Oh, well thats ok then...
-
Tim Craig wrote:
So why don't we just throw everything open to local option and see what kind of Bushist nightmare that creates?
Seems to have worked pretty well for 200 years.
Tim Craig wrote:
Slavery was a local issue, guess the Feds shouldn't have messed with that either?
The 13th amendment appropriately dealt with that issue.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess the current Federal interpretation of "equal protection" should be left to Bubba to decide just how equal everyone should be? And your unbridled capitalism should be free to pollute the river upstream of those drinking from it because the locals said it was ok?
Not at all. There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues. The voting rights act, for example. The clean water act, etc. All of those are well within the valid domain of congress and the courts under the federal constitution. If at the end of the day, the Jeffersonian ideal is non-sustainable than so be it. If the Marxist ideal is more appropriate to modern needs, than we should accept it. But we should not delude oursleves about what it is we are doing. We have abandoned Jefferson to embrace Marx. If the Europeans are correct, than we should just become another little European socialist welfare state. But lets face it, equal rights and a clean environment are not what the modern left is fighting for. Those are just means to an end. The end is the overt secularization of our society and bringing the economy more and more under centralized control. Once that is accomplished equal rights and the evironment will be of no more concern than they were in the USSR or China. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues.
Ah, so if you agree with the court decision, it's all fine but if you disagree, the court was a bunch of meddling activists. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Well, damn, that would certainly pose a challange to all the little Tim clones who are so used to having free reign in proselytizing and harrassing all the non-secularists in the public schools. But at least my inquisition will just be a local affair and not conducted by the most powerful courts in the land as yours routinely are. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The "secularists" aren't proselytizing. They aren't espousing a belief or opinion. All they are doing is ignoring religion -- not insulting, not denigrating, not shouting down, not using any of the tools of the pious and self-righteous conservative -- just ignoring. They recognize that faith has no bearing on mathematics, geometry, chemistry, physics, language. They also recognize that each person's religion certainly influences their personal philosophy, morality, and ethics. I learned about many philosophies and religions in school, in...wait for it...philosophy and comparitive religion classes. Marxism is an obsolete philosophy relegated to the fringes of modern political thought. "Secularism" as a faith, like atheism as a religion, or VB6 as a robust programming language, is an absurdity.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There have been any number of perfectly appropriate and valid constitutional amendments, legislation, and court decisions to deal with such issues.
Ah, so if you agree with the court decision, it's all fine but if you disagree, the court was a bunch of meddling activists. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Ah, so if you agree with the court decision, it's all fine but if you disagree, the court was a bunch of meddling activists.
What I believe is that Congress has the power to make law, that the constitutition can be amended and that the courts are empowered to interpret the law based upon the content of the constitution. However, I believe that as a citizen I am free (for the time being anyway) to disagree with decisions made by the court. And when those decisions are obviously made after a series of convoluted precidents leaving Marx in charge of my way of life rather than Jefferson, I intend to point that out. And I intend to vote for people who I hope might have the will to reinstate Jefferson. If thats guite alright with you of course. I realize how much Marxists dispise intellectual competition. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
The "secularists" aren't proselytizing. They aren't espousing a belief or opinion. All they are doing is ignoring religion -- not insulting, not denigrating, not shouting down, not using any of the tools of the pious and self-righteous conservative -- just ignoring. They recognize that faith has no bearing on mathematics, geometry, chemistry, physics, language. They also recognize that each person's religion certainly influences their personal philosophy, morality, and ethics. I learned about many philosophies and religions in school, in...wait for it...philosophy and comparitive religion classes. Marxism is an obsolete philosophy relegated to the fringes of modern political thought. "Secularism" as a faith, like atheism as a religion, or VB6 as a robust programming language, is an absurdity.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The "secularists" aren't proselytizing. They aren't espousing a belief or opinion....
Bull shit. Religion was expelled from our educational institutions for the express purpose of promoting a state sanctioned set of secular moral principles. Schools all over this nation are actively going far beyond the teaching of math and science, to inclucate children with moral principles that are largely and purposefully contridictory to the spirit of any religion on the planet. That is precisely why religion had to go - so a socialist state could push its own agenda unopposed by competitive moral philosophies, precisely as Marx envisioned.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Marxism is an obsolete philosophy relegated to the fringes of modern political thought. "Secularism" as a faith, like atheism as a religion, or VB6 as a robust programming language, is an absurdity.
No, it isn't absurd at all. Secularism and athiesm are both belief systems. They embody a set of principles and ways of interpreting reality that are every bit as fabricated and purposeful as is any religion. Their promotion by the state is in every possible way as much a violation of the essential concept of 'separation of church and state' as would be the promotion of any established religion. EDIT - And while a precise political science 101 definition of Marxism may no longer be clearly apparent in the political objectives of the left, collectivism, statism, secularism and humanism remain the heart and soul of their basic idealogy, and the ultimate goal towards which they strive. They may try to keep old Karl hidden away in the closet, but he is beaming with pride none the less. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 10:18 Saturday 31st December, 2005
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The "secularists" aren't proselytizing. They aren't espousing a belief or opinion....
Bull shit. Religion was expelled from our educational institutions for the express purpose of promoting a state sanctioned set of secular moral principles. Schools all over this nation are actively going far beyond the teaching of math and science, to inclucate children with moral principles that are largely and purposefully contridictory to the spirit of any religion on the planet. That is precisely why religion had to go - so a socialist state could push its own agenda unopposed by competitive moral philosophies, precisely as Marx envisioned.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Marxism is an obsolete philosophy relegated to the fringes of modern political thought. "Secularism" as a faith, like atheism as a religion, or VB6 as a robust programming language, is an absurdity.
No, it isn't absurd at all. Secularism and athiesm are both belief systems. They embody a set of principles and ways of interpreting reality that are every bit as fabricated and purposeful as is any religion. Their promotion by the state is in every possible way as much a violation of the essential concept of 'separation of church and state' as would be the promotion of any established religion. EDIT - And while a precise political science 101 definition of Marxism may no longer be clearly apparent in the political objectives of the left, collectivism, statism, secularism and humanism remain the heart and soul of their basic idealogy, and the ultimate goal towards which they strive. They may try to keep old Karl hidden away in the closet, but he is beaming with pride none the less. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 10:18 Saturday 31st December, 2005
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith, respectively. Fabricated? No, they don't make up a diety (or dieties) out of thin air, and use their faith in him (or them) to explain natural phenomena. Their very definitions deny fabrication. Purposeful? Since secularism is a behavior, not a belief, its only purpose would be to keep your religion out of my life, and out of the lives of others who don't care what you believe. The purpose of atheism? I'll give you that one. Atheism has the same "purpose" as religion: explaining the unexplainable. But this is grade school stuff. Let me guess...your response will be something like, "The secularists are promoting Marxism, and the left liberal Marxist secular humanist Marxist Marxism, Marx Jefferson secular Marxism secularist Marxist Jefferson Marx." Or words to that effect.
-
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith, respectively. Fabricated? No, they don't make up a diety (or dieties) out of thin air, and use their faith in him (or them) to explain natural phenomena. Their very definitions deny fabrication. Purposeful? Since secularism is a behavior, not a belief, its only purpose would be to keep your religion out of my life, and out of the lives of others who don't care what you believe. The purpose of atheism? I'll give you that one. Atheism has the same "purpose" as religion: explaining the unexplainable. But this is grade school stuff. Let me guess...your response will be something like, "The secularists are promoting Marxism, and the left liberal Marxist secular humanist Marxist Marxism, Marx Jefferson secular Marxism secularist Marxist Jefferson Marx." Or words to that effect.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith,
Precisely, they are world views which derive out of human philosophical reasoning - hence fabricated for the express purpose of establishing a way of viewing the universe (one with which I largely agree, BTW)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Let me guess...your response will be something like, "The secularists are promoting Marxism, and the left liberal Marxist secular humanist Marxist Marxism, Marx Jefferson secular Marxism secularist Marxist Jefferson Marx." Or words to that effect.
Well, something more like... To say "Prayer in school violates the liberty of non-believers" is a perfectly valid Jeffersonian assertion. However, To follow it with "Therefore, the state has the responsibility to actively promote a non-religious world view such as secularism" is a blatantly Marxist assertion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith,
Precisely, they are world views which derive out of human philosophical reasoning - hence fabricated for the express purpose of establishing a way of viewing the universe (one with which I largely agree, BTW)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Let me guess...your response will be something like, "The secularists are promoting Marxism, and the left liberal Marxist secular humanist Marxist Marxism, Marx Jefferson secular Marxism secularist Marxist Jefferson Marx." Or words to that effect.
Well, something more like... To say "Prayer in school violates the liberty of non-believers" is a perfectly valid Jeffersonian assertion. However, To follow it with "Therefore, the state has the responsibility to actively promote a non-religious world view such as secularism" is a blatantly Marxist assertion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Given that the first statement is a oversimplification, if you follow it instead with "Therefore the state has the responsibility not to promote the world view of any specific faith," you end up with another Jeffersonian assertion. You continue to confuse areligious with antireligious.
-
Given that the first statement is a oversimplification, if you follow it instead with "Therefore the state has the responsibility not to promote the world view of any specific faith," you end up with another Jeffersonian assertion. You continue to confuse areligious with antireligious.
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith That isn't areligious, its overtly antireligious. I'm not confusing anything. Secularism is a belief system which purposefully rejects faith as a means of ascertaining truth. Religion is a belief system which depends upon faith. One is the polar opposite of the other. Of course secularism is anti-religious. Thats the very purpose it exists to serve - to provide an alternative to religion. There is nothing neutral about it. For the state to promote secularism is an overt attack by the state upon religion and hence not the Jeffersonian ideal, but the Marxist ideal. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Secularism and atheism are philosophies based on excluding faith and denying faith That isn't areligious, its overtly antireligious. I'm not confusing anything. Secularism is a belief system which purposefully rejects faith as a means of ascertaining truth. Religion is a belief system which depends upon faith. One is the polar opposite of the other. Of course secularism is anti-religious. Thats the very purpose it exists to serve - to provide an alternative to religion. There is nothing neutral about it. For the state to promote secularism is an overt attack by the state upon religion and hence not the Jeffersonian ideal, but the Marxist ideal. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Are you suggesting that faith is an acceptable means of ascertaining a corporate budget? A medical procedure? An aircraft landing approach? Religion is based on faith, science is based on doubt. They solve different problems. The state promotes secularism in its place, and usually promotes faith in its place as well. The state, bureaucracy aside, is practical. Educate the populous in matters non-religious -- not anti-religious, jackass -- and let these secular areas reap the ancillary benefit of being served by a moral and ethical populous; however, let each person determine through their own experience (and/or with benefit of parents, clergy, and Barnes & Noble) how they arrive at their morality. I'm getting tired of beating my head against your wall of paranoia. I'm done here. As usual, I'll read your response, but no more circles for me. Cheers.
-
Are you suggesting that faith is an acceptable means of ascertaining a corporate budget? A medical procedure? An aircraft landing approach? Religion is based on faith, science is based on doubt. They solve different problems. The state promotes secularism in its place, and usually promotes faith in its place as well. The state, bureaucracy aside, is practical. Educate the populous in matters non-religious -- not anti-religious, jackass -- and let these secular areas reap the ancillary benefit of being served by a moral and ethical populous; however, let each person determine through their own experience (and/or with benefit of parents, clergy, and Barnes & Noble) how they arrive at their morality. I'm getting tired of beating my head against your wall of paranoia. I'm done here. As usual, I'll read your response, but no more circles for me. Cheers.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Educate the populous in matters non-religious -- not anti-religious, jackass -- and let these secular areas reap the ancillary benefit of being served by a moral and ethical populous
But the ideal that you are suggesting simply does not occur. Secularism is not the benign force for fairness and neutrality that you discribe. It is a human belief system, its proponents are true believers in its principles just as certainly as are those of any religion and suffer from precisely the same zealous tendencies. Its human nature. In fact, I would argue that those types who used to rely on religion to foist their views on us all, now have turned to secularism to do precisely the same thing. The notion that secularists stop with budgets, aircraft, and math and science classes is absurd. Secularism/humanism aggressively stakes out its territory and simply forbids competitive philosophies from encroching. You need look no further than our educational system and the courts to find ample evidence for that. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."