. Regardless of how flawed the man might be personnally, he is certainly correct politically. The reason you don't you try debating his points is becuase you can't. All you can do is try to demonize him like the good little lefty that you are. Rush is taking a stand that will provide a workable political model in preparation for the collapse of liberalism and collectivism, which should be soon since they are now in full control and are free to implement their utterly unworkable principles without political oppostion.
led mike wrote:
Social Conservatives are retarded fuckwads
Social conservatism is just another word for the values that this country once stood for. Anyone who understands why fiscal conservatism is important must also be a social conservative for exactly the same reason.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, actually the hypocrisy is entirely on your side. As a christian, I forgive Rush his short comings. However, since your morality
Fuck you and your twisting lying bullshit. Rush can do what ever he wants, so can you and everyone else, we live in a country where you and your ilk have not yet eliminated that freedom that you him and we all still enjoy. What I'm saying (and you damn well fucking know it) is he and you and all the rest are hypocrites for having your "values" points and still calling him a "leader" of those values since he clearly does not have them. He, like you, just wants to force other people to live by the very values he can't live by. So you and him and all the rest of your psycho hypocrite social conservatives can kiss my fucking ass with your never ending bullshit. And that's what I am intolerant of, your bullshit and lying.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason you don't you try debating his points is becuase you can't.
Why bother debating his points when he can't live up to them himself. He hasn't earned the right for me to waste my time debating him. You guys are not reasonable, there is no point debating any of you. All you do is spew bullshit and lies. I am well aware that you all have and make good points, many of which I agree with, but asswipes like him should not be making those points that they can't back up themselves. He's nothing but a water drinker, he can't carry it so fuck him and all the assholes that think he is worth following.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, actually the hypocrisy is entirely on your side. As a christian, I forgive Rush his short comings. However, since your morality
Fuck you and your twisting lying bullshit. Rush can do what ever he wants, so can you and everyone else, we live in a country where you and your ilk have not yet eliminated that freedom that you him and we all still enjoy. What I'm saying (and you damn well fucking know it) is he and you and all the rest are hypocrites for having your "values" points and still calling him a "leader" of those values since he clearly does not have them. He, like you, just wants to force other people to live by the very values he can't live by. So you and him and all the rest of your psycho hypocrite social conservatives can kiss my fucking ass with your never ending bullshit. And that's what I am intolerant of, your bullshit and lying.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason you don't you try debating his points is becuase you can't.
Why bother debating his points when he can't live up to them himself. He hasn't earned the right for me to waste my time debating him. You guys are not reasonable, there is no point debating any of you. All you do is spew bullshit and lies. I am well aware that you all have and make good points, many of which I agree with, but asswipes like him should not be making those points that they can't back up themselves. He's nothing but a water drinker, he can't carry it so fuck him and all the assholes that think he is worth following.
I don't believe that Rush has ever made any points at all about divorce or abuse of drugs. If you can prove otherwise, fine. That isn't exactly the kind of thing he normally discusses. So, I have no idea what you're talking about. Hell, as far as that goes, Thomas Jefferson probably had sex with an underage slave girl, and we still revere his political philosophies. So, you'll excuse me if I shrug off your crocodile tears. Rush Limbaugh makes a perfectly valid argument. He has every right to do so. It is not hypocritical in any way to stand with him in defense of conservative principles. He is going to win. You might as well get used to that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I don't believe that Rush has ever made any points at all about divorce or abuse of drugs. If you can prove otherwise, fine. That isn't exactly the kind of thing he normally discusses. So, I have no idea what you're talking about. Hell, as far as that goes, Thomas Jefferson probably had sex with an underage slave girl, and we still revere his political philosophies. So, you'll excuse me if I shrug off your crocodile tears. Rush Limbaugh makes a perfectly valid argument. He has every right to do so. It is not hypocritical in any way to stand with him in defense of conservative principles. He is going to win. You might as well get used to that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe that Rush has ever made any points at all about divorce or abuse of drugs.
You're an asswipe. He is the "leader" of the party that makes points about "values" all the fucking time. Fuck off with your twisting lying bullshit. Your bullshit does not work on me. Neither did Red's. You guys are all full of shit. Some of you are educated and well read an so you spin up a line of bullshit that effectively pulls the wool over on a lot of people, I'm just not one of them.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe that Rush has ever made any points at all about divorce or abuse of drugs.
You're an asswipe. He is the "leader" of the party that makes points about "values" all the fucking time. Fuck off with your twisting lying bullshit. Your bullshit does not work on me. Neither did Red's. You guys are all full of shit. Some of you are educated and well read an so you spin up a line of bullshit that effectively pulls the wool over on a lot of people, I'm just not one of them.
led mike wrote:
He is the "leader" of the party that makes points about "values" all the f***ing time.
Could you actually provide a quote or something?
led mike wrote:
You guys are all full of sh*t. Some of you are educated and well read an so you spin up a line of bullsh*t that effectively pulls the wool over on a lot of people, I'm just not one of them.
I'm not the one doing the wool pulling, Mike. Limbaugh has had three divorces. So what? There were no children involved, and neither of us has any idea what the circumstances were. What I do know is that the first two occured before Rush was successful. With the list of people out there who would be willing to pay big money for any negative information on him, I can only conclude that whatever caused the divorces, it had nothing to do with any kind of illicite behavior on Limbaughs part, otherwise we would have all been informed about it long ago. As far as the drug addiction is concerned it appears that he has dealt with it legally and personally. My own mother, a fine christian, became addicted to codiene as a result of migraines so I understand a little about the difficulties related to such medicines. All of this indicates that Limbaugh is a flawed human being worthy of our christian forgiveness. I certainly would not vote for him in any political campaign, but his talent in articulating the conservative cause is second to none. He is a true genius at what he does. He has earned his status and my respect. Sorry that has you foaming at the mouth.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.