The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit
-
But you do have to understand that Jefferson would have been perfectly comfortable with religion being expressed by the common people in their own governance of their communities. In fact, it was one of the things they counted on in helping to keep the federal government small and unobtrusive. A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control 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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
In theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
In theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
How? Satellite radio? Telepathy? Stan, you know, or should know, that the ship from France to Philadelphia took a month. Why do you keep talking as if Jefferson were present?
Jefferson corresponded regularly with madison and others just as he did throughout his life, from France or Virginia. He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!" But apparenlty he didn't. He could have abandoned his post and returned to the US. He could have done a lot of things. He didn't. Clearly he had more important things to attend to.
Oakman wrote:
If pretending that Jefferson wrote the Constitution or even had any input in it isn't disregarding history, I'd like to know what is.
No, but he did write the Declaration of Independence. You know, "endowed by our creator" and all. And his views on the nature and meaning of the constitution as written are well defined. He did little if anything to remove religious influence from public life. And the articles of confederation were an overtly anti-federalist contract. They would have increased the influence of religion in American society. There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
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:
He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!"
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, "endowed by our creator"
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist and believed in a God without accepting any of the mummery and snake oil that is associated with organized religion. He was also a politician writing a document that had to get the vote of the representatives of 13 states, some of those representatives being devout Christians and at least one being a minister.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They would have increased the influence of religion in American society.
Whether they would have done so or not is an tale of alternate history. The fact is that Hamilton and Madison overthrew the Articles at the first opportunity, ironically exceeding their authority to do so in a manner that today would be unconstitutional.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thanks. That was funny. What movie was that from? What do you think of the final season of BSG? I've been kind of disappointed in it. I mean Ellen was the final cylon? That sucks. I was sure it was going to be Admiral Adama. And now they've turned the cylons into a race being persecuted by all the red neck humans. It turned into just another typical hollywood lefty morality play after all...
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've been kind of disappointed in it.
I have, too. And for pretty much the same reasons. I understand that some of the actors are pretty pissed about the way their roles have been rewritten to suit the new outlook.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
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:
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
Vatican City has been around a lot longer than that, Stan. It seems to be doing quite well with the Christian concepts of divine right, and the Priest as King.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!"
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, "endowed by our creator"
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist and believed in a God without accepting any of the mummery and snake oil that is associated with organized religion. He was also a politician writing a document that had to get the vote of the representatives of 13 states, some of those representatives being devout Christians and at least one being a minister.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They would have increased the influence of religion in American society.
Whether they would have done so or not is an tale of alternate history. The fact is that Hamilton and Madison overthrew the Articles at the first opportunity, ironically exceeding their authority to do so in a manner that today would be unconstitutional.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
He never incorporated, or tried to incorporate, those views into actual political doctrine. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist
blah, thiest, blah, diest, blah,blah blah... He wrote it. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
I'm actually pretty damn sure Indiana was not part of the Louisiana Purchase. Oklahoma certainly was, however, which is actually my home state. The articles of confederation would have produced an even more decentralized government, which, I agree, would probably have been more to Jefferson's likeing. However, a decentralized society requires a religious base. It needs something to hold it together, a common bond, so that a massive central state is not required. Jefferson clearly understood that. He might have not like much that comes with religion, but he understood its importance. When confronted with a choice between a centralized, secular state, and a decentralized, religious society, he chose the latter.
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:
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
Vatican City has been around a lot longer than that, Stan. It seems to be doing quite well with the Christian concepts of divine right, and the Priest as King.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Vatican City has been around a lot longer than that, Stan. It seems to be doing quite well with the Christian concepts of divine right, and the Priest as King.
Yes, and we proved it can be done without that. Thats the point.
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
He never incorporated, or tried to incorporate, those views into actual political doctrine. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist
blah, thiest, blah, diest, blah,blah blah... He wrote it. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
I'm actually pretty damn sure Indiana was not part of the Louisiana Purchase. Oklahoma certainly was, however, which is actually my home state. The articles of confederation would have produced an even more decentralized government, which, I agree, would probably have been more to Jefferson's likeing. However, a decentralized society requires a religious base. It needs something to hold it together, a common bond, so that a massive central state is not required. Jefferson clearly understood that. He might have not like much that comes with religion, but he understood its importance. When confronted with a choice between a centralized, secular state, and a decentralized, religious society, he chose the latter.
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:
He never incorporated, or tried to incorporate, those views into actual political doctrine.
I guess I missed the publication of: "My Political Doctrine by T. Jefferson." AFAIK the only things we have to go on are some bills he wrote while in the VA Legislature, speeches he made while running for or fulfilling the role of President, and letters that he wrote to his contemporaries. You seem to want to ignore about 80% of all of that, cherry picking only those few statements that support your point of view and ignoring most of the man's life and work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, a decentralized society requires a religious base.
So say you, but Jefferson and I believed that it needed merely a well-informed and concerned electorate. Unfortunately we have neither the freedom of less government nor the populace that wants it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When confronted with a choice between a centralized, secular state, and a decentralized, religious society, he chose the latter.
He increased the powers of the Presidency and Washington DC during his 8 years far beyond what Adams or Hamilton would have dreamed of. It is in the nature of politicans to fill, not make holes in the political power structure. And T.J. was nothing if he was not a politician.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Vatican City has been around a lot longer than that, Stan. It seems to be doing quite well with the Christian concepts of divine right, and the Priest as King.
Yes, and we proved it can be done without that. Thats the point.
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
but I need to know that I can fix people
What the frack is that supposed to mean? Are you clinically insane? You might want to get a check up, don't forget to tell them about this desire to "fix people".
led mike wrote:
Are you clinically insane?
Probably.
-
OK, I'll try my best to refrain from talking to him.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
but I need to know that I can fix people
What the frack is that supposed to mean? Are you clinically insane? You might want to get a check up, don't forget to tell them about this desire to "fix people".
led mike wrote:
Are you clinically insane? You might want to get a check up, don't forget to tell them about this desire to "fix people men ".
Are you saying that every woman on the planet is clinically insane?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit[^] More Obamanation: Does any rational person honestly believe that a student in this school would have been prevented, say a year ago, from wearing a mask of, say Bush, in a skit?
He wasn't "banned". He was told he couldn't wear the mask (ridiculous in its own right), but that he could still perform his skit if he wanted to (but without the mask). He *chose* not to perform his skit.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Yes, really. Others may think your claim to believe is dishonest. But, were that true, you would not then be dishonestly believing, you would be pretending to believe. If you had posted: "Does any rational person honestly claim to believe that ..." my reply would be "I can provide only an opinion, and that only on the limited information provided in the link.". [edit] inserted missing would
Bob Emmett
modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:48 PM
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
In which case (for the purpose of my argument) you would not believe it.
That's what I was trying to say. Why did it make you sad?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thanks. That was funny. What movie was that from? What do you think of the final season of BSG? I've been kind of disappointed in it. I mean Ellen was the final cylon? That sucks. I was sure it was going to be Admiral Adama. And now they've turned the cylons into a race being persecuted by all the red neck humans. It turned into just another typical hollywood lefty morality play after all...
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:
That was funny. What movie was that from?
Oh dude, you don't know about this? I think it was called "Downfall" I never saw the movie but there is a whole collection of these parodies using that same clip for all different scenarios. Like Hitlers XBox Live account is banned for moding his XBox. In another he is banned from World of Warcraft. Another his house is being foreclosed due to the financial crisis. There are several about the last superbowl. They are all totally hilarious.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you think of the final season of BSG?
I agree but still enjoy watching. My theory after they found earth and kara's corpse is that they will all be revealed to be cylons. ;)
-
led mike wrote:
Are you clinically insane? You might want to get a check up, don't forget to tell them about this desire to "fix people men ".
Are you saying that every woman on the planet is clinically insane?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
led mike wrote:
"If"? How do you come about questioning that? Please explain.
Most of these out of context quotes are in letters that the recipients happened to save. As much as any thing else, they represent the musing and ramblings of a great mind. But they represent little of Jefferson's actual, stated, political beliefs. And frankly, I have rarely stated any expertise in Jefferson. I refer to 'Jeffersonian Democracy' - that is, the actual form of government that generation created. The government they gave us was a decentralized republic with very limited, strictly limited federal power. None of which is reflected in the principles of the modern democrat party, which is purely a Marxist political affiliation. What is clear is that if Jefferson had thought for one moment that the letters he wrote would be used to change the fundamental structure of the government, he would have burned them all.
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:
What is clear
Nothing that you stated after that actually is clear. It's more of your fantasy, of which, you would wish to structure our our government. I would choose Jefferson's musings over your fantasies any day and twice on Sunday. There is no getting through to you at all. I have proven you wrong time and time again and you change the subject or disappear entirely, but in all cases you always refuse to accept that you were wrong about Jefferson. This one fault, the refusal to admit, being incapable of speaking the words "I was wrong", is in my opinion the greatest of all mans faults when in comes to governing in any capacity.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And frankly, I have rarely stated any expertise in Jefferson
I don't recall you ever doing that, I was obviously over dramatizing that for a humorous effect.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I refer to 'Jeffersonian Democracy'
Yes, however you also have on many occasion referenced what you "knew" Jefferson to believe. That is what I am speaking to. Obviously you didn't know and likely still don't since when his actual beliefs conflict with your ideology you will spin, abandon, ignore, excuse or whatever it takes to stick to your corrupted ideology. As I stated previously I am not nor will I ever be an expert on Jefferson. That said it is apparent that I have read more of him than you. Given that we have this as yet unrealized connection I suggest you do read him and about him. I believe he was a brilliant and interesting man. I did not unknowingly use the word "man". If you read Jefferson and about him, things he did, you will find that his beliefs did not always match his actions. Thus is the nature of most men, even great ones, for are we not ALL human. Good night and good tomorrow :laugh: Sometimes I crack myself up. By the way in case you don't know me yet, my written words can come across far more serious than my the reality of my mindset. :beer:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is clear
Nothing that you stated after that actually is clear. It's more of your fantasy, of which, you would wish to structure our our government. I would choose Jefferson's musings over your fantasies any day and twice on Sunday. There is no getting through to you at all. I have proven you wrong time and time again and you change the subject or disappear entirely, but in all cases you always refuse to accept that you were wrong about Jefferson. This one fault, the refusal to admit, being incapable of speaking the words "I was wrong", is in my opinion the greatest of all mans faults when in comes to governing in any capacity.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And frankly, I have rarely stated any expertise in Jefferson
I don't recall you ever doing that, I was obviously over dramatizing that for a humorous effect.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I refer to 'Jeffersonian Democracy'
Yes, however you also have on many occasion referenced what you "knew" Jefferson to believe. That is what I am speaking to. Obviously you didn't know and likely still don't since when his actual beliefs conflict with your ideology you will spin, abandon, ignore, excuse or whatever it takes to stick to your corrupted ideology. As I stated previously I am not nor will I ever be an expert on Jefferson. That said it is apparent that I have read more of him than you. Given that we have this as yet unrealized connection I suggest you do read him and about him. I believe he was a brilliant and interesting man. I did not unknowingly use the word "man". If you read Jefferson and about him, things he did, you will find that his beliefs did not always match his actions. Thus is the nature of most men, even great ones, for are we not ALL human. Good night and good tomorrow :laugh: Sometimes I crack myself up. By the way in case you don't know me yet, my written words can come across far more serious than my the reality of my mindset. :beer:
led mike wrote:
There is no getting through to you at all. I have proven you wrong time and time again and you change the subject or disappear entirely, but in all cases you always refuse to accept that you were wrong about Jefferson. This one fault, the refusal to admit, being incapable of speaking the words "I was wrong", is in my opinion the greatest of all mans faults when in comes to governing in any capacity.
Mike, posting a few out of context quotes is proof of nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are correct, then our country was never Jeffersonian - ever. That somehow even when Jefferson was alive and in government, we were not a Jeffersonian republic. Either we were Jeffersonian when, for example, communities were free to outlaw abortion or sodomy or flag burning. Or we are Jeffersonian now. Both of those societies, then and now, can not be Jeffersonian. One is and one is not. Jefferson would have been opposed to the modern concept of 'Separation of Church and State' being used to empower the federal government to have any ability to tell local communities how they should govern themselves. There is no possibility of a doubt about that.
led mike wrote:
By the way in case you don't know me yet, my written words can come across far more serious than my the reality of my mindset.
Yeah, I know. We all have our opinions.
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.
-
Yes, really. Others may think your claim to believe is dishonest. But, were that true, you would not then be dishonestly believing, you would be pretending to believe. If you had posted: "Does any rational person honestly claim to believe that ..." my reply would be "I can provide only an opinion, and that only on the limited information provided in the link.". [edit] inserted missing would
Bob Emmett
modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:48 PM
